the error is in how murdoch quantified what he was purchasing, the perception of what he was actually getting for his money: the error is in thinking you are buying a permanent piece of major real estate on the web. no, what you are buying is a major marketing and branding tool for a few years... which is indeed still worth $500 million
for his $500 million, he gets a few years of ad revenue, some "showing soon" movie marketing hype, some cross-branding possibilities, steering a few kids towards a fox reality show, etc. but after a few years run, the site is worth bupkus
as for facebook's $15 billion, all i can do is laugh. $15 billion?! insane. because facebook too will be worth the gum on my sneaker in a few years. facebook is worth what myspace is worth: $500 million
zuckerman or zuckerberg or whatever the kids name: he should have sold facebook out. hes going to be like that friendster guy is today in a few years: the friendster guy daily kicks himself in the ass for not selling out when he could have. zuckerdude is thinking he has the next google on his hands. no, he has the next xanga. sell out kid, asap
thats how you really make money on social networking sites: you sell out to established media conglomerates, and then go play frisbee. to keep a hold of the site, and thinking you are going to become a permanent internet portal, like google, is hubris, arrogance, egotism. unless you are planning to seque into becoming a search engine, and somehow actually take out google... heh, googd luck. but that's the only sound strategy to take if you plan on keeping the social networking site rather than selling out, upping the ante and going for the diamond ring
and don't worry about facebook, in a few short years, it too will be a hasbeen, replaced by whatever site is the new trend
social networking sites are nothing but trends. they have the limelight for a few years, then they fade. think of them as the bell bottoms and ankle warmers and member's only jackets of the web. here today, master of everything, gone tomorrow, utterly forgotten
so how do you make money off of them?
you make money off of social networking sites by becoming extremely powerful, then seducing some tragically unhip media conglomerate to buy you for gabazillions, then you sleep all day and party all night
so congratulations murdoch, you have a place in "new media" after all: the patsy left holding the bag
I'm a modern man, A man for the millennium, Digital and smoke free.
A diversified multicultural postmodern deconstructionist, Politically anatomically and ecologically incorrect.
I've been uplinked and downloaded. I've been inputted and outsourced. I know the upside of downsizing. I know the downside of upgrading.
I'm a high tech lowlife. A cutting edge state-of-the-art bicoastal multitasker, And I can give you a gigabyte in a nanosecond.
I'm new wave but I'm old school, And my inner child is outward bound.
I'm a hot wired heat seeking warm hearted cool customer, Voice activated and biodegradable.
I interface from a database, And my database is in cyberspace, So I'm interactive, I'm hyperactive, And from time-to-time, I'm radioactive.
Behind the eight ball, Ahead of the curve, Riding the wave, Dodging a bullet, Pushing the envelope.
I'm on point, On task, On message, And off drugs. I got no need for coke and speed, I got no urge to binge and purge.
I'm in the moment, On the edge, Over the top, But under the radar.
A high concept, Low profile, Medium range ballistic missionary. A street-wise smart bomb. A top gun bottom feeder.
I wear power ties, I tell power lies, I take power naps, I run victory laps.
I'm a totally ongoing bigfoot slam dunk rainmaker with a proactive outreach. A raging workaholic. A working ragaholic. Out of rehab, And in denial.
I got a personal trainer, A personal shopper, A personal assistant, And a personal agenda.
You can't shut me up, You can't dumb me down. 'Cause I'm tireless, And I'm wireless. I'm an alpha male on beta blockers.
I'm a non-believer and an over-achiever. Laid back but fashion forward.
Up front, Down home, Low rent, High maintenance.
Super size, Long lasting, High definition, Fast acting, Oven ready, And built to last.
I'm a hands on, Foot loose, Knee jerk, Head case.
Prematurely post traumatic, And I have a love child who sends me hate mail.
But I'm feeling, I'm caring, I'm healing, I'm sharing. A supportive bonding nurturing primary care giver.
My output is down, But my income is up. I take a short position on the long bond, And my revenue stream has its own cash flow.
I read junk mail, I eat junk food, I buy junk bonds, I watch trash sports.
I'm gender specific, Capital intensive, User friendly, And lactose intolerant.
I like rough sex. I like rough sex. I like tough love. I use the f word in my email, And the software on my hard drive is hard core, no soft porn.
I bought a microwave at a mini mall. I bought a mini van in a mega store. I eat fast food in the slow lane.
I'm toll free, Bite sized, Ready to wear, And I come in all sizes.
A fully equipped, Factory authorized, Hospital tested, Clinically proven, Scientifically formulated medical miracle.
I've been pre-washed, Pre-cooked, Pre-heated, Pre-screened, Pre-approved, Pre-packaged, Post-dated, Freeze-dried, Double-wrapped, Vacuum-packed, And I have an unlimited broadband capacity.
I'm a rude dude, But I'm the real deal. Lean and mean. Cocked, locked and ready to rock. Rough tough and hard to bluff.
I take it slow. I go with the flow. I ride with the tide. I got glide in my stride.
Drivin' and movin', Sailin' and spinnin', Jivin' and groovin', Wailin' and winnin'.
I don't snooze, So I don't lose. I keep the pedal to the metal, And the rubber on the road.
I party hearty, And lunch time is crunch time.
I'm hanging in, There ain't no doubt. And I'm hanging tough, Over and out.
-George Carlin, Life Is Worth Losing, Beacon Theater, HBO
not necessarily amazing
on
Water Ice On Mars
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
there's a number of geological processes that can concentrate water like this
in areas on earth where a lot of freezing and thawing occurs on earth, rocks get concentrated neatly in rings according to size, as if someone sorted them
i'm not saying this process is anything like why the ice is so pure on mars, what i am saying is that there are plenty of natural processes out there that concentrate materials in orders that, contraintuitively, seem like it took intelligent concentration, but are in fact totally natural
i won't even begin to speculate what processes on mars could do this, but i wouldn't be surprised if someone more knowledgeable than me could describe such a natural mechanism for ice purification on mars
you need a clean room and a couple of grand worth of a team of specialists time to forensically recover the data, and something might be eternally lost
a few years ago, this would have been exorbitantly expensive overkill, but this stuff keeps getting cheaper by the day
with raid5, your videos will last forever, as long as someone keeps replacing the dead drives
any other media format is physically static, which can degrade. raid5 ensures that the files live on after the physical components degrade, as long as new drives are continually added to the system
and when the technology becomes ancient and archaic, simply move the files over and upgrade (obviously to a new file format as well)
as long as some continually performs low level maintenance, your videos will last forever
you: "well, make believe we could have an open network that miraculously acted like a closed network using miraculous so far nonexistent technology we will miraculously graft into the heart of the internet 30 years after the fact...
zzz
dude, it's very simple. it's not a technological issue, its a philosophical issue. when you have an OPEN network, you have all of these benefits that have made the internet the roaring success it is. into this situation you cannot introduce concepts of a CLOSED network that DOES NOT ALSO DESTROY THAT WHICH MAKES THE INTERNET ATTRACTIVE
get a stiff drink, think about that fact, then say something. do not try to talk about technological "solutions" that boil down to nothing more than a closed network, that thereby nullify any of the benefits of the internet. yes: you can cure the wart on your hand by cutting off your arm. but one would tend to want to keep the arm. that's what making the network closed does. get it?
all they need to do is map his circle of friends, like you said, without even knowing what was said, just by finding the identity of two people in a conversation. thats good enough for them in most espionage work, because then they just focus on other communication channels to find something unencrypted and damaging
in other words, even if your communication was immune from being cracked by the world's finest supercomputers, you essentially have no protection from their eyes on an open network. you simply have no protection. its a myth. no law will protect you. stop clinging to an impossible notion
it is not that you don't deserve privacy, it is that privacy is philosophically impossible on a wide open network. such that giving up on the notion of privacy on the internet isn't cynical and defeatist, it is merely being realistic. in fact, fighting for privacy on the internet is not heroic and idealistic, it is simply gullible and naive and ignorant of the subject matter
if you take a large, open, sprawling network, there is no law or safeguard that can protect you from eavesdropping. forget the government for a moment, what about companies? what about technically astute oddballs? what about aspects of any country's government that does whatever the hell they want to regardless of what the goody two shoes in the legislature say? what about governments of other countries the network passes through? etc., etc.
let us say sweden instead passed a massive ANTI-eavesdropping law instead of the law it did pass. ok, are you going to celebrate? why? are there people out there who actually believe this would protect them from eavesdropping? who are you and what about the concept of a "vast open network" do you not understand?
the news of what the swedish government did is treated as if it were a ton of bricks here. folks: absolutely nothing has changed, and no law will ever protect you. ever. its called a sprawling, open network. its not a bank vault. your info, once it goes on the wire, is open season for snooping, is subject to thousands of different vectors for attack. by all sorts of entities
and there is no technological or legal to fix to that that does not also break what you like about the network in the first place: its openness. thats the downside to being open, call it a twist on the concept of the tragedy of the commons. its free for you to do anything you want... but that means it is also free for more nefarious interests to do whatever they want to to. there is no way to act against such nefarious interests that does not also somehow inconvenience what you like about the network at the same time
the solution? STOP ASSUMING PRIVACY ON AN OPEN NETOWRK IS POSSIBLE OR EVEN A VALID CONCEPT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
seriously, get over it. privacy on the internet is a philosophical impossibility
go walk with them on a beach. if this seems like too much effort, then whatever it is you have to talk about isn't that important to you, and therefore not worth the effort to ensure its privacy
if you are upset at your government spying on you, then what strange notion of yours convinced you that an expansive public network would have no spying on it? i'm not talking about the government passing this law or that law about surveillance, i'm talking about the surveillance that woudl happen anyway, regardless of the laws. duh. which brings us to:
the creeps and slimy types interested in spying on other people's conversations. congratulations, you are as bad as the government who spies on people, because your motivations are certainly no better than their's
so this article sucks, in three different ways:
1. the lazy and indolent who don't want to ensure their privacy by just talking face to face in an obscure place 2. the naive and stupid, who somehow believe it is possible to have a network free of government intrusion, anywhere in the world, regardless of any laws 3. the evil and creepy, who actually want to listen in on other people's conversations, never mind what the government is doing
is not that everyone is equal, but that everyone has the equal right to achieve their fullest
how do you do that? you give everyone access to equal resources
the problem, of course, is that existing class structures means that those with more money get more investment, and so the idea of the meritocracy is defeated before you even begin
thus, you artificially adjust for that by giving more resources to those of lower socioeconomic background
because that's the real story here folks. this entire story is code words for ensuring that the socioeconomically deprived, lower achieving students, stay that way. everyone here is merely defending the class sturcture in code words. those who achieve less in school are so usually becuase of less financial resources, not brainpower
throw in the further hitch that the usual iq test tests for aspects of intelligence that are narrowly defined, and narrowly relevant to leading a good life. for example: the ability to manipulate 3D shapes in your mind figures prominently on most iq tests. this is wonderful if your career goal is structural engineering. but how many structural engineers do we need and is that mental ability really a valid maeasure for overall intellignece. for example: there is no test for social intelligence, charisma. charisma, obviously, has more bearing on whether you are a "high achiever" in life, than 3D shape manipulation, and is much more valid measur eof true intelligence
so i'm going to go completely against the grain here on slashdot to this story of more resources for underachievers and say: "bravo"
now mod me a troll, but i've stated my case reasonably and straightforwardly
the problem with a lot of the comments here on slashdot is not that they defend the "rights" of overachievers, whatever that is supposed to mean, but that they are insulted that their clique of higher test scoring peers seems dissed
well congratulations, you can manipulate 3D shapes on your head. that doesn't mean you deserve more than some other kid, who in fact may be smarter than you, but whose intelligence isn't neatly boiled down into existing tests. and, considering the code words here that are going on for the socioeconomically deprived, pat yourself on the back for defending the existing class structure in code words
1. use pebble bed reactors. you can walk away from these things and they do not go china syndrome, release nuclea water, gas, anything (they are in fact air cooled, no water). they are passively safe: they do not require constant human surveilance to keep from going haywire. the problem is that a lot of people base their opinion of nuclear technology on 1960s era technology. unfortunately, mccain might go with the ancient bullshit tech westinghouse will probably foist on the administration that greenlights new reactors. this is one case where "buy american" means "buy old tech"
2. use breeder reactors, for 4 reasons:
1. current reactors use 1/10th of available fuel. 2. they emit 10x the waste 3. the waste lasts tens of thousands of years and is highly radioactive 4. you can use thorium (extending nuclear tech for centuries with this hugfe fuel source)
use breeder reactors and you stretch your fuel 10x, emit 1/10th the waste, your waste is radioactive for only a century or two, and emits low level radiation, and you are stguck using uranium
so why the heck don't we use breeder reactors? for a big reason: that's how you make plutonium. which can be used in weapons. avoid breeder reactors, and you have nuclear power without bomb-making tech
however, i would assert that the defense expenditure for protecting nuclear reactors from terrorism would be orders of magnitude less expensive than sending our children and brothers/sisters and parents to foreign shores to protect rapdily diminishing oil sources. oil sources which are used to fund militant religious fundamentalist forces hell-bent on destroying us anyways
and if you think that was a snide comment on other countries having the best and brightest, don't worry about it
DARPA is still employing them, in shanghai and bangalore
and so we actually have an optimistic comment here: an interconnected world is a world that doesn't have a need or desire to go to war with itself, that doesn't actually need a defense department. the de-isolation of governmental brainpower isn't the beginning of the end of a good defense department, it is the beginning of the end of a need for defense
on the vast majority of problems that call for getting involved
to not understand that you need force is a sort of naivete about the nature of the problems in this world, the nature of their cause, and the nature of their solution
there is a major specious assumption underlying a lot of the shock in the comments in this thread: butt out and mind your own business, and everything will get better. fact: in any conflict, on any scale, from the interpersonal on up to the international, it is always better to get involved. it is better for yourself, it is better for other people, and it is morally superior. it is naive and morally inferior to believe that not getting involved makes things better, anywhere, on any issue, in any place
take any issue or region of the world you care about, anywhere in the world, and it is obvious the solution involves getting more involved
you can write the next shawshank redemption, and you will still be rejected, simply because there's so much crap out there
solution: make the damn movie yourself. its cheap nowadays
i know exactly what you are thinking right now and the answer is no: you do not need special effects
if your movie has lotr$$$-level special effects, you're doing it wrong. a good story is a good story, and a bad story is a bad story. lotr told with brown paper bag hand puppets is still compelling. and i don't think i need to remind anyone of movies that have cost $100 million in special effects and still sucked ass
special effects will not save your story, your story does not depend upon special effects. so no, you don't NEED the special effects to tell your story if your story is good. if you still think you need special effects, i can tell you right now, knowing nothing else about it, with absolute certainty: your story sucks
so make the damn thing yourself. find out yourself how much you suck, or how good you are
Slashdot Mirror
say, a bunch of birds holding a large whale with nothing but string...
http://www.maniactive.com/states/2008/06/top-2-reasons-to-love-technical.html
the error is in how murdoch quantified what he was purchasing, the perception of what he was actually getting for his money: the error is in thinking you are buying a permanent piece of major real estate on the web. no, what you are buying is a major marketing and branding tool for a few years... which is indeed still worth $500 million
for his $500 million, he gets a few years of ad revenue, some "showing soon" movie marketing hype, some cross-branding possibilities, steering a few kids towards a fox reality show, etc. but after a few years run, the site is worth bupkus
as for facebook's $15 billion, all i can do is laugh. $15 billion?! insane. because facebook too will be worth the gum on my sneaker in a few years. facebook is worth what myspace is worth: $500 million
zuckerman or zuckerberg or whatever the kids name: he should have sold facebook out. hes going to be like that friendster guy is today in a few years: the friendster guy daily kicks himself in the ass for not selling out when he could have. zuckerdude is thinking he has the next google on his hands. no, he has the next xanga. sell out kid, asap
thats how you really make money on social networking sites: you sell out to established media conglomerates, and then go play frisbee. to keep a hold of the site, and thinking you are going to become a permanent internet portal, like google, is hubris, arrogance, egotism. unless you are planning to seque into becoming a search engine, and somehow actually take out google... heh, googd luck. but that's the only sound strategy to take if you plan on keeping the social networking site rather than selling out, upping the ante and going for the diamond ring
its called craigslist
friendster
xanga
geocities
tripod
etc.
and don't worry about facebook, in a few short years, it too will be a hasbeen, replaced by whatever site is the new trend
social networking sites are nothing but trends. they have the limelight for a few years, then they fade. think of them as the bell bottoms and ankle warmers and member's only jackets of the web. here today, master of everything, gone tomorrow, utterly forgotten
so how do you make money off of them?
you make money off of social networking sites by becoming extremely powerful, then seducing some tragically unhip media conglomerate to buy you for gabazillions, then you sleep all day and party all night
so congratulations murdoch, you have a place in "new media" after all: the patsy left holding the bag
-George Carlin, Life Is Worth Losing, Beacon Theater, HBO
there's a number of geological processes that can concentrate water like this
in areas on earth where a lot of freezing and thawing occurs on earth, rocks get concentrated neatly in rings according to size, as if someone sorted them
i'm not saying this process is anything like why the ice is so pure on mars, what i am saying is that there are plenty of natural processes out there that concentrate materials in orders that, contraintuitively, seem like it took intelligent concentration, but are in fact totally natural
i won't even begin to speculate what processes on mars could do this, but i wouldn't be surprised if someone more knowledgeable than me could describe such a natural mechanism for ice purification on mars
you need a clean room and a couple of grand worth of a team of specialists time to forensically recover the data, and something might be eternally lost
raid5 just requires a drive swap
its my conscience!
a few years ago, this would have been exorbitantly expensive overkill, but this stuff keeps getting cheaper by the day
with raid5, your videos will last forever, as long as someone keeps replacing the dead drives
any other media format is physically static, which can degrade. raid5 ensures that the files live on after the physical components degrade, as long as new drives are continually added to the system
and when the technology becomes ancient and archaic, simply move the files over and upgrade (obviously to a new file format as well)
as long as some continually performs low level maintenance, your videos will last forever
where you see a problem i see opportunity
send 10 fat guys to mars in a small capsule loaded with beans, rice, corn dogs, garlic knots, etc
when the capsule reaches mars, BOOM, a little percussion decompression, and voila: instant martian atmosphere
Dumb Internet Pirates In France To Lose Broadband
Internet Pirates In France With The Slightest Bit of Technical Acumen To Carry On As Usual
there, fixed that for you
me: "OPEN. NETWORK. UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS?"
you: "well, make believe we could have an open network that miraculously acted like a closed network using miraculous so far nonexistent technology we will miraculously graft into the heart of the internet 30 years after the fact...
zzz
dude, it's very simple. it's not a technological issue, its a philosophical issue. when you have an OPEN network, you have all of these benefits that have made the internet the roaring success it is. into this situation you cannot introduce concepts of a CLOSED network that DOES NOT ALSO DESTROY THAT WHICH MAKES THE INTERNET ATTRACTIVE
get a stiff drink, think about that fact, then say something. do not try to talk about technological "solutions" that boil down to nothing more than a closed network, that thereby nullify any of the benefits of the internet. yes: you can cure the wart on your hand by cutting off your arm. but one would tend to want to keep the arm. that's what making the network closed does. get it?
anything that passes onto an open network
which is my whole point
(rolls eyes)
all they need to do is map his circle of friends, like you said, without even knowing what was said, just by finding the identity of two people in a conversation. thats good enough for them in most espionage work, because then they just focus on other communication channels to find something unencrypted and damaging
in other words, even if your communication was immune from being cracked by the world's finest supercomputers, you essentially have no protection from their eyes on an open network. you simply have no protection. its a myth. no law will protect you. stop clinging to an impossible notion
it is not that you don't deserve privacy, it is that privacy is philosophically impossible on a wide open network. such that giving up on the notion of privacy on the internet isn't cynical and defeatist, it is merely being realistic. in fact, fighting for privacy on the internet is not heroic and idealistic, it is simply gullible and naive and ignorant of the subject matter
if you take a large, open, sprawling network, there is no law or safeguard that can protect you from eavesdropping. forget the government for a moment, what about companies? what about technically astute oddballs? what about aspects of any country's government that does whatever the hell they want to regardless of what the goody two shoes in the legislature say? what about governments of other countries the network passes through? etc., etc.
let us say sweden instead passed a massive ANTI-eavesdropping law instead of the law it did pass. ok, are you going to celebrate? why? are there people out there who actually believe this would protect them from eavesdropping? who are you and what about the concept of a "vast open network" do you not understand?
the news of what the swedish government did is treated as if it were a ton of bricks here. folks: absolutely nothing has changed, and no law will ever protect you. ever. its called a sprawling, open network. its not a bank vault. your info, once it goes on the wire, is open season for snooping, is subject to thousands of different vectors for attack. by all sorts of entities
and there is no technological or legal to fix to that that does not also break what you like about the network in the first place: its openness. thats the downside to being open, call it a twist on the concept of the tragedy of the commons. its free for you to do anything you want... but that means it is also free for more nefarious interests to do whatever they want to to. there is no way to act against such nefarious interests that does not also somehow inconvenience what you like about the network at the same time
the solution? STOP ASSUMING PRIVACY ON AN OPEN NETOWRK IS POSSIBLE OR EVEN A VALID CONCEPT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
seriously, get over it. privacy on the internet is a philosophical impossibility
go walk with them on a beach. if this seems like too much effort, then whatever it is you have to talk about isn't that important to you, and therefore not worth the effort to ensure its privacy
if you are upset at your government spying on you, then what strange notion of yours convinced you that an expansive public network would have no spying on it? i'm not talking about the government passing this law or that law about surveillance, i'm talking about the surveillance that woudl happen anyway, regardless of the laws. duh. which brings us to:
the creeps and slimy types interested in spying on other people's conversations. congratulations, you are as bad as the government who spies on people, because your motivations are certainly no better than their's
so this article sucks, in three different ways:
1. the lazy and indolent who don't want to ensure their privacy by just talking face to face in an obscure place
2. the naive and stupid, who somehow believe it is possible to have a network free of government intrusion, anywhere in the world, regardless of any laws
3. the evil and creepy, who actually want to listen in on other people's conversations, never mind what the government is doing
this whole article is a loser's ball
is not that everyone is equal, but that everyone has the equal right to achieve their fullest
how do you do that? you give everyone access to equal resources
the problem, of course, is that existing class structures means that those with more money get more investment, and so the idea of the meritocracy is defeated before you even begin
thus, you artificially adjust for that by giving more resources to those of lower socioeconomic background
because that's the real story here folks. this entire story is code words for ensuring that the socioeconomically deprived, lower achieving students, stay that way. everyone here is merely defending the class sturcture in code words. those who achieve less in school are so usually becuase of less financial resources, not brainpower
throw in the further hitch that the usual iq test tests for aspects of intelligence that are narrowly defined, and narrowly relevant to leading a good life. for example: the ability to manipulate 3D shapes in your mind figures prominently on most iq tests. this is wonderful if your career goal is structural engineering. but how many structural engineers do we need and is that mental ability really a valid maeasure for overall intellignece. for example: there is no test for social intelligence, charisma. charisma, obviously, has more bearing on whether you are a "high achiever" in life, than 3D shape manipulation, and is much more valid measur eof true intelligence
so i'm going to go completely against the grain here on slashdot to this story of more resources for underachievers and say: "bravo"
now mod me a troll, but i've stated my case reasonably and straightforwardly
the problem with a lot of the comments here on slashdot is not that they defend the "rights" of overachievers, whatever that is supposed to mean, but that they are insulted that their clique of higher test scoring peers seems dissed
well congratulations, you can manipulate 3D shapes on your head. that doesn't mean you deserve more than some other kid, who in fact may be smarter than you, but whose intelligence isn't neatly boiled down into existing tests. and, considering the code words here that are going on for the socioeconomically deprived, pat yourself on the back for defending the existing class structure in code words
1. use pebble bed reactors. you can walk away from these things and they do not go china syndrome, release nuclea water, gas, anything (they are in fact air cooled, no water). they are passively safe: they do not require constant human surveilance to keep from going haywire. the problem is that a lot of people base their opinion of nuclear technology on 1960s era technology. unfortunately, mccain might go with the ancient bullshit tech westinghouse will probably foist on the administration that greenlights new reactors. this is one case where "buy american" means "buy old tech"
2. use breeder reactors, for 4 reasons:
1. current reactors use 1/10th of available fuel.
2. they emit 10x the waste
3. the waste lasts tens of thousands of years and is highly radioactive
4. you can use thorium (extending nuclear tech for centuries with this hugfe fuel source)
use breeder reactors and you stretch your fuel 10x, emit 1/10th the waste, your waste is radioactive for only a century or two, and emits low level radiation, and you are stguck using uranium
so why the heck don't we use breeder reactors? for a big reason: that's how you make plutonium. which can be used in weapons. avoid breeder reactors, and you have nuclear power without bomb-making tech
however, i would assert that the defense expenditure for protecting nuclear reactors from terrorism would be orders of magnitude less expensive than sending our children and brothers/sisters and parents to foreign shores to protect rapdily diminishing oil sources. oil sources which are used to fund militant religious fundamentalist forces hell-bent on destroying us anyways
and if you think that was a snide comment on other countries having the best and brightest, don't worry about it
DARPA is still employing them, in shanghai and bangalore
and so we actually have an optimistic comment here: an interconnected world is a world that doesn't have a need or desire to go to war with itself, that doesn't actually need a defense department. the de-isolation of governmental brainpower isn't the beginning of the end of a good defense department, it is the beginning of the end of a need for defense
globalization ftw
until a DDoS effort successfully disrupts tiger wood's game
DDoG?
on the vast majority of problems that call for getting involved
to not understand that you need force is a sort of naivete about the nature of the problems in this world, the nature of their cause, and the nature of their solution
there is a major specious assumption underlying a lot of the shock in the comments in this thread: butt out and mind your own business, and everything will get better. fact: in any conflict, on any scale, from the interpersonal on up to the international, it is always better to get involved. it is better for yourself, it is better for other people, and it is morally superior. it is naive and morally inferior to believe that not getting involved makes things better, anywhere, on any issue, in any place
take any issue or region of the world you care about, anywhere in the world, and it is obvious the solution involves getting more involved
as if any of this is shocking
are there people out there who are so sheltered and naive that they find anything in that document out of the ordinary?
i don't mean ordinary for the usa, i mean ordinary for the world
no documentation, and variable names based on the names of the programmer's girlfriends
you can write the next shawshank redemption, and you will still be rejected, simply because there's so much crap out there
solution: make the damn movie yourself. its cheap nowadays
i know exactly what you are thinking right now and the answer is no: you do not need special effects
if your movie has lotr$$$-level special effects, you're doing it wrong. a good story is a good story, and a bad story is a bad story. lotr told with brown paper bag hand puppets is still compelling. and i don't think i need to remind anyone of movies that have cost $100 million in special effects and still sucked ass
special effects will not save your story, your story does not depend upon special effects. so no, you don't NEED the special effects to tell your story if your story is good. if you still think you need special effects, i can tell you right now, knowing nothing else about it, with absolute certainty: your story sucks
so make the damn thing yourself. find out yourself how much you suck, or how good you are