Considering the number of ex-NFL players that the teams employed I would say we could expect NFL level play sooner than you think. There were a lot of people that were cut from the NFL because of the damn salary bullshit over the past few years, including a couple of the quarterbacks. I think my favorite team so far is the San Fransisco Demons. That quarterback has one hell of an arm (did you see his fifty yard pass to the end-zone, how can that not be cool).
As for the bitching about camera angles, I find it funny that most normal, just watching people say it was great to see all this stuff, and most of the "paid pundits" say that it sucked and the XFL should bugger off (although I didn't really figure that Katz got any kickbacks from the NFL, but who knows, the media is all kind of tied together now).
My question would be along the lines of trying to find out if people that watch the WWF are far more interested in XFL games or the people that watch the NFL or the people that watch both. That might actually be a good idea for a poll. Of course, that's not technologically oriented enough to make a slashpoll, but it would be interesting. I'm a hardcore WWF fan (and yes I know it's not 'real' wrestling) and I absolutely loved the XFL games, especially compared to the boring billion-dollar babies in the NFL. Honestly, I thought it was much more fan-oriented than NFL games, where they go out of their way to try to make it look like the players are these mighty heroes, no matter how fucked up they are in real life. At least in the XFL if somebody is a scum-bag they don't try to pretend they aren't. At least, they don't yet, there were a number of players that came across as assholes, but I thought that added atmosphere to the game. And the fact that Butkus is involved with it hasn't hurt them any either.
I would say the XFL will at least have the admiration of many WWF fans, probably enough to survive their first few seasons. Whether they can draw in more people is questionable, but my bet would be yes. The first couple of games, I thought, were exceptionally good considering you were dealing with new teams, new officials, new camera and production crews and new equipment where nobody was familiar with everything yet. Quality wise it could and probably will improve, but I liked the overall effect of it and will keep watching.
But then again, I'm not the type to go out of my way to watch something just to bitch about how god-awful it is. If I hated something, I would stop watching it. But, I suppose that puts me in the minority here (insert your observations on Star Wars Episode I here, I actually liked the damn movie, so bite me).
The rest of your post I will agree with, but not this one. Not in the slightest.
Have you ever checked out the tax laws as they apply to married couples? This is the first year that I filed as a married person and I can honestly say that (since gay marriage is not yet allowed in my state) gays are not treated unfairly when it comes to taxes. There are a lot of ways they are treated unfairly, and I think that's terrible, but the marriage penalty tax (even though reform is 'underway' and has been for nearly ten years) is still a huge deal to the straight couples that are dumb enough to think that marriage is a good way to save money.
I'm a straight guy, but I have had a few openly gay friends (male and female). I've often been mistaken for gay because I am somewhat effeminate in some ways, and I usually see that as a good thing. I'd rather be seen as a feminine man than be one of the gay bashers. (Just to give you an idea where I'm coming from.) Anyway, unless there is some "GAY" tax that I'm not aware of, I don't quite see how being straight earns me any extra tax breaks. At least, not until we have kids (and in states where same-sex marriage is allowed it is usually possible for same-sex couples to adopt once they are married, so that same tax-break should apply). Have I missed something here?
Just play a REAL (acoustic) guitar. Electric guitars are for pansies.
Hmm, I wonder why he posted that anonymously?
I actually play both, but the possibility exists that if things actually get that far along all "real" (acoustic) instruments will be outlawed as "circumvention" devices. What would you propose doing then?
(If they ever are outlawed I'll just continue my basement sound-proofing project and play whenever the hell I feel like it anyway, but it is a valid question.)
Nice point;-).
i find it humurous that nearly every generation will go out of their ways to claim that the current generation of young people are "getting stupid!" Now we actually have old-coot scientists that are going out of their way to prove it.
Funny how the technophobic generations claims that computers are to blame for the lack of intelligence that they attribute to the youth. It isn't technology that is making kids stupid. It is parents and grandparents telling them what fucking idiots they are that is making them stupid. You get told how dumb you are often enough, and eventually you give up on trying to "get smart". Eventually you just shrug, turn on the boob-tube, eat your commercial sponsor's favorite products, drink you commercial sponsor's favorite soft-drink and hope that the next commercial says it's time to upgrade your favorite toy.
Gee, who's fault is it that kids are supposedly stupid?
Personally, I always thought that the kids of any generation actually have the potential to be far, far more intelligent than the previous generation. It's only natural as we gather more knowledge and learn new methods to problem solving. Perhaps it's simply fear of the youth that causes older people to accuse them of stupidity. I hope they remember that when they are too old to take care of themselves that they were constantly telling the youth how goddamned stupid they are. Don't expect too much pity from the abused assholes.
(And for the record I'm 27, not the age of the youth of stupidity as described. But I remember being told how stupid my generation was too. For the most part I agree, but I have always hoped I managed to avoid fitting the stereotype.)
I still think Megadeth is one of the best commercial metal bands around.
Hahahahahehehe, that's pretty funny. Commercial and metal (at least for real metal bands) shouldn't be uttered together in the same sentence. Just like Megadeth and "still best" shouldn't be. The last album of Megadeth's that I could even stomach (sort of) was countdown. But even then the writing was on the wall. That's the point they stopped being metal and concentrated on the commercial aspect of it. It's just sad the potential they threw away. Now, I could see evolving as they aged, but going from full on metal to this disco sounding garbage that they play now is just too wierd, especially as fast as it happened. Metallica, Megadeth, Overkill, Flotsam and Jetsam, Anthrax, Slayer, and more bands than I could probably think of all went down at almost the same time. Cease on the metal and concentrate on the commercial garbage. I don't know if there was some secret meeting between all of these bands where they said, "OK, time to give a big hearty 'fuck you' to all of our long-time fans" or what, but I could never fully express the anger, disappointment, and outrage I feel at the way all of these guys that said, "We'll never sell out, we'll never grow old" suddenly said, "Chill out man, you people that expected us to keep playing metal need to grow up! It's all about the fucking money! If you can't deal with that then fuck off!" (partially quoted from a Metallica interview).
Sorry for the rant, but the blind-faith fanship is really sickening. When a band starts to suck you don't just say, "they sound really different now." Be a man and say what you mean, "My god, they really suck now!" I won't back down on that one. When something changes that you always believed in, you can either believe that cashing it in is the ultimate move you have to make, or you can stick to your guns and tell it like it is. You don't have to be a fricken' carry along fan. Metallica changed my life twice. Once when I discovered them (back about Ride the Lightning time) and they showed me how killer that piece of garbage guitar I had could sound, and once when they totally sold out on everything they believe in and started to royally screw the fans, all the while screaming and whining because they fans stopped appreciating them. It's OK to have heroes, jost don't worship them as gods. Question them and thier motives.
Sorry, but the old school metal fans that try to apologize their way through the new shit from those bands just trip something inside of me. I like all kinds of music, but heartless and souless music has never done much for me. Seeing a band run from the most heartfull music they could possibly put out for the almighty dollar is enough to scar you for life. For those too young to remember, Metallica didn't always play radio pop (and neither did Megadeth.)
I live in South Dakota (and used to live in Minnesota), we could use a little more "incineration" this time of year 'round these parts. Maybe that would make it almost bearable.
I think you've got it partially wrong there. I don't think that good old-fashioned guitar/bass/drums rock and roll is going to just disappear anytime soon. People that play rock music (real rock music, not the shit on the radio) will tell you that once you have that bug in your system it will never got away. I used to try giving up rock and roll because it was costing me too much money. But, not matter how many times you set the instruments down, eventually you will find yourself gripping an air guitar and getting that old pang inside for the noise. Rock and roll truly will never die.
As for where "popular" music is heading. Right now there are a bunch of old-school styled bands with huge corporate backing. The typical guitar/bass/drum type of band, even playing sort-of heavy music, but with the release of thier first full album they have TV commercials, and radio commercials and proffessionally produced videos all over the place. And if you listen to the music you hear no heart. Godsmack is one that comes to mind. A Perfect Circle is another. Corporate sponsored "death rock". They are trying really hard to give the impression that these boys are really rode hard, they had/have terrible lives and they suffer so for their music. But in reality they are just the next wave of boy-bands. In fact, those guys probably share a buss with N-Sync and the Backstreet Boys. They are all run by the same puppet masters. And god knows they couldn't play a lick of real music if their lives depended on it.
But don't let it depress you. "Real" rock and roll has never been "popular" and it never will be. Besides, it belongs underground. It wouldn't be right if it turned into a huge moneymaker. Of course, some could argue once that happens, real rock and roll turns corporate shlock-rock. (See Metallica, Megadeth, and Slayer as previous examples of this principle in action. One time anti-establishment bands that eventually grew so popular they became the establishment, and their music lost all it's meaning. Sad really, you listen to the old and you can tell they suffered for their music. You listen to the new and you can tell that the music is suffering for them. But, to each his own, I'll find another underground band.)
You have a very valid (and scary) point. What you don't mention is that the people that are in charge of making the decisions that will be detrimental to the smaller independant artists are the very same people that want to make sure that independant artists are kept in their place and not allowed to distribute thier work in any way that could be competitive with the big name companies "product". So, while you do have a valid point, the people that care about that point are screaming in vain as the people that have the power to stop it from happening are laughing merrily saying, "Ha, ha, we finally have complete control of the music distribution channels. Play our game, or be crushed under our heal."
Granted, they are going to have a tough time wiping out all of the older tech that is still used in home and basement and garage studios, but it will only be a matter of time before the concept of analog will be completely and utterly outlawed and anyone that keeps analog equipment for the purpose of recording their own playing will be laballed a pirate just as today anyone that wishes to watch a DVD on a non-Windows or Mac system is labelled a pirate. Amazing how we quickly upgrade the number of people that are outlaws isn't it? Sooner or later, everyone will be an outlaw and we can all just be locked up for not obeying the laws of the rich. Ah, such a bright future.
I've been wondering about this one. As a musician (and not a very "prominent" one, even in the local area) I wonder what will happen to electric and electronic instruments in the coming years.
For instance, my primary instrument of choice is the electric guitar. Will there come a day when my amplifier will be equipped with some super-duper, computer-intelligence analyzing software that will recognize every time I play a song that I didn't write myself and request that I insert a quarter to continue playing? Sound ridiculous? (Well, in a way it is. I won't be buying that particular type of amplifier thank you. I'm very happy with the one I have now.) I would be willing to bet my limitted life savings that the big wigs in the record companies would drool all over themselves if they found some way to make this work. Now they could charge people for listening, on each device they listen, with each time it is replayed, plus, they could prevent those scum-sucking 'musicians' (although how they can call themselves that without big-industry backing is beyond me) from 'pirating' music by playing it themselves.
As whacked out as that sounds, does anybody else that enjoys playing an electric or electronic instrument worry about things like this. Or have I taken one too many paranoia pills today?
I was given a psychological profile (which the entire school was given as an "anonymous" profile test, which they still traced back to me) test when I was very young (third or fourth grade). When the test results came back I was called to the principle's office and told that I was a homicidal, suicidal, pyromanic, sexually deviant freak and that I needed to seek "professional" help for my problems immediately. I had filled out my test honestly and fully. At that age it is an extreme psychological blow to be told that you are already pegged as an evil bastard.
The truly frightening thing to me about it is thinking what my children will have to go through if they are profiled that way. With all the bullshit scare tactics in place in schools now my children will probably be taken away from my wife and I without a second thought because of their terrible, terrible psychological problems. (I never have had the urge to kill, rape, torture, set fires or any of the other things that they accused me of pre-emptively, but I was depressed for many months after the pronouncement. At what point will society decide that you are a criminal just because your "psychological profile" fits that of a criminal? With the total phobia of all things that seems to inhabit this society, I would say we won't have to wait long to see that. Not long at all.)
No, the idiots are the one's that he's aiming for.
This guy is talking about computers in a similar way to what the following statements talk about their subjects.
Imagine if you get in your car, push a button, and it drives to your destination without you even having to tell it where you want to go.
Imagine walking into your kitchen, turning on the light, and the kitchen automatically makes whatever meal you are in the mood for, without you even having to chose what you were wanting.
Imagine walking into your shop, pushing a button and your shop creates whatever you were just thinking about without you having to even lift a finger to accomplish it.
Imagine wanting to read a book, pushing a button, and someone else reads the book and gives you a two minute synopsis of it so you can avoid the work involved in reading it yourself.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the point of making computers into push button "you will do what the computer wants" type of machines where humans become slaves to the machine. Drool, push button, drool, is it done yet? Especially funny is the idea that this guy says he would be doing this to "bring the person closer to the app" as if this is some benificial thing.
Imagine waking up, pushing a button and your entire day is lived out for you as you stuff your face and fall back to sleep to avoid doing anything at all!
Sorry, but this whole idea of simplifying things to the point of absurdity is just plain stupid. Sure, single use devices could be OK for some things, but it will not remove the need for more complicated devices that others (like me) would need for more complicated tasks. Programming and listening to MP3s each may be "simple" (well, maybe not the programming), but together would present too much difficulty for a single use device. This just seems stupid to move computers back to the single-thing-at-a-time type of scenarios. It frustrated me to no end when I had to run one program at a time. I would hate to see computers go that route again.
Single use devices are just that. They won't replace the PC. Perhaps for single-use people they will be great. But for normal computer using people, they will not replace a standard PC with an operating system. It just won't happen.
The OS may change, but the day it does my work for me, to the point where all I need to do is sit down and push one button, is the day I remove all computers from my house. It just wouldn't be worthwhile to me.
Remember the first generation of slightly graphical OS-less apps? For me that would be a throw back to my old Apple IIgs. Sure, it was cool to have the graphical apps. But my music app was drastically different from my paint app, which was also completely different from my word-processing app. Each application did things so completely different because there was no concept of a base-line similarity. There was no reason for a base-line similarity, because each app in effect was it's own OS. That's the part that truly baffles me when someone starts babbling about getting the user "closer to the app" and eliminating the "need" for an OS. An OS becomes important when you start to talk multi-tasking, or similarity between apps. If a user wants to use one thing at a time, then go back to the one app per disk type of thing (can you imagine an application fitting on a single floppy now? No, me neither.). I have a feeling that would create quite the rucous. No one wants to step back that far.
No, I don't think that OSes are obsolete. OSes are a necissity in todays "I want to do four-million things all at the same time" computing world. I can't imagine trying to train people to use apps that all looked and acted completely different again. The people using computers today have a hard enough time with the apps that are all identical looking (What do you mean the little floppy icon does the same thing here as it did there? This isn't the same program?!?)
It's amazing how stupid someone "in the know" can become when they truly remove themsevles from the common user long enough. Stick him on a help desk for awhile, that should wake him back up.;-).
This is one step closer to the concept in sci-fi type stories where the vehicle is just an extension of your body. The plane/ship/space-vehicle/car just reacts to commands straight from your brain and eventually you get so used to the commands that it's just like using your own body. I know all the fears that a situation like that poses, but think of how cool it would be. Drag races with reaction times lower than ever thought possible simply because you don't have to wait for the signal to go from eye to brain to nerve, to muscle, to vehicle device, to vehicle drive. Instead it would go from eye to brain to vehicle and go!
Yeah, I know there would be better and more important ways to use it (think of dog-fights in the air or space with vehicles that are mind controlled), but drag-racing is in my family.;-).
I don't know about you, but the very thought that it could happen at all is scary enough to give it a very thorough examination before it becomes reality. The idea that it could happen before my death, maybe by the time I am a gandparent, is enough to make me want to do some serious damage to somebody.
The people that think it isn't that serious of a deal when something is "fifty years away" and just shrug without really thinking abou it just don't seem to have a firm grip on reality. Unless you are in the extreme minority on Slashdot and happen to be over fifty yourself, you should care.
Maybe it will seem I'm too serious to you. But how can you not take something like this seriously. It's a scary idea. Perhaps it could be used in good ways (if such ways exist), but the question that should be asked is will it get used in good ways? Or will some moron use it to create their "perfect" army of genetic clones (made from Ah-nold DNA) to take over the world.
Speaking of which, how many people are scared to death that there could be hundreds of Ah-nolds making bad movies at a rate previously un-heard of? *SHUDDER* Sorry, I just disgusted myself.
Don't get me wrong, I like blood and guts movies every once in a while. But I would hate to think that they could be made that quickly. Yuck!
I mean, I would think that they could just ask people what they dream about and come to the same conclusions. I know that most of what I dream of is based on memories intertwined with other memories (sometimes in strange ways) and that there are definite paterns.
Like, when I'm upset about something I tend to dream about this really god-awful job that I had. It's a recurring dream, all the time when I'm bothered by something.
When I'm really happy I tend to dream about some of my childhood friends in various situations. You know, running into them somewhere where I spend a lot of time now, or even re-living a fond memory of that time.
I would think that, even if they can "prove" that animals dream (and who hasn't seen their cat or dog "chase" something through a field in their sleep?) they could get much more information from human subjects on the principles behind dreaming. Let's be realistic, the mouse isn't going to wake up and tell you what it was dreaming, or even whether it was a pleasant dream or a nightmare in it's mind. Animals and humans are made of the same stuff, from the tiniest to the biggest. It's only natural that we would all undergo the same processes, even dreaming. Why not dig deeper than "yep, the mouse dreams"?
Maybe I'm missing something here. But it seems kind of odd to try to figure out what animals dream about when you could get more information from human subjects. Just kind of wierd.
One theory which doesn't get much recognition beyond the realm of what a crackpot he is type speculation is that Mars, the Earth, and Venus at one time were very, very similar in atmosphere and that there was very simple life of an extremely similar nature spread between these three planets.
One branch of this theory indicates that the probability was very large that the original seeds for this life would come from "somewhere" else, ride into the solar system on commets or metorites and fall to the three planets at around the same time. Of course, the questions that this raises are why did life continue to develop on Earth when something disastorous happened on the other planets to prevent it. The possibilities there are endless.
My favorite theory is that the other two planets were actually much more suited to whatever form of life originally seeded them, the Earth being just a little different in sunlight penetration and a few chemical balancing acts. The other two planets therefore flourished quickly, the simple lifeforms used up the resources that were available quickly, and this caused, slowly at first, a change in climate. But once that change was set in motion it never ceased until we end up with the two completely unlivable (by our standards) planets and the completely habitable (again by our standards) Earth.
If any of this is true (and it's mostly speculation with very little scientific research dedicated to it, as it isn't a popular thought), the additional question would be if any of those simple life forms were able to adapt or retreat below the surface of either Mars or Venus. It's a fascinating idea.
Of course, to make a good sci-fi story we would have to say that all three planets developed simultaneously, there was a huge civilization on all three planets, with lots of trade between them. And one day one of the planets (those damn greedy Earthlings) got pissed off because the other planets were prettier and nicer to live on. So they developed this ultimate weapon that would quickly alter or destroy a planet's atmosphere.
If you can't read it, or don't want to read it, I don't understand why you'd want to write it. I know some people think of programming as something to do to put food on the table, and their intended audience for the code is the machine itself and the QA department. If you are writing for any reason less than that, I don't see why you bother at all.
I was with you until you said that. Are you saying that writing code just because you enjoy it is a lesser reason than to put food on the table (or make money for your business)?
I'm not much of a coder myself. I do a little here and there, but nothing I would call beautiful. But I still enjoy reading elegant or "pretty" code when I get the chance. My favorite passtimes however would be music (playing, writing and listening) and stories (also reading and writing). So, taking your statement to the next level are you going to say that anyone that plays music, but doesn't do it because they are trying to make a commercial go at it are doing it for a lesser reason than the people like N-Sync and the Backstreet Boys? Or are you saying that the guy that writes stories just because he loves to write is doing so for a lesser reason than the guy that is hoping to get rich off of writing the ultimate book?
Somehow that seems backwards (if that is what you are saying). It seems the lesser reasons to me would be doing it for money/fame/fortune. Doing something just because you love and enjoy doing it seems a much higher reason. I'm not sure if you were implying what it looked like, but if you were, I disagree whole-heartedly.
Faith Based Services will be an office of the US government, hence, funding will come directly out of your pocket for it. Isn't it great to be an American! Finally, I can monetarily support a bunch of churches that I don't want to!
The scariest thing about Bush being elected is his proposal that he create a "Office of Faith Based Services". In my mind that kind of equates to an officially sanctioned religious entity.
The question this brings to mind is, when you tie the religious nature of Bush (either of them) and you realize that the Bushes see religion only a Christianity (everything else is a cult, how was that "A real American believes in God" or some such non-sense) with the idea that technology is an evil, terrible curse that we must protect our children from and fight at all costs, what exactly will the outcome be?
I see the possibility that this "Faith Based Services" office (or the United States Christianity Office) will be aligned with Bush's anti-technology propoganda and technologies that people enjoy will slowly be outlawed and gone after by the USCO (previously mentioned) police forces (let's face it, any office of power eventually gets some sort of police/security team). Now, when it hurts a company that is Bush friendly, they will probably be pulled back, but when it pisses off the common people (that are evil scum for even thinking of technology) I really doubt that Bush would lift his finger to stop the um, persecution (whoah! I mean arrests of these criminal elements) of these people (namely people like us slashdotters).
I don't know, I thought from the start that Bush Jr is just stupid enough to fuck the country into a bloody oblivion, and the more I hear of his "cabinet" choices, the more scary it seems. If this faith based services garbage goes through I just sort of see it quickly evolving into a KGB'esque police force with the ultimate authority to destroy the evil technology (like take people's laptops/computers and destroy their ability to use the Internet, or as they will put it, the Evil Diseased Hive of Villiany).
Bush is a wacko. And it seems we are about to find out just how much power the office of president really does grant. Bush will do everything he can to exploit that power for the "greater good" (or for better ways to make more people criminals).
Just out of curiosity, if we keep finding new things to make illegal (as I'm sure certain forms of Internet entertainment soon will be) and we make nearly everyone a criminal in the eyes of our precious government, isn't there a point where they can't possibly have the manpower to take out all of us evil scumbags that are trying to "disrupt" things by using technology (oh the horror!)? Just a thought.
I know the above seems like an extermist/alarmist position, but something tells me that Bush is one completely wacked dofus. He's got some major problems (mental), and it's only a matter of time before he goes completely off the deep end and takes the country with him. I'm no fan of Gore, but I would have rather seen him in power than George "dumb as I wanna be" W. Bush. But, we've made our bed, now all we can do is sit back and see what creeps out from under the blankets.
everyone isn't going to be buying a computer every day, week, or month.
And for those that do I'm sure the subscription rate would be a lot lower than buying each new processor seperately!
For a limited time, get 24 months of new processors delivered to your door for the low rate of just $15,000 dollars! That's right, our bi-weekly issues can be had at the low low rate of just....
*POOF* Sorry, sometimes the sugar and caffiene get to me.
Bad, bad, bad advice. Even if you discuss it with someone you are positive will not go tattle to further up management, you will find yourself fired so fast for "disloyalty" that it won't be funny.
Even the kindest management seems willing to turn their back on their underlings if they think it will earn them brownie points in their bosses eyes. Funny how they can fire you for disloyalty, but still think that it isn't important that the company be loyal to it's employees, but it does happen. I've had a few friends that happened to. Not good.
I'd much rather have as a reason for leaving, "went for a better opportunity" than have "fired for disloyalty". Which sounds better to you?
In this day of non-loyalty within companies, do you even need to ask this question?
Not to be rude, but your management (by your own admission completely incompetent) would not hesitate to let you go, no matter how hard working, loyal, or helpful you had been, if they thought cutting you would save a buck. That's corporate America for you, and that's the way it is everywhere now.
So, bail. If you have better offers on the table, run, run fast, just get the hell out of there.
It sounds like your current company is going to fold at some point anyway, and if you don't get out now you are going to go down with the ship. Then where will you be? You will be able to put on your resume "closed down company X" and that's about it. Plus you may not have offers at that time. So get out while you can. The job market is all about timing. Good or bad, take your best chance.
And if you are worried about pissing off your co-workers, if they are your friends they will understand. If they are not your friends, then don't worry about them. They can take care of themselves, and if something bad happens to them, it isn't your responsibility. I know that sounds harsh, but I stayed in other jobs way longer than I should have because of feelings of "abandoning" my co-workers and pushed myself to the brink of insanity over it. But in the end, when I finally did leave every one of them said, "I don't know how you toughed it out as long as you did." and wished me luck in the future. Even the ones I didn't like!
If you have a bright prospect, jump at it. You won't be sorry. But staying where you are sounds like it would, or at least could, make you very, very sorry in the end.
The poster says that they are pretty safe predictions but I would really have to question the prediction that humans will colonize other planets, or even have permanent residences (I'll address the space station in a sec) of any kind outside of Earth's atmosphere anytime within the next 100 years, maybe much longer. Sure, the space station is a nice first step, but let's face it, there aren't any people up there that are permanently stationed there. And we need some sort of permanent settlement in space to get the real first step out of the way.
The real first step in my opinion is some group of people that are willing to say goodbye to Earth and just not come back (maybe for visits, but probably not for a few generations yet). I'm talking living, breathing, working, having children and dying somewhere other than Earth. And people go nuts on the "we're not designed for it" mantra when this is mentioned, but so what! The first single celled organisms in the ocean weren't designed to create concertos either. We will adapt, our bodies will change to whatever environment we put them in (lighter gravity may cause taller, stringier looking people, heavier gravity may cause shorter much more well muscled people, and other changes can be predicted as well). It will take time, and without genetic engineering the first few people may be uncomfortable or even have new diseases to contend with. But that's what exploration is like.
Now, the reason I say I don't see this happening in the next 100 years is that there is just no huge pressing feeling that we need to in the vast majority of the desicion makers. Which is too bad, because there are a number of people in the general population that do care about this sort of thing and think that we have sat in a period of scientific stagnation when it comes to space for nearly thirty years. And in a way we have. We study from the ground and spacecraft that aren't much more evolved than the craft that journeyed to the moon and back, a little tin can with a package of humanity inside. The space shuttle was a step, but a step that became far too overbearing. It should have been just a step, not an overwhelming "complete" project. What happened to the exciting developments once talked about for space exploration? The developments of space craft that could take off and land just exactly like airplanes, with specially designed engines for both in atmosphere flight and out of atmosphere flight. There were so many hopes what feels like just a few years ago for things of this nature. And it seems (at least from the common person's perspective) that all those hopes have been thrown away because it is much more important to make sure that we shovel more power into the hands of the already rich and keep the poor people (that are actually footing most of the bill anyway) from getting out of hand (sorry, I'll stop that rant now).
So, there are two possible ways that colonizing another planet, or the moon, or a truly permanent space station/settlement could become a reality.
ONE: Enough other nations start to catch up to the US and the USSR to put their feet to the fire and make them think "Whoah, we gotta get going or we are going to be beat!". The reason this might work is the fear of the governments of these two behemoths that some other country would gain exclusive rights to the resources of near space if they didn't get out there and start claiming things in the name of their respective nations.
TWO: Find some way to make the prospect of space colonization monetarily rewarding to businesses so that large corporations take an interest in the space race. Now, realistically, I don't know what could happen here (maybe super-perfect low-g manufacturing?), but big business is really in charge of our government now. If we make space interesting to these big businesses (in other words, make it profitable) then there will be a huge, gigantic effort poured into further space exploration and eventually colonization (perhaps a slave labor camp based on the moon for the previously mentioned low-g manufacturing. I know it's not morally good, nor is it something I would like, but at least it would be something off of this god-forsaken rock).
Anyway, other than that, nice article. Steven Hawking is definitely one of the (if not THE) greatest minds of our time. It will be a sad day when I hear his name mentioned in an obituary, and I hope much more of his knowledge is put to use and explored further before that day comes.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the number of ex-NFL players that the teams employed I would say we could expect NFL level play sooner than you think. There were a lot of people that were cut from the NFL because of the damn salary bullshit over the past few years, including a couple of the quarterbacks. I think my favorite team so far is the San Fransisco Demons. That quarterback has one hell of an arm (did you see his fifty yard pass to the end-zone, how can that not be cool).
As for the bitching about camera angles, I find it funny that most normal, just watching people say it was great to see all this stuff, and most of the "paid pundits" say that it sucked and the XFL should bugger off (although I didn't really figure that Katz got any kickbacks from the NFL, but who knows, the media is all kind of tied together now).
My question would be along the lines of trying to find out if people that watch the WWF are far more interested in XFL games or the people that watch the NFL or the people that watch both. That might actually be a good idea for a poll. Of course, that's not technologically oriented enough to make a slashpoll, but it would be interesting. I'm a hardcore WWF fan (and yes I know it's not 'real' wrestling) and I absolutely loved the XFL games, especially compared to the boring billion-dollar babies in the NFL. Honestly, I thought it was much more fan-oriented than NFL games, where they go out of their way to try to make it look like the players are these mighty heroes, no matter how fucked up they are in real life. At least in the XFL if somebody is a scum-bag they don't try to pretend they aren't. At least, they don't yet, there were a number of players that came across as assholes, but I thought that added atmosphere to the game. And the fact that Butkus is involved with it hasn't hurt them any either.
I would say the XFL will at least have the admiration of many WWF fans, probably enough to survive their first few seasons. Whether they can draw in more people is questionable, but my bet would be yes. The first couple of games, I thought, were exceptionally good considering you were dealing with new teams, new officials, new camera and production crews and new equipment where nobody was familiar with everything yet. Quality wise it could and probably will improve, but I liked the overall effect of it and will keep watching.
But then again, I'm not the type to go out of my way to watch something just to bitch about how god-awful it is. If I hated something, I would stop watching it. But, I suppose that puts me in the minority here (insert your observations on Star Wars Episode I here, I actually liked the damn movie, so bite me).
The rest of your post I will agree with, but not this one. Not in the slightest.
Have you ever checked out the tax laws as they apply to married couples? This is the first year that I filed as a married person and I can honestly say that (since gay marriage is not yet allowed in my state) gays are not treated unfairly when it comes to taxes. There are a lot of ways they are treated unfairly, and I think that's terrible, but the marriage penalty tax (even though reform is 'underway' and has been for nearly ten years) is still a huge deal to the straight couples that are dumb enough to think that marriage is a good way to save money.
I'm a straight guy, but I have had a few openly gay friends (male and female). I've often been mistaken for gay because I am somewhat effeminate in some ways, and I usually see that as a good thing. I'd rather be seen as a feminine man than be one of the gay bashers. (Just to give you an idea where I'm coming from.) Anyway, unless there is some "GAY" tax that I'm not aware of, I don't quite see how being straight earns me any extra tax breaks. At least, not until we have kids (and in states where same-sex marriage is allowed it is usually possible for same-sex couples to adopt once they are married, so that same tax-break should apply). Have I missed something here?
I actually play both, but the possibility exists that if things actually get that far along all "real" (acoustic) instruments will be outlawed as "circumvention" devices. What would you propose doing then?
(If they ever are outlawed I'll just continue my basement sound-proofing project and play whenever the hell I feel like it anyway, but it is a valid question.)
Nice point;-). i find it humurous that nearly every generation will go out of their ways to claim that the current generation of young people are "getting stupid!" Now we actually have old-coot scientists that are going out of their way to prove it.
Funny how the technophobic generations claims that computers are to blame for the lack of intelligence that they attribute to the youth. It isn't technology that is making kids stupid. It is parents and grandparents telling them what fucking idiots they are that is making them stupid. You get told how dumb you are often enough, and eventually you give up on trying to "get smart". Eventually you just shrug, turn on the boob-tube, eat your commercial sponsor's favorite products, drink you commercial sponsor's favorite soft-drink and hope that the next commercial says it's time to upgrade your favorite toy.
Gee, who's fault is it that kids are supposedly stupid?
Personally, I always thought that the kids of any generation actually have the potential to be far, far more intelligent than the previous generation. It's only natural as we gather more knowledge and learn new methods to problem solving. Perhaps it's simply fear of the youth that causes older people to accuse them of stupidity. I hope they remember that when they are too old to take care of themselves that they were constantly telling the youth how goddamned stupid they are. Don't expect too much pity from the abused assholes.
(And for the record I'm 27, not the age of the youth of stupidity as described. But I remember being told how stupid my generation was too. For the most part I agree, but I have always hoped I managed to avoid fitting the stereotype.)
Hahahahahehehe, that's pretty funny. Commercial and metal (at least for real metal bands) shouldn't be uttered together in the same sentence. Just like Megadeth and "still best" shouldn't be. The last album of Megadeth's that I could even stomach (sort of) was countdown. But even then the writing was on the wall. That's the point they stopped being metal and concentrated on the commercial aspect of it. It's just sad the potential they threw away. Now, I could see evolving as they aged, but going from full on metal to this disco sounding garbage that they play now is just too wierd, especially as fast as it happened. Metallica, Megadeth, Overkill, Flotsam and Jetsam, Anthrax, Slayer, and more bands than I could probably think of all went down at almost the same time. Cease on the metal and concentrate on the commercial garbage. I don't know if there was some secret meeting between all of these bands where they said, "OK, time to give a big hearty 'fuck you' to all of our long-time fans" or what, but I could never fully express the anger, disappointment, and outrage I feel at the way all of these guys that said, "We'll never sell out, we'll never grow old" suddenly said, "Chill out man, you people that expected us to keep playing metal need to grow up! It's all about the fucking money! If you can't deal with that then fuck off!" (partially quoted from a Metallica interview).
Sorry for the rant, but the blind-faith fanship is really sickening. When a band starts to suck you don't just say, "they sound really different now." Be a man and say what you mean, "My god, they really suck now!" I won't back down on that one. When something changes that you always believed in, you can either believe that cashing it in is the ultimate move you have to make, or you can stick to your guns and tell it like it is. You don't have to be a fricken' carry along fan. Metallica changed my life twice. Once when I discovered them (back about Ride the Lightning time) and they showed me how killer that piece of garbage guitar I had could sound, and once when they totally sold out on everything they believe in and started to royally screw the fans, all the while screaming and whining because they fans stopped appreciating them. It's OK to have heroes, jost don't worship them as gods. Question them and thier motives.
Sorry, but the old school metal fans that try to apologize their way through the new shit from those bands just trip something inside of me. I like all kinds of music, but heartless and souless music has never done much for me. Seeing a band run from the most heartfull music they could possibly put out for the almighty dollar is enough to scar you for life. For those too young to remember, Metallica didn't always play radio pop (and neither did Megadeth.)
Moderators, do your worst.
I live in South Dakota (and used to live in Minnesota), we could use a little more "incineration" this time of year 'round these parts. Maybe that would make it almost bearable.
I think you've got it partially wrong there. I don't think that good old-fashioned guitar/bass/drums rock and roll is going to just disappear anytime soon. People that play rock music (real rock music, not the shit on the radio) will tell you that once you have that bug in your system it will never got away. I used to try giving up rock and roll because it was costing me too much money. But, not matter how many times you set the instruments down, eventually you will find yourself gripping an air guitar and getting that old pang inside for the noise. Rock and roll truly will never die.
As for where "popular" music is heading. Right now there are a bunch of old-school styled bands with huge corporate backing. The typical guitar/bass/drum type of band, even playing sort-of heavy music, but with the release of thier first full album they have TV commercials, and radio commercials and proffessionally produced videos all over the place. And if you listen to the music you hear no heart. Godsmack is one that comes to mind. A Perfect Circle is another. Corporate sponsored "death rock". They are trying really hard to give the impression that these boys are really rode hard, they had/have terrible lives and they suffer so for their music. But in reality they are just the next wave of boy-bands. In fact, those guys probably share a buss with N-Sync and the Backstreet Boys. They are all run by the same puppet masters. And god knows they couldn't play a lick of real music if their lives depended on it.
But don't let it depress you. "Real" rock and roll has never been "popular" and it never will be. Besides, it belongs underground. It wouldn't be right if it turned into a huge moneymaker. Of course, some could argue once that happens, real rock and roll turns corporate shlock-rock. (See Metallica, Megadeth, and Slayer as previous examples of this principle in action. One time anti-establishment bands that eventually grew so popular they became the establishment, and their music lost all it's meaning. Sad really, you listen to the old and you can tell they suffered for their music. You listen to the new and you can tell that the music is suffering for them. But, to each his own, I'll find another underground band.)
You have a very valid (and scary) point. What you don't mention is that the people that are in charge of making the decisions that will be detrimental to the smaller independant artists are the very same people that want to make sure that independant artists are kept in their place and not allowed to distribute thier work in any way that could be competitive with the big name companies "product". So, while you do have a valid point, the people that care about that point are screaming in vain as the people that have the power to stop it from happening are laughing merrily saying, "Ha, ha, we finally have complete control of the music distribution channels. Play our game, or be crushed under our heal."
Granted, they are going to have a tough time wiping out all of the older tech that is still used in home and basement and garage studios, but it will only be a matter of time before the concept of analog will be completely and utterly outlawed and anyone that keeps analog equipment for the purpose of recording their own playing will be laballed a pirate just as today anyone that wishes to watch a DVD on a non-Windows or Mac system is labelled a pirate. Amazing how we quickly upgrade the number of people that are outlaws isn't it? Sooner or later, everyone will be an outlaw and we can all just be locked up for not obeying the laws of the rich. Ah, such a bright future.
I've been wondering about this one. As a musician (and not a very "prominent" one, even in the local area) I wonder what will happen to electric and electronic instruments in the coming years.
For instance, my primary instrument of choice is the electric guitar. Will there come a day when my amplifier will be equipped with some super-duper, computer-intelligence analyzing software that will recognize every time I play a song that I didn't write myself and request that I insert a quarter to continue playing? Sound ridiculous? (Well, in a way it is. I won't be buying that particular type of amplifier thank you. I'm very happy with the one I have now.) I would be willing to bet my limitted life savings that the big wigs in the record companies would drool all over themselves if they found some way to make this work. Now they could charge people for listening, on each device they listen, with each time it is replayed, plus, they could prevent those scum-sucking 'musicians' (although how they can call themselves that without big-industry backing is beyond me) from 'pirating' music by playing it themselves.
As whacked out as that sounds, does anybody else that enjoys playing an electric or electronic instrument worry about things like this. Or have I taken one too many paranoia pills today?
Don't sweat it?
I was given a psychological profile (which the entire school was given as an "anonymous" profile test, which they still traced back to me) test when I was very young (third or fourth grade). When the test results came back I was called to the principle's office and told that I was a homicidal, suicidal, pyromanic, sexually deviant freak and that I needed to seek "professional" help for my problems immediately. I had filled out my test honestly and fully. At that age it is an extreme psychological blow to be told that you are already pegged as an evil bastard.
The truly frightening thing to me about it is thinking what my children will have to go through if they are profiled that way. With all the bullshit scare tactics in place in schools now my children will probably be taken away from my wife and I without a second thought because of their terrible, terrible psychological problems. (I never have had the urge to kill, rape, torture, set fires or any of the other things that they accused me of pre-emptively, but I was depressed for many months after the pronouncement. At what point will society decide that you are a criminal just because your "psychological profile" fits that of a criminal? With the total phobia of all things that seems to inhabit this society, I would say we won't have to wait long to see that. Not long at all.)
We are a science experiment. The entire universe is simply one gigantic quantum computer that runs the same simulation over and over again.
The point where they stop the simulation is when some form of "life" exists that figures out wha
*UNIVERSE HALTED. *REBOOTING SYSTEM.
No, the idiots are the one's that he's aiming for.
This guy is talking about computers in a similar way to what the following statements talk about their subjects.
Imagine if you get in your car, push a button, and it drives to your destination without you even having to tell it where you want to go.
Imagine walking into your kitchen, turning on the light, and the kitchen automatically makes whatever meal you are in the mood for, without you even having to chose what you were wanting.
Imagine walking into your shop, pushing a button and your shop creates whatever you were just thinking about without you having to even lift a finger to accomplish it.
Imagine wanting to read a book, pushing a button, and someone else reads the book and gives you a two minute synopsis of it so you can avoid the work involved in reading it yourself.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the point of making computers into push button "you will do what the computer wants" type of machines where humans become slaves to the machine. Drool, push button, drool, is it done yet? Especially funny is the idea that this guy says he would be doing this to "bring the person closer to the app" as if this is some benificial thing.
Imagine waking up, pushing a button and your entire day is lived out for you as you stuff your face and fall back to sleep to avoid doing anything at all!
Sorry, but this whole idea of simplifying things to the point of absurdity is just plain stupid. Sure, single use devices could be OK for some things, but it will not remove the need for more complicated devices that others (like me) would need for more complicated tasks. Programming and listening to MP3s each may be "simple" (well, maybe not the programming), but together would present too much difficulty for a single use device. This just seems stupid to move computers back to the single-thing-at-a-time type of scenarios. It frustrated me to no end when I had to run one program at a time. I would hate to see computers go that route again.
Single use devices are just that. They won't replace the PC. Perhaps for single-use people they will be great. But for normal computer using people, they will not replace a standard PC with an operating system. It just won't happen.
The OS may change, but the day it does my work for me, to the point where all I need to do is sit down and push one button, is the day I remove all computers from my house. It just wouldn't be worthwhile to me.
Remember the first generation of slightly graphical OS-less apps? For me that would be a throw back to my old Apple IIgs. Sure, it was cool to have the graphical apps. But my music app was drastically different from my paint app, which was also completely different from my word-processing app. Each application did things so completely different because there was no concept of a base-line similarity. There was no reason for a base-line similarity, because each app in effect was it's own OS. That's the part that truly baffles me when someone starts babbling about getting the user "closer to the app" and eliminating the "need" for an OS. An OS becomes important when you start to talk multi-tasking, or similarity between apps. If a user wants to use one thing at a time, then go back to the one app per disk type of thing (can you imagine an application fitting on a single floppy now? No, me neither.). I have a feeling that would create quite the rucous. No one wants to step back that far.
No, I don't think that OSes are obsolete. OSes are a necissity in todays "I want to do four-million things all at the same time" computing world. I can't imagine trying to train people to use apps that all looked and acted completely different again. The people using computers today have a hard enough time with the apps that are all identical looking (What do you mean the little floppy icon does the same thing here as it did there? This isn't the same program?!?)
It's amazing how stupid someone "in the know" can become when they truly remove themsevles from the common user long enough. Stick him on a help desk for awhile, that should wake him back up.;-).
This is incredible.
This is one step closer to the concept in sci-fi type stories where the vehicle is just an extension of your body. The plane/ship/space-vehicle/car just reacts to commands straight from your brain and eventually you get so used to the commands that it's just like using your own body. I know all the fears that a situation like that poses, but think of how cool it would be. Drag races with reaction times lower than ever thought possible simply because you don't have to wait for the signal to go from eye to brain to nerve, to muscle, to vehicle device, to vehicle drive. Instead it would go from eye to brain to vehicle and go!
Yeah, I know there would be better and more important ways to use it (think of dog-fights in the air or space with vehicles that are mind controlled), but drag-racing is in my family.;-).
In other words within (most of) our lifetimes?
I don't know about you, but the very thought that it could happen at all is scary enough to give it a very thorough examination before it becomes reality. The idea that it could happen before my death, maybe by the time I am a gandparent, is enough to make me want to do some serious damage to somebody.
The people that think it isn't that serious of a deal when something is "fifty years away" and just shrug without really thinking abou it just don't seem to have a firm grip on reality. Unless you are in the extreme minority on Slashdot and happen to be over fifty yourself, you should care.
Maybe it will seem I'm too serious to you. But how can you not take something like this seriously. It's a scary idea. Perhaps it could be used in good ways (if such ways exist), but the question that should be asked is will it get used in good ways? Or will some moron use it to create their "perfect" army of genetic clones (made from Ah-nold DNA) to take over the world.
Speaking of which, how many people are scared to death that there could be hundreds of Ah-nolds making bad movies at a rate previously un-heard of? *SHUDDER* Sorry, I just disgusted myself.
Don't get me wrong, I like blood and guts movies every once in a while. But I would hate to think that they could be made that quickly. Yuck!
Oh, OK;-).
Sorry about the rant then.
Is this really that brilliant of a find?
I mean, I would think that they could just ask people what they dream about and come to the same conclusions. I know that most of what I dream of is based on memories intertwined with other memories (sometimes in strange ways) and that there are definite paterns.
Like, when I'm upset about something I tend to dream about this really god-awful job that I had. It's a recurring dream, all the time when I'm bothered by something.
When I'm really happy I tend to dream about some of my childhood friends in various situations. You know, running into them somewhere where I spend a lot of time now, or even re-living a fond memory of that time.
I would think that, even if they can "prove" that animals dream (and who hasn't seen their cat or dog "chase" something through a field in their sleep?) they could get much more information from human subjects on the principles behind dreaming. Let's be realistic, the mouse isn't going to wake up and tell you what it was dreaming, or even whether it was a pleasant dream or a nightmare in it's mind. Animals and humans are made of the same stuff, from the tiniest to the biggest. It's only natural that we would all undergo the same processes, even dreaming. Why not dig deeper than "yep, the mouse dreams"?
Maybe I'm missing something here. But it seems kind of odd to try to figure out what animals dream about when you could get more information from human subjects. Just kind of wierd.
One theory which doesn't get much recognition beyond the realm of what a crackpot he is type speculation is that Mars, the Earth, and Venus at one time were very, very similar in atmosphere and that there was very simple life of an extremely similar nature spread between these three planets.
One branch of this theory indicates that the probability was very large that the original seeds for this life would come from "somewhere" else, ride into the solar system on commets or metorites and fall to the three planets at around the same time. Of course, the questions that this raises are why did life continue to develop on Earth when something disastorous happened on the other planets to prevent it. The possibilities there are endless.
My favorite theory is that the other two planets were actually much more suited to whatever form of life originally seeded them, the Earth being just a little different in sunlight penetration and a few chemical balancing acts. The other two planets therefore flourished quickly, the simple lifeforms used up the resources that were available quickly, and this caused, slowly at first, a change in climate. But once that change was set in motion it never ceased until we end up with the two completely unlivable (by our standards) planets and the completely habitable (again by our standards) Earth.
If any of this is true (and it's mostly speculation with very little scientific research dedicated to it, as it isn't a popular thought), the additional question would be if any of those simple life forms were able to adapt or retreat below the surface of either Mars or Venus. It's a fascinating idea.
Of course, to make a good sci-fi story we would have to say that all three planets developed simultaneously, there was a huge civilization on all three planets, with lots of trade between them. And one day one of the planets (those damn greedy Earthlings) got pissed off because the other planets were prettier and nicer to live on. So they developed this ultimate weapon that would quickly alter or destroy a planet's atmosphere.
*POOF* But, getting back to reality....;-)
I was with you until you said that. Are you saying that writing code just because you enjoy it is a lesser reason than to put food on the table (or make money for your business)?
I'm not much of a coder myself. I do a little here and there, but nothing I would call beautiful. But I still enjoy reading elegant or "pretty" code when I get the chance. My favorite passtimes however would be music (playing, writing and listening) and stories (also reading and writing). So, taking your statement to the next level are you going to say that anyone that plays music, but doesn't do it because they are trying to make a commercial go at it are doing it for a lesser reason than the people like N-Sync and the Backstreet Boys? Or are you saying that the guy that writes stories just because he loves to write is doing so for a lesser reason than the guy that is hoping to get rich off of writing the ultimate book?
Somehow that seems backwards (if that is what you are saying). It seems the lesser reasons to me would be doing it for money/fame/fortune. Doing something just because you love and enjoy doing it seems a much higher reason. I'm not sure if you were implying what it looked like, but if you were, I disagree whole-heartedly.
Faith Based Services will be an office of the US government, hence, funding will come directly out of your pocket for it. Isn't it great to be an American! Finally, I can monetarily support a bunch of churches that I don't want to!
The scariest thing about Bush being elected is his proposal that he create a "Office of Faith Based Services". In my mind that kind of equates to an officially sanctioned religious entity.
The question this brings to mind is, when you tie the religious nature of Bush (either of them) and you realize that the Bushes see religion only a Christianity (everything else is a cult, how was that "A real American believes in God" or some such non-sense) with the idea that technology is an evil, terrible curse that we must protect our children from and fight at all costs, what exactly will the outcome be?
I see the possibility that this "Faith Based Services" office (or the United States Christianity Office) will be aligned with Bush's anti-technology propoganda and technologies that people enjoy will slowly be outlawed and gone after by the USCO (previously mentioned) police forces (let's face it, any office of power eventually gets some sort of police/security team). Now, when it hurts a company that is Bush friendly, they will probably be pulled back, but when it pisses off the common people (that are evil scum for even thinking of technology) I really doubt that Bush would lift his finger to stop the um, persecution (whoah! I mean arrests of these criminal elements) of these people (namely people like us slashdotters).
I don't know, I thought from the start that Bush Jr is just stupid enough to fuck the country into a bloody oblivion, and the more I hear of his "cabinet" choices, the more scary it seems. If this faith based services garbage goes through I just sort of see it quickly evolving into a KGB'esque police force with the ultimate authority to destroy the evil technology (like take people's laptops/computers and destroy their ability to use the Internet, or as they will put it, the Evil Diseased Hive of Villiany).
Bush is a wacko. And it seems we are about to find out just how much power the office of president really does grant. Bush will do everything he can to exploit that power for the "greater good" (or for better ways to make more people criminals).
Just out of curiosity, if we keep finding new things to make illegal (as I'm sure certain forms of Internet entertainment soon will be) and we make nearly everyone a criminal in the eyes of our precious government, isn't there a point where they can't possibly have the manpower to take out all of us evil scumbags that are trying to "disrupt" things by using technology (oh the horror!)? Just a thought.
I know the above seems like an extermist/alarmist position, but something tells me that Bush is one completely wacked dofus. He's got some major problems (mental), and it's only a matter of time before he goes completely off the deep end and takes the country with him. I'm no fan of Gore, but I would have rather seen him in power than George "dumb as I wanna be" W. Bush. But, we've made our bed, now all we can do is sit back and see what creeps out from under the blankets.
For a limited time, get 24 months of new processors delivered to your door for the low rate of just $15,000 dollars! That's right, our bi-weekly issues can be had at the low low rate of just....
*POOF* Sorry, sometimes the sugar and caffiene get to me.
Bad, bad, bad advice. Even if you discuss it with someone you are positive will not go tattle to further up management, you will find yourself fired so fast for "disloyalty" that it won't be funny.
Even the kindest management seems willing to turn their back on their underlings if they think it will earn them brownie points in their bosses eyes. Funny how they can fire you for disloyalty, but still think that it isn't important that the company be loyal to it's employees, but it does happen. I've had a few friends that happened to. Not good.
I'd much rather have as a reason for leaving, "went for a better opportunity" than have "fired for disloyalty". Which sounds better to you?
In this day of non-loyalty within companies, do you even need to ask this question?
Not to be rude, but your management (by your own admission completely incompetent) would not hesitate to let you go, no matter how hard working, loyal, or helpful you had been, if they thought cutting you would save a buck. That's corporate America for you, and that's the way it is everywhere now.
So, bail. If you have better offers on the table, run, run fast, just get the hell out of there.
It sounds like your current company is going to fold at some point anyway, and if you don't get out now you are going to go down with the ship. Then where will you be? You will be able to put on your resume "closed down company X" and that's about it. Plus you may not have offers at that time. So get out while you can. The job market is all about timing. Good or bad, take your best chance.
And if you are worried about pissing off your co-workers, if they are your friends they will understand. If they are not your friends, then don't worry about them. They can take care of themselves, and if something bad happens to them, it isn't your responsibility. I know that sounds harsh, but I stayed in other jobs way longer than I should have because of feelings of "abandoning" my co-workers and pushed myself to the brink of insanity over it. But in the end, when I finally did leave every one of them said, "I don't know how you toughed it out as long as you did." and wished me luck in the future. Even the ones I didn't like!
If you have a bright prospect, jump at it. You won't be sorry. But staying where you are sounds like it would, or at least could, make you very, very sorry in the end.
Good luck to you! And I hope things work out.
The poster says that they are pretty safe predictions but I would really have to question the prediction that humans will colonize other planets, or even have permanent residences (I'll address the space station in a sec) of any kind outside of Earth's atmosphere anytime within the next 100 years, maybe much longer. Sure, the space station is a nice first step, but let's face it, there aren't any people up there that are permanently stationed there. And we need some sort of permanent settlement in space to get the real first step out of the way.
The real first step in my opinion is some group of people that are willing to say goodbye to Earth and just not come back (maybe for visits, but probably not for a few generations yet). I'm talking living, breathing, working, having children and dying somewhere other than Earth. And people go nuts on the "we're not designed for it" mantra when this is mentioned, but so what! The first single celled organisms in the ocean weren't designed to create concertos either. We will adapt, our bodies will change to whatever environment we put them in (lighter gravity may cause taller, stringier looking people, heavier gravity may cause shorter much more well muscled people, and other changes can be predicted as well). It will take time, and without genetic engineering the first few people may be uncomfortable or even have new diseases to contend with. But that's what exploration is like.
Now, the reason I say I don't see this happening in the next 100 years is that there is just no huge pressing feeling that we need to in the vast majority of the desicion makers. Which is too bad, because there are a number of people in the general population that do care about this sort of thing and think that we have sat in a period of scientific stagnation when it comes to space for nearly thirty years. And in a way we have. We study from the ground and spacecraft that aren't much more evolved than the craft that journeyed to the moon and back, a little tin can with a package of humanity inside. The space shuttle was a step, but a step that became far too overbearing. It should have been just a step, not an overwhelming "complete" project. What happened to the exciting developments once talked about for space exploration? The developments of space craft that could take off and land just exactly like airplanes, with specially designed engines for both in atmosphere flight and out of atmosphere flight. There were so many hopes what feels like just a few years ago for things of this nature. And it seems (at least from the common person's perspective) that all those hopes have been thrown away because it is much more important to make sure that we shovel more power into the hands of the already rich and keep the poor people (that are actually footing most of the bill anyway) from getting out of hand (sorry, I'll stop that rant now).
So, there are two possible ways that colonizing another planet, or the moon, or a truly permanent space station/settlement could become a reality.
ONE: Enough other nations start to catch up to the US and the USSR to put their feet to the fire and make them think "Whoah, we gotta get going or we are going to be beat!". The reason this might work is the fear of the governments of these two behemoths that some other country would gain exclusive rights to the resources of near space if they didn't get out there and start claiming things in the name of their respective nations.
TWO: Find some way to make the prospect of space colonization monetarily rewarding to businesses so that large corporations take an interest in the space race. Now, realistically, I don't know what could happen here (maybe super-perfect low-g manufacturing?), but big business is really in charge of our government now. If we make space interesting to these big businesses (in other words, make it profitable) then there will be a huge, gigantic effort poured into further space exploration and eventually colonization (perhaps a slave labor camp based on the moon for the previously mentioned low-g manufacturing. I know it's not morally good, nor is it something I would like, but at least it would be something off of this god-forsaken rock).
Anyway, other than that, nice article. Steven Hawking is definitely one of the (if not THE) greatest minds of our time. It will be a sad day when I hear his name mentioned in an obituary, and I hope much more of his knowledge is put to use and explored further before that day comes.