What a purblind opinion you have. Why, I have, (very occasionally) expressed a reasoned opinion different from that of the mainstream! Anyone who does that must be a troll, it stands to reason. I suggest that you haven't researched properly - if you had, you would realise that I am no different from anybody else, with deviances from the groupthink that occur to the same degree as in anybody eses posts. My posts are very rarely controversial, but you appear to have made your mind up rather quickly on the matter, so what can I do?
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Yes, however C4 is chartered to create minority programs and gets a good deal of its cash in a bursary style payment from ITV. Also, it has to compete with the BBC in a public television environment, so really, the point still applies rather well, if not better.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Junkyard Wars is an excellent program, and it could only be a product of a nationalised television broadcasting agency. Consider what would happen if a commercial bigwig were presented with the idea. His reaction would probably be "Are you mad? I asked for a 'Who wants to be a Millionaire' clone. Get the fuck outta here!".
It is then a good job that Nationalised television exists in Britain in a happy symbiosis with the private sector, and is therefore free to bumble along making programs for their own sake, for the love of it, and not because of what focus groups and market ratings say. Thats what happened with Monty Python - it was literally made in a fit of absent mindedness by the relevant authorities at the BBC. If only America had a similar system.
It would greatly improve American Television, IMHO, if they were to greatly increase funding for PBS, such that it would have money to not just show BBC reruns, but to make its own innovative programs for a variety of channels as well. The beauty of this is that it would force the commercial companies to stop making pap, and start focusing on making interesting programs for once. Things could only improve.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Every point you make is irrelevent. Mars is just a big rock - there is nothing there to be preserved. The only difference between Mars and a stone on the beach is one of scale. We should be able to do whatever the hell we want with Mars. There is no 'environment' there to be preserved.
Make no mistake - we can influx it with Nuclear waste, chemicals, pollutants of all stripes and build whatever the hell we want to there. It doesn't make a whit of difference to anyone. No life = No environment = Nothing we need to worry about preserving.
As for point 3, I think you are jumping to conclusions somewhat. Nobody is suggesting that we throw away the Earth - the simple fact is that the Earth we be the home to the vast, vast majority of Mankind for a long time. Just consider Mars a backup. If anything goes wrong here, then our species will live onward somewhere else. It greatly increases our species chances of survival in the long term to occupy two planets, and not just one. The dinosaurs could have done with a similar backup, but they didn't have one, and look what happened to them.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
...of our generation. Along with lego and Mechanno, such toys gave children of the era experience in manipulating objects in an object orientated environment. They could create classes of these objects, but would often skip classes to play with them. Parents of the era would also complain about their childrens skills in garbage collection, as I myself can testify. I learned to use pointers to shift bits of blame for these incidents to my younger siblings.
That is why many children of the era, including me, became such great programmers.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Yes, they didn't make any money off the hardware directly. However, every game released by a games company for the Sega platform had to have liscense money payed to Sega, even if the develepors were not related to Sega at all. This made up a fairly large chunk of Sega's cashflow. In addition, they made money from their own games that they wrote for their platform. The situation is similar for Sony.
Now that Sega will be developing games for the PSX2, this is very good news for Sony, as they will make money off every Sega game released for the PSX2, and it will give their product better games (imagine what Sonic the Hedgehog on the PSX2 would do for sales). I don't know if they will release thier major games characters for other platforms, or if they will restrict themselves to consoles only, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Their brands are their strong suit..
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
16 and 64 way systems may not seem useful to the average user at the moment, but my guess is that they soon will be, even for the average user. We are already seeing the single cpu model hitting design problems - ever larger caches, ever more complicated in an effort to run faster. I would guess that the future lies with many simple cpu's. When we move to this new paradigm, Linux will be prepared thanks to its presence in the high end market. I therefore support this research.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
The frightening thing about Windows development is how much languages need to have the support of MS, to some degree at least. There are a lot of companies that do not see a product, business practice, language or whatever as being valid unles it has MS support and can fit in easily to their existing support package and MS dominated infrastructure. There is no doubt that Java will continue as the main language on the Internet, with Perl, for some time, but this is, nonetheless, not good news for Java.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
It is clear to me that Human Ingenuity has increased this century because we have abandoned all faiths, preconceptions and pointless ideals to a greater extent than ever before. There is a clear relationship between beliefs - be they beliefs in higher powers, moral codes, or physical laws, inhibit creativity. Indeed, a recent study at IBM showed that the majority of patents filed from the research departments were based on discoveries by people without degrees, and thus intellectual preconceptions.
Ever since medieval times we have been throwing these conceptions out of the window, and creating in a no nonsense, take-no-prisoners style.
If we are to continue in this vein, we must make sure that nothing is sacred.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
The idea that computer languages and code should confirm to some higher ideal has been with us too long. What counts is what works best in the real world, airy principles aside.
Chaotic, naturally evolved languages work best - like the english language compared to esperanto. When it come to code, as long as everyone writes stuff that they personally can read (and if they have half a clue they will) then its no big deal if it doesn't confirm to your old CS professors unfounded ideals. Let GOTO's stalk the land!
Principles in these matters are just invented artifacts.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
It seems to me that identity is fluid and changing in the age of the Internet, far more than it ever was. Who is the real me? Everyone has multiple personas that they use online, and in real life. 21st century man has dropped all principles and ideas of identity, and can morph himself to fit the prevailing prejudices of society.
People fluidly move between jobs, bank accounts, homes, towns, cities, countries. The online experience is even more ill defined and structureless. I would wager that the information collected by doubleclick, while disturbing, is not really such an invasion of privacy, for they are not invading the privacy of real people, but merely our avatars.
The modern fluid identity provides information easily, but that information is false in a very short time.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
When you add just a little bit of energy to a dynamic system, its response can be unpredictable,
Your post seems to be based on many assumptions. There is no reason to suppose that the Earth's climate is in any way unstable, and liable to self destruct at the slightest perturbation. I would hazard that it is in fact highly stable. This is why we have managed to live through massive asteroid impacts, volcanic explosions, and various other doomsday scenarious without becoming extinct.
Antother thing to bear in mind is that the climate is highly variable on its own. From the middle ages to about the 18th century, there was a little ice age, and temperature were inordinately cold. In the Xeventeenth century, the Thames in London froze over some 18 times, compared to very few in the twentieth (one or something). Temperature then were 4 or 5 degrees cooler than now.
Similarly, the early nineteenth century saw a cold snap, and it is thought that such an abrupt weather change may have brought down the Roman Empire. 2000 years ago it was possible to grow grapes in the north of England, a feat unimaginable today.
So, we have established that the climate is variable of its own accord. Why then is there the assumption that rising temperatures, still statistically insignificant, are the fault of Mankind? I would hazard that it is because we have become all to self absorbed and shallow, and grasp at principles as we see them whether they be right or wrong. People should stop trying to make others guilty, and stop feeling guilty themselves. We should deal with this in a rational manner, removed from unfounded ideals.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
The application you mention would be fine in an Open Source environment, IMO, but is not the sort of thing we want to happen under the GPL. The GPL is all about principle, the principles of the founders and those who wrote the code would not, I suspect, allow you to do this. From a moral perspective, would you feel right doing this? Or are you just trying to find loopholes in the law? You must think very carefully about your motivations with such an issue.
Personally, I do not hold with principles or morals, but I try not to rile others unduly. What is the point? If you feel the same, you should have a similar attitude.
You know exactly what to do- Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Sure there isn't, I'm just saying that most boys find that boring. I know I did. It is good to use your imagination and create imaginative worlds, but when you are stuck with a piece of plastic for company it gets boring fast, IMO. What you need is an outward looking, non-static interactive toy that you can play with and be imaginative with. Thats what I preferred when I was a child. Childhood is all about varience and imagination untied by sober reality; interactive toys enhance that more than any other kind.
One of the great things about modern toys is the fact that they are interactive. When I was a child, all toys were dolls, in effect - action men, GI Joe, transformers. The were pretty boring, and relied on a feminine insight and ability to internalise. Most boys don't want to do that - they want to go out into the world, and affect it. This is why old, traditional toys such as footballs are the best.
Now though, with modern toys, we are at last getting properly interactive, stimulating and outward looking toys, of the sort that both adults and children enjoy. It seems to me that the 80's were just a bad time for toys (except, perhaps, lego).
Slashdot Mirror
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
It is then a good job that Nationalised television exists in Britain in a happy symbiosis with the private sector, and is therefore free to bumble along making programs for their own sake, for the love of it, and not because of what focus groups and market ratings say. Thats what happened with Monty Python - it was literally made in a fit of absent mindedness by the relevant authorities at the BBC. If only America had a similar system.
It would greatly improve American Television, IMHO, if they were to greatly increase funding for PBS, such that it would have money to not just show BBC reruns, but to make its own innovative programs for a variety of channels as well. The beauty of this is that it would force the commercial companies to stop making pap, and start focusing on making interesting programs for once. Things could only improve.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Make no mistake - we can influx it with Nuclear waste, chemicals, pollutants of all stripes and build whatever the hell we want to there. It doesn't make a whit of difference to anyone. No life = No environment = Nothing we need to worry about preserving.
As for point 3, I think you are jumping to conclusions somewhat. Nobody is suggesting that we throw away the Earth - the simple fact is that the Earth we be the home to the vast, vast majority of Mankind for a long time. Just consider Mars a backup. If anything goes wrong here, then our species will live onward somewhere else. It greatly increases our species chances of survival in the long term to occupy two planets, and not just one. The dinosaurs could have done with a similar backup, but they didn't have one, and look what happened to them.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
That is why many children of the era, including me, became such great programmers.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Now that Sega will be developing games for the PSX2, this is very good news for Sony, as they will make money off every Sega game released for the PSX2, and it will give their product better games (imagine what Sonic the Hedgehog on the PSX2 would do for sales). I don't know if they will release thier major games characters for other platforms, or if they will restrict themselves to consoles only, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Their brands are their strong suit..
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Ever since medieval times we have been throwing these conceptions out of the window, and creating in a no nonsense, take-no-prisoners style.
If we are to continue in this vein, we must make sure that nothing is sacred.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Chaotic, naturally evolved languages work best - like the english language compared to esperanto. When it come to code, as long as everyone writes stuff that they personally can read (and if they have half a clue they will) then its no big deal if it doesn't confirm to your old CS professors unfounded ideals. Let GOTO's stalk the land!
Principles in these matters are just invented artifacts.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
People fluidly move between jobs, bank accounts, homes, towns, cities, countries. The online experience is even more ill defined and structureless. I would wager that the information collected by doubleclick, while disturbing, is not really such an invasion of privacy, for they are not invading the privacy of real people, but merely our avatars.
The modern fluid identity provides information easily, but that information is false in a very short time.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Your post seems to be based on many assumptions. There is no reason to suppose that the Earth's climate is in any way unstable, and liable to self destruct at the slightest perturbation. I would hazard that it is in fact highly stable. This is why we have managed to live through massive asteroid impacts, volcanic explosions, and various other doomsday scenarious without becoming extinct.
Antother thing to bear in mind is that the climate is highly variable on its own. From the middle ages to about the 18th century, there was a little ice age, and temperature were inordinately cold. In the Xeventeenth century, the Thames in London froze over some 18 times, compared to very few in the twentieth (one or something). Temperature then were 4 or 5 degrees cooler than now.
Similarly, the early nineteenth century saw a cold snap, and it is thought that such an abrupt weather change may have brought down the Roman Empire. 2000 years ago it was possible to grow grapes in the north of England, a feat unimaginable today.
So, we have established that the climate is variable of its own accord. Why then is there the assumption that rising temperatures, still statistically insignificant, are the fault of Mankind? I would hazard that it is because we have become all to self absorbed and shallow, and grasp at principles as we see them whether they be right or wrong. People should stop trying to make others guilty, and stop feeling guilty themselves. We should deal with this in a rational manner, removed from unfounded ideals.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Personally, I do not hold with principles or morals, but I try not to rile others unduly. What is the point? If you feel the same, you should have a similar attitude.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Sure there isn't, I'm just saying that most boys find that boring. I know I did. It is good to use your imagination and create imaginative worlds, but when you are stuck with a piece of plastic for company it gets boring fast, IMO. What you need is an outward looking, non-static interactive toy that you can play with and be imaginative with. Thats what I preferred when I was a child. Childhood is all about varience and imagination untied by sober reality; interactive toys enhance that more than any other kind.
Now though, with modern toys, we are at last getting properly interactive, stimulating and outward looking toys, of the sort that both adults and children enjoy. It seems to me that the 80's were just a bad time for toys (except, perhaps, lego).