> about digging a mine shaft...such rote activity.
Hmmm.. There are many things I'd like to know, it's the manuals that are hard to get through on something like mining for me. I WAS entertained, and now I know a lot more about mine shafts, which I actually encounter more often than you might think. It's things that like that enabled me to correctly ID remnants of an old hastily erected wet saw mill we found in the National Forest nearby. (Different facts, same idea - something I'd not normally know squat about) It was quite a find, half buried, 80-120 years old. We followed it to an old clear cut plateau that was never replanted. Camped under the stars.
On a fishing trip after reading Cryptonomicon it was much more fun to follow the sink holes from the huge mine underneath the valley and imagine what was underneath.
Almost anything can neat and broaden your appreciation for the wolrd. Hey "Rote activity"... = pre-transistor style decryption!
> You, on the other hand, if you display that elitist attitude in real life
That wouldn't be smart. That would be dumb. That's why we come here. Because we don't have to be smart by ACTING dumber to avoid alienating people.
Next time you walk down the street, look at the people around you and realize that you are almost exactly like them. Get over yourself, you are not different. You are not better. You are just another human being.
We are all different. Some of us are gifted craftsmen with power tools but can't read past the
4th grade level. Some like myself are extremely literate and technically inclined but can't be trusted with power tools for 5 seconds. Some of us have 70 IQ's and receive special care. (IQ = the best test we have now so that's the measure I'm using). Some have 110 IQ's and are "normal". Some of us have 140 IQ's but would rather watch sitcoms. Then some of us, like many here, about 1 in 10,000 of the human populace have IQ's of 150, 160, or higher and since it's our best tool we love to use it. For us talking to the "normal 110's " is comparable to how the "normal 110's" feel when they talk to a "70". We're VASTLY different. It's lonely and not much fun sometimes. And it doesn't make me elitist to talk about it. I would kill myself in 2 seconds on a motorcycle, I'm a clutz, this doesn't make me less of a person. I'm vastly smarter than most people, that doesn't make me a better person. But talking about that one particular gift in "real life" can get you into trouble as you've noted. So here we are. On/. Love it or leave it.
Each to their own I guess. I like him partly because of the stuff you don't like. Things I know he relates in a humorous way, things I don't (bletchley park, etc etc) he makes fascinating. He bridges gaps for many who aren't the "digerati" that we profess to be. But the best part is none of that, nor the endings, nor the ideas, but the angle from which he explores those ideas, his turn of phrase, etc. Hmmmm... maybe his sense of humor is the key. He makes digging a mine shaft fun and interesting. I thing he could write a Star Office training manual that would make learning it a total hoot. And it would still be greatly enjoyed by those who know Star Office well. YMMV obviously.
Cryptonomicon was kind of destined to become a hit. An outstanding writer who is a geek's geek geeking out on top geeky topics.
The Baroque Cycle seems more like Neal exploring his own niche interests. Alchemy, the history of modern banking, etc. Makes think Neal might have been poking fun at himself with his choice of The Baroque Cycle as the trilogy title.
Anyway, though not as immediately accessable as Cryptonomicon, it is a fascinating pleasure to experience a writer of Mr. Stephenson's caliber and style work through his own exploration of things that are:
marked generally by use of complex forms, bold ornamentation, and the juxtaposition of contrasting elements often conveying a sense of drama, movement, and tension
2 : characterized by grotesqueness, extravagance, complexity, or flamboyance
> your current auto is no less safe tomorrow as it is today because of this technology
EXACTLY. There is one thing they could do, albeit the front-end investment is high. Stop using asphalt. Seriously how old is this material? When was the last time we saw a serious innovation in road surfacing? What about that hard rubbery stuff they make indoor tennis courts out of? Make a smoother version and lay the stuff down! Think of the added traction, flexibility of the road, lack of potholes, better heat retention so a little less ice-prone, etc etc etc.
I'm sure materials science folks could come up with something. Something far superior to asphalt and the tennis court stuff.
Here in PA they spend millions a year fixing the roads. We have one of the worst combinations of terrain and weather for asphalt integrity. Look at the weather radar sometime and see how often multiple contrasting weather systems swirl together right over PA. It's not just the weather but the wildly fluctuating temperature changes, -10 to +45 and then back again with rain-freezing rain-snow, then rain again all in 8-12 hours is NORMAL here much of year.
Sure it would cost the same as a dozen years of asphalt repair. But COME ON, how many times are we going to keep perpetuating the same problem?
Another thought, we have power cables and copper wires running _next to_ most roads. How about running 2 fat copper wires under the road near the common tire-contact areas. hook them up to those nifty solar panels and traffic signal power. In the winter that could heat the asphalt to just 33.x degrees. Whoala, no ice.
Somebody's going to tell me spreading and cleaning up mega-tons of salt and cinders, plus all the accidents is somehow cheaper?
100 years of driving and our roads are still only one step above dirt.
Most of them yes. Poor parents, lousy schooling, less opportunities, etc.
How many of us here started learning on computers because our parents bought a $2000 MS-DOS box or whatever when we were young. Take all our computer access away until we become college freshmen and what would we be like? Oh wait, what if we couldn't afford college? Now we're 22 and barely know how to use a mouse.
Look up "Social Darwinism", it was shown to be total bunk a LONG time ago.
> I didn't have much to get motivated by: I bought a pedometer
Wow, how many pedophiles do you find on a normal run?!?
Running? (not a troll)
on
Running for Geeks
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Does anybody else reading this think of running as something you do only when something is chasing you?
[Disclaimer:except for 10 winter pounds that will be gone soon I'm fairly fit] For me running is painful on my feet and back. Strangely, it always makes me feel like I need to go "#2" on the toilet. Also, it's more boring than folding laundry. So I mtn. bike, do wilderness hikes, swim a bit, etc. Roller blading I can do pretty well! But I can't stop on them. Not much fun using a bridge abutment as a braking device.
Does anybody have any other ideas for cardiovascular excercise for the warmer outdoor season? Or how to make running less awful?
Does vigorous running make anybody else feel like they have to poop? What's up with that??
'Spyware Blaster' in combination with 'Spybot Search & Destroy' has kept 3 PC's that I know of 100% clean for months now. Wonderful easy to use free tools. I was impressed enough to donate a chunk of money.
P.S. -Please google for them I'm lazy.
P.P.S-
I assume on/. it goes w/o saying that's in addition to a good firewall and current A/V software.
For the sake of argument, get rid of the word Copyrights and teleport to this new reality: An author has commercial rights. S/He has the rights to make money off the work. Nobody else has that right. But EVERYBODY has the right to make non-commercial copies of it as much as they want as long as they don't make any money from it. Human art and culture is now available to all humans.
Now if somebody wants to package it and add value, and sell it like a publisher of books or music, then the author can grant commercial rights to the publisher to do that. The author cannot relinquish those rights though, only share them.
What you get is a world where only popular works are worth packaging and reselling. Who would pay money for a commercial copy of a book if it wasn't worthy of owning a nice dead-tree copy? If musicians want to make it big then they'll need to produce music that people seek out rather than what gets shoved down their throats by the RIAA and ClearChannel. They'll have to perform, etc. No more "cutting an album" in a studio and sitting back while the marketing machine makes them millions. Instead we get 2 dollar CD's at the exit points of concerts (which we paid to attend), commercial download fees that reflect the cost of the providing the download service (NOT the music) etc. etc. etc.
We also get a population that thinks having 1200 different songs on their [tech of choice] is no big deal, at free or 12 cents a piece. So they're spending the same amount, but now it's spread across scores of musicians, rather than a smattering of top 5 Billboard/ClearChannel flavors of the week.
We ALSO get the billion dollar recording and publishing industries to go find something else to do that actually PROVIDES VALUE.
> I think [the DMCA]is primarily a tool of copyright-holding companies, who continue to be terrified (with justification) about the impact the digital world is going to have on their ways of doing business.
"justification".. "Preserve the goals of the Copyright Act".
This raises a big red flag for me. Like laws dealing with Guilds and Journeymen and apprentices, I think the goals of the Copyright Act MAY be totally obsolete. The same barrier of entry that no longer exists for the infringer no longer exists for the publisher either. Now anyone can be mass copyright infringers. Anyone can be a publisher.
Maybe we should be concerned with author's rights, rights that by nature remain with the author, and do away with copyright holders altogether. I highly suspect that 'Copyright Holder' is an obsolete concept.
So because developing children are more significantly effected by [almost everything] it therefore makes no sense to see if adults are effected? There is no point in studying whether television negatively effects the attention span of adults??
The brain is always adapting. Maybe I should've said "similar" study to appease the pickers of nits?
I don't know if it's more of a cause or effect, but anecdotal personal experience shows a trend that the more in tune with the TV an adult is (knows scheduling, can talk about specific episodes of all their favorite shows) the shorter and less rewarding a conversation with them is is likely to be.
While on the other hand, the folks that I know who are very discriminating television watchers can hold an in depth conversation, stick to topic, and not get impatient.
Sort of a chicken and egg question with adults. Do these anecdotal adults with a greater attention span enjoy TV less and so are much more discerning with that they watch? Or do they have a greater attention span because it hasn't been stunted by the flashing box?
Does your post make any sense? Do you know what Mutation and Natural Selection are. Google is your friend, especially when your high school bio classes were not:
The second type of mutation is called a micromutation, or a mutation that involves a very small change. An incredibly vast majority of all mutations fall into this category. These mutations can be (and generally are) harmful in effect, but are not drastic changes, but rather fine gradations. Micromutations are what evolutionists discuss when studying natural selection.
Natural selection is quick to seize upon the very rare beneficial mutations that arise. Even a small survival advantage will be selected for over generations, eventually saturating the overall gene pool with the altered gene. Natural selection may depend on random mutations, and its operation may be slow and fitful, but it is extremely efficient in "weeding out" successful adaptations to be passed on to future generations.
Things don't plan or wish to mutate. It happens sporadically, and over thousands of generations the rare good mutations are naturally selected for because the good mutations give a slight survival edge, and thus a slight breeding edge, which carries on that mutation to the next generation. In other words the rare good mutation is a self fulfilling prophecy. Not believing in it is sort of like not believing water will flow down the path of least resistance.
> I do not feel that the top 2% is really screwing anyone over though.
They screw over the middle 75% by granting themselves vast amounts of shares (ownership), and selling the rest to the highest bidder (stock market). Thus we have mega-corporations with vast workforces who COMBINED own a mere fraction of the company. It's borderline feudalism. We are serfs first to top brass and next to pension and fund managers (who hold large amounts of shares). All the people doing the actual work and driving the economy with purchases of goods and services are at the mercy of these few folks / top 2% because they hold the Ownership! Hence the fuedalism comparison.
Jokes for Nerds, Stuff that's Obvious
on
Dating Design Patterns
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
How NOT to tell a joke:
Step 1. Make it really really long.
Step 2. Put the punchline in the beginning.
Actually I thought it was quite funny. Mostly because somebody somewhere is going to do this someday. It's quite believable, and THAT'S funny. And there IS NO story. It's an Ask Slashdot, not a news item.
Nobody asked you to read or post here today. You hear that whiners? Shut-up and go find something to do that doesn't compel you to whine.
I'll even help. Here is one of many places to get your fix for today. See ya tomorrow. Thanks.
This is not a Troll you jackass mods. I just came from the YRO: Hacker Indicted In France... and was thinking the exact same thing.
It's +4 Insightful.
+5 would be: Act as a lone citizen and Publish vulnerablities with code examples proving it. WRONG!
Make sure you're part of company with a team of lawyers and Loudly hack everyone's security at a big trade show. CORRECT!
> quit paying people Jennifer Anniston and Matt LeBlanc millions of dollars per episode
No kidding. Bring back ugly people!
Remember Taxi? Mash? Cheers? Heck even Archie Bunker. These shows were all high quality programming. Great writing. Lines that were funny without a laugh track telling you so. And the best part.. I could relate to the characters. Karla from Cheers wasn't hot, but we all knew somebody like her.
Taxi.. If Danny Devito tried to start his career in a sitcom today he'd be lucky to be doorman at Phoebe's apartment.
So I think that's the answer, PUT UGLY PEOPLE BACK ON TV. Pay them less, make up for the $exy body factor with (GASP) good script writing, and everybody will be happier.
> no matter how cool it looks, the high fashion snooty types would never WEAR a phone.
As a mid-fashion average man who has been known to go into fairly nice sports bars with his fishing vest still on (oops)..
I can tell you it NEVER looks cool to wear a phone. Think about it, they're now the same size as a pack of cigarettes, or smaller. You haven't seen anybody WEAR a pack of cigarettes since Schneider.
It's didn't make him cool, quite the opposite, in a very similar way as wearing a phone will never make one cool today.
We see your tiny pocket-sized phone displayed on your hip buddy, it would go very nicely with a BMW hood-ornament necklace.
I thought the Emaciated Ghoul look went out of style? I was hoping. I like tall thin girls. Quit a bit, oh yeah! But many of those models look like sunken-eyed junkies. Vaccuum sealed bags of bones too malnourished to provide life support for a modest pair of breasts. I always thought sexy and healthy went hand in hand?
Each to their own I guess.
Back on topic, that Wildseed phone looks like it came straight from a ST:DS9 Bajoran.
Slashdot Mirror
"Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy when used in a logical conversation about logical things.
When discussing law, politics, and romance "Slippery Slope" is just how things work. Please see: War on Drugs, War on Terror, "War of the Roses".
> about digging a mine shaft...such rote activity.
Hmmm.. There are many things I'd like to know, it's the manuals that are hard to get through on something like mining for me. I WAS entertained, and now I know a lot more about mine shafts, which I actually encounter more often than you might think. It's things that like that enabled me to correctly ID remnants of an old hastily erected wet saw mill we found in the National Forest nearby. (Different facts, same idea - something I'd not normally know squat about) It was quite a find, half buried, 80-120 years old. We followed it to an old clear cut plateau that was never replanted. Camped under the stars.
On a fishing trip after reading Cryptonomicon it was much more fun to follow the sink holes from the huge mine underneath the valley and imagine what was underneath.
Almost anything can neat and broaden your appreciation for the wolrd.
Hey "Rote activity"... = pre-transistor style decryption!
> You, on the other hand, if you display that elitist attitude in real life
/. Love it or leave it.
That wouldn't be smart. That would be dumb. That's why we come here. Because we don't have to be smart by ACTING dumber to avoid alienating people.
Next time you walk down the street, look at the people around you and realize that you are almost exactly like them. Get over yourself, you are not different. You are not better. You are just another human being.
We are all different. Some of us are gifted craftsmen with power tools but can't read past the 4th grade level. Some like myself are extremely literate and technically inclined but can't be trusted with power tools for 5 seconds. Some of us have 70 IQ's and receive special care. (IQ = the best test we have now so that's the measure I'm using). Some have 110 IQ's and are "normal". Some of us have 140 IQ's but would rather watch sitcoms. Then some of us, like many here, about 1 in 10,000 of the human populace have IQ's of 150, 160, or higher and since it's our best tool we love to use it. For us talking to the "normal 110's " is comparable to how the "normal 110's" feel when they talk to a "70". We're VASTLY different. It's lonely and not much fun sometimes. And it doesn't make me elitist to talk about it. I would kill myself in 2 seconds on a motorcycle, I'm a clutz, this doesn't make me less of a person. I'm vastly smarter than most people, that doesn't make me a better person. But talking about that one particular gift in "real life" can get you into trouble as you've noted. So here we are. On
Each to their own I guess. I like him partly because of the stuff you don't like. Things I know he relates in a humorous way, things I don't (bletchley park, etc etc) he makes fascinating. He bridges gaps for many who aren't the "digerati" that we profess to be. But the best part is none of that, nor the endings, nor the ideas, but the angle from which he explores those ideas, his turn of phrase, etc. Hmmmm... maybe his sense of humor is the key. He makes digging a mine shaft fun and interesting. I thing he could write a Star Office training manual that would make learning it a total hoot. And it would still be greatly enjoyed by those who know Star Office well. YMMV obviously.
The Baroque Cycle seems more like Neal exploring his own niche interests. Alchemy, the history of modern banking, etc. Makes think Neal might have been poking fun at himself with his choice of The Baroque Cycle as the trilogy title.
Anyway, though not as immediately accessable as Cryptonomicon, it is a fascinating pleasure to experience a writer of Mr. Stephenson's caliber and style work through his own exploration of things that are: Go Neal. And thanks again!
>Geeks are the cool nerds! (+ 1 Insightful)
If only there were a way to metamod that mod as Funny.
How influential are these "awards"?
Does the Secret Service care that they got one for stifling demonstrators?
Does CBS care that they got a third?
> your current auto is no less safe tomorrow as it is today because of this technology
EXACTLY. There is one thing they could do, albeit the front-end investment is high. Stop using asphalt. Seriously how old is this material? When was the last time we saw a serious innovation in road surfacing? What about that hard rubbery stuff they make indoor tennis courts out of? Make a smoother version and lay the stuff down! Think of the added traction, flexibility of the road, lack of potholes, better heat retention so a little less ice-prone, etc etc etc.
I'm sure materials science folks could come up with something. Something far superior to asphalt and the tennis court stuff.
Here in PA they spend millions a year fixing the roads. We have one of the worst combinations of terrain and weather for asphalt integrity. Look at the weather radar sometime and see how often multiple contrasting weather systems swirl together right over PA. It's not just the weather but the wildly fluctuating temperature changes, -10 to +45 and then back again with rain-freezing rain-snow, then rain again all in 8-12 hours is NORMAL here much of year.
Sure it would cost the same as a dozen years of asphalt repair. But COME ON, how many times are we going to keep perpetuating the same problem?
Another thought, we have power cables and copper wires running _next to_ most roads. How about running 2 fat copper wires under the road near the common tire-contact areas. hook them up to those nifty solar panels and traffic signal power. In the winter that could heat the asphalt to just 33.x degrees. Whoala, no ice.
Somebody's going to tell me spreading and cleaning up mega-tons of salt and cinders, plus all the accidents is somehow cheaper?
100 years of driving and our roads are still only one step above dirt.
Most of them yes. Poor parents, lousy schooling, less opportunities, etc.
How many of us here started learning on computers because our parents bought a $2000 MS-DOS box or whatever when we were young. Take all our computer access away until we become college freshmen and what would we be like? Oh wait, what if we couldn't afford college? Now we're 22 and barely know how to use a mouse.
Look up "Social Darwinism", it was shown to be total bunk a LONG time ago.
> I didn't have much to get motivated by: I bought a pedometer
Wow, how many pedophiles do you find on a normal run?!?
Does anybody else reading this think of running as something you do only when something is chasing you?
[Disclaimer:except for 10 winter pounds that will be gone soon I'm fairly fit]
For me running is painful on my feet and back. Strangely, it always makes me feel like I need to go "#2" on the toilet. Also, it's more boring than folding laundry. So I mtn. bike, do wilderness hikes, swim a bit, etc. Roller blading I can do pretty well! But I can't stop on them. Not much fun using a bridge abutment as a braking device.
Does anybody have any other ideas for cardiovascular excercise for the warmer outdoor season? Or how to make running less awful?
Does vigorous running make anybody else feel like they have to poop? What's up with that??
'Spyware Blaster' in combination with 'Spybot Search & Destroy' has kept 3 PC's that I know of 100% clean for months now. Wonderful easy to use free tools. I was impressed enough to donate a chunk of money.
/. it goes w/o saying that's in addition to a good firewall and current A/V software.
P.S. -Please google for them I'm lazy.
P.P.S- I assume on
For the sake of argument, get rid of the word Copyrights and teleport to this new reality: An author has commercial rights. S/He has the rights to make money off the work. Nobody else has that right. But EVERYBODY has the right to make non-commercial copies of it as much as they want as long as they don't make any money from it. Human art and culture is now available to all humans.
Now if somebody wants to package it and add value, and sell it like a publisher of books or music, then the author can grant commercial rights to the publisher to do that. The author cannot relinquish those rights though, only share them.
What you get is a world where only popular works are worth packaging and reselling. Who would pay money for a commercial copy of a book if it wasn't worthy of owning a nice dead-tree copy? If musicians want to make it big then they'll need to produce music that people seek out rather than what gets shoved down their throats by the RIAA and ClearChannel. They'll have to perform, etc. No more "cutting an album" in a studio and sitting back while the marketing machine makes them millions. Instead we get 2 dollar CD's at the exit points of concerts (which we paid to attend), commercial download fees that reflect the cost of the providing the download service (NOT the music) etc. etc. etc.
We also get a population that thinks having 1200 different songs on their [tech of choice] is no big deal, at free or 12 cents a piece. So they're spending the same amount, but now it's spread across scores of musicians, rather than a smattering of top 5 Billboard/ClearChannel flavors of the week.
We ALSO get the billion dollar recording and publishing industries to go find something else to do that actually PROVIDES VALUE.
I'm dreaming obviously.
> I think [the DMCA]is primarily a tool of copyright-holding companies, who continue to be terrified (with justification) about the impact the digital world is going to have on their ways of doing business.
"justification".. "Preserve the goals of the Copyright Act".
This raises a big red flag for me. Like laws dealing with Guilds and Journeymen and apprentices, I think the goals of the Copyright Act MAY be totally obsolete. The same barrier of entry that no longer exists for the infringer no longer exists for the publisher either. Now anyone can be mass copyright infringers. Anyone can be a publisher.
Maybe we should be concerned with author's rights, rights that by nature remain with the author, and do away with copyright holders altogether. I highly suspect that 'Copyright Holder' is an obsolete concept.
hmmmm.
So because developing children are more significantly effected by [almost everything] it therefore makes no sense to see if adults are effected? There is no point in studying whether television negatively effects the attention span of adults??
The brain is always adapting. Maybe I should've said "similar" study to appease the pickers of nits?
I'd like to see this study done on Adults.
I don't know if it's more of a cause or effect, but anecdotal personal experience shows a trend that the more in tune with the TV an adult is (knows scheduling, can talk about specific episodes of all their favorite shows) the shorter and less rewarding a conversation with them is is likely to be.
While on the other hand, the folks that I know who are very discriminating television watchers can hold an in depth conversation, stick to topic, and not get impatient.
Sort of a chicken and egg question with adults. Do these anecdotal adults with a greater attention span enjoy TV less and so are much more discerning with that they watch? Or do they have a greater attention span because it hasn't been stunted by the flashing box?
Things don't plan or wish to mutate. It happens sporadically, and over thousands of generations the rare good mutations are naturally selected for because the good mutations give a slight survival edge, and thus a slight breeding edge, which carries on that mutation to the next generation. In other words the rare good mutation is a self fulfilling prophecy. Not believing in it is sort of like not believing water will flow down the path of least resistance.
> I do not feel that the top 2% is really screwing anyone over though.
They screw over the middle 75% by granting themselves vast amounts of shares (ownership), and selling the rest to the highest bidder (stock market). Thus we have mega-corporations with vast workforces who COMBINED own a mere fraction of the company. It's borderline feudalism. We are serfs first to top brass and next to pension and fund managers (who hold large amounts of shares). All the people doing the actual work and driving the economy with purchases of goods and services are at the mercy of these few folks / top 2% because they hold the Ownership! Hence the fuedalism comparison.
How NOT to tell a joke:
Step 1. Make it really really long.
Step 2. Put the punchline in the beginning.
Actually I thought it was quite funny. Mostly because somebody somewhere is going to do this someday. It's quite believable, and THAT'S funny.
And there IS NO story. It's an Ask Slashdot, not a news item.
Nobody asked you to read or post here today. You hear that whiners? Shut-up and go find something to do that doesn't compel you to whine.
I'll even help. Here is one of many places to get your fix for today. See ya tomorrow. Thanks.
> I think it'd be great to require presidential candidates...to sit down for an extended CIV session
I'm sure they'll all need to download the newest mods first:
-Quiet Backroom Handshake
-Golfing with CEO's
& the Old White Men with Old White Money Conversion Kit.
This is not a Troll you jackass mods. I just came from the YRO: Hacker Indicted In France... and was thinking the exact same thing.
It's +4 Insightful.
+5 would be:
Act as a lone citizen and Publish vulnerablities with code examples proving it. WRONG!
Make sure you're part of company with a team of lawyers and Loudly hack everyone's security at a big trade show. CORRECT!
> quit paying people Jennifer Anniston and Matt LeBlanc millions of dollars per episode
No kidding. Bring back ugly people!
Remember Taxi? Mash? Cheers? Heck even Archie Bunker. These shows were all high quality programming. Great writing. Lines that were funny without a laugh track telling you so. And the best part.. I could relate to the characters. Karla from Cheers wasn't hot, but we all knew somebody like her.
Taxi.. If Danny Devito tried to start his career in a sitcom today he'd be lucky to be doorman at Phoebe's apartment.
So I think that's the answer, PUT UGLY PEOPLE BACK ON TV. Pay them less, make up for the $exy body factor with (GASP) good script writing, and everybody will be happier.
> no matter how cool it looks, the high fashion snooty types would never WEAR a phone.
As a mid-fashion average man who has been known to go into fairly nice sports bars with his fishing vest still on (oops)..
I can tell you it NEVER looks cool to wear a phone. Think about it, they're now the same size as a pack of cigarettes, or smaller. You haven't seen anybody WEAR a pack of cigarettes since Schneider.
It's didn't make him cool, quite the opposite, in a very similar way as wearing a phone will never make one cool today.
We see your tiny pocket-sized phone displayed on your hip buddy, it would go very nicely with a BMW hood-ornament necklace.
That brings up an interesting point.
I thought the Emaciated Ghoul look went out of style? I was hoping. I like tall thin girls. Quit a bit, oh yeah! But many of those models look like sunken-eyed junkies. Vaccuum sealed bags of bones too malnourished to provide life support for a modest pair of breasts. I always thought sexy and healthy went hand in hand?
Each to their own I guess.
Back on topic, that Wildseed phone looks like it came straight from a ST:DS9 Bajoran.