. . . it could be many years before we ever see any new Star Trek . ..
I had honestly hoped that would happen after Voyager ended. I figured a few years would give some time for some fresh new ideas, and some fresh new interest.
I was somewhat disappointed when I heard about Enterprise in the first place, not that I thought it was a bad premise, but that it was a bad time to go forward with it.
I gave it a chance, though, and watched the first season and a half (or maybe two seasons, I'm not so sure). After a bit, I stopped keeping up with it. It just wasn't worth it for yet another rip-off of an idea already done in a previous Trek series.
Anway, I won't miss it in the slightest. I haven't missed it the past two years it was on, so why would I miss it after it was gone?
This is not conclusive proof of black hole theory, only conclusive proof of a supermassive object at the center of our galaxy. It does not answer the theoretical question as to whether black holes or gravastars best fit the observations.
Obviously, the scientists making this announcement would be in the black hole segment of the physics community.
Trying to think of something witty and clever to end this post with . . . . ah, screw it . . .
Kudo's to the Canadian court, but do they really have jurisdiction over ICANN? Does anyone?
From the article: But because the arbitration panel [ICANN] has no established appeal process, and can be overruled by a court of law, Black took his case to the Ontario Superior Court.
So, apparently any soveriegn nation has this type of jurisdiction over ICANN. So, when ICANN goes out and does something stupid (such as this decision), the courts of the nation(s) affected can correct the problem.
However, the site does not disparage General Motors (aside from the domain name, of course). What it does do, however, is redirect you to the Ford website. That's what Ford is upset about. To the average idiot, it may seem that the site was set up by Ford.
Like any other technology, it is not good or evil in and of itself. It just is. What people do with it is either good or evil.
I must admit, there certainly are some scary possibilities with nanotech. Programmable viruses (as mentioned), which could be used to target specific groups or people (program by DNA); imperceptible tracking devices; and any other whacked idea you can come up with.
But there are also some productive possibilities as well. That same DNA programming could be used to detect cancer cells. Or imagine nano-surgical bots, fixing organs without ever having to open up the body again. The possibilities are endless here too.
The point is, the technology is going to go forward anyway. It's not like the U.S. is the only nation on earth researching nanotech. The question is: What do we do with it? Does it remain secret? A potential government monopoly? That would, in my opinion, be worse. The best way to discover the constructive and destructive possibilities of nanotech is to openly explore them; not to let the government say, "Well, that's a potential weapon. No research down that route." As I mentioned before, the same techniques that could allow programmable viruses could also allow DNA-targeted therapies, attacking cancers, bacteria, and (natural) viruses. So what happens then? Does fear trump potential?
That's just what I think. But then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about. I'm just winging it (ten years and counting),
Not a Napsterite, but I'll respond...
on
Sharing Doesn't Hurt
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Point well taken. There certainly is a difference between an artist offering up his/her works and having them forcibly taken.
However, this article points to the stupidity of the publishing industry (and by extension, the MPAA/RIAA)rather than the illegality of services like Napster.
File-sharing could be a boon to these guys if they would just pull their heads out of their asses. Rather than hurting sales, file sharing has been demonstrated to help it (small sample, but it's certainly far more evidence than the MPAA or RIAA can provide). Instead, they push for anti-copying legislation (CBDTPA).
It's just so pathetically ironic: in their attempts to stop piracy, they push more people into seeking illegal alternatives (who wants to pay $30 for a crippled CD when the good tracks are available online for free; no encryption is uncrackable).
And the very thing that they're fighting is the one thing that could save them. As I see it, the internet will leave them in the dust if they don't stop fighting it. Non-mainstream, quality artists will begin bypassing the MPAA/RIAA for internet alternatives. Then things will change.
Aw, hell, who am I kidding? A CBDTPA type-bill will pass, and free will equal illegal.
Extreme optimism and extreme pessimism in the same post? I better get my head checked, I may have schizophrenia,
This is difficult on a couple of fronts. First, a law that has specific allotments would likely have trouble as technology evolveds, and as new technologies are introduced. Second, the media companies are looking for a law that blocks circumvention tools, not the actual act itself (as I understand it, I could be wrong). The media cartel and puppets (like Hollings) would surely find a way to slip it by existing laws.
In my opinion, no new law is needed in the first place. Piracy is already illegal, why do we need a law that bans the tools? It's like banning guns or cars because they could be used to kill.
What the media companies really need to do to protect their profit margins is offer the public something that pirated media canot . . . selection, quality, security (in relation to viruses, etc), preferably all three. Unfortunately, this is not likely. As is the case with MS, the media companies are better at litigation than innovation. It's also cheaper to buy legislation to protect your profit margin than it is to develop better quality.
Now, for the more optmistic part of the rant . . . Thankfully, the American public (and technology industry) aren't stupid enough to allow a crap bill like this to pass. People aren't generally willig to give up their rights so some lawyer can fill his pocket. And as the bill puts the tech indusry's profit margin in danger, they naturally moved to kill it. Thankfully, the interest of the big tech companies is similar to the average consume r. . . to allow general-purpose computing to continue uninterupted by the idiocy of the media companies
Now, back to pessimism . . . What we need to watch out for now are the seemingly "safer" bills that will follow. Having been defeated (or so it would seem) in the attempt to get it all at once, the media companies (and said puppets) will try again in increments.
If this comment makes sense in any way, I apologize. It was not my intention,
Just a couple of thoughs (from a non-intelligent, non-scientist):
Magnetic Field As I understand Mars, even if the CO2 the Martian atmosphere became thicker, it would not be able to hold it for long. This is because at present, Mars does not have a magnetic field as does Earth. Without it, the strong solar wind would strip the atmosphere away. (BTW, this is one theory as to how Mars could have lost its water. It is believed Mars did once have a strong magnetic field, which protected its atmosphere and allowed enough heat to be trapped for liquid water to flow. As the magnetic field died, so did the planet.) However, if Mars was somehow re-establishing its magnetic field (don't ask me how, I just spit out wild, non-sensical theories, I don't explain them), maybe it could.
The Sun It occurs to me that this new "development" could be tied to the gradual warming of the sun. Perhaps a threshold has been reached, and is causing the release of Martian CO2 (this un-thought out, unsubstantiated "threshold theory" may also apply to Earth).
Then again, I could be wrong. Profoundly wrong. Not even within a parsec of the right answer. Most of my posts are that way anyway, why break the trend?
Looking forward to running naked on Mars (although Mars certainly isn't) . . .
Well, hopefully by having such a random selection you would get a more balanced organization. Of course there would always be some trade-mark friendly ones, but there would also be anti-trademark ones and the rare impartial ones.
By having only one organization, trademark holders can't shop around for the friendliest one. They are forced to go to one organization, which may or may not be friendly to their needs.
Also, let's say that this solo orgainization is trademark friendly. It may not stay that way as members come and go (mostly randomly). So there could be runs of pro- and anti-trademark rulings, but the trademark holder could never be sure which they were going to get. This contrasts with the current system, where trademark owners know there are certain places they can go for a friendly ruling.
No solution is perfect, but this announcement certainly shows that the current one doesn't work. IMHO, a single arbitration orgainzation would be the best solution.
I agree you would want to know when and why the new rules came into play. But you would only be able to do after studying the effects of the new rules over a period of time. Would the new rules fit into an over-arching new theory? Maybe. But, no theory would be universal, as particle physicists hope. It will only apply to certain times and certain places, leaving the "tentful" of theories mentioned in the article.
I agree the point of science is to break things down to the minimalist level. But that's not because the universe operates based upon some simple principle. It's because in order for us to understand the universe, we must break it down into simple, easy to digest pieces. These pieces give us an idea of the overall complexity of the universe, but inevitably something is lost.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not putting down the work of the particle physicists. Their work is very important. What I am saying is that by taking two different approaches, by both breaking things down into simple (if imperfect) pieces and looking at the larger view, we get a better understanding of the universe. Niether on its own can cover everything.
This post was in no way meant to inform, interest, or create insight. Please do not moderate in this fashion,
IANAP (Physicist, naturally), but I'd have to say that the solid-staters argument makes sense. It seems arrogant to think that the universe must obey these silly little laws we come up with. Mathematical laws are a tool, they simpify the workings of the universe so a human mind can grasp them. But they are not the universe. I would tend to agree with thier arguement that as systems get more complex, new rules come into play. How then can the universe's intricate workings be summed up in a few silly little equations?
I've found the answer! The universe isn't dominated by some elaborate unified theory, or general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or anything like that. I've found a principle that applies everywhere. Everywhere I look, there it is. The central principle of the universe is: STUPIDITY! It all makes sense now . ..
Well, at least its the central principle in my life,
I don't think its so much the technology as what's done with it. It's about creativity, not technology.
Star Wars is a perfect example. The technology and techniques used to make The Phantom Menace were certainly more mature than the ones that created the original Star Wars. But I haven't heard anyone claim that The Phantom Menace was a better movie.
Or think of Shrek vs. Final Fantasy. One tried for the most realistic graphics, the other had a script.
If all the "virtual celebrities" are look-alike Britney Speares clones (complete with "virtual boob jobs"), I don't think it'll really catch on. Add some variety, some depth, some creativity, and you may have something.
As far as CG stars with "virtual boob jobs," they'll really catch on in porn . . .
Actually, the article mentioned the possiblity of a price cap. Here's the quote from the article, from the Q & A section:
People in the U.S. tend to prefer a flat-rate model to a pay-per-unit model. Could there be a flat-rate model with penny per page?
Probably the easiest way to implement a flat-rate model would be to create a cap. Let's say that the monthly cap were $20 per month. Everyone would know that if they looked at more than 2,000 pages per month, they would pay no more than $20 per month. If they looked at less than 2,000, they would pay only for the pages viewed. For people who hit the cap, the billing model would simply divide the $20 paid by the customer by the number of pages viewed and pay the sites whatever amount that turned out to be per page.
While it was put in context of the preference for a flat-rate, it could aslo prevent people from running up insane charges each month.
Thank you for wasting your time by reading this comment,
If you go to some kind of "pay-per-page" system, what's to stop web sites from pulling all kinds of dirty tricks to drive up the page views. Already sites use pop-up windows and other such things. They also have a tendancy to break down their articles into multiple pages, so you have to click through multiple times to drive up their banner-count.
"
What would prevent a site from having a page that pops up 100 new pages when you land on it to ream the unsuspecting visitor out of a dollar? The billing mechanism should track for and eliminate charges for that, as well as for pages that auto-refresh themselves, error and non-existant pages, pages arrived at by pressing the back button, duplicate pages and so on."
I would assume that the "penny-per-page" charge would only be incurred when a page is specifically requested by the viewer. Also, in reference to splitting content across pages, if sites chop things up too much, nobody will go to them, and they lose their cash flow. It's not a perfect system (what is), but it does present an intruiging idea. It could work.
Remember, I am an idiot, so I really don't have any idea what I'm talking about,
The way I see it, globalism/globalization is all about potential.
On the one hand, it has the potential to drop barriers and unite humanity into a complex, but harmonious web of inter-connected local governments. It has the potential to open the world up to new cultural ideas (Not just American ones. In this global community, everyone speaks). It has the potential to bring freedom, liberty, and higher standards of living to the globe./optimism
On the other hand, it has the potential to bring an American corporate ogliarchy into existence. A homogenized, processed, company-approved world where everyone is a consumer rather than a citizen, the law is based on the "needs of the company", and everybody's rights are defined by EULAs./pessimism
Of course, these are two extremes, and it's more likely the true result will be somewhere in the middle. Hopefully leaning toward the first paragraph, but somewhere in the middle.
Damn inflation! It costs a buck and a quarter to get my two cents in . . .
Actyally, it's about 5 billion years old, and expected to live another 5 billion; so it's more like middle-aged. So, it's more likely bald spots. Now, if we could only find a star-sized dose of Rogaine . ..
If it's worried about it's age, maybe scientists could find a hot little proto-star.
In no way implying that the sun needs to get laid,
I'm not exactly an expert in this field, so ignore the following if you like:
The way I figure it, it a break-up were to take place, the people invested into Microsoft would be given an option: Equivalent stock in one (or both) of the new companies, or cashing out and taking the value of their stock. Of course, with news of a break-up, stock prices would fall, so option two may not look so good. So I would assume that most people would take the stock option. Assuming two companies created, either wouldn't be all that bad. The OS half would still control 85% of the desktop market, and the other half (which I assume at this point would center around services, ala.NET) would start off smaller but have more upside.
However, at this point I doubt that a breakup will happen. Microsoft will, IMO, be allowed to remain a single company. Hopefully, it will be a single company acting within the limits of U.S. and international law (for the first time a long time).
I ain't no freakin' Nostradamus ova hea, but that's the way I see it. Feel free to disagree, call me an idiot, and write nasty things about me on bathroom stalls (I'll never see 'em anyway, what do I care?).
This comment not intended to be interesting, informative, or insightful. If these qualities are discovered, please inform the poster so they can be removed,
It certainly isn't "a step in the right direction." ICANN isn't giving in to public demands, its giving up on public participation. It seems to me that ICANN is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
"Well, lets see...the voting system has problems, prone to multiple voting...then let's not let voting have an effect on the board!"
That's basically what they're doing. Reducing the number of board members elected by the public (from one half to one third), limiting voters to domain owners, and charging "annual membership fees" (aka Poll Taxes) to public voters; they are starting to take the public out of the process and hand it on a silver platter to corporations. I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of years they decided to eliminate public voting all together, in the name of getting "members who are knowledgeable about the technical issues surrounding the Internet" and eliminating voting fraud.
Then there's this idea:
To compensate for anyone's loss of a vote, ICANN plans to create a committee responsible for collecting input from the public, including people who do not own domains.I don't see how that's any compensation. Changing the public's role from determining who makes up the board to what gets written in some committee's report (which probably won't get read anyway) is no compensation.
All this bitching has made me hungry, so I'm off to get a sandwich,
While I'm not naive enough to believe that political motivations are pure, I don't quite see the lure of money in this one. In this proposed settlement (from the DOJ website) there is no mention of monetary fines. Now, if money were the only reason Mass. was holding out, wouldn't the other 17 states go "Oh, shit, we can make money off this? Why the hell are we signing this agreement?"
That being the case, I think it's more likely that Mass. is holding out for better reasons. They see the loopholes in the current agreement and decided it would not be an effective barrier to Microsoft continuing its illegal practices.
Well, the way it is right now, the Democrat states (and the ones more likely to reject the deal) are the Northeast (New England, New York) and California. These are also ares that are more heavily populated (and, to my knowledge) more tech-oriented. However, there does seem to be a chink in the armor: New York is planning to sign the agreement with some added restrictions on Microsoft, a source close to the deliberations said Monday. New York officials have been in touch with
Microsoft and Justice Department lawyers, the source said.
Also, the article mentioned that if the coalition breaks, tbe remaining states can either go on themselves or force the hand of the other states.
You're right, it all comes down to the leaders. If other states join Massachusetts and hold out, they may be able to get a better deal done.
On October 30, two interesting things happened: My Karma surpassed my IQ; and I got the +1 Bonus,
I saw this theory someplace about a month back. If I remember right, the two types of matter don't interact much, so a "mirror matter" asteroid impact would have the same effect as an ultra-low density asteroid. Supposedly, there would have been enough reaction with air to make it explode, but after that the rest of the "mirror matter" would likely bury itself underground (because of the weak interaction, it would pass through the surface before ultimately being stopped).
The article also said that this was a possible explanation of dark matter, since it would exert gravitational pull but would not be observable.
Interesting idea, although it would likely be impossible to improve.
Of course, it could have just been a fat Russian cutting wind near a campfire, but I'm no scientician,
The second and third phases as it is scaled back and becomes only slightly more palatable are the ones that we really have to look out for.
Exactly. The coming discussions are the more important ones. Now is the time to step up the pressure. With the outrageous bill seemingly out of the way, it is time to focus on the one that has a chance of passing.
If we start to relax because "well, at least the SSSCA isn't going to pass," we're going to get stuck with something almost as bad.
Write your senator! Keep up the pressure! Defeat the SSSCA and its bastard children!
Slashdot Mirror
I had honestly hoped that would happen after Voyager ended. I figured a few years would give some time for some fresh new ideas, and some fresh new interest.
I was somewhat disappointed when I heard about Enterprise in the first place, not that I thought it was a bad premise, but that it was a bad time to go forward with it.
I gave it a chance, though, and watched the first season and a half (or maybe two seasons, I'm not so sure). After a bit, I stopped keeping up with it. It just wasn't worth it for yet another rip-off of an idea already done in a previous Trek series.
Anway, I won't miss it in the slightest. I haven't missed it the past two years it was on, so why would I miss it after it was gone?
Insert witty Star Trek joke,
This is not conclusive proof of black hole theory, only conclusive proof of a supermassive object at the center of our galaxy. It does not answer the theoretical question as to whether black holes or gravastars best fit the observations.
Obviously, the scientists making this announcement would be in the black hole segment of the physics community.
Trying to think of something witty and clever to end this post with . . . . ah, screw it . . .
From the article: But because the arbitration panel [ICANN] has no established appeal process, and can be overruled by a court of law, Black took his case to the Ontario Superior Court.
So, apparently any soveriegn nation has this type of jurisdiction over ICANN. So, when ICANN goes out and does something stupid (such as this decision), the courts of the nation(s) affected can correct the problem.
Getting ready to go out and do something stupid,
However, the site does not disparage General Motors (aside from the domain name, of course). What it does do, however, is redirect you to the Ford website. That's what Ford is upset about. To the average idiot, it may seem that the site was set up by Ford.
Restating the obvious since 1992,
Like any other technology, it is not good or evil in and of itself. It just is. What people do with it is either good or evil.
I must admit, there certainly are some scary possibilities with nanotech. Programmable viruses (as mentioned), which could be used to target specific groups or people (program by DNA); imperceptible tracking devices; and any other whacked idea you can come up with.
But there are also some productive possibilities as well. That same DNA programming could be used to detect cancer cells. Or imagine nano-surgical bots, fixing organs without ever having to open up the body again. The possibilities are endless here too.
The point is, the technology is going to go forward anyway. It's not like the U.S. is the only nation on earth researching nanotech. The question is: What do we do with it? Does it remain secret? A potential government monopoly? That would, in my opinion, be worse. The best way to discover the constructive and destructive possibilities of nanotech is to openly explore them; not to let the government say, "Well, that's a potential weapon. No research down that route." As I mentioned before, the same techniques that could allow programmable viruses could also allow DNA-targeted therapies, attacking cancers, bacteria, and (natural) viruses. So what happens then? Does fear trump potential?
That's just what I think. But then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about. I'm just winging it (ten years and counting),
Point well taken. There certainly is a difference between an artist offering up his/her works and having them forcibly taken.
However, this article points to the stupidity of the publishing industry (and by extension, the MPAA/RIAA)rather than the illegality of services like Napster.
File-sharing could be a boon to these guys if they would just pull their heads out of their asses. Rather than hurting sales, file sharing has been demonstrated to help it (small sample, but it's certainly far more evidence than the MPAA or RIAA can provide). Instead, they push for anti-copying legislation (CBDTPA).
It's just so pathetically ironic: in their attempts to stop piracy, they push more people into seeking illegal alternatives (who wants to pay $30 for a crippled CD when the good tracks are available online for free; no encryption is uncrackable).
And the very thing that they're fighting is the one thing that could save them. As I see it, the internet will leave them in the dust if they don't stop fighting it. Non-mainstream, quality artists will begin bypassing the MPAA/RIAA for internet alternatives. Then things will change.
Aw, hell, who am I kidding? A CBDTPA type-bill will pass, and free will equal illegal.
Extreme optimism and extreme pessimism in the same post? I better get my head checked, I may have schizophrenia,
This is difficult on a couple of fronts. First, a law that has specific allotments would likely have trouble as technology evolveds, and as new technologies are introduced. Second, the media companies are looking for a law that blocks circumvention tools, not the actual act itself (as I understand it, I could be wrong). The media cartel and puppets (like Hollings) would surely find a way to slip it by existing laws.
In my opinion, no new law is needed in the first place. Piracy is already illegal, why do we need a law that bans the tools? It's like banning guns or cars because they could be used to kill.
What the media companies really need to do to protect their profit margins is offer the public something that pirated media canot . . . selection, quality, security (in relation to viruses, etc), preferably all three. Unfortunately, this is not likely. As is the case with MS, the media companies are better at litigation than innovation. It's also cheaper to buy legislation to protect your profit margin than it is to develop better quality.
Now, for the more optmistic part of the rant . . .
Thankfully, the American public (and technology industry) aren't stupid enough to allow a crap bill like this to pass. People aren't generally willig to give up their rights so some lawyer can fill his pocket. And as the bill puts the tech indusry's profit margin in danger, they naturally moved to kill it. Thankfully, the interest of the big tech companies is similar to the average consume r. . . to allow general-purpose computing to continue uninterupted by the idiocy of the media companies
Now, back to pessimism . . .
What we need to watch out for now are the seemingly "safer" bills that will follow. Having been defeated (or so it would seem) in the attempt to get it all at once, the media companies (and said puppets) will try again in increments.
If this comment makes sense in any way, I apologize. It was not my intention,
Yeah, but how many people who have the $20 million to blow can pull that one off?
Bill Gates? Kenneth Lay? Ted Kennedy?
Running out of smart ass one-liners,
Still, the PATENT should be worth something. File it and then you can collect royalties every time someone sends a diskette via UPS.
If you were able to file that patent, you probably wouldn't have to worry about money again. You'd just be living off of AOL.
First time reader, long time poster,
- Magnetic Field
- The Sun
Then again, I could be wrong. Profoundly wrong. Not even within a parsec of the right answer. Most of my posts are that way anyway, why break the trend?As I understand Mars, even if the CO2 the Martian atmosphere became thicker, it would not be able to hold it for long. This is because at present, Mars does not have a magnetic field as does Earth. Without it, the strong solar wind would strip the atmosphere away. (BTW, this is one theory as to how Mars could have lost its water. It is believed Mars did once have a strong magnetic field, which protected its atmosphere and allowed enough heat to be trapped for liquid water to flow. As the magnetic field died, so did the planet.) However, if Mars was somehow re-establishing its magnetic field (don't ask me how, I just spit out wild, non-sensical theories, I don't explain them), maybe it could.
It occurs to me that this new "development" could be tied to the gradual warming of the sun. Perhaps a threshold has been reached, and is causing the release of Martian CO2 (this un-thought out, unsubstantiated "threshold theory" may also apply to Earth).
Looking forward to running naked on Mars (although Mars certainly isn't) . . .
Well, hopefully by having such a random selection you would get a more balanced organization. Of course there would always be some trade-mark friendly ones, but there would also be anti-trademark ones and the rare impartial ones.
By having only one organization, trademark holders can't shop around for the friendliest one. They are forced to go to one organization, which may or may not be friendly to their needs.
Also, let's say that this solo orgainization is trademark friendly. It may not stay that way as members come and go (mostly randomly). So there could be runs of pro- and anti-trademark rulings, but the trademark holder could never be sure which they were going to get. This contrasts with the current system, where trademark owners know there are certain places they can go for a friendly ruling.
No solution is perfect, but this announcement certainly shows that the current one doesn't work. IMHO, a single arbitration orgainzation would be the best solution.
That's just the way I see it,
I agree you would want to know when and why the new rules came into play. But you would only be able to do after studying the effects of the new rules over a period of time. Would the new rules fit into an over-arching new theory? Maybe. But, no theory would be universal, as particle physicists hope. It will only apply to certain times and certain places, leaving the "tentful" of theories mentioned in the article.
I agree the point of science is to break things down to the minimalist level. But that's not because the universe operates based upon some simple principle. It's because in order for us to understand the universe, we must break it down into simple, easy to digest pieces. These pieces give us an idea of the overall complexity of the universe, but inevitably something is lost.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not putting down the work of the particle physicists. Their work is very important. What I am saying is that by taking two different approaches, by both breaking things down into simple (if imperfect) pieces and looking at the larger view, we get a better understanding of the universe. Niether on its own can cover everything.
This post was in no way meant to inform, interest, or create insight. Please do not moderate in this fashion,
IANAP (Physicist, naturally), but I'd have to say that the solid-staters argument makes sense. It seems arrogant to think that the universe must obey these silly little laws we come up with. Mathematical laws are a tool, they simpify the workings of the universe so a human mind can grasp them. But they are not the universe. I would tend to agree with thier arguement that as systems get more complex, new rules come into play. How then can the universe's intricate workings be summed up in a few silly little equations?
.
I've found the answer! The universe isn't dominated by some elaborate unified theory, or general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or anything like that. I've found a principle that applies everywhere. Everywhere I look, there it is. The central principle of the universe is: STUPIDITY! It all makes sense now . .
Well, at least its the central principle in my life,
I don't think its so much the technology as what's done with it. It's about creativity, not technology.
Star Wars is a perfect example. The technology and techniques used to make The Phantom Menace were certainly more mature than the ones that created the original Star Wars. But I haven't heard anyone claim that The Phantom Menace was a better movie.
Or think of Shrek vs. Final Fantasy. One tried for the most realistic graphics, the other had a script.
If all the "virtual celebrities" are look-alike Britney Speares clones (complete with "virtual boob jobs"), I don't think it'll really catch on. Add some variety, some depth, some creativity, and you may have something.
As far as CG stars with "virtual boob jobs," they'll really catch on in porn . . .
Thank you for wasting your time by reading this comment,
From the article (Q & A section):I would assume that the "penny-per-page" charge would only be incurred when a page is specifically requested by the viewer. Also, in reference to splitting content across pages, if sites chop things up too much, nobody will go to them, and they lose their cash flow. It's not a perfect system (what is), but it does present an intruiging idea. It could work.
Remember, I am an idiot, so I really don't have any idea what I'm talking about,
The way I see it, globalism/globalization is all about potential.
/optimism
/pessimism
On the one hand, it has the potential to drop barriers and unite humanity into a complex, but harmonious web of inter-connected local governments. It has the potential to open the world up to new cultural ideas (Not just American ones. In this global community, everyone speaks). It has the potential to bring freedom, liberty, and higher standards of living to the globe.
On the other hand, it has the potential to bring an American corporate ogliarchy into existence. A homogenized, processed, company-approved world where everyone is a consumer rather than a citizen, the law is based on the "needs of the company", and everybody's rights are defined by EULAs.
Of course, these are two extremes, and it's more likely the true result will be somewhere in the middle. Hopefully leaning toward the first paragraph, but somewhere in the middle.
Damn inflation! It costs a buck and a quarter to get my two cents in . . .
Actyally, it's about 5 billion years old, and expected to live another 5 billion; so it's more like middle-aged. So, it's more likely bald spots. Now, if we could only find a star-sized dose of Rogaine . . .
If it's worried about it's age, maybe scientists could find a hot little proto-star.
In no way implying that the sun needs to get laid,
I'm not exactly an expert in this field, so ignore the following if you like:
.NET) would start off smaller but have more upside.
The way I figure it, it a break-up were to take place, the people invested into Microsoft would be given an option: Equivalent stock in one (or both) of the new companies, or cashing out and taking the value of their stock. Of course, with news of a break-up, stock prices would fall, so option two may not look so good. So I would assume that most people would take the stock option. Assuming two companies created, either wouldn't be all that bad. The OS half would still control 85% of the desktop market, and the other half (which I assume at this point would center around services, ala
However, at this point I doubt that a breakup will happen. Microsoft will, IMO, be allowed to remain a single company. Hopefully, it will be a single company acting within the limits of U.S. and international law (for the first time a long time).
I ain't no freakin' Nostradamus ova hea, but that's the way I see it. Feel free to disagree, call me an idiot, and write nasty things about me on bathroom stalls (I'll never see 'em anyway, what do I care?).
This comment not intended to be interesting, informative, or insightful. If these qualities are discovered, please inform the poster so they can be removed,
"Well, lets see...the voting system has problems, prone to multiple voting...then let's not let voting have an effect on the board!"
That's basically what they're doing. Reducing the number of board members elected by the public (from one half to one third), limiting voters to domain owners, and charging "annual membership fees" (aka Poll Taxes) to public voters; they are starting to take the public out of the process and hand it on a silver platter to corporations. I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of years they decided to eliminate public voting all together, in the name of getting "members who are knowledgeable about the technical issues surrounding the Internet" and eliminating voting fraud.
Then there's this idea:
While I'm not naive enough to believe that political motivations are pure, I don't quite see the lure of money in this one. In this proposed settlement (from the DOJ website) there is no mention of monetary fines. Now, if money were the only reason Mass. was holding out, wouldn't the other 17 states go "Oh, shit, we can make money off this? Why the hell are we signing this agreement?"
That being the case, I think it's more likely that Mass. is holding out for better reasons. They see the loopholes in the current agreement and decided it would not be an effective barrier to Microsoft continuing its illegal practices.
Proud to be an American from Massachusetts,
Well, the way it is right now, the Democrat states (and the ones more likely to reject the deal) are the Northeast (New England, New York) and California. These are also ares that are more heavily populated (and, to my knowledge) more tech-oriented. However, there does seem to be a chink in the armor: New York is planning to sign the agreement with some added restrictions on Microsoft, a source close to the deliberations said Monday. New York officials have been in touch with Microsoft and Justice Department lawyers, the source said.
Also, the article mentioned that if the coalition breaks, tbe remaining states can either go on themselves or force the hand of the other states.
You're right, it all comes down to the leaders. If other states join Massachusetts and hold out, they may be able to get a better deal done.
On October 30, two interesting things happened: My Karma surpassed my IQ; and I got the +1 Bonus,
Probably be defined as: "Communist state that refuses to accept Microsoft's prowess in free market."
I saw this theory someplace about a month back. If I remember right, the two types of matter don't interact much, so a "mirror matter" asteroid impact would have the same effect as an ultra-low density asteroid. Supposedly, there would have been enough reaction with air to make it explode, but after that the rest of the "mirror matter" would likely bury itself underground (because of the weak interaction, it would pass through the surface before ultimately being stopped).
The article also said that this was a possible explanation of dark matter, since it would exert gravitational pull but would not be observable.
Interesting idea, although it would likely be impossible to improve.
Of course, it could have just been a fat Russian cutting wind near a campfire, but I'm no scientician,
The second and third phases as it is scaled back and becomes only slightly more palatable are the ones that we really have to look out for.
Exactly. The coming discussions are the more important ones. Now is the time to step up the pressure. With the outrageous bill seemingly out of the way, it is time to focus on the one that has a chance of passing.
If we start to relax because "well, at least the SSSCA isn't going to pass," we're going to get stuck with something almost as bad.
Write your senator! Keep up the pressure! Defeat the SSSCA and its bastard children!
OK, so who's my senator anyway?