Heritable variation in personality might allow some lineages to resist the Great Temptation and last longer. Some individuals and families may start with an “irrational” Luddite abhorrence of entertainment technology, and they may evolve ever more self-control, conscientiousness and pragmatism. They will evolve a horror of virtual entertainment, psychoactive drugs and contraception. They will stress the values of hard work, delayed gratification, child-rearing and environmental stewardship. They will combine the family values of the religious right with the sustainability values of the Greenpeace left. Their concerns about the Game of Life will baffle the political pollsters who only understand the rhetoric of status and power, individual and society, rights and duties, good and evil, us and them.
This, too, may be happening already. Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and anti-consumerism activists already understand exactly what the Great Temptation is, and how to avoid it. They insulate themselves from our creative-class dreamworlds and our EverQuest economics. They wait patiently for our fitness-faking narcissism to go extinct. Those practical-minded breeders will inherit the Earth as like-minded aliens may have inherited a few other planets. When they finally achieve contact, it will not be a meeting of novel-readers and game-players. It will be a meeting of dead-serious super-parents who congratulate each other on surviving not just the Bomb, but the Xbox.
Maybe he's more right than he thinks... Perhaps this is exactly what's happening out there, except that it doesn't stop at becoming temptation-resistant super-parents.
Look at how fundamentalists act here on Earth...
Perhaps these alien species have indeed bred some anti-technology fundamentalists, who go on to destroy that technology and revert their civilization to something more in-line with their beliefs. Which then means that they don't have the high-tech goodies necessary to show up on our doorstep.
That's because what became Quake's signature weapon was not the nailgun, it was the rocket launcher, which is still pretty fucking iconic when you consider the relative (overall) popularity of the two game series. TF2 has an entire class built around just the Quake rocket launcher.
I have to disagree. Maybe I'm in the minority here... But when somebody says "crowbar" in relation to gaming, I think of Half-Life. When somebody says "rocket launcher" in relation to gaming, no particular title comes to mind.
The problem with many games now-a-days is they're story based. You get invested into a story which adds lots of value to the game.
This is a problem? I always thought stories were a good thing...
FPS game are the only games that can easily be changed/unique because not being held to a story line.
I disagree. The fact that FPS games are more-or-less driven by their mechanics, rather than a storyline, typically makes them less unique.
In Doom I was some generic guy running around and blasting monsters... In Quake I was a different generic guy running around and blasting different monsters with slightly better graphics... In Unreal I was a different generic guy running around and blasting different monsters with even better graphics...
But in Half-Life I was Gordon Freeman attempting to escape from Black Mesa after a resonance cascade tore the facility apart and flooded our world with extra-dimensional nasties.
There's a reason why the crowbar has become a truly iconic weapon... While the nail gun has been all-but forgotten.
Any major FPS game is mostly multiplayer, so just make it fun and it's a winner.
Fun is, of course, subjective...
But let's assume you've got some FPS title that everyone agrees is fun. And you take those exact mechanics and just re-skin everything... Say, take some Call of Duty title and turn it into a sci-fi shooter... Aside from preferring a sci-fi setting to a more realistic one, why would I bother to buy the new game if it's identical to the old one in every way that matters?
RTS/MMORPG/etc are a lot more involved and are more fun when there's a history.
I agree... But that doesn't mean you have to keep rolling out sequels. You can create the history within the game itself. Give your characters some depth and detail... Fill in the blanks in the world... Make me feel like I know the characters, the places, the villains... Give me a history, even if I've never heard of the game before.
Sure, there are some very good sequels out there that certainly deserved to be made. Some of the Mario games, like you mentioned... Or the first couple of Star Wars sequels...
And I'm really not complaining about sequels/spin-offs/whatever that make sense. Ones that add something to the story... Or improve and expand upon gameplay elements...
But these days it seems like we've got a lot of folks doing nothing more than simply milking a successful title.
Look at the pile of Star Wars prequels, and then the animated TV series...
I quit World of Warcraft over this. I've never played Modern Warfare, nor do I care who made it, but it is obvious that Activision wants to milk its franchises until there is nothing left but dessicated corpses, and fuck anyone who stands in their way.
Actually, that seems to be what pretty much everyone is doing these days...
We've got sequels and expansions and spin-offs of anything even remotely successful - on the big screen, in TV, with video games, and with books.
Seems like nobody wants to be creative/original anymore.
That's a bit misleading...the circle you were moving would collide with the other when you attempted to move it back into the same plane.
Says who? If you've got some magickal device that lets you shift something into another dimension and move it around at will, who says they'll collide when you move them back?
I don't see how adding another dimension can magically allow two objects to become linked when they were unable to be linked in a lower dimension. Two circles on a piece of paper cannot physically merge with each other if you assume their boundaries are solid and cannot pass through each other.
Say we've got two circles drawn on a 2D plane - a sheet of paper. Assume their edges are physical boundaries - if you push them together they'll bump into each-other, not merge or join.
Now, pick one of those 2D circles up off of the page. It no longer occupies the same 2D space that the other circle does. You can move it back and forth without it bumping into anything, because the other circle is stuck down on the piece of paper.
If you move the two circles so that they're overlapping a bit, like a Venn diagram... And then drop that circle back onto the 2D plane of the paper, they're now overlapping or linked. Even though that would have been impossible to do in just two dimensions.
Since you've been modded to "Interesting" I think it is fair to ask "Why?"
Flash has its place. It's really hard to make interactive web-based games without it. And HTML5 isn't going to do anything about that. But Flash has been overused for years.
Flash is used frequently for simple video playback... Which HTML5 will hopefully lessen.
Flash is also frequently used where some DHTML and ajax-y stuff would be more than sufficient... Sites will use Flash for their menu system, or random buttons, or slightly-animated graphics. I use no-script, which means Flash is disabled by default. I'm always amazed when I stumble across a site that displays nothing but a request to install Flash... And when I activate Flash, it doesn't look any different than any other non-Flash page out there.
Flash is buggy in general. Folks complain specifically about the Linux builds... But it's buggy everywhere else. I have frequent Flash crashes on my Windows box. I see people complaining about it on their Macs as well.
If we can eliminate a horribly buggy plug-in like Flash from most of the web pages out there, that's definitely a plus in my book.
As if it was so extremely difficult to use UTP cables... Maybe his neighbor really have physical problems, maybe only he think it. Good neighborhood worth such small thing. And UTP is safer, more reliable and faster. But no, they visit the court instead.
UTP isn't going to fix anything.
From the article:
But last October, when a friend of his rented a house on the next block that backed up to Firstenberg's property, the familiar waves of nausea, vertigo, body aches, dizziness, heart arrhythmia and insomnia returned -- all, he says, because she was using an iPhone, a laptop computer, a wireless router and dimmer switches.
So, you're going to plug your iPhone in with UTP? You're going to run your dimmer switches off UTP?
Okay, but let's assume that he could prove that it isn't anything in his house and isn't any of the multitude of other sources flying around.
So now we're assuming that he is not only actually being affected by EM radiation... Which is a bit of a stretch... But that he is only being affected by my EM radiation?
Why does he have to do something to protect himself?
Because EM radiation is freaking everywhere.
Never mind the stuff coming in off the sun... We've got radio towers and cell phones and WAPs and microwave ovens and noisy wiring absolutely everywhere.
If he is actually sensitive to EM radiation, he better protect himself, or he's going to be pretty miserable. And not just because of my cell phone.
I also disagree that I should have to wear ear plugs because of your loud music. Closing a window might be reasonable, but you expect me to wear ear plugs or get a white noise generator because you are (hypothetically) a jerk?
If I'm blasting my stereo at 140 dB I am, in fact, a jerk. And you are entirely within your right to complain and take legal action.
If I'm blasting my stereo at 60 dB but you've got some kind of freakish aural hypersensitivity, or your house is literally made out of paper, that's not really my problem is it? Should I have to take extraordinary measures because you're too cheap to build your house out of wood like everyone else? Or because you moved into a regular neighborhood instead of some isolated countryside?
And, keep in mind, if my stereo at 60 dB is bothering you - so is a lot of other stuff. Like everyone else in the neighborhood, and every car that drives by, and random people on the street having conversations, and whatever else.
I'm allergic to oak trees - their pollen gives me hives. It's generally something that I just have to deal with because they're everywhere. But, when we were shopping around for a house, I did pay attention to the trees in the neighborhood. There are a couple houses that were pretty nice, that we turned down, because there were a lot of oak trees in the neighborhood. Instead we moved into an area that's wooded almost entirely with pine trees.
I'm sure as hell not going to move in next to some oak tree nursery and demand that they cut down all their trees because they make me sick.
Nor am I going to demand that my neighbors with oak trees on their property (there are a few of them) chop them down because they make me sick.
Oak trees, like 60 dB noise levels and EM radiation, are just kind of a hazard of living on this planet. I can either deal with them, or go live in a bubble somewhere.
Well, fair enough, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, what if it was really making him sick (it isn't)? Clearly you can't claim to be able to do whatever you want within the confines of your own house if it makes the guy next door sick?
My first question would be what has the neighbor done to protect himself from the stuff making him sick. If the EM radiation is really causing him illness... Has he done anything to keep it out of his house? Because my WLAN isn't the only source. I'd like to know if they've bothered to do any kind of RF shielding on their house. I'd also like to know if there's any reason why he thinks it's my WLAN that's making him sick... And not his own microwave oven, or the radio tower on the hill, or some guy driving by with his cell phone.
If he really was getting sick from EM radiation, I'd suggest that he look at moving someplace fairly remote and shielding his house fairly well - since EM radiation is very common these days.
Also, if I was your neighbor and, according to your argument, I can do whatever I want within the confines of my house, you won't mind if I play loud rock music at 2 AM in the morning every day? I think your right to a good nights sleep in your own home should trump by right to rock out at an unsocialable hour.
It depends.
Am I insisting on sleeping at night with my windows open, there-by making any noise coming from your house far more audible? Have I even tried ear plugs or a white-noise generator?
We have noise ordinances that specify sound over a certain volume is not acceptable... And if you exceed that then I could call the police and/or prosecute to have you quiet down... But those noise levels are based on "normal" human beings - not hypersensitive ones.
If I've got some kind of aural hypersensitivity, that makes even reasonable noise coming from your house unbearable to me, then that's more-or-less my problem. I'm going to have to go the extra mile to soundproof my house or eliminate noise - because I can't very well expect everyone around me to alter their lives to suit my needs.
"I feel as if my life and liberty are under attack for no valid reason, and it has forced me to have to defend my very basic human rights."'"
Ok, so the guy filing the suit is a moron and the suit has no technical merit at all. But really? Running a router is now a basic human right? A little melodramatic don't you think?
Well, some places are declaring Internet access a human right...
But I don't think that's really the point.
Generally speaking, you're allowed to do what you want within the confines of your own house. Of course you still can't murder people and whatnot... But it's a little unusual for your neighbors to be able to dictate what kind of telephone you use, and whether your Internet connection is wired or wireless, or whether you can own or use a cell phone. Those are all liberties that we pretty much take for granted.
But will it include minor expectations like a choice in carriers, or a bloody Flash plugin? Fix those before you add gadgets.
I've seen rumors that a Verizon iPhone is on the way...
But, as far as Flash goes, I'd rather they didn't support it.
Sure, Flash has its place... But it's been horribly abused and overused for years. Platforms like the iPhone, and the advent of HTML5, have the opportunity to push Flash back where it belongs. I'd love to see that happen.
Maybe we should stop calling them libraries. Library comes from Liber and refers to "inner bark" or wood, and refers to books made out of trees. I don't think music, videos and games are made of trees, nor are they rooted in trees. Maybe they do in the sense of telling stories, but I wouldn't consider half the media today to tell a congruent story.
I guess the question then, is what is a "Library"?
Literally, I suppose, the word means a place that stores/lends books... But is that really all a library is? Just books?
I guess the question is more what a library is supposed to accomplish... Is it literally just a storehouse for piles of bound paper? Is that all we're worried about - just collecting a bunch of paper together?
To me, it seems, the value was always the information that was stored in the paper.
Some of it is factual information, which makes the library a good place to do research. You had access to all sorts of journals and periodicals from all over the country... Big ol' encyclopedias and things like that... Various scholarly works on different subjects...
But some of that information is not factual - it's fiction. Which is still important because it's part of our collective culture. Shakespeare has become so deeply embedded in our cultural psyche that it's hard to imagine what the would would be like if he'd never written anything. And while Twilight certainly isn't quality literature, it does give you an idea of what the cultural landscape looks like these days.
And if we're worried about preserving both factual material and material with cultural importance... Then we need to expand our libraries beyond pieces of paper. Music, movies, and even games are of cultural importance.
You are not going to get a 'good job' because there are FAR FAR FAR more people out there looking for those jobs right now with years of 'experience' on paper that you don't have.
I didn't see the OP say anything about a "good job." Sounded to me like he was looking for an entry-level position.
I have a friend who was a teacher in California for a year. She was laid off and promptly given 2/3rds her previous salary in unemployment benefits. Pretty good for keeping the same employer and just not working anymore. If I tried that it would result in a 100% pay cut.
Is there some reason why you would not be eligible for unemployment benefits?
Governments waste money. Your local government does it. Your state government. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head (/sarcasm) but I'm pretty sure the federal government does it, too.
Yes, it's a government that's footing the bill here... But it's a private company that's wasting the money. Sure, they should have been fired and replaced... But that's more of an oversight thing than a waste of money thing, right?
The fact of the matter is that wasting money isn't limited to governments. Private companies waste money all the freaking time.
My current favorite is a local supplier of EMR software and the accompanying hardware. One of the doctors we support spent about $30,000 for a server, software, and some workstations. That supplier then turned around and sent the doctor about $5,000 worth of junk for Christmas as a "thank you." Seems to me that they could have either taken $5,000 off the initial price... Or put it towards making the software better.
I don't really read news sites myself, I read stories that I found links to. But I don't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories. So it would be NOT 1 pound per day, but 1 pound per article. So I just wouldn't.
That's the problem with paywalls these days... Most folks don't just go to a single site for their news.
Personally, I gather my information from a variety of aggregators like Slashdot, Reddit, Google News, and an assortment of blogs. I don't just go to a single news site and read everything they have to offer.
So I'd have to pay to access a half-dozen sites a day, if not more.
I suppose that maybe this is the intent... Make it too expensive to shop around for your information. Make it cheaper to go to a single source. So you don't read just a single article from The Times, you read pretty much everything there. And I assume there'll still be advertising all over the site.
I've always filed the original forms of both these aggressive updaters under malware anyway...
Agreed.
I always disable automatic updating on everything I can... And then I'll manually check it once a month or so.
I realize I'm probably missing some updates, and probably vulnerable to some threats... But I just hate logging in to my computer and getting bombarded with four or five different update notices.
no, doing degrading and immoral work for money makes one a whore.
Interesting...
I assume we're still both talking about whores as in prostitutes - folks who sell sex for money.
So... What's so immoral or degrading about that?
Sure, some folks have moral objections to is. And some folks probably find it degrading. But does that mean that prostitution as a whole is automatically immoral and degrading?
Wouldn't that make something like bartending immoral as well, since some religions have moral objections to alcohol?
And wouldn't that make pretty much every job on the planet degrading, because I'm sure there's somebody out there who finds it degrading.
Sure, if you're forced into prostitution against your will... By financial problems, or addiction, or extortion, or whatever... That's bad. But it would also be bad to be forced into anything else against your will.
And it's certainly true that the political/legal climate here in the US seems to push sex workers into immoral and degrading situations...
But in areas where sex work is legal, there are plenty of folks who genuinely enjoy their jobs and don't find it immoral or degrading in the least.
At that age, the save-the-world types do it because their friends are doing it.
And why are their friends doing it?
Early to late teens
I said late teens/early 20s. The article specifically said 20s.
are the age when people cheat in school, bully each other, shoplift, vandalize; generally people are at an ethical low point at that age.
First of all, I never claimed that folks who are in their late teens/early 20s are going to be pillars of the community or moral paragons...
I claimed that the late teens/early 20s is when you frequently see people becoming very active/vocal in their beliefs. I also indicated that it is frequently a time when people are facing real ethical questions for the first time. Regardless of whether they choose to behave ethically or not, it is likely on their mind.
I'm also not convinced that folks change their ethics/morals a whole lot over the years. It's been my experience that the bullies in highschool typically grow up to be bullies later in life... They're just bullying different people and using different techniques.
Similarly, folks with little regard for property (the ones who vandalize stuff and steal) usually grow up to have little regard for property... And while they may not be shoplifting, they're likely going to do everything in their power to take advantage of return policies or the like.
And folks who cheat in school often grow up to be the kind of weasels who do absolutely no work and float along on other people's effort.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
Maybe he's more right than he thinks... Perhaps this is exactly what's happening out there, except that it doesn't stop at becoming temptation-resistant super-parents.
Look at how fundamentalists act here on Earth...
Perhaps these alien species have indeed bred some anti-technology fundamentalists, who go on to destroy that technology and revert their civilization to something more in-line with their beliefs. Which then means that they don't have the high-tech goodies necessary to show up on our doorstep.
Perhaps the universe is populated by Luddites.
I would posit that there were about as many groundbreaking FPS mechanics as there are compelling RPG storylines.
I agree.
And I thoroughly enjoy a good FPS.
I'm not particularly interested in the genre pissing war
Nor am I.
I don't mean to suggest that an FPS is somehow superior or inferior to an RPG or anything else. Again, I thoroughly enjoy a good FPS.
I just wanted to defend my nailgun (and super-nailgun!)
Both of which were terrific weapons - which is why I used it as an example.
"When somebody says "rocket launcher" in relation to gaming, no particular title comes to mind."
Never played Doom, I see.
Cyberdemon.
Yes, I did play Doom. And the sequels. And the recent remake.
And, while rocket launchers were handy in Doom, they weren't terribly iconic.
Rocket launchers have been around since Wolfenstein... Probably even longer than that.
If I had to pick a signature weapon out of Doom it would be the BFG - not the rocket launcher.
That's because what became Quake's signature weapon was not the nailgun, it was the rocket launcher, which is still pretty fucking iconic when you consider the relative (overall) popularity of the two game series. TF2 has an entire class built around just the Quake rocket launcher.
I have to disagree. Maybe I'm in the minority here... But when somebody says "crowbar" in relation to gaming, I think of Half-Life. When somebody says "rocket launcher" in relation to gaming, no particular title comes to mind.
The problem with many games now-a-days is they're story based. You get invested into a story which adds lots of value to the game.
This is a problem? I always thought stories were a good thing...
FPS game are the only games that can easily be changed/unique because not being held to a story line.
I disagree. The fact that FPS games are more-or-less driven by their mechanics, rather than a storyline, typically makes them less unique.
In Doom I was some generic guy running around and blasting monsters... In Quake I was a different generic guy running around and blasting different monsters with slightly better graphics... In Unreal I was a different generic guy running around and blasting different monsters with even better graphics...
But in Half-Life I was Gordon Freeman attempting to escape from Black Mesa after a resonance cascade tore the facility apart and flooded our world with extra-dimensional nasties.
There's a reason why the crowbar has become a truly iconic weapon... While the nail gun has been all-but forgotten.
Any major FPS game is mostly multiplayer, so just make it fun and it's a winner.
Fun is, of course, subjective...
But let's assume you've got some FPS title that everyone agrees is fun. And you take those exact mechanics and just re-skin everything... Say, take some Call of Duty title and turn it into a sci-fi shooter... Aside from preferring a sci-fi setting to a more realistic one, why would I bother to buy the new game if it's identical to the old one in every way that matters?
RTS/MMORPG/etc are a lot more involved and are more fun when there's a history.
I agree... But that doesn't mean you have to keep rolling out sequels. You can create the history within the game itself. Give your characters some depth and detail... Fill in the blanks in the world... Make me feel like I know the characters, the places, the villains... Give me a history, even if I've never heard of the game before.
Sure, there are some very good sequels out there that certainly deserved to be made. Some of the Mario games, like you mentioned... Or the first couple of Star Wars sequels...
And I'm really not complaining about sequels/spin-offs/whatever that make sense. Ones that add something to the story... Or improve and expand upon gameplay elements...
But these days it seems like we've got a lot of folks doing nothing more than simply milking a successful title.
Look at the pile of Star Wars prequels, and then the animated TV series...
Or all the new Dune books...
I quit World of Warcraft over this. I've never played Modern Warfare, nor do I care who made it, but it is obvious that Activision wants to milk its franchises until there is nothing left but dessicated corpses, and fuck anyone who stands in their way.
Actually, that seems to be what pretty much everyone is doing these days...
We've got sequels and expansions and spin-offs of anything even remotely successful - on the big screen, in TV, with video games, and with books.
Seems like nobody wants to be creative/original anymore.
A US citizen has the same legal protection as an EU citizen, either to demand a refund from sony, or else sue them in court for violating US law.
That's true...
But the US is considerably more pro-corporation than the EU is. And we don't have the same exact consumer protection that the EU does.
I think you'd have a much harder time getting your refund here in the US.
That's a bit misleading...the circle you were moving would collide with the other when you attempted to move it back into the same plane.
Says who? If you've got some magickal device that lets you shift something into another dimension and move it around at will, who says they'll collide when you move them back?
I don't see how adding another dimension can magically allow two objects to become linked when they were unable to be linked in a lower dimension. Two circles on a piece of paper cannot physically merge with each other if you assume their boundaries are solid and cannot pass through each other.
Say we've got two circles drawn on a 2D plane - a sheet of paper. Assume their edges are physical boundaries - if you push them together they'll bump into each-other, not merge or join.
Now, pick one of those 2D circles up off of the page. It no longer occupies the same 2D space that the other circle does. You can move it back and forth without it bumping into anything, because the other circle is stuck down on the piece of paper.
If you move the two circles so that they're overlapping a bit, like a Venn diagram... And then drop that circle back onto the 2D plane of the paper, they're now overlapping or linked. Even though that would have been impossible to do in just two dimensions.
This is a good thing.
Since you've been modded to "Interesting" I think it is fair to ask "Why?"
Flash has its place. It's really hard to make interactive web-based games without it. And HTML5 isn't going to do anything about that. But Flash has been overused for years.
Flash is used frequently for simple video playback... Which HTML5 will hopefully lessen.
Flash is also frequently used where some DHTML and ajax-y stuff would be more than sufficient... Sites will use Flash for their menu system, or random buttons, or slightly-animated graphics. I use no-script, which means Flash is disabled by default. I'm always amazed when I stumble across a site that displays nothing but a request to install Flash... And when I activate Flash, it doesn't look any different than any other non-Flash page out there.
Flash is buggy in general. Folks complain specifically about the Linux builds... But it's buggy everywhere else. I have frequent Flash crashes on my Windows box. I see people complaining about it on their Macs as well.
If we can eliminate a horribly buggy plug-in like Flash from most of the web pages out there, that's definitely a plus in my book.
As if it was so extremely difficult to use UTP cables... Maybe his neighbor really have physical problems, maybe only he think it. Good neighborhood worth such small thing. And UTP is safer, more reliable and faster. But no, they visit the court instead.
UTP isn't going to fix anything.
From the article:
But last October, when a friend of his rented a house on the next block that backed up to Firstenberg's property, the familiar waves of nausea, vertigo, body aches, dizziness, heart arrhythmia and insomnia returned -- all, he says, because she was using an iPhone, a laptop computer, a wireless router and dimmer switches.
So, you're going to plug your iPhone in with UTP? You're going to run your dimmer switches off UTP?
Okay, but let's assume that he could prove that it isn't anything in his house and isn't any of the multitude of other sources flying around.
So now we're assuming that he is not only actually being affected by EM radiation... Which is a bit of a stretch... But that he is only being affected by my EM radiation?
Why does he have to do something to protect himself?
Because EM radiation is freaking everywhere.
Never mind the stuff coming in off the sun... We've got radio towers and cell phones and WAPs and microwave ovens and noisy wiring absolutely everywhere.
If he is actually sensitive to EM radiation, he better protect himself, or he's going to be pretty miserable. And not just because of my cell phone.
I also disagree that I should have to wear ear plugs because of your loud music. Closing a window might be reasonable, but you expect me to wear ear plugs or get a white noise generator because you are (hypothetically) a jerk?
If I'm blasting my stereo at 140 dB I am, in fact, a jerk. And you are entirely within your right to complain and take legal action.
If I'm blasting my stereo at 60 dB but you've got some kind of freakish aural hypersensitivity, or your house is literally made out of paper, that's not really my problem is it? Should I have to take extraordinary measures because you're too cheap to build your house out of wood like everyone else? Or because you moved into a regular neighborhood instead of some isolated countryside?
And, keep in mind, if my stereo at 60 dB is bothering you - so is a lot of other stuff. Like everyone else in the neighborhood, and every car that drives by, and random people on the street having conversations, and whatever else.
I'm allergic to oak trees - their pollen gives me hives. It's generally something that I just have to deal with because they're everywhere. But, when we were shopping around for a house, I did pay attention to the trees in the neighborhood. There are a couple houses that were pretty nice, that we turned down, because there were a lot of oak trees in the neighborhood. Instead we moved into an area that's wooded almost entirely with pine trees.
I'm sure as hell not going to move in next to some oak tree nursery and demand that they cut down all their trees because they make me sick.
Nor am I going to demand that my neighbors with oak trees on their property (there are a few of them) chop them down because they make me sick.
Oak trees, like 60 dB noise levels and EM radiation, are just kind of a hazard of living on this planet. I can either deal with them, or go live in a bubble somewhere.
Well, fair enough, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, what if it was really making him sick (it isn't)? Clearly you can't claim to be able to do whatever you want within the confines of your own house if it makes the guy next door sick?
My first question would be what has the neighbor done to protect himself from the stuff making him sick. If the EM radiation is really causing him illness... Has he done anything to keep it out of his house? Because my WLAN isn't the only source. I'd like to know if they've bothered to do any kind of RF shielding on their house. I'd also like to know if there's any reason why he thinks it's my WLAN that's making him sick... And not his own microwave oven, or the radio tower on the hill, or some guy driving by with his cell phone.
If he really was getting sick from EM radiation, I'd suggest that he look at moving someplace fairly remote and shielding his house fairly well - since EM radiation is very common these days.
Also, if I was your neighbor and, according to your argument, I can do whatever I want within the confines of my house, you won't mind if I play loud rock music at 2 AM in the morning every day? I think your right to a good nights sleep in your own home should trump by right to rock out at an unsocialable hour.
It depends.
Am I insisting on sleeping at night with my windows open, there-by making any noise coming from your house far more audible? Have I even tried ear plugs or a white-noise generator?
We have noise ordinances that specify sound over a certain volume is not acceptable... And if you exceed that then I could call the police and/or prosecute to have you quiet down... But those noise levels are based on "normal" human beings - not hypersensitive ones.
If I've got some kind of aural hypersensitivity, that makes even reasonable noise coming from your house unbearable to me, then that's more-or-less my problem. I'm going to have to go the extra mile to soundproof my house or eliminate noise - because I can't very well expect everyone around me to alter their lives to suit my needs.
From the summary:
"I feel as if my life and liberty are under attack for no valid reason, and it has forced me to have to defend my very basic human rights."'"
Ok, so the guy filing the suit is a moron and the suit has no technical merit at all. But really? Running a router is now a basic human right? A little melodramatic don't you think?
Well, some places are declaring Internet access a human right...
But I don't think that's really the point.
Generally speaking, you're allowed to do what you want within the confines of your own house. Of course you still can't murder people and whatnot... But it's a little unusual for your neighbors to be able to dictate what kind of telephone you use, and whether your Internet connection is wired or wireless, or whether you can own or use a cell phone. Those are all liberties that we pretty much take for granted.
But will it include minor expectations like a choice in carriers, or a bloody Flash plugin? Fix those before you add gadgets.
I've seen rumors that a Verizon iPhone is on the way...
But, as far as Flash goes, I'd rather they didn't support it.
Sure, Flash has its place... But it's been horribly abused and overused for years. Platforms like the iPhone, and the advent of HTML5, have the opportunity to push Flash back where it belongs. I'd love to see that happen.
Maybe we should stop calling them libraries. Library comes from Liber and refers to "inner bark" or wood, and refers to books made out of trees. I don't think music, videos and games are made of trees, nor are they rooted in trees. Maybe they do in the sense of telling stories, but I wouldn't consider half the media today to tell a congruent story.
I guess the question then, is what is a "Library"?
Literally, I suppose, the word means a place that stores/lends books... But is that really all a library is? Just books?
I guess the question is more what a library is supposed to accomplish... Is it literally just a storehouse for piles of bound paper? Is that all we're worried about - just collecting a bunch of paper together?
To me, it seems, the value was always the information that was stored in the paper.
Some of it is factual information, which makes the library a good place to do research. You had access to all sorts of journals and periodicals from all over the country... Big ol' encyclopedias and things like that... Various scholarly works on different subjects...
But some of that information is not factual - it's fiction. Which is still important because it's part of our collective culture. Shakespeare has become so deeply embedded in our cultural psyche that it's hard to imagine what the would would be like if he'd never written anything. And while Twilight certainly isn't quality literature, it does give you an idea of what the cultural landscape looks like these days.
And if we're worried about preserving both factual material and material with cultural importance... Then we need to expand our libraries beyond pieces of paper. Music, movies, and even games are of cultural importance.
You are not going to get a 'good job' because there are FAR FAR FAR more people out there looking for those jobs right now with years of 'experience' on paper that you don't have.
I didn't see the OP say anything about a "good job." Sounded to me like he was looking for an entry-level position.
And stop expecting a big salary shiny salary to do what is essentially the work of a computer janitor.
As soon as you lower your expectations to reality you'll find 'entry level' jobs are almost as common as now-hiring signs at McDonalds.
Maybe I missed something somewhere... But I don't see where the OP said anything about a "big shiny salary."
And it sounds to me like he has been applying. Or, at least he claims he has.
Either you've got some additional information, or my reading comprehension has gone downhill since this morning.
I have a friend who was a teacher in California for a year. She was laid off and promptly given 2/3rds her previous salary in unemployment benefits. Pretty good for keeping the same employer and just not working anymore. If I tried that it would result in a 100% pay cut.
Is there some reason why you would not be eligible for unemployment benefits?
Governments waste money. Your local government does it. Your state government. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head (/sarcasm) but I'm pretty sure the federal government does it, too.
Yes, it's a government that's footing the bill here... But it's a private company that's wasting the money. Sure, they should have been fired and replaced... But that's more of an oversight thing than a waste of money thing, right?
The fact of the matter is that wasting money isn't limited to governments. Private companies waste money all the freaking time.
My current favorite is a local supplier of EMR software and the accompanying hardware. One of the doctors we support spent about $30,000 for a server, software, and some workstations. That supplier then turned around and sent the doctor about $5,000 worth of junk for Christmas as a "thank you." Seems to me that they could have either taken $5,000 off the initial price... Or put it towards making the software better.
I don't really read news sites myself, I read stories that I found links to. But I don't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories. So it would be NOT 1 pound per day, but 1 pound per article. So I just wouldn't.
That's the problem with paywalls these days... Most folks don't just go to a single site for their news.
Personally, I gather my information from a variety of aggregators like Slashdot, Reddit, Google News, and an assortment of blogs. I don't just go to a single news site and read everything they have to offer.
So I'd have to pay to access a half-dozen sites a day, if not more.
I suppose that maybe this is the intent... Make it too expensive to shop around for your information. Make it cheaper to go to a single source. So you don't read just a single article from The Times, you read pretty much everything there. And I assume there'll still be advertising all over the site.
I've always filed the original forms of both these aggressive updaters under malware anyway...
Agreed.
I always disable automatic updating on everything I can... And then I'll manually check it once a month or so.
I realize I'm probably missing some updates, and probably vulnerable to some threats... But I just hate logging in to my computer and getting bombarded with four or five different update notices.
no, doing degrading and immoral work for money makes one a whore.
Interesting...
I assume we're still both talking about whores as in prostitutes - folks who sell sex for money.
So... What's so immoral or degrading about that?
Sure, some folks have moral objections to is. And some folks probably find it degrading. But does that mean that prostitution as a whole is automatically immoral and degrading?
Wouldn't that make something like bartending immoral as well, since some religions have moral objections to alcohol?
And wouldn't that make pretty much every job on the planet degrading, because I'm sure there's somebody out there who finds it degrading.
Sure, if you're forced into prostitution against your will... By financial problems, or addiction, or extortion, or whatever... That's bad. But it would also be bad to be forced into anything else against your will.
And it's certainly true that the political/legal climate here in the US seems to push sex workers into immoral and degrading situations...
But in areas where sex work is legal, there are plenty of folks who genuinely enjoy their jobs and don't find it immoral or degrading in the least.
Since the talk that it is gone came from a single photo will be interesting to know if the picture was taken during high or low tide.
From the summary at the top of this very page:
Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols
At that age, the save-the-world types do it because their friends are doing it.
And why are their friends doing it?
Early to late teens
I said late teens/early 20s. The article specifically said 20s.
are the age when people cheat in school, bully each other, shoplift, vandalize; generally people are at an ethical low point at that age.
First of all, I never claimed that folks who are in their late teens/early 20s are going to be pillars of the community or moral paragons...
I claimed that the late teens/early 20s is when you frequently see people becoming very active/vocal in their beliefs. I also indicated that it is frequently a time when people are facing real ethical questions for the first time. Regardless of whether they choose to behave ethically or not, it is likely on their mind.
I'm also not convinced that folks change their ethics/morals a whole lot over the years. It's been my experience that the bullies in highschool typically grow up to be bullies later in life... They're just bullying different people and using different techniques.
Similarly, folks with little regard for property (the ones who vandalize stuff and steal) usually grow up to have little regard for property... And while they may not be shoplifting, they're likely going to do everything in their power to take advantage of return policies or the like.
And folks who cheat in school often grow up to be the kind of weasels who do absolutely no work and float along on other people's effort.