I keep wondering this. Why don't we look into going down?
You could go down a LOT further than what the WTC went up without having to worry about reinforcing things properly against the height, you would just put supports going outward. Yeah, it would be a HUGE amount of work to make it, but you would be left with buildings that are appreciably stronger, more weather resistant, and more secure against air attacks. Not that I think air attacks are going to be that common of an occurence, but I would love to see a place like New York city look as flat and plain as a place like Sioux Falls, South Dakota. A couple stories above ground and two to three hundred below. Why not?
I know, I know, I've been told it's an insane idea before. But who didn't like the idea when they read it in sci-fi years ago? Of course, this would totally negate the whole turbine between buildings thing. But it would give you a lot more empty space above ground for turbines, solar panels, or other power gathering/generating technologies.
Ah, but, pushing the air into a smaller space as it is channelled towards the turbines would in effect "compress" it. What happens to compressed air? It moves faster. As it moves faster, it draws off more heat from the surrounding surfaces.
Granted, it wouldn't be a lot. But it would have some effect on the building with a good strong wind being "pushed" into an even stronger wind.
This is pretty funny. When the time comes to shut down a nuclear plant?
I know a guy (one of my dad's friends) that designed and helped build a nuclear plant at the beginning of his carreer. His last official act at the end of his career is to dismantle and dispose of the plant. Believe me, it is not as impossible as you make it sound.
Yes, there are some wastes produced by nuclear plants, but they are not immediately pumped into the atmosphere to be sucked into the lungs of everyone within a few hundered miles. I think you've got a pretty narrow minded few of nuclear power.
There are times when I would love to have a good pair of headphones, unfortunately a 100 Watt tube amp hooked up to my guitar still sounds like shit through headphones (not to mention the headphones don't last very long;-). Just kidding, I would like headphones if I could get a decent guitar tone through them, and the wife would really love them.;-)
Forgive me. Some of us spend our big money on the surround sound speaker system (and the room to house it in), some of us spend our money on headphones. I forgot that there are good headphones available, since it's so damn hard to find a decent pair anymore. *SHRUG*
When I used a 'free' MP3 encoder I absolutely could not stand to listen to the result. When I purchased MP3Enc from Franhauer (or whatever the hell that name is) I can just barely hear the difference between the original and the MP3 (when using 128Kb/sec). There is a world of difference between that and the thin, tinny and shriekish sounding MP3s produced by the free compressors.
As one other poster said, you can hear the difference on your home stereo with Dolby Digital surround and all speakers blaring, but you are not going to hear the difference on your headphones, or even on that bookshelf stereo in the bedroom.
It sounds like what you two are asking for is a recreation of the 'personal space' factor in a bar. You want quiet private booths, noise cancellation from 'outsiders', the ability to absorb yourselves into your own little world within the bar (private hookups for your laptop, personal TVs for each booth), and basically a situation where you have absolutely no need for interaction outside of your booth.
I'm sorry, but for some reason this just seems wrong to me. Isn't the whole idea of a bar (or cafe for those that feel bar is a negative thing) all about getting out and visiting, meeting people, seeing people, and in general doing something different from what you can do when you are locked in your personal room in your house? Maybe I've totally missed the point, but when you go out to a gathering of like-minded individuals I would think the attempt would be to speak with the other people.
My preference would be to see a 'geek bar' that had sci-fi on a group television (possibly interupted by really cool cartoons, like Robotech or Gundam re-runs), and an actual 'bar' or cafe counter where you can sit at a terminal, but you aren't closed off from the people around you. Stupid as it sounds, has anyone ever seen.COM on Days of our Lives? It's a cybercafe with a really cool 'terminal on both sides of the table' type of set up that's very open and airy looking. Change the basic beverage from coffee to beer (or pop for those so inclined) and add a TV or two (but keep their free-listening music stands) and I think you would have a pretty cool concept bar for geeks.
But, maybe I've missed the point. If the point is to recreate the reclusive home environment of the common geek, then I guess you guys are on the right track.
Whatever you thoughts on money they are completely irrelevant to copyright.
And somehow you totally missed the part where I explained that it should be up to the artist to release things however he wants. I agree with Ellison's main gripe (that being that people shouldn't be copying his works without his permission), but I disagree that all artists must be paid in order to create art. That was my beef. And believe it or not, I actually do create art and give it away. I'm talking about my beliefs here. My beliefs are, just like everyone else's, self-serving. It's what makes them mine. If that bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't read my comments.
I found his whole article to be a bit off. I don't know, but something about the assumption that an artist must be paid to be an artist just never struck me right. I've written music, I've written books, I've written short stories, I've written poetry, and I've even done the occassional drawing. The closest I've ever come to being paid is the one time that someone snuck one of my stories into a contest and gave me the money when I won (which was nice of them, they could have claimed it themselves and I probably would have never known).
I realize that there are people that create for the express purpose of making money. I say, more power to them, and he did have a point. I don't think that all information should be free for the taking. However, I disagree very, very strongly with the assumption that art=money and that artist=paid. The best art is usually the art that is done purely for the love of the art form. The art that is created for money is usually a joke.
Don't get me wrong, Ellison has some wicked ass cool creations in his file of 'deeds', but the assumption that art must equal profit is wrong. There are artists of all types that do it purely for the love of doing it, and never require or even ask for payment. I think there's room in the world for both.
Also, his assumption that being a part of the Internet makes you an evil pirate scum was a little nerve racking to say the least. I don't use Napster, every MP3 I own comes from a legally purchased CD that is sitting in my closet. Every book I own is legally purchased, every book I read either is purchased by me or my wife, borrowed from the library, or public domain, or released specifically by the author as 'free' (which happens suprisingly often now). I enjoy the Internet, but I consider the cyber world and the meat world to be linked by one thing. That is, a crook in the real world is likely to be a crook in the cyber world. While a crook that is lazy finds it much easier to steal online, there is no need to assume that anyone that goes online does it specifically for the purpose of being a crook.
Don't blame the tool, blame the tool that misuses that tool. (A Hum-Vee in the Persian Gulf is a tool, a Hum-Vee on Rodeo Drive is being driven by a tool-Dennis Miller.) I see a tendancy more and more often to blame whatever piece of technology is misused for the misuse. Why not blame the idiots that are misusing it?
If someone bludgeons another person to death with a monkey wrench do you outlaw the monkey wrench? Or do you put a 'anti-people-killing' layer of padding around the entire wrench (thus rendering it totally unusable for it's intended purpose)? I just don't understand why technology must be held back because some people misuse it. Somehow that seems wrong. But, perhaps I'm niave and foolish. It wouldn't be that much of a suprise to me if I was.
Now the American Dream is to invent some silly gizmo that the world can't live without and get bought out by Microsoft (my apologies to Doonesbury). I know a guy that just happened to and he made enough money on the sale that he would never 'have' to work again, but that would be boring to him.
More on-topic, has anyone else noticed that this sort of thing is happening quite a bit right now. The two easiest to recognize on this site are the (obvious) 'realigning' happening at O'Reilly and the current 'refocusing' happening at Gateway. I don't think this is to be unexpected. People running businesses, whether their own or running a stock based business, are realizing that the economy is dictating a tight and focused business strategy right now. With an economic slow-down business can't afford to do a bunch of things real sloppily and still get by. They need to pick their core products or services, focus to be the best they can possibly be and earn business again. I see that as a good thing for people in general as it should refocus businesses on producing quality rather than quantity.
The only question I would have is why stories like this keep coming up on slashdot. I really didn't think that slashdot was that business focussed. But I suppose when it comes to the tech sector, people are interested in all the goings on.
That may be the same one I have. It's boxed up in the storage room at the moment, but it sounds like it has the same 'options' of play. It truly was an amazing piece of work at the time, and on the rare occasions when I still get to feeling nostalgic I get that out and my old Apple IIgs and play Pong and Bard's Tale II,GS version (I still say I haven't seen a better Role Playing Game since then).
Ah, memories. I still have my old Pong only box that Dad bought for 'me' (even though he probably played it more than I did) back in about '76 or so. Oh man, the fun we had trying to beat each other with that game.:-)
What the hell is it doing with a 700MHz processor in EACH leg? The computations needed could easily be done with a 486-66.
Must...restrain...flame....
Maybe for just the movement computations. But I would imagine the added computing power is useful in analyzing the input coming from the multiple sensors used to determine height off the ground and all that other non-sense that was mentioned in the article (You did read the article didn't you? Oh wait, maybe it was slashdotted, so I'll give you a break). There's a lot more going on here than just a simple wind-up walk-along toy does. A lot more.
Yeah, the choice between the two main parties is never any real choice. You have to go non-standard if you want someone that is of a different opinion about anything important. Of course, then you get told that you are 'stealing' a vote from the important candidates (funny, I thought our votes belonged to us, it was our decision).
I think Dubya is one of the biggest idiots we've ever had as president. I'm not going to say that any of the past few have been real genius types, but someone that can't even speak their native tounge properly (English is supposed to be his native language isn't it?) should most definitely not be the leader of his country. There's just something totally wrong about having someone so blatantly in the 'mentally challenged' column being the president.
Sorry, that's enough for my political rants today.;-)
Why do I keep picturing Dubya running in a circle, doing the X-Pac dance (sticking his hands in the air and then quickly pulling them down towards his crotch as he thrusts forward with his hips)? It's like the ultimate taunt. Here I am -thrust-, come on suckas -thrust-.
My own 2 cents:
You would be suprised at the number of non-profit groups that are incorporated. It may not make a huge amount of sense, but it seems to happen quite a bit. I'm not sure, but I think there are certain incentives to incorporating a non-profit organization, but I really doubt any of those incentives would apply to four guys and a girl playing in a band and trying to do some writing (my current situation, although that situation my be dissolving at the moment).
This really sucks. I've heard that you aren't supposed to register a.com domain if you aren't a for-profit business. Now, you won't be able to register (or hold) a.org domain unless you are incorporated and non-profit (I would suppose that has to be legally non-profit). So, what kind of rule will they impose on.net? I'm assuming this is so that little people that want a domain have too many hurdles placed in the way to make it worthwhile. I just wonder what my group is going to do if this comes to pass. Are we just going to get our domain yanked from us, since we aren't a corporation (although we are not-for-profit, we aren't legally a non-profit organization either)? I have a hard time with this one, but it wouldn't suprise me at all. BIG BUSINESS, BIG BUSINESS, BIG BUSINESS, that's the name of the game. If you don't fit into that, then step out of the way or get run over.
*SHRUG* Oh well, better get used to it. I don't see much of a chance of that changing, in meat space or virtual space.
I'm not any happier than you that Bush is in office, but perhaps you should have read the article before spouting off. Never rely on the attention grabbing negativity spout off of the slashdot editors/submitters.
The article actually said that they were going to increase the commitment to explore Mars. I don't know exactly what that means, but I'm going to take it as a good thing. Just because they are cutting one thing doesn't mean they are removing all scientific exploration.
But, where would these few small electrical circuits come from. And building power sources from scratch would be rather difficult without some sort of machinery (most of which now includes some type of computing power, even tractors and bulldozers have computers in the engines). And the time it would take you to rebuild if something like this happened would be more than a few days I'm sure. Anything past a month and there would be some serious problems in society, with breakdowns of all sorts. Lack of supplies in big cities would be the biggest I would think.
I'm just having a hard time thinking of this as 'no big deal' when computers, transistors, and electronics seem to invade every part of our lives, even a lot of the 'behind the scenes' stuff that we aren't always aware of is powered by computers and electronics. As for the 'we could rebuild' comments, I'm sure we could, but how long would it take, and how many people are going to be willing to help as they are starving to death?
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe America isn't totally dependent on electronics, but I have a feeling there would be some major hurdles to overcome before the rebuilding process began.
That's an interesting idea. Probably wouldn't be a virus (doesn't a virus require a living host's cells for reproduction?), but a bacteria, or something like that. But that is an interesting thought.
I wonder, if it was a copper eater, how would they prevent it from going after water pipes as well? This whole thing is theoretical, but the aim was something that took out computers and only computers right?
If all computers were wiped out in a way that prevented you from using even old versions, I really doubt that you would be able to build new computers before the die-off would begin. More than likely, the panic at the loss of Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, television stupidity, and radio morons would probably spark a huge loss of life as people riot in the streets clamouring for a chance to have their precious entertainment. The remaining people would riot when they realized that food would not be easily obtained, or obtained at all. I still say computers would be far from most people's minds for a long, long time after something like this.
I think your estimate of recreating computers in a year to be very, very inadequate. It would take much longer than that if we were starting from scratch. Much, much longer.
It probably wouldn't. But some of us are sick to death of people that do nothing all day long be dream up ways to whine, bitch, moan, and create new ways to profit from the suffering of others. It would be nice if we were forced to work together on something, and the only way I see that happening is if there is some huge, gigantic disaster that forces us to focus on survival. Of course, I'm guessing this isn't a popular opinion and I will be labelled heretic or worse for daring to question humanity's righteousnous, but I often think we need to be knocked around a bit more.
The really great thing about something like this is it would put the great USofA in the same position as all of those "poor" countries that we claim to be so superior to. I don't know, maybe I'm just in a pissy mood today, but doesn't anyone else get sick of the self-righteous, WE ARE THE GREATEST, pat-yourself-on-the-back mentallity present in the world right now? Maybe it's just me.
I'm not one to say that we should kill people off, but it would be nice if a disaster like this came along to kind of put humanity back in to perspective. Sure, there would be huge years of suffering and pain and misery, followed by years of rebuilding, but the end result would be a reminder to those that come after that humanity is not as god-like as we seem to be committed to making ourselves believe.
It's not something I would look forward to living through, but I'm not sure it would overall be a bad thing.
You'd have to go back a lot further than the first "human" to see that though.
Some would argue that technology is built on the backs of the apes, the ones that use blades of grass to pull ants out of an ant-hill, or the ones that use large sticks as levers to move rocks to hunt for worms, bugs or other edibles. In a way they are right. Humans came into a world full of technology in one sense, we simply moved that technology forward. Granted, it is a huge leap from using a stick as a lever to creating a giant crane that can lift a huge I-beam into place on a skyscraper, but the principles are basically the same, and one is built upon the other. I wonder how far back we would have to go to see the first 'tool' put to use? Probably a lot further than anyone would guess.
Question for you, Mr. Sponsor:
If only "computer stuff" is destroyed, would that not have an effect on nearly all aspects of modern life? It wouldn't just be the computer on your desktop that doesn't work, or that laptop you lug through the airport. It would be your car, your TV (no TV without computers, oh god no!), your radio, probably your electicity in all forms, your transportation unless you use the old horse and buggy, your supply lines beyond foot and the aforementioned horse and buggy (do you really think a grocery store could continue to be stocked with food suplies taking months to make it there?), and nearly anything else you could think of.
So I ask, what exactly is your point? If just computer junk is destroyed, you have destroyed the foundation of modern America (and most other modern countries, hell, even some backwater countries). Government would not be much help if they can't quickly move troops, supplies, and news. There would be nothing left of modern society without computers and electronics. In short, we would be completely, and utterly fucked. And that's the polite way of saying it.
I really doubt rebuilding computers would be a priority in that situation. It would be a little more important to find food, water (the pipes wouldn't be flowing so good without their computer controlled water plants pushing it through), and keeping warm in the coler regions. I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken if you think you could just waltz home, turn on the tube, and watch the geeks crying in the streets over the loss of their computers. You would be crying over the loss of your microwave, and your inability to hunt rabbits or any other game more likely.
Slashdot Mirror
You could go down a LOT further than what the WTC went up without having to worry about reinforcing things properly against the height, you would just put supports going outward. Yeah, it would be a HUGE amount of work to make it, but you would be left with buildings that are appreciably stronger, more weather resistant, and more secure against air attacks. Not that I think air attacks are going to be that common of an occurence, but I would love to see a place like New York city look as flat and plain as a place like Sioux Falls, South Dakota. A couple stories above ground and two to three hundred below. Why not?
I know, I know, I've been told it's an insane idea before. But who didn't like the idea when they read it in sci-fi years ago? Of course, this would totally negate the whole turbine between buildings thing. But it would give you a lot more empty space above ground for turbines, solar panels, or other power gathering/generating technologies.
Granted, it wouldn't be a lot. But it would have some effect on the building with a good strong wind being "pushed" into an even stronger wind.
I know a guy (one of my dad's friends) that designed and helped build a nuclear plant at the beginning of his carreer. His last official act at the end of his career is to dismantle and dispose of the plant. Believe me, it is not as impossible as you make it sound.
Yes, there are some wastes produced by nuclear plants, but they are not immediately pumped into the atmosphere to be sucked into the lungs of everyone within a few hundered miles. I think you've got a pretty narrow minded few of nuclear power.
There are times when I would love to have a good pair of headphones, unfortunately a 100 Watt tube amp hooked up to my guitar still sounds like shit through headphones (not to mention the headphones don't last very long;-). Just kidding, I would like headphones if I could get a decent guitar tone through them, and the wife would really love them.;-)
Forgive me. Some of us spend our big money on the surround sound speaker system (and the room to house it in), some of us spend our money on headphones. I forgot that there are good headphones available, since it's so damn hard to find a decent pair anymore. *SHRUG*
I'll take A!
When I used a 'free' MP3 encoder I absolutely could not stand to listen to the result. When I purchased MP3Enc from Franhauer (or whatever the hell that name is) I can just barely hear the difference between the original and the MP3 (when using 128Kb/sec). There is a world of difference between that and the thin, tinny and shriekish sounding MP3s produced by the free compressors.
As one other poster said, you can hear the difference on your home stereo with Dolby Digital surround and all speakers blaring, but you are not going to hear the difference on your headphones, or even on that bookshelf stereo in the bedroom.
It sounds like what you two are asking for is a recreation of the 'personal space' factor in a bar. You want quiet private booths, noise cancellation from 'outsiders', the ability to absorb yourselves into your own little world within the bar (private hookups for your laptop, personal TVs for each booth), and basically a situation where you have absolutely no need for interaction outside of your booth.
.COM on Days of our Lives? It's a cybercafe with a really cool 'terminal on both sides of the table' type of set up that's very open and airy looking. Change the basic beverage from coffee to beer (or pop for those so inclined) and add a TV or two (but keep their free-listening music stands) and I think you would have a pretty cool concept bar for geeks.
I'm sorry, but for some reason this just seems wrong to me. Isn't the whole idea of a bar (or cafe for those that feel bar is a negative thing) all about getting out and visiting, meeting people, seeing people, and in general doing something different from what you can do when you are locked in your personal room in your house? Maybe I've totally missed the point, but when you go out to a gathering of like-minded individuals I would think the attempt would be to speak with the other people.
My preference would be to see a 'geek bar' that had sci-fi on a group television (possibly interupted by really cool cartoons, like Robotech or Gundam re-runs), and an actual 'bar' or cafe counter where you can sit at a terminal, but you aren't closed off from the people around you. Stupid as it sounds, has anyone ever seen
But, maybe I've missed the point. If the point is to recreate the reclusive home environment of the common geek, then I guess you guys are on the right track.
And somehow you totally missed the part where I explained that it should be up to the artist to release things however he wants. I agree with Ellison's main gripe (that being that people shouldn't be copying his works without his permission), but I disagree that all artists must be paid in order to create art. That was my beef. And believe it or not, I actually do create art and give it away. I'm talking about my beliefs here. My beliefs are, just like everyone else's, self-serving. It's what makes them mine. If that bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't read my comments.
I found his whole article to be a bit off. I don't know, but something about the assumption that an artist must be paid to be an artist just never struck me right. I've written music, I've written books, I've written short stories, I've written poetry, and I've even done the occassional drawing. The closest I've ever come to being paid is the one time that someone snuck one of my stories into a contest and gave me the money when I won (which was nice of them, they could have claimed it themselves and I probably would have never known).
I realize that there are people that create for the express purpose of making money. I say, more power to them, and he did have a point. I don't think that all information should be free for the taking. However, I disagree very, very strongly with the assumption that art=money and that artist=paid. The best art is usually the art that is done purely for the love of the art form. The art that is created for money is usually a joke.
Don't get me wrong, Ellison has some wicked ass cool creations in his file of 'deeds', but the assumption that art must equal profit is wrong. There are artists of all types that do it purely for the love of doing it, and never require or even ask for payment. I think there's room in the world for both.
Also, his assumption that being a part of the Internet makes you an evil pirate scum was a little nerve racking to say the least. I don't use Napster, every MP3 I own comes from a legally purchased CD that is sitting in my closet. Every book I own is legally purchased, every book I read either is purchased by me or my wife, borrowed from the library, or public domain, or released specifically by the author as 'free' (which happens suprisingly often now). I enjoy the Internet, but I consider the cyber world and the meat world to be linked by one thing. That is, a crook in the real world is likely to be a crook in the cyber world. While a crook that is lazy finds it much easier to steal online, there is no need to assume that anyone that goes online does it specifically for the purpose of being a crook.
Don't blame the tool, blame the tool that misuses that tool. (A Hum-Vee in the Persian Gulf is a tool, a Hum-Vee on Rodeo Drive is being driven by a tool-Dennis Miller.) I see a tendancy more and more often to blame whatever piece of technology is misused for the misuse. Why not blame the idiots that are misusing it?
If someone bludgeons another person to death with a monkey wrench do you outlaw the monkey wrench? Or do you put a 'anti-people-killing' layer of padding around the entire wrench (thus rendering it totally unusable for it's intended purpose)? I just don't understand why technology must be held back because some people misuse it. Somehow that seems wrong. But, perhaps I'm niave and foolish. It wouldn't be that much of a suprise to me if I was.
Now the American Dream is to invent some silly gizmo that the world can't live without and get bought out by Microsoft (my apologies to Doonesbury). I know a guy that just happened to and he made enough money on the sale that he would never 'have' to work again, but that would be boring to him.
More on-topic, has anyone else noticed that this sort of thing is happening quite a bit right now. The two easiest to recognize on this site are the (obvious) 'realigning' happening at O'Reilly and the current 'refocusing' happening at Gateway. I don't think this is to be unexpected. People running businesses, whether their own or running a stock based business, are realizing that the economy is dictating a tight and focused business strategy right now. With an economic slow-down business can't afford to do a bunch of things real sloppily and still get by. They need to pick their core products or services, focus to be the best they can possibly be and earn business again. I see that as a good thing for people in general as it should refocus businesses on producing quality rather than quantity.
The only question I would have is why stories like this keep coming up on slashdot. I really didn't think that slashdot was that business focussed. But I suppose when it comes to the tech sector, people are interested in all the goings on.
That may be the same one I have. It's boxed up in the storage room at the moment, but it sounds like it has the same 'options' of play. It truly was an amazing piece of work at the time, and on the rare occasions when I still get to feeling nostalgic I get that out and my old Apple IIgs and play Pong and Bard's Tale II,GS version (I still say I haven't seen a better Role Playing Game since then).
Ah, memories. I still have my old Pong only box that Dad bought for 'me' (even though he probably played it more than I did) back in about '76 or so. Oh man, the fun we had trying to beat each other with that game.:-)
Maybe for just the movement computations. But I would imagine the added computing power is useful in analyzing the input coming from the multiple sensors used to determine height off the ground and all that other non-sense that was mentioned in the article (You did read the article didn't you? Oh wait, maybe it was slashdotted, so I'll give you a break). There's a lot more going on here than just a simple wind-up walk-along toy does. A lot more.
Yeah, the choice between the two main parties is never any real choice. You have to go non-standard if you want someone that is of a different opinion about anything important. Of course, then you get told that you are 'stealing' a vote from the important candidates (funny, I thought our votes belonged to us, it was our decision).
I think Dubya is one of the biggest idiots we've ever had as president. I'm not going to say that any of the past few have been real genius types, but someone that can't even speak their native tounge properly (English is supposed to be his native language isn't it?) should most definitely not be the leader of his country. There's just something totally wrong about having someone so blatantly in the 'mentally challenged' column being the president.
Sorry, that's enough for my political rants today.;-)
Why do I keep picturing Dubya running in a circle, doing the X-Pac dance (sticking his hands in the air and then quickly pulling them down towards his crotch as he thrusts forward with his hips)? It's like the ultimate taunt. Here I am -thrust-, come on suckas -thrust-.
Yeah, what he said;-).
My own 2 cents:
You would be suprised at the number of non-profit groups that are incorporated. It may not make a huge amount of sense, but it seems to happen quite a bit. I'm not sure, but I think there are certain incentives to incorporating a non-profit organization, but I really doubt any of those incentives would apply to four guys and a girl playing in a band and trying to do some writing (my current situation, although that situation my be dissolving at the moment).
This really sucks. I've heard that you aren't supposed to register a .com domain if you aren't a for-profit business. Now, you won't be able to register (or hold) a .org domain unless you are incorporated and non-profit (I would suppose that has to be legally non-profit). So, what kind of rule will they impose on .net? I'm assuming this is so that little people that want a domain have too many hurdles placed in the way to make it worthwhile. I just wonder what my group is going to do if this comes to pass. Are we just going to get our domain yanked from us, since we aren't a corporation (although we are not-for-profit, we aren't legally a non-profit organization either)? I have a hard time with this one, but it wouldn't suprise me at all. BIG BUSINESS, BIG BUSINESS, BIG BUSINESS, that's the name of the game. If you don't fit into that, then step out of the way or get run over.
*SHRUG* Oh well, better get used to it. I don't see much of a chance of that changing, in meat space or virtual space.
I'm not any happier than you that Bush is in office, but perhaps you should have read the article before spouting off. Never rely on the attention grabbing negativity spout off of the slashdot editors/submitters.
The article actually said that they were going to increase the commitment to explore Mars. I don't know exactly what that means, but I'm going to take it as a good thing. Just because they are cutting one thing doesn't mean they are removing all scientific exploration.
But, where would these few small electrical circuits come from. And building power sources from scratch would be rather difficult without some sort of machinery (most of which now includes some type of computing power, even tractors and bulldozers have computers in the engines). And the time it would take you to rebuild if something like this happened would be more than a few days I'm sure. Anything past a month and there would be some serious problems in society, with breakdowns of all sorts. Lack of supplies in big cities would be the biggest I would think.
I'm just having a hard time thinking of this as 'no big deal' when computers, transistors, and electronics seem to invade every part of our lives, even a lot of the 'behind the scenes' stuff that we aren't always aware of is powered by computers and electronics. As for the 'we could rebuild' comments, I'm sure we could, but how long would it take, and how many people are going to be willing to help as they are starving to death?
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe America isn't totally dependent on electronics, but I have a feeling there would be some major hurdles to overcome before the rebuilding process began.
That's an interesting idea. Probably wouldn't be a virus (doesn't a virus require a living host's cells for reproduction?), but a bacteria, or something like that. But that is an interesting thought.
I wonder, if it was a copper eater, how would they prevent it from going after water pipes as well? This whole thing is theoretical, but the aim was something that took out computers and only computers right?
If all computers were wiped out in a way that prevented you from using even old versions, I really doubt that you would be able to build new computers before the die-off would begin. More than likely, the panic at the loss of Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, television stupidity, and radio morons would probably spark a huge loss of life as people riot in the streets clamouring for a chance to have their precious entertainment. The remaining people would riot when they realized that food would not be easily obtained, or obtained at all. I still say computers would be far from most people's minds for a long, long time after something like this.
I think your estimate of recreating computers in a year to be very, very inadequate. It would take much longer than that if we were starting from scratch. Much, much longer.
It probably wouldn't. But some of us are sick to death of people that do nothing all day long be dream up ways to whine, bitch, moan, and create new ways to profit from the suffering of others. It would be nice if we were forced to work together on something, and the only way I see that happening is if there is some huge, gigantic disaster that forces us to focus on survival. Of course, I'm guessing this isn't a popular opinion and I will be labelled heretic or worse for daring to question humanity's righteousnous, but I often think we need to be knocked around a bit more.
The really great thing about something like this is it would put the great USofA in the same position as all of those "poor" countries that we claim to be so superior to. I don't know, maybe I'm just in a pissy mood today, but doesn't anyone else get sick of the self-righteous, WE ARE THE GREATEST, pat-yourself-on-the-back mentallity present in the world right now? Maybe it's just me.
True enough, but is that such a bad thing?
I'm not one to say that we should kill people off, but it would be nice if a disaster like this came along to kind of put humanity back in to perspective. Sure, there would be huge years of suffering and pain and misery, followed by years of rebuilding, but the end result would be a reminder to those that come after that humanity is not as god-like as we seem to be committed to making ourselves believe.
It's not something I would look forward to living through, but I'm not sure it would overall be a bad thing.
You'd have to go back a lot further than the first "human" to see that though.
Some would argue that technology is built on the backs of the apes, the ones that use blades of grass to pull ants out of an ant-hill, or the ones that use large sticks as levers to move rocks to hunt for worms, bugs or other edibles. In a way they are right. Humans came into a world full of technology in one sense, we simply moved that technology forward. Granted, it is a huge leap from using a stick as a lever to creating a giant crane that can lift a huge I-beam into place on a skyscraper, but the principles are basically the same, and one is built upon the other. I wonder how far back we would have to go to see the first 'tool' put to use? Probably a lot further than anyone would guess.
Question for you, Mr. Sponsor:
If only "computer stuff" is destroyed, would that not have an effect on nearly all aspects of modern life? It wouldn't just be the computer on your desktop that doesn't work, or that laptop you lug through the airport. It would be your car, your TV (no TV without computers, oh god no!), your radio, probably your electicity in all forms, your transportation unless you use the old horse and buggy, your supply lines beyond foot and the aforementioned horse and buggy (do you really think a grocery store could continue to be stocked with food suplies taking months to make it there?), and nearly anything else you could think of.
So I ask, what exactly is your point? If just computer junk is destroyed, you have destroyed the foundation of modern America (and most other modern countries, hell, even some backwater countries). Government would not be much help if they can't quickly move troops, supplies, and news. There would be nothing left of modern society without computers and electronics. In short, we would be completely, and utterly fucked. And that's the polite way of saying it.
I really doubt rebuilding computers would be a priority in that situation. It would be a little more important to find food, water (the pipes wouldn't be flowing so good without their computer controlled water plants pushing it through), and keeping warm in the coler regions. I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken if you think you could just waltz home, turn on the tube, and watch the geeks crying in the streets over the loss of their computers. You would be crying over the loss of your microwave, and your inability to hunt rabbits or any other game more likely.