I would personally be quite pissed that just to watch a movie, I would be out of touch for three hours. Not a good idea.
Yeah. So my profession necessiates cellphone reception no matter where.
It's far less of an inconvenience to listen to the occasional beep than lose reception altogether.
It's far less of an inconvenience listening to the occasional beep of fools who don't bother keeping their cellphones silent, than not having any reception at all in the theater.
If a theater banned all cellphone reception - I'd not listen to the occasional stupid beeps, but it would also make me lose being in touch 24/7.
My point was merely that I would like my cellphone to have reception at all times.
I make sure that whenever *I'm* in a theater, my cellphone is always switched on in silent mode but can receive calls. I do not think that is too much to ask.
I meant to highlight the fact that just because there are a few out there who do not bother switching off their cellphones, they're denying reception to all others.
That's defeatist logic and that's not necessarily true.
For one, I do not know when I would get a call - I get calls from clients all the time, and I really cannot route my personal life around it. It's almost impossible.
So the best thing is to do whatever I do, and if something comes up take it up then and there.
I would personally be quite pissed that just to watch a movie, I would be out of touch for three hours. Not a good idea.
It's far less of an inconvenience to listen to the occasional beep than lose reception altogether.
FYI -- Switzerland is also third world, since it did not side with either side (Capitalistic/Socialistic blcks). I think the Swiss Caucasians there would have a problem or two with your argument.
Do you ever plan on writing a sequel to Cryptonomicon?
I did not think you would get into the sequel thing, since most others have trouble pulling it off. However, you did a brilliant job of it in the Baroque cycle.
Personally, I thought Cryptonomicon ended wehere it had to, and the Baroque Cycle provided a nice view of the history behind the origins of the characters. However, I'm more curious about how you would take Cryptonomicon in the future, if you were to do so.
Also, I'd asked you this in person when you had given a talk at Georgia Tech - about the endings of your books, to which you had replied that you were quite happy with them the way they were.
But -- if you could have ended them differently, what kind of alternate endings do you think you would have come up with?
Well as an Indian, let me assure you that you both are in the third world. Third world refers to which side you were on - capitalist or communist. India chose neither, and therefore is a third world.
D'oh! Perhaps you meant developing/under-developed/whatever?
Fair enough. But I do not know enough about biology to comment on that, but it just seems unlikely that self-defeatist (species-wise) behaviour of that kind would be something nature would favour.
Doesn't the predator know that the prey must die for it to eat?
Eating is survival, pleasure is not.
Going by your argument, if it is okay for me to kill thousands of animals because I want my next coolest toy, it's alright for someone to parttake in genocide. Hey, it's natural isn't it?
Hmm, where did I mention that I do not like his articles, btw?
Incidentally, I visit his blog independently - it becomes irritating when you keep encountering his stories every other day.
My comment was more along the lines of, get him a separate section - that's all. Those that do not like his articles or visit his site can block him out, those that don't do either can read his stuff.
I'm sure that brand new McDonald toy manufactured out of a toy factory that polluted the environment is absolutely essential to your survival. Man, you'd die without it, wouldn't it? Guess what? There *are* several species that *do* die because of it.
Claiming that we should try to save each and every species going extinct is however very unnatural.
Mmmm, nowhere in my post did I mention that.
However, blatantly causing the extinction of so many species is preventable, and steps should be taken to prevent that, that's all.
It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).
Agreed. But when you cut down thousands of acres of forest a day and forcefully kill the plant, please do not tell me that it is unnatural.
It is unnatural to interfere with the way Nature works, the argument that Man's actions are natural does not simply hold true because our actions are sentient and conscious, and is deviant from nature's course of mere survival - we do not just try to survive, we explicitly go out there and destroy. We cause harm knowing well the consequences.
By your argument, if we wiped out almost every other living thing on this planet eventually, it does not matter? Because it's "natural" in a conjured up way?
Natural selection for survival is onething, for destructive purposes is another.
"We are not trying to 'copy a cockroach.' This would be impractical. And besides, who would want one?"
About bloody time that roboticists realized that it's easier to treat robots as independent entities of research, rather than model them on what we know about this world.
And oh, about BLOODY time we have a Roland Piquepaille section. Tiresome to keep bumping into his stuff on every other article.
Worse, how many species out there are being wiped out that we know/knew nothing about?
There is so much on this rock that is yet unknown and unexplored, while we continue to destroy the planet recklessly.
I wonder how many such species would be out there in the jungles of Amazon - we spend so much money on war and destruction, if only we'd spend it on preserving some of our planet's natural heritage we'd be helping ourselves and generations to come.
Ah, that won't come to pass as long as greedy fools continue to rule us.
This is more insightful than it is funny. As long as I'm not directly hurt by X, X is an innovation and A Good Thing(tm). When X becomes harmful it quickly becomes a problem.
Thank God. I was afraid you were gonna say Substitute X = Sex.
Slashdot Mirror
I would personally be quite pissed that just to watch a movie, I would be out of touch for three hours. Not a good idea.
Yeah. So my profession necessiates cellphone reception no matter where.
It's far less of an inconvenience to listen to the occasional beep than lose reception altogether.
It's far less of an inconvenience listening to the occasional beep of fools who don't bother keeping their cellphones silent, than not having any reception at all in the theater.
If a theater banned all cellphone reception - I'd not listen to the occasional stupid beeps, but it would also make me lose being in touch 24/7.
D'oh!
My point was merely that I would like my cellphone to have reception at all times.
I make sure that whenever *I'm* in a theater, my cellphone is always switched on in silent mode but can receive calls. I do not think that is too much to ask.
I meant to highlight the fact that just because there are a few out there who do not bother switching off their cellphones, they're denying reception to all others.
It's an opinon based thing, that's all.
Read my post again.
I did not say that MY cellphone would beep. I keep it in a silent mode so that I know when I'm getting a call, and I can go out and take it up.
If someone else's cellphone DID go off, I do not personally consider it that big a deal.
Man, the IQ of the Slashdot crowd has dropped so significantly. Wonder what's up with all the idiots crowding up the place.
Uhh, FYI - I keep my cellphone in silent mode. Haven't had it go off even *once* in the theater.
I merely meant that even if someone's did, I wouldn't care much, that's all.
And besides, people are getting far too anal about things these days. It's just a fucking movie.
Uh, I did not say that MY cellphone would beep.
I just said I'd like to be available - that's all. And if someone else's cellphone beeped, it isn't all that big a deal.
Read my fucking post.
That's defeatist logic and that's not necessarily true.
For one, I do not know when I would get a call - I get calls from clients all the time, and I really cannot route my personal life around it. It's almost impossible.
So the best thing is to do whatever I do, and if something comes up take it up then and there.
I would personally be quite pissed that just to watch a movie, I would be out of touch for three hours. Not a good idea.
It's far less of an inconvenience to listen to the occasional beep than lose reception altogether.
Maybe some kind of transmitter/receiver local to that area which over-rides every other transmission?
I'm sure something like that could be designed.
Yes.
If the majority of the people are branded criminals by the law for that "illegal" usage, as you so put it, the system is flawed - not the people.
Tools are just that - tools. They are beyond good or evil, legitimate or illegitimate use.
Dude, that was simply the best post I've seen in a long time. Thanks for a good laugh!!
George? Is that you Mr. President? :-p
How the fuck is this offtop? Sheesh!
FYI moderators on crack -- those are the names of characters from Neal's book Snowcrash.
I've thought of that too -- Neal, some of your books have very creative names, while some have common John Doe kinda names.
Where the hell do you get your ideas for names from?
Enoch Root, Hiro Protagonist, Y.T., ad infinitum.
The name is Cowboy, kiddo.
;-)
Cowboy Neal
FYI -- Switzerland is also third world, since it did not side with either side (Capitalistic/Socialistic blcks). I think the Swiss Caucasians there would have a problem or two with your argument.
Do you ever plan on writing a sequel to Cryptonomicon?
I did not think you would get into the sequel thing, since most others have trouble pulling it off. However, you did a brilliant job of it in the Baroque cycle.
Personally, I thought Cryptonomicon ended wehere it had to, and the Baroque Cycle provided a nice view of the history behind the origins of the characters. However, I'm more curious about how you would take Cryptonomicon in the future, if you were to do so.
Also, I'd asked you this in person when you had given a talk at Georgia Tech - about the endings of your books, to which you had replied that you were quite happy with them the way they were.
But -- if you could have ended them differently, what kind of alternate endings do you think you would have come up with?
Thanks.
Well as an Indian, let me assure you that you both are in the third world. Third world refers to which side you were on - capitalist or communist. India chose neither, and therefore is a third world.
D'oh! Perhaps you meant developing/under-developed/whatever?
Fair enough. But I do not know enough about biology to comment on that, but it just seems unlikely that self-defeatist (species-wise) behaviour of that kind would be something nature would favour.
How very bright and cheerful a thought on a Monday morning :-p
Doesn't the predator know that the prey must die for it to eat?
Eating is survival, pleasure is not.
Going by your argument, if it is okay for me to kill thousands of animals because I want my next coolest toy, it's alright for someone to parttake in genocide. Hey, it's natural isn't it?
Hmm, where did I mention that I do not like his articles, btw?
Incidentally, I visit his blog independently - it becomes irritating when you keep encountering his stories every other day.
My comment was more along the lines of, get him a separate section - that's all. Those that do not like his articles or visit his site can block him out, those that don't do either can read his stuff.
Umm no - we definitely "try to survive".
I'm sure that brand new McDonald toy manufactured out of a toy factory that polluted the environment is absolutely essential to your survival. Man, you'd die without it, wouldn't it? Guess what? There *are* several species that *do* die because of it.
Claiming that we should try to save each and every species going extinct is however very unnatural.
Mmmm, nowhere in my post did I mention that.
However, blatantly causing the extinction of so many species is preventable, and steps should be taken to prevent that, that's all.
It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).
Agreed. But when you cut down thousands of acres of forest a day and forcefully kill the plant, please do not tell me that it is unnatural.
It is unnatural to interfere with the way Nature works, the argument that Man's actions are natural does not simply hold true because our actions are sentient and conscious, and is deviant from nature's course of mere survival - we do not just try to survive, we explicitly go out there and destroy. We cause harm knowing well the consequences.
By your argument, if we wiped out almost every other living thing on this planet eventually, it does not matter? Because it's "natural" in a conjured up way?
Natural selection for survival is onething, for destructive purposes is another.
"We are not trying to 'copy a cockroach.' This would be impractical. And besides, who would want one?"
About bloody time that roboticists realized that it's easier to treat robots as independent entities of research, rather than model them on what we know about this world.
And oh, about BLOODY time we have a Roland Piquepaille section. Tiresome to keep bumping into his stuff on every other article.
Yes, but while the previous article seemed uncertain of the discovery, these seem fairly conclusive.
Plus, they have taken pictures of them while earlier on they were mostly speculative. Not to mention first hand physiological details.
Not really a repeat - more of a follow up, IMHO.
Worse, how many species out there are being wiped out that we know/knew nothing about?
There is so much on this rock that is yet unknown and unexplored, while we continue to destroy the planet recklessly.
I wonder how many such species would be out there in the jungles of Amazon - we spend so much money on war and destruction, if only we'd spend it on preserving some of our planet's natural heritage we'd be helping ourselves and generations to come.
Ah, that won't come to pass as long as greedy fools continue to rule us.
This is more insightful than it is funny. As long as I'm not directly hurt by X, X is an innovation and A Good Thing(tm). When X becomes harmful it quickly becomes a problem.
Thank God. I was afraid you were gonna say Substitute X = Sex.