When you can, please point out the "natives" living on Mars or the Moon that us greedy, bloodthirsty, and uncaring Americans can slaughter at will and whim. My "settled the same way" comment was based off the ideas in the article I linked to, which, I admit, I screwed up on linking correctly. I meant to link to this.
Re:would you like some cheese with that w(h)ine?
on
Amazon.Heartbreak
·
· Score: 1
Capitalism is fine, its just in a state of disrepair and inequality.
I can agree with you there, but apparently not in the actual substance of the agreement. Business's power is derived from the government, for the government is the entity that actually has the power. Real capitalism is based all economic exchanges being voluntary, which means if you don't want to buy something, you don't have to...if you don't want to work for someone, you don't have to...if you don't want to hire someone, you don't have to. Naturally, making those decisions irrationally can negatively affect your life/business, but that is the risk one takes when takes advantage of their freedom. What passes as capitalism these days isn't. Blame the shifts in power, money, and prosperity on the statism in the system.
Your culture arguement is harder to address. I dislike the blandness and sameness of today's culture, but it isn't anyone's place to institute mandatory changes in it. Businesses, aiming for the most profit possible, aim for the widest audience. By itself, that would create gaps in the market for the "indies." However, the very existence of that vaccuum means that there is money to be made. Enter stage right small "enthusiast" companies driven by entrepreneurs. Larger companies see the opportunity for profit and move in. Repeat cycle, and you see how the booms and busts of culture occure. Businesses follow (and sometimes create) the trends, after a while over-promoting them. Consumers tire of the same thing and look for something else. And during the whole time, it becomes nearly impossible for someone to not find something they like.
A recent Tech Central Station column might change your mind. The UN, benignly or not, wants more power.
Personally, I'd rather have other planets settled the same way the American frontier was, as described in another TSC article.
Re:In past ages the philosphers...
on
Homogenized Music
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
From the article:
The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 swept aside many of the old ownership limits, and ignited the business like a firecracker. Small owners started selling, and larger companies began feverishly merging. Six years later, radio is a big business, with publicly traded companies now dominating ownership of the nation's 11,400 commercial stations.
What gets lost in all this is the fact that those mom-and-pop stations voluntarily sold their stations. Since the people who bought those stations want to make the most money possible, they pander to the widest audience possible. Yeah, it results in the big stations playing pop-oriented hits. But you also have to understand that those stations wouldn't be popular if the music wasn't popular (for whatever reasons that music is...I certainly don't like most of it).
It's obvious there's a growing backlash against this kind of radio. People don't want to hear 15 minutes of commercials out of 30 minutes of air time. People grow tired with oft-repeated tunes. That doesn't necessarily mean we need to have a political solution. It means those people who feel they are disenfranchised need to start their own radio stations, non-commercial or commercial.
UT-Austin's shared radio stations, KVRX and KOOP, have online presences. KVRX broadcasts all day on the web to make up for it's sharing agreement. Do other college stations do this?
this is the problem in america today. Industry has TO MUCH DAMN POWER. they think they can just ignore rulings that the court places on society. THEY CAN'T, and for the Senate to even consider the issue leads me to believe that those people do not belong where they are.
I disagree. The main problem is not that companies and industries want to maximize their profits and control over their products. The main problem is that our government has given itself the power to craft these laws. Once the government demonstrated it could and would create legislation that favors someone over someone else (wealth distribution), anyone with a grievance stepped in and demanded action be taken against that grievance. Insert complaints about frivolous lawsuits, intrusive and expensive regulations, and privacy/civil rights violations here. It all stems from the government's assumption it has the right to do this.
If the "people in charge" were concerned about our rights in any way, they would laugh those lobbyists out of their offices. It's damn near impossible to find a real principled person who sticks up for individual rights (civil, economic, etc.) these days, let alone one who wants to be elected to office. The root of the problem is not the companies' desire to control their products (a desire that exists to some extent in everyone who owns something) but the fact that the government can be pushed around to make these laws and the existence of a court system that dilutes these rights further. The ideological rot continues within the ideas presented in our Founding Father's documents. If the government didn't have the ability to screw with our lives, there'd be nothing to worry about. The MPAA and RIAA would be reduced to mere press-releasing whiners with no power and the consumers would choose what methods of distribution are best for their needs. Business would experiment and follow.
There are only two interactive things I want out of TV.
1. A full-on channel guide that goes back twelve hours and ahead a week.
2. The ability to order movies through the remote.
I had TimeWarner's Digital Cable for nearly a year and the biggest benefit wasn't the "crystal-clear video and CD-quality sound" (which, by the way, wasn't much better than analogue), but those two things above. I don't buy TV Guides and accessing tv schedule info online is annoying. I agree with you concerning the one-way nature of the television medium. It will take a sea change in the perception and attitude of the public before there's any meaningful push for interactive TV.
Unless parts for building computers are outlawed and you have to get approval for accessing the Net, your nightmare scenario won't come to pass. Your fear is several magnitudes too large. Fearing a possibly near-monopoly on the gaming market is a legitimate fear. Fearing some 1984-style monolithic one-stop-everything company based on a fallacious and hysterical slippery-slope argument is not.
Climate change is an irreversible, global and long-term environmental issue. Each molecule of greenhouse gas emitted locally will have an effect at the global scale which will mainly affect the children of your children. The importance of the climate change issue is often not well percieved by the public because of (i) its inherent intangible nature (global scale, long-term effect) and (ii) its strong scientific uncertainties which are often used to justify inaction (since public expects science to be exact). One of the ways to raise awareness in the public is therefore to use climate simulation.
...
Climate change is high in the political agenda. During the Earth summit in Rio (1992), 192 countries have signed a UN convention to protect our climate from human-induced activities (UNFCCC). In 1997, the parties to this convention met in Kyoto and drafted a protocol which legally binds developed countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Today, several countries such as USA, Japan, Australia refuse to ratify the protocol because they do not believe climate change is such a critical issue.
Your result will help to make reliable predictions of climate change and to quantify uncertainties. This could help policy makers to assess the real risk of the effects of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases and to guide their decision. Imagine for example, that your simulation shows that with a doubling of CO2, a possible state of climate is a shut-down of the oceanic circulation in the Atlantic associated with strong climate change in the USA. This might act as a wake-up call on decision-makers....
I have heavy doubts that these people are motivated purely by science. Did you see the opening animation? It does sound more like they want to demonstrate what they already believe is happening and what will happen, as opposed to coming into this with a clear mind. Personally, I like the idea of distributed computing solving problems like this. They say they're using a climate model developed by the Hadley Centre, which looks legitimate enough. But I remain skeptical, as you do.
Take a look around FirstGov and realize the wealth of information available on federal government websites. I visit several of them on a weekly basis for statistics and data that I can't get elsewhere. Putting some sort of chancy identity authentication scheme in the way of accessing these sites freely would most certainly affect my browsing there. I worry about this because:
...the government plans to begin testing Web sites where businesses can pay taxes and
citizens can learn about benefits and social services
My emphasis. It bothers me they want to restrict our free access to this information.
BP Solar says a "typical" household system would cost anywhere from $10,000-$40,000. That alone is the biggest obstacle to homeowner photovoltaic energy creation. That's a huge investment for most Americans to make, let alone the rest of the world.
I'd just like to add that the VW Golf diesel's horsepower may be merely 90, but it's torque is over 150 ft-lbs, which puts it well above most small cars. I own a '02 TDI and my friends were surprised when I told them it had about ninety horsepower. It's also turbo-charged. Just an FYI.;)
Re:Next: Is Globalism good or evil ?
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"I believe that most of the problems that people associate with globalism," writes Soros, "including the penetration of market values into areas where they do not traditionally belong, can be attributed to these phenomena."
Just to let those who aren't aware of it, Soros is not anactualcapitalist. Don't take his views as those of a repentant capitalist and free marketeer.
It may sound pedantic, but a real Republican who sticks to his/her fundamental principles of Constitutionally limited government and free markets would never consider voting for this piece of garbage. That someone who calls himself a Republican (Ted Stevens [Alaska]) is part of the group who introduced it demonstrates just how intellectually corrupt things have become. This bill is against countless sections of their party platform. It disgusts me to even be considered on the same "aisle" as this bastard.
I'd suggest that before you write your congresscritter that you find out where they are likely to stand on the issue.
In which case, it would be the perfect time to call your Senators and Representatives. I know that in my case, I've never looked around for my Congressman/woman's opinion on this issue. Dialing up the office to ask for their stance (or at least an aide's knowledge of that stance) would be an excellent way to communicate that this is an issue that drives people to call, comment, and question...all followed by a strongly-written letter.
Witness retinal scanning: retina scanners have been known to damage sensitive (read: decaying 80-year-old) eyes and result in a temporary loss or blurriness of vision.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the market for devices like these is not focused on the elderly. Besides, according to the article:
...staring at a fluorescent bulb in the office would likely be more dangerous. Company engineers say that their retinal-scanning displays produce light levels much lower than nationally accepted standards.
Your doctor is right to be concerned...that's his job. However, by placing restrictions on this technology's use and production, you drive up the price and make it harder for more people to acquire them. This stifles demand and in turn hampers future investment into improving the tech at a quicker pace. With devices like these, the public will automatically be concerned about safety. No company is going to want to sell a device that is known to permanently damage your eyes, so they will take the steps needed to ensure they work safely. As long as people are aware of what they're getting themselves into, I say let them weigh the risks verses the benefits.
Personally, I'd love to use one of these things at home. If you network the computer, you could incorporate a whole range of interfaces into one unit. The possibilities from there are endless.
Slashdot Mirror
When you can, please point out the "natives" living on Mars or the Moon that us greedy, bloodthirsty, and uncaring Americans can slaughter at will and whim. My "settled the same way" comment was based off the ideas in the article I linked to, which, I admit, I screwed up on linking correctly. I meant to link to this.
Capitalism is fine, its just in a state of disrepair and inequality.
I can agree with you there, but apparently not in the actual substance of the agreement. Business's power is derived from the government, for the government is the entity that actually has the power. Real capitalism is based all economic exchanges being voluntary, which means if you don't want to buy something, you don't have to...if you don't want to work for someone, you don't have to...if you don't want to hire someone, you don't have to. Naturally, making those decisions irrationally can negatively affect your life/business, but that is the risk one takes when takes advantage of their freedom. What passes as capitalism these days isn't. Blame the shifts in power, money, and prosperity on the statism in the system.
Your culture arguement is harder to address. I dislike the blandness and sameness of today's culture, but it isn't anyone's place to institute mandatory changes in it. Businesses, aiming for the most profit possible, aim for the widest audience. By itself, that would create gaps in the market for the "indies." However, the very existence of that vaccuum means that there is money to be made. Enter stage right small "enthusiast" companies driven by entrepreneurs. Larger companies see the opportunity for profit and move in. Repeat cycle, and you see how the booms and busts of culture occure. Businesses follow (and sometimes create) the trends, after a while over-promoting them. Consumers tire of the same thing and look for something else. And during the whole time, it becomes nearly impossible for someone to not find something they like.
A recent Tech Central Station column might change your mind. The UN, benignly or not, wants more power.
Personally, I'd rather have other planets settled the same way the American frontier was, as described in another TSC article.
It's obvious there's a growing backlash against this kind of radio. People don't want to hear 15 minutes of commercials out of 30 minutes of air time. People grow tired with oft-repeated tunes. That doesn't necessarily mean we need to have a political solution. It means those people who feel they are disenfranchised need to start their own radio stations, non-commercial or commercial.
UT-Austin's shared radio stations, KVRX and KOOP, have online presences. KVRX broadcasts all day on the web to make up for it's sharing agreement. Do other college stations do this?
this is the problem in america today. Industry has TO MUCH DAMN POWER. they think they can just ignore rulings that the court places on society. THEY CAN'T, and for the Senate to even consider the issue leads me to believe that those people do not belong where they are.
I disagree. The main problem is not that companies and industries want to maximize their profits and control over their products. The main problem is that our government has given itself the power to craft these laws. Once the government demonstrated it could and would create legislation that favors someone over someone else (wealth distribution), anyone with a grievance stepped in and demanded action be taken against that grievance. Insert complaints about frivolous lawsuits, intrusive and expensive regulations, and privacy/civil rights violations here. It all stems from the government's assumption it has the right to do this.
If the "people in charge" were concerned about our rights in any way, they would laugh those lobbyists out of their offices. It's damn near impossible to find a real principled person who sticks up for individual rights (civil, economic, etc.) these days, let alone one who wants to be elected to office. The root of the problem is not the companies' desire to control their products (a desire that exists to some extent in everyone who owns something) but the fact that the government can be pushed around to make these laws and the existence of a court system that dilutes these rights further. The ideological rot continues within the ideas presented in our Founding Father's documents. If the government didn't have the ability to screw with our lives, there'd be nothing to worry about. The MPAA and RIAA would be reduced to mere press-releasing whiners with no power and the consumers would choose what methods of distribution are best for their needs. Business would experiment and follow.
Please pardon the rant. =)
There are only two interactive things I want out of TV.
1. A full-on channel guide that goes back twelve hours and ahead a week.
2. The ability to order movies through the remote.
I had TimeWarner's Digital Cable for nearly a year and the biggest benefit wasn't the "crystal-clear video and CD-quality sound" (which, by the way, wasn't much better than analogue), but those two things above. I don't buy TV Guides and accessing tv schedule info online is annoying. I agree with you concerning the one-way nature of the television medium. It will take a sea change in the perception and attitude of the public before there's any meaningful push for interactive TV.
???
Unless parts for building computers are outlawed and you have to get approval for accessing the Net, your nightmare scenario won't come to pass. Your fear is several magnitudes too large. Fearing a possibly near-monopoly on the gaming market is a legitimate fear. Fearing some 1984-style monolithic one-stop-everything company based on a fallacious and hysterical slippery-slope argument is not.
Star Wars Returns for Better or Worse
Musta missed it.
From the site:
...
....
Climate change is an irreversible, global and long-term environmental issue. Each molecule of greenhouse gas emitted locally will have an effect at the global scale which will mainly affect the children of your children. The importance of the climate change issue is often not well percieved by the public because of (i) its inherent intangible nature (global scale, long-term effect) and (ii) its strong scientific uncertainties which are often used to justify inaction (since public expects science to be exact). One of the ways to raise awareness in the public is therefore to use climate simulation.
Climate change is high in the political agenda. During the Earth summit in Rio (1992), 192 countries have signed a UN convention to protect our climate from human-induced activities (UNFCCC). In 1997, the parties to this convention met in Kyoto and drafted a protocol which legally binds developed countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Today, several countries such as USA, Japan, Australia refuse to ratify the protocol because they do not believe climate change is such a critical issue. Your result will help to make reliable predictions of climate change and to quantify uncertainties. This could help policy makers to assess the real risk of the effects of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases and to guide their decision. Imagine for example, that your simulation shows that with a doubling of CO2, a possible state of climate is a shut-down of the oceanic circulation in the Atlantic associated with strong climate change in the USA. This might act as a wake-up call on decision-makers
I have heavy doubts that these people are motivated purely by science. Did you see the opening animation? It does sound more like they want to demonstrate what they already believe is happening and what will happen, as opposed to coming into this with a clear mind. Personally, I like the idea of distributed computing solving problems like this. They say they're using a climate model developed by the Hadley Centre, which looks legitimate enough. But I remain skeptical, as you do.
Knowing them, I guarantee someone's already dubbed with the names of the Magi in Evangelion. :)
Those are awesome pictures...
...even suggesting nuclear armament would probably be suicidal for a politician.
Not really true.
After getting the DVD boxset, I'd have to agree. Sachiel is one tough mother. :)
Funny how you call Bush and his associates "ecoterrorists" when the actual terrorists come from the more extreme believers on YOUR side of the issue.
I think the Economist article you were talking about is covered and expanded upon here.
BP Solar says a "typical" household system would cost anywhere from $10,000-$40,000. That alone is the biggest obstacle to homeowner photovoltaic energy creation. That's a huge investment for most Americans to make, let alone the rest of the world.
I'd just like to add that the VW Golf diesel's horsepower may be merely 90, but it's torque is over 150 ft-lbs, which puts it well above most small cars. I own a '02 TDI and my friends were surprised when I told them it had about ninety horsepower. It's also turbo-charged. Just an FYI. ;)
"I believe that most of the problems that people associate with globalism," writes Soros, "including the penetration of market values into areas where they do not traditionally belong, can be attributed to these phenomena."
Just to let those who aren't aware of it, Soros is not an actual capitalist. Don't take his views as those of a repentant capitalist and free marketeer.
...this strikingly conservative bill...
It may sound pedantic, but a real Republican who sticks to his/her fundamental principles of Constitutionally limited government and free markets would never consider voting for this piece of garbage. That someone who calls himself a Republican (Ted Stevens [Alaska]) is part of the group who introduced it demonstrates just how intellectually corrupt things have become. This bill is against countless sections of their party platform. It disgusts me to even be considered on the same "aisle" as this bastard.
I'd suggest that before you write your congresscritter that you find out where they are likely to stand on the issue.
In which case, it would be the perfect time to call your Senators and Representatives. I know that in my case, I've never looked around for my Congressman/woman's opinion on this issue. Dialing up the office to ask for their stance (or at least an aide's knowledge of that stance) would be an excellent way to communicate that this is an issue that drives people to call, comment, and question...all followed by a strongly-written letter.
Expecting people to work for free is insane.
I was worried they were about to charge for their everyday free email service. I'd like to know where The Register got this info from.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the market for devices like these is not focused on the elderly. Besides, according to the article: Your doctor is right to be concerned...that's his job. However, by placing restrictions on this technology's use and production, you drive up the price and make it harder for more people to acquire them. This stifles demand and in turn hampers future investment into improving the tech at a quicker pace. With devices like these, the public will automatically be concerned about safety. No company is going to want to sell a device that is known to permanently damage your eyes, so they will take the steps needed to ensure they work safely. As long as people are aware of what they're getting themselves into, I say let them weigh the risks verses the benefits.
Personally, I'd love to use one of these things at home. If you network the computer, you could incorporate a whole range of interfaces into one unit. The possibilities from there are endless.