I am a pilot, a programmer, and an artist. Our society requires that I have money if for nothing more than sustenance. I would do the things that bring me joy regardless of whether I got paid or not. If I could not do those, I would still long to. Who I am is what I do.
I almost moderated you.. very creative. Unfortunately my loathing of anything that has to do with Michael Jackson prevented my finger from clicking the mouse button.
If you do what you love and are lucky enough to get paid something for it, would you stop doing it just because you stopped getting paid for it? A true creator MUST create.. it is an immutable compulsion. A pilot will fly... a programmer will write code... an artist will paint... for love if not money.
Money is not everything. Our society is so muttled in money. We are imbrued with the stain of a currency-based economy. It is our bane and it will be one of our greatest downfalls.
Microsoft doesn't try to "help" anyone. Altruism is not even a word they can spell. Microsoft helps Microsoft make money. Period. And if you want their "help" then you will give them your money.
There's something very wrong with paying $50 for a video game CD that has a material value of 50 cents. Think about it.
The question here is a much bigger one. How much should an individual be able to get for their intellectual property? Who should decide this? Does a currency-based economy still make sense in a digital world where nothing has concrete, tangible "material" value?
Personally, I would feel used and violated after paying $50 for a PS2 game.
There will always be hackers who will look upon the copy 'protection' as a challenge and likely find ways of circumventing it. I personally remember a friend of mine connecting the parallel bus on the 1541 floppy drive to the data bus of the C-64. The point is that where there's a will, there's a way.
Finally, I pose a question.. since I'm not a terribly wealthy person, I have to ask why these wealthy people want to make it so that we have to rent our software, buy a separate/new copy each time we get a new machine or need a backup, etc. Won't THEY have to rent the software too? Cost aside, won't that be just as annoying to rich people as it will be to me?
I know there's a zillion replies to this, but have you written an episode? The produces of ST: Voyager (and I think DS9) had an open door policy on script submissions. Anyone in the world could try their hand at writing an episode. Seems to me the best way to get rid of something that sucks is to go into it and improve it yourself.
Can someone explain to me why we need more TLDs? Your company's name is Acme Corp... so is your web site going to be www.acmecorp.com or www.acmecorporation.com or www.acmeinc.org or..? with only a few TLDs and DNS my choices are pretty cut and dried. However, with more TLDs, if I don't know your URL how am I suppsed to find your website if all I know is your company name? This has happened to me many times and it is very frustrating trying to guess what XYZ company's URL is. With DNS, more TLDs are just going to make this even more infuriating.
Of course, say the pundits, we will eventually be using a directory. Am I crazy to think that ICANN has the cart before the horse? I like DNS, but I can see the forces at work to replace it with a directory service. Doesn't it just make more sense to setup the directory and replace DNS _before_ we add more TLDs?
If I make something that can be copied, how many times should I be paid for it? After the millionth person pays $10 for what cost me $100 to make (originally), should I continue to lie on my laurels and have an income even tho I haven't done anything now for quite some time? Shouldn't I get paid today for what I do today, and tomorrow for what I do tomorrow.
Somewhere in the back of my mind, this little voice is asking how many MP3's the plaintiffs and judges in this Napster case have on their personal hard drives? I'll bet Hilary has a PC that's connected to the Internet. Hrmmmm...
Well, that doesn't answer it either. We need to find the energy sources that don't kill us or make us bury glowing rocks in canisters. The answers are out there. It just needs researching. Nuclear breeder reactors are very intriguing. I think we need to put our heads together and come up with a real solution to dealing with nuclear waste and pursue nuclear power to its fullest potential instead of being afraid of it and/or using (republican owned) fossil fuels.
You do not have to get "dirty". You have to get creative and stop being scared. Why can't we send high-energy nuclear waste into space toward the sun? Because we're scared that the ship will blow up and kill us. If we can't build equipment that doesn't blow up, then we need help.
We need to get the Tokamac working. We need to reduce the cost and weight of fuel cells, we need to ABOLISH electric energy distribution using private generation equipment (which WILL happen eventually). We need to develop liquid nitrogen powered vehicles (http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm). any and all of these things need to be done. but the REPUBLICANS who own the BIG BUSINESSES (Exxon, Gulf Oil, Ford, Chrysler, GM) and can't see more then 1 inch from their noses and don't give a rat's ass about anything but their pocketbooks (future generations, other humans, their own families, themselves etc.) don't want that. Witness the 100 MPG carbeurator legends. We also need to abolish money (yes, like Star Trek "you mean they still use money?") and move on to what is possible instead of what there's enough money for. But alas, no one is creative or free enough to do that. Money sucks and everything that has to do with money sucks. And this whole thing has a lot to do with money.
Damn straight. The late Sam Kinneson(sp?) said it best: "You live in a DESERT! Nothing GROWS there! See this? It's SAAAAND! Know what's gonna be here a thousand years from now? SAND!"
Yes.. we could keep the people who have no money living in countries with GNP of zero from starving to death by shipping food from source to endpoint at $14(US) per kilogram. The question is, should we? Is it our moral obligation to do so if we are able? I don't pretend to be able to answer those questions, but I certainly agree with Ereth that it's a complex problem affected negligibly if at all by my consumption of vast quantities of cow.
It has a parabolic flight pattern. The Zero-G portion of the flight occurs for less than 5 minutes. Also.. and I don't know if this warrants a post, the space station is a very hazardous, very inhospitable place. I wouldn't want to go until they get holodecks and sonic showers installed.
Either way, a large portion of the country will be upset about it. It's going to be a difficult presidency, starting with Supreme Court confirmations being challenged by a split congress.
The one thing I want to know is, with the numbers so close, how could anyone NOT count every single ballot? I mean if there is only a margin of 537 and there are any more than 537 uncounted votes, then you got some counting to do! If you support Bush, wouldn't you rather know that your man won by more than 537? And if you support Gore, wouldn't you like to feel that it mattered that you voted.. especially if your vote was one of those sitting in a pile when they just stopped counting? Someone please explain to me how you can "just not count some" few thousand votes?
Wars ARE up close and personal. That's the whole idea of war. A remote control war is adding stupidity on top of stupidity... and war is pretty stupid I think.
Instead of breaking in to a military base and stealing your mobile weapons or buying weapons of my own and using them (requires soldiers, etc.) I just hack your computer and turn your weapons against you. How tidy. It's precisely because this system IS under human control as opposed to fully automated (like ICBM launches, and yes I know that ICBMs require humans to operate) that makes it more risky. This, and the fact the the system has to be mobile itself. ICBM control can be a permanent (and more secured) installation, but this UCAV would have to be portable and/or have multiple nodes that carry control traffic. I don't want to fight wars against other people. I especially don't want to do it via Cyberspace. Wars are pretty stupid in my opinion, but if you're going to have one then go out and mutilate real flesh with real bullets instead of shooting eachothers remote-controlled planes. I don't want to pay for it and I don't want my congress to make me pay for it.
Boy. I can hardly wait. So now, hacking into some DoD computer and running some interesting looking processes will launch REAL weapons that kill REAL people. Yippy. And guess what? If all these unmanned mobile weapons are networked.. what happens when some hacker (the enemy?) 0wNz the network? I like Cyberspace a lot better when everything is virtual.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a pilot, a programmer, and an artist. Our society requires that I have money if for nothing more than sustenance. I would do the things that bring me joy regardless of whether I got paid or not. If I could not do those, I would still long to. Who I am is what I do.
I almost moderated you.. very creative. Unfortunately my loathing of anything that has to do with Michael Jackson prevented my finger from clicking the mouse button.
Money is not everything. Our society is so muttled in money. We are imbrued with the stain of a currency-based economy. It is our bane and it will be one of our greatest downfalls.
Microsoft doesn't try to "help" anyone. Altruism is not even a word they can spell. Microsoft helps Microsoft make money. Period. And if you want their "help" then you will give them your money.
The question here is a much bigger one. How much should an individual be able to get for their intellectual property? Who should decide this? Does a currency-based economy still make sense in a digital world where nothing has concrete, tangible "material" value?
Personally, I would feel used and violated after paying $50 for a PS2 game.
SO... when I gave copies of the DeCSS code to the attendees at one of my LAN parties a while ago, I became a criminal?
Finally, I pose a question.. since I'm not a terribly wealthy person, I have to ask why these wealthy people want to make it so that we have to rent our software, buy a separate/new copy each time we get a new machine or need a backup, etc. Won't THEY have to rent the software too? Cost aside, won't that be just as annoying to rich people as it will be to me?
I know there's a zillion replies to this, but have you written an episode? The produces of ST: Voyager (and I think DS9) had an open door policy on script submissions. Anyone in the world could try their hand at writing an episode. Seems to me the best way to get rid of something that sucks is to go into it and improve it yourself.
Can someone explain to me why we need more TLDs? Your company's name is Acme Corp... so is your web site going to be www.acmecorp.com or www.acmecorporation.com or www.acmeinc.org or..? with only a few TLDs and DNS my choices are pretty cut and dried. However, with more TLDs, if I don't know your URL how am I suppsed to find your website if all I know is your company name? This has happened to me many times and it is very frustrating trying to guess what XYZ company's URL is. With DNS, more TLDs are just going to make this even more infuriating. Of course, say the pundits, we will eventually be using a directory. Am I crazy to think that ICANN has the cart before the horse? I like DNS, but I can see the forces at work to replace it with a directory service. Doesn't it just make more sense to setup the directory and replace DNS _before_ we add more TLDs?
If I make something that can be copied, how many times should I be paid for it? After the millionth person pays $10 for what cost me $100 to make (originally), should I continue to lie on my laurels and have an income even tho I haven't done anything now for quite some time? Shouldn't I get paid today for what I do today, and tomorrow for what I do tomorrow.
Somewhere in the back of my mind, this little voice is asking how many MP3's the plaintiffs and judges in this Napster case have on their personal hard drives? I'll bet Hilary has a PC that's connected to the Internet. Hrmmmm...
We _will_ be going to war soon. Bank on it. :(
What was not to like about Bicentennial Man? I thoroughly enjoyed that movie. Am I missing something here?
Well, that doesn't answer it either. We need to find the energy sources that don't kill us or make us bury glowing rocks in canisters. The answers are out there. It just needs researching. Nuclear breeder reactors are very intriguing. I think we need to put our heads together and come up with a real solution to dealing with nuclear waste and pursue nuclear power to its fullest potential instead of being afraid of it and/or using (republican owned) fossil fuels. You do not have to get "dirty". You have to get creative and stop being scared. Why can't we send high-energy nuclear waste into space toward the sun? Because we're scared that the ship will blow up and kill us. If we can't build equipment that doesn't blow up, then we need help. We need to get the Tokamac working. We need to reduce the cost and weight of fuel cells, we need to ABOLISH electric energy distribution using private generation equipment (which WILL happen eventually). We need to develop liquid nitrogen powered vehicles (http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar .htm). any and all of these things need to be done. but the REPUBLICANS who own the BIG BUSINESSES (Exxon, Gulf Oil, Ford, Chrysler, GM) and can't see more then 1 inch from their noses and don't give a rat's ass about anything but their pocketbooks (future generations, other humans, their own families, themselves etc.) don't want that. Witness the 100 MPG carbeurator legends. We also need to abolish money (yes, like Star Trek "you mean they still use money?") and move on to what is possible instead of what there's enough money for. But alas, no one is creative or free enough to do that. Money sucks and everything that has to do with money sucks. And this whole thing has a lot to do with money.
Damn straight. The late Sam Kinneson(sp?) said it best: "You live in a DESERT! Nothing GROWS there! See this? It's SAAAAND! Know what's gonna be here a thousand years from now? SAND!"
Yes.. we could keep the people who have no money living in countries with GNP of zero from starving to death by shipping food from source to endpoint at $14(US) per kilogram. The question is, should we? Is it our moral obligation to do so if we are able? I don't pretend to be able to answer those questions, but I certainly agree with Ereth that it's a complex problem affected negligibly if at all by my consumption of vast quantities of cow.
It has a parabolic flight pattern. The Zero-G portion of the flight occurs for less than 5 minutes. Also.. and I don't know if this warrants a post, the space station is a very hazardous, very inhospitable place. I wouldn't want to go until they get holodecks and sonic showers installed.
Either way, a large portion of the country will be upset about it. It's going to be a difficult presidency, starting with Supreme Court confirmations being challenged by a split congress.
The one thing I want to know is, with the numbers so close, how could anyone NOT count every single ballot? I mean if there is only a margin of 537 and there are any more than 537 uncounted votes, then you got some counting to do! If you support Bush, wouldn't you rather know that your man won by more than 537? And if you support Gore, wouldn't you like to feel that it mattered that you voted.. especially if your vote was one of those sitting in a pile when they just stopped counting? Someone please explain to me how you can "just not count some" few thousand votes?
Wars ARE up close and personal. That's the whole idea of war. A remote control war is adding stupidity on top of stupidity... and war is pretty stupid I think.
Instead of breaking in to a military base and stealing your mobile weapons or buying weapons of my own and using them (requires soldiers, etc.) I just hack your computer and turn your weapons against you. How tidy. It's precisely because this system IS under human control as opposed to fully automated (like ICBM launches, and yes I know that ICBMs require humans to operate) that makes it more risky. This, and the fact the the system has to be mobile itself. ICBM control can be a permanent (and more secured) installation, but this UCAV would have to be portable and/or have multiple nodes that carry control traffic. I don't want to fight wars against other people. I especially don't want to do it via Cyberspace. Wars are pretty stupid in my opinion, but if you're going to have one then go out and mutilate real flesh with real bullets instead of shooting eachothers remote-controlled planes. I don't want to pay for it and I don't want my congress to make me pay for it.
Boy. I can hardly wait. So now, hacking into some DoD computer and running some interesting looking processes will launch REAL weapons that kill REAL people. Yippy. And guess what? If all these unmanned mobile weapons are networked.. what happens when some hacker (the enemy?) 0wNz the network? I like Cyberspace a lot better when everything is virtual.