Aren't they the people who brought us the DRM rootkit, the music CDs that couldn't be played in a lot of CD players and the Sony-Ericsson P990i, possibly the worst telephone to hit the market in living memory? Can we be sure that this thing is not stuffed full of DRM crap?
a project that has so effectively demonstrated the usefulness of the 'wisdom of crowds' concept
Except that the crowd in this case is those 0.1% of the users who actively contribute and actually know what they are talking about. The 'wisdom' of crowds is what elected a twit like George W Bush as well as the British Poodle; I wouldn't hang my hat on that one.
As I read it, the EU are not trying to 'make a competitor to Google' and 'force it from the top down'. They are simply funding research into new and better technologies; this is the way a lot of things are done in Europe, and we are having succes with it too. America used to do this too, before the president sold his soul to the devil and your future to the oil mafia.
Who knows what the future will bring? But there certainly are a number of real problems with Google's approach - among other the closed source approach that mean that nobody outside the company knows whether their search results are anywhere near actually representing what is actually on the internet. A search engine holds a huge potential for propaganda; if you control the search engine you can make sure that people only find the pages you want them to find, and people will still think that they have found the actual truth - it must be, because "I found it myself", right?
Privacy is important, certainly, and I do not agree with those that say 'If don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear'. We all have something to hide - that is what we call privacy, and it is fundamentally important that we can feel safe in our own private sphere every day.
But here are some things to consider: when we go out into the public space, we can't claim a right to privacy any more - public is public. And we all regard it as our obvious right that we can take pictures in the public space; this is why we don't need special permissions to have our picture taken in front of national monuments, or to take pictures of beautiful flowers, buildings, ships or girls/guys in the street wherever we are on holiday.
I'm not sure I like the fact that public authorities (not to mention private companies) record where we go in our daily lives; but it has nothing to do with our right to privacy. And I think it is important to make that distinction, if we want our viewpoints to be heeded. If we muddle the concepts and talk rubbish, those who are of a different opinion can simply disregard what we have to say.
- is that physicists just take the established theories for granted without actually questioning them, and mostly without understanding them either. In fact, one can say that quantum mechanics (or rather, the 'Copenhagen Interpretation') in particular is almost hostile to critical examination of its basic assumptions. Of course, I'm not saying that quantum physics is wrong in its entirety, just that I think we have reached the limits of its validity a while ago and that a new approach is needed.
All these strangely unintuitive theories about strings, rolled up dimensions and fundamental forces that are weirdly ungeometric (like eg. the strong interaction) are IMO an artifact of the viewpoint, just like the constance of the speed of light. As far as I can see (without being able to quite write it down as a well reasoned theory) the way forward has to involve finding a clear explanation of some of these things that we just assume as fundamental, like the speed of light and the charge of the electron - as well as explaining things like electricity and defining what a particle is.
Perhaps a better starting point is actually general relativity, after all? Einstein made several attempts at defining particles in terms of his theory, but never quite made it; he also tried to unify electricity and gravity. I have reason to think that if we solved these two problems, the others might turn out to be derived from first principles in the resulting model.
The basic problem is eating more than you need - nothing difficult to understand there. The big question is WHY do we eat more than we need?
One explanation is certainly in what we eat - feeling satisfied after a meal is more complicated than just pointing to the volume of food or the amount of energy consumed. Our bodies register not only the fullness of the stomach, but also blood sugar levels, fat content, proteins, vitamins and minerals, and probably many more things. This is one reason why you can feel hungry after having eaten a big piece of meat; it didn't contain all the things you needed. So, one element in reducing calorie intake is eating a COMPLETE diet with all the nutrients you need.
Then there is the ease of getting a meal - if you can just buy something to eat the moment you feel the tiniest inclination to eat, you will end up eating much more than you need. The trick here, I find, is to not carry cash around - it somehow feels stupid to use a credit card just to buy one small item, like a bar of candy. When it is a little bit difficult to get a meal, you'll often find that you can't be bothered until you are feeling real hunger.
Boredom - if you are bored, what is the easiest thing to do? Eat! Eating is something that satisfies a very fundamental instinct, and thus it is a highly attractive activity for most people. So, avoid getting bored - go outside, make plans for your spare time etc.
Meal size - we have learned from childhood (as well as from our instincts) that it is wrong to throw away food, you have to finish everything on your plate. And simple common sense says that if you can buy a reasonable sized meal for X USD, and a double-sized meal for just 10% more, you go for the bigger one. This is one of the advantages of Chinese/Japanese style meals - even if you have 10 different dishes in front of you, you only take a little at a time (beacuase the bowl is small).
Eating time - it takes about 30 minutes to register that you've had enough calories to eat. This means that if you wolf down a triple mega-whopper meal, you won't really feel full unless your stomach has been filled to bursting; the signal that you've had enough calories won't register until later. And that means that over time, your stomach's holding capacity gets bigger, and you learn to ignore the signals about having had enough calories. The thing to do, is to start your meal with a piece of fruit (gets your blood sugar up quickly), and then eat slowly - another reason to avoid fast food. Again, Chinese style meals, especially if you have company and spend a lot of the time talking, is a help - you get a better chance of feeling full.
'Time variance in magnetic fields'? Even if this wasn't simply a bungled up phrace (variance is something from statistics, he probably means 'variation' or 'variability' - or even 'fluctuation'), tapping energy from variations in magnetic fields is nothing new, nor does it violate any physical laws. Indeed, if you have a radio or tv, you are already tapping energy from 'time variations in the magnetic field': the radiowaves. Admittedly not a lot of energy, but certainly a lot more than what you would find in most natural fields on Earth. In fact, you can tap significant amounts of energy if you live close enough to a big radio transmitter; whether you are allowed to is another matter, of course.
This is outrageous! Clearly Google should have won - they are FAR RICHER, and besides, they are American, not just some snotty communists from a terrorist country.
In our increasingly mechanized world, we repeatedly hear promises that every new digital product, computerized service, or other form of technology, will make our lives easier -- bestowing greater leisure, health, and happiness.
It is well known that health and happiness come, not from using mechanical devices or electronic gadgets, but from using your mind and body to achieve things. But the author of this article - and by the look of things the author of the book too - sounds shrill, verging on hysterical.
I must admit, I didn't manage to read the entire thing, I must one of the impatient technophiles, but there is, to be fair, a core of truth in what he says - people are increasingly made to believe that they are helpless without electronic gadgets, ready made meals and mechanical aids. The amazing thing is how much people buy into it, considering how little truth there actually is in it.
We've had this discussion before - a lot of people on/. will say 'But we live busy lives, there is not enough time to make all meals from scratch' - this simply isn't true, in my experience (you can cook a good, basic meal in the same time it takes preparing most ready meals). Or people say 'We can manage without our cars' - well, perhaps you can't commute as easily without a car, although in many countries public transport is good enough to enable people top do that. And I'll guarantee the if you suddenly find that you have to live without a car, you will find a way to do so, and you will get used to that too. What I am trying to say here is that people are not as dependent and helpless as all that - not even in America, not by a long way.
It isnt strange that the CD sales decline, but I dont think it is because of DRM as much as the fact that, compared to MP3, CDs are simply not very convenient. The way most people listen to music it doesnt really matter that the quality of MP3 is not quite as good, especially since most modern music isnt the kind where crystal clear sound is critical. If you are driving a car or jogging or something similar, many CD players will cut out every time you bump the player, but an MP3 player wont. And you arent listening carefully anyway, you just want a pleasing background noise.
On top of that, of course, comes the fact that MP3 music can be copied very easily between all your equipment - computer, phone, players etc.
Mars will be transformed into a shirt-sleeve, habitable world for humanity before century's end, made livable by thawing out the coldish climes of the red planet and altering its now carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere.
And then we'll go there with our SUVs and crap the whole place up again.
This is like the British debate about fox hunting. First a bit of background - the traditional fox hunt in Britain was performed by a large number of people on horses and a large number of beagle hounds chasing after a fox until it was so physically exhausted that it simply gave up, at which point the dog would tear it apart while it was still alive. This was, I believe, the last remnant of the 'Royal Hunt', which was something European kings enjoyed doing; only, they would chase a stag, which would at the end just stand there, waiting for the sword to cut it down. It is said that the carcass was more or less just discarded, because the meat wouldn't be any good to eat after a chase like that. In other words, this was a kind of sport that was not only cruelty just for the fun of it, but also utterly pointless. The same could be said about the fox hunt - it was cruelty for fun, and it was pointless, because it had no discernible effect on the number of foxes.
A lot of stupid nonsense has been said in that debate; those in favour of fox hunting would say 'It's traditional', and 'It's necessary to regulate the number of foxes', whereas the other side would have their own, rather emotional nonsense. But what it boils down to in the end is: do we, as society, want to encourage the kind of mentality that sees meaningless cruelty as 'fun'?
The same goes for violent games, especially a thing like Manhunt 2. Yes, 'Freedom of speech' is important, and 'Simply don't buy it if you can't stomach it' - that all sounds very convincing, but at the end of the say - do we, as society, want to encourage the kind of mentality that enjoys meaningless cruelty and casual murder? I know that I don't; and although it is important to allow people to make up their own mind and to protect minorities, it doesn't make sense to protect minorities to the extent that it harms the majority. And it does harm the majority - the majority of parents don't want their children to be lured into that kind of mindset, just like they don't want their children to get into contact with other things they consider harmful; and as a parent YOU are the one that is responsible for your children, and therefore YOU have the right to decide what your children are exposed to.
So what is more important: 'Freedom of Speech' used as an excuse by a company out to make money, or the right to bring up our children according to what we believe is best? A company like Take Two willing to go right to the limit of what is legal and acceptable, and if we don't show where that limit is, they are not going to stop; they'll just wade on, as long as it makes a buck for them.
If there is anything that we can learn from the prison statistics, it is that jail time doesn't teach young people to stop with crime. The sad truth is that in jail you are generally treated as worthless rubbish, which teaches you that you place in society is at the bottom. And then you learn that even criminals have their values and honour, and that they stick together. In jail you learn how be a better criminal, you learn how to forge papers, where to go with stolen goods, and how to avoid getting caught.
It seems that airing smug opinions about things you haven't a clue about is a national sport on Slashdot.
In a sense - although it is stretching the concept. You are not allowed to put up CCTV unless you also put up sign the clearly warn about it; this is to allow people the choice of entering the CCTV zone.
Freedom of speech, as well as the other freedom ideals, have their origin more in Europe than in America; this is not surprising, since they arose in reaction to European society becoming more and more restrictive and oppressive. The American constitution was founded on those ideals with a good deal of influence from France at the time.
The purpose of freedom is to ensure that people have the freedom to live their life and pursue happiness; that they can point out faults in their society, for the benefit of all, and express their political, religious and other views without fear of prosecution. In America in particular, but also in many other countries, this ideal of freedom has been twisted by certain interest groups to mean 'the freedom to do anything at all', which is clearly absurd. So, the psychopathic killer will argue that he was pursuing his 'right to freedom', the swindler is exercising his 'freedom of speech' etc. Trash magazines like OK! and Hello exercise the freedom of speech by stalking celebrities and writing moronically sneering articles about Britney Speer's arse being too fat. Funny enough, her right to privacy is less important than the right of those magazines to make money out of their 'freedom of speech'.
The freedom to express your political or religious views is important for democratic society, because it enables the people to choose the leaders they want; but spewing out cheap pornorgraphic or extremely violent games and movies does not enable people to elect a better government and influence their society. It doesn't even make society happier - and its production, in the case of pornography, is often based on the exploitation of the vulnerable.
One example of too extreme porn is child porn. The world of pornography is not all about consenting adults entering into a situation that they enjoy; so, no, it would definitely not solve any problems for those who are victimised by the porn industry.
It may well be the case that the plasticky types that go through their robotic motions in most mainstream pornograhic movies produced somewhere in the US can be called consenting adults, although some of them are clearly young prostitutes being sold to this purpose by their pimps. There are, however, many situations where young girls in poor countries are being abducted and sold to prostitution and/or pornographic movies, in some cases of an extreme nature. The sad fact is that there are people who are turned on by the knowledge that they are watching abuse, such as rape or child pornography, so there is a market, and a big one. One of the things we have to do to fight it is legislate against it.
'Mob rule' is more or less what democracy is about: the majority wins the day. Democracy is just a refined version of it, and if you believe in democracy, you accept that the majority has a right to sometimes reject what you you would have liked. Your 'don't buy things you find offensive, and leave other people alone.' is just another way of saying that you want anarchy.
It is noteworthy that they felt they had to stress the fact that they respect the law, in this case copyright law, isn't it?
However, what it really means is 'We want to squeeze as much money out of this as we can' - they probably have a close partnership with the RIAA on this.
As a European I take it for granted that my privacy is completely my own, and it seems obvious that I have to give written permission for anybody else to use my data - even government agencies. And that is one of the things about America that I really dislike - it is as if the only thing that matters in America is big money, and whatever big money wants, it gets. Just take the outrage of Microsoft trying to change legislation in the US, which read about here on/. - the reactions of my colleagues here in UK were mostly disbelief; it really is something completely unheard of to most Europeans. Yes, the government consults the industry when they propose new legislation, but at the end of the day, the decision is up to the Parliament, and they often pass laws that are not at all popular with Big Business; that is the purpose of democratic government: to pass laws that benefit the people, not just a small, affluent upper class.
This situation is of course why Americans always go on about privacy - you are starved of it. It's like when people are hungry, all they can think is food. Probably the same thing with freedom, I reckon.
The header seems to suggest that this is all users, or the majority, which of course isn't the case. Most Chinese are not all that interested in the many websites that are mostly in foreign languages they don't understand.
Still, he has a point there - the Chinese censorship is becoming too restrictive and hinders too many things, and there is a risk that it becomes a serious hindrance to their progress, economically and otherwise, so I think they will have to reform their policy somewhat. But then that is exactly what they are doing - from what you hear, although it is mostly interpreted negatively in the West, they are trying to find the right balance. And as is the case in all governments, there are groups with different viewpoints; some want much a more restrictive censorship, others want to open up; my bet is on the ones that want more openness. It makes much more sense in the long run, and the Chinese aren't idiots.
I've seen the usual comments already here along the lines of 'China is a totalitarian, communist hell-hole', and 'Yang Zhou is going to disappear', which tells more about the people that make the comments than about the reality of life in China. In China, as in most other civilized countries, people don't 'disappear' for criticising a bad policy; thye can, however, get arrested for being a threat to society, as interpreted by those in power - this is no different from America or Europe, the difference lying more in what is considered a threat to society. And again, one may not agree with what China calls a threat to society, but they are a sovereign nation, and it is their right to make up their own minds about this - we in the West have one or two absurdly draconian security related laws too, don't we? In time it will change.
This is not so much about whether it is going to work - they know that very well. It is a statement to say 'This is not acceptable here'; that is really what censorship is about in most cases. In this case I must say I can see the point; most people would find a game like that revolting, I believe, and would want the government to say that there has to be a limit. It's like pornography, most of it is harmless and simply boring, but some of it is too extreme to be tolerated by the large majority of people, and I think it is fair to ban it.
Freedom of speech is important, but we shouldn't be slaves to that phrase, becuse it does get used as an excuse for a lot of grotesque rubbish. Freedom of speech is there to protect people's right to express their political and religious opinions without fear of prosecution - those things are important in a democratic society - but it's not there to protect small minded idiots who want to make money on crap.
I got myself a P990i a few months ago - it is a big, chunky thing with amazing capabilities. Qwerty keyboard, touch screen, handwriting capability, camera, word processor, Bluetooth etc etc; they've even squeezed a phone in there. Amazing stuff; but it is heavy, it drains its battery quickly when you use it, and it is incredibly awkward to use - something about the way things are laid out in menus. The system (Symbian) is full of bugs - it regularly reboots itself in the middle of things. The Bluetooth seem to turn itself on spontaneously, and there seems to be no way of turning it off permanently. Often the light doesn't dim automatically, and the only way to get it to do so is to reboot. There is a special unlock key on the side, which can very easily be activated, eg. if you take it out of the pocket or take something else out. The same goes for the camera cover, so you can end up having the camera turned on filming the inside of your pocket until the memory runs full, or calling somebody. Quite often I have found that the keyboard seems to e active even when it says it is locked; and now the touch screen doesn't work properly anymore. I can get it replaced on the warranty, but that means I'll just have to live longer with these problems, and I'll have to wait for maybe weeks until they repair the phone. It's simply too much hassle.
And I suspect maybe this is the same with most smartphones; too many features, too little thought has gone into the usability of the design. Ideally even a smartphone should simply be a phone primarily. It should be dead easy to simply use the phone, and you should have complete control over anything that connects you to things. I don't want to be 'bluejacked', I don't want to be on the Internet all the time, I don't want to be spammed when I pass shops or advertising billboards. A phone and a calendar is all I actually need, a camera can be fun to have, but all the other things are extras, and they should be tucked away until I actively ask for them.
All in all I'm not sure I will buy a smartphone in the future.
What a typically American response - an American, it seems, is always likely to see anything as a criticism os America, and to take it very, very personally; that is probably because you are insecure. You would so like to be genuinely proud of your country, but you find it hard, all things considered. Compare to myself - I'm from Denmark, this great big friend of America that unfortunately seems to have a tendency to be rather socialist. When someone comes to me and says 'Your country sucks', I say 'Really? In what way?', and quite often I can see their viewpoint. But I still love my country; there are many bad things there, but I can live with them, and there are a lot of good things.
Back to what I really said - namely that the article I replied to was load of bombastic trivia presented as if it was a significant contribution in the best tradition of the cold war, which some people in America can't seem to let go of. And then I pointed out that America in my view deserves it bad reputation. I didn't say 'therefore China is much better' - America has many qualities which should obvious to most people, and it is hardly necessary to point that out every time one criticises American politics; it's the thing about self-confidence again. If you really believed that your country is good and something to be mostly proud of, you wouldn't need to hear that sort of reassurance all the time - you would take part in the discussion in a constructive way.
Your questions, then. To take the easy one first: Do I still hold to the same conclusions? Yes, of course - my conclusions have nothing to do with what China is or does.
Censorship, you say? Yes, China does it, and so does America and most other countries. In China they do it explicitly, because they don't feel it is something to be ashamed of, in America is happens through massively funded, right-wing propaganda, that most Americans don't even notice anymore; this is why you in America feel such a deep-rooted anxiety and hatred when the talk is about communism and other thing you are not allowed to think clearly about. You have been conditioned to censor yourselves, which is much more efficient than what they do in China.
The Chinese government massacered people in Tiananmen Square. They saw 'a clear and imminent threat to security' (what a wonderful phrase for a politician) and they panicked - that is a big, black spot on Chinese history, and it is probably one of the main reasons why they have changed so drastically since then. It was not, if I'm any judge, because they were all that afraid of dissent, but because these anti-government movements are funded by certain foregin interests - like elements in the American government or big, rich, powerful, right-wing interest groups and the like. You don't hear much about this until there is yet another Iran-Contra Scandal. Apart from that - America has had its fair share of massacres on its own population (like the Native Americans) as well as populations in other countries (which China hasn't done a lot of, to be fair). Of course you don't do that any more - not much; but on the other hand, China hasn't either since Tiananmen. Perhaps now and the future is what we should concentrate on?
So, where would I feel most comfortable about expressing my misgivings about the government? There is no problem in either China or America if you, as an average person, criticise the government's policies - you are a nobody, and no threat. What would happen in America if an American citizen found out about something seriously rotten in the government, and found solid proof that could topple the government? Would they just sit there and take it? Wouldn't they abuse their power, or have somebody 'completely unconnected with the government' do something? In China you might get taken away for breaking some law or other, and you might end up being put out of circulation, perhaps even on false charges, who knows; in America perhaps you would come under suspicion for terrorism? I mean toppling the government is very nearly terrorism, isn't it? Especially when you are at war, as they call it.
You don't have to have been particularly 'watching China' to know these things - anyone with a brain knows that these things happen, and all you are doing is to proclaim banalities in a loud and clear voice. Just a few examples:
China can be expected to increase strategic intelligence operations with respect to the United States and its other adversaries, especially as it continues its campaign for "multi-polarity"
Yes, duh - this is what nations do, even to their 'friends'. Israel spies on America, America spies on UK and the rest of Europe. It would be naive in this context to expect that China - the alleged Great Enemy - would hold themselves too good, when the US don't.
China's Communists, much like the former Soviet Union's, believe world socialism is inevitable and that the Americans are a symbol of what is standing in their way
Yes, communists and socialists do believe that world socialism is what will naturally evolve if civilisation exists long enough. Some want to help this development by means of violent revolutions, but that is idiotic; true communism is not possible until everybody (or most) want it (and then it will happen democratically). American style capitalism is not 'in the way', but it will fail in the end. All we have to do is wait for it to happen.
China has also instituted a coordinated campaign to influence American politics in its favor
And America has never ever tried to influence the politics of other countries, or?
Having read and understood what you write, I come to the conclusion that 1) China is just a country like all others, who pursue Chinese interests vigorously and intelligently, which is why their importance is steadily growing, and 2) you are a paranoid fool who has more or less copied this from a standard factbook about China. If one were to substitute 'China' with 'America' and 'communism' with 'capitalism', it would be just as true.
America's bad reputation in the world is by and large well deserved, because of a) what the American governments have done over the years, b) what American companies do and have done for many years and c) what American military has done and still does. Most people in the world know that ordinary Americans are just people, who are reasonably good and decent, but we can all see what your 'representatives' do, and it leaves an unfortunate impression, to say the least. Perhaps it doesn't look as bad to the average American, but that is mainly because you sit in your comfortable homes and you don't hear all that much about it; and anyway, it happens 'somewhere else'.
This is not about 'the evil communists' trying to deceive us all with propaganda and slander against the 'purehearted and noble Americans'. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a lot of money, but it sure looks sweet
Aren't they the people who brought us the DRM rootkit, the music CDs that couldn't be played in a lot of CD players and the Sony-Ericsson P990i, possibly the worst telephone to hit the market in living memory? Can we be sure that this thing is not stuffed full of DRM crap?
a project that has so effectively demonstrated the usefulness of the 'wisdom of crowds' concept
Except that the crowd in this case is those 0.1% of the users who actively contribute and actually know what they are talking about. The 'wisdom' of crowds is what elected a twit like George W Bush as well as the British Poodle; I wouldn't hang my hat on that one.
As I read it, the EU are not trying to 'make a competitor to Google' and 'force it from the top down'. They are simply funding research into new and better technologies; this is the way a lot of things are done in Europe, and we are having succes with it too. America used to do this too, before the president sold his soul to the devil and your future to the oil mafia.
Who knows what the future will bring? But there certainly are a number of real problems with Google's approach - among other the closed source approach that mean that nobody outside the company knows whether their search results are anywhere near actually representing what is actually on the internet. A search engine holds a huge potential for propaganda; if you control the search engine you can make sure that people only find the pages you want them to find, and people will still think that they have found the actual truth - it must be, because "I found it myself", right?
Privacy is important, certainly, and I do not agree with those that say 'If don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear'. We all have something to hide - that is what we call privacy, and it is fundamentally important that we can feel safe in our own private sphere every day.
But here are some things to consider: when we go out into the public space, we can't claim a right to privacy any more - public is public. And we all regard it as our obvious right that we can take pictures in the public space; this is why we don't need special permissions to have our picture taken in front of national monuments, or to take pictures of beautiful flowers, buildings, ships or girls/guys in the street wherever we are on holiday.
I'm not sure I like the fact that public authorities (not to mention private companies) record where we go in our daily lives; but it has nothing to do with our right to privacy. And I think it is important to make that distinction, if we want our viewpoints to be heeded. If we muddle the concepts and talk rubbish, those who are of a different opinion can simply disregard what we have to say.
So next time Windows fails to start, you'll know why
Indeed. But what has it to do with the harddisk?
- is that physicists just take the established theories for granted without actually questioning them, and mostly without understanding them either. In fact, one can say that quantum mechanics (or rather, the 'Copenhagen Interpretation') in particular is almost hostile to critical examination of its basic assumptions. Of course, I'm not saying that quantum physics is wrong in its entirety, just that I think we have reached the limits of its validity a while ago and that a new approach is needed.
All these strangely unintuitive theories about strings, rolled up dimensions and fundamental forces that are weirdly ungeometric (like eg. the strong interaction) are IMO an artifact of the viewpoint, just like the constance of the speed of light. As far as I can see (without being able to quite write it down as a well reasoned theory) the way forward has to involve finding a clear explanation of some of these things that we just assume as fundamental, like the speed of light and the charge of the electron - as well as explaining things like electricity and defining what a particle is.
Perhaps a better starting point is actually general relativity, after all? Einstein made several attempts at defining particles in terms of his theory, but never quite made it; he also tried to unify electricity and gravity. I have reason to think that if we solved these two problems, the others might turn out to be derived from first principles in the resulting model.
The basic problem is eating more than you need - nothing difficult to understand there. The big question is WHY do we eat more than we need?
One explanation is certainly in what we eat - feeling satisfied after a meal is more complicated than just pointing to the volume of food or the amount of energy consumed. Our bodies register not only the fullness of the stomach, but also blood sugar levels, fat content, proteins, vitamins and minerals, and probably many more things. This is one reason why you can feel hungry after having eaten a big piece of meat; it didn't contain all the things you needed. So, one element in reducing calorie intake is eating a COMPLETE diet with all the nutrients you need.
Then there is the ease of getting a meal - if you can just buy something to eat the moment you feel the tiniest inclination to eat, you will end up eating much more than you need. The trick here, I find, is to not carry cash around - it somehow feels stupid to use a credit card just to buy one small item, like a bar of candy. When it is a little bit difficult to get a meal, you'll often find that you can't be bothered until you are feeling real hunger.
Boredom - if you are bored, what is the easiest thing to do? Eat! Eating is something that satisfies a very fundamental instinct, and thus it is a highly attractive activity for most people. So, avoid getting bored - go outside, make plans for your spare time etc.
Meal size - we have learned from childhood (as well as from our instincts) that it is wrong to throw away food, you have to finish everything on your plate. And simple common sense says that if you can buy a reasonable sized meal for X USD, and a double-sized meal for just 10% more, you go for the bigger one. This is one of the advantages of Chinese/Japanese style meals - even if you have 10 different dishes in front of you, you only take a little at a time (beacuase the bowl is small).
Eating time - it takes about 30 minutes to register that you've had enough calories to eat. This means that if you wolf down a triple mega-whopper meal, you won't really feel full unless your stomach has been filled to bursting; the signal that you've had enough calories won't register until later. And that means that over time, your stomach's holding capacity gets bigger, and you learn to ignore the signals about having had enough calories. The thing to do, is to start your meal with a piece of fruit (gets your blood sugar up quickly), and then eat slowly - another reason to avoid fast food. Again, Chinese style meals, especially if you have company and spend a lot of the time talking, is a help - you get a better chance of feeling full.
'Time variance in magnetic fields'? Even if this wasn't simply a bungled up phrace (variance is something from statistics, he probably means 'variation' or 'variability' - or even 'fluctuation'), tapping energy from variations in magnetic fields is nothing new, nor does it violate any physical laws. Indeed, if you have a radio or tv, you are already tapping energy from 'time variations in the magnetic field': the radiowaves. Admittedly not a lot of energy, but certainly a lot more than what you would find in most natural fields on Earth. In fact, you can tap significant amounts of energy if you live close enough to a big radio transmitter; whether you are allowed to is another matter, of course.
This is outrageous! Clearly Google should have won - they are FAR RICHER, and besides, they are American, not just some snotty communists from a terrorist country.
In our increasingly mechanized world, we repeatedly hear promises that every new digital product, computerized service, or other form of technology, will make our lives easier -- bestowing greater leisure, health, and happiness.
/. will say 'But we live busy lives, there is not enough time to make all meals from scratch' - this simply isn't true, in my experience (you can cook a good, basic meal in the same time it takes preparing most ready meals). Or people say 'We can manage without our cars' - well, perhaps you can't commute as easily without a car, although in many countries public transport is good enough to enable people top do that. And I'll guarantee the if you suddenly find that you have to live without a car, you will find a way to do so, and you will get used to that too. What I am trying to say here is that people are not as dependent and helpless as all that - not even in America, not by a long way.
It is well known that health and happiness come, not from using mechanical devices or electronic gadgets, but from using your mind and body to achieve things. But the author of this article - and by the look of things the author of the book too - sounds shrill, verging on hysterical.
I must admit, I didn't manage to read the entire thing, I must one of the impatient technophiles, but there is, to be fair, a core of truth in what he says - people are increasingly made to believe that they are helpless without electronic gadgets, ready made meals and mechanical aids. The amazing thing is how much people buy into it, considering how little truth there actually is in it.
We've had this discussion before - a lot of people on
It isnt strange that the CD sales decline, but I dont think it is because of DRM as much as the fact that, compared to MP3, CDs are simply not very convenient. The way most people listen to music it doesnt really matter that the quality of MP3 is not quite as good, especially since most modern music isnt the kind where crystal clear sound is critical. If you are driving a car or jogging or something similar, many CD players will cut out every time you bump the player, but an MP3 player wont. And you arent listening carefully anyway, you just want a pleasing background noise.
On top of that, of course, comes the fact that MP3 music can be copied very easily between all your equipment - computer, phone, players etc.
Mars will be transformed into a shirt-sleeve, habitable world for humanity before century's end, made livable by thawing out the coldish climes of the red planet and altering its now carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere.
And then we'll go there with our SUVs and crap the whole place up again.
This is like the British debate about fox hunting. First a bit of background - the traditional fox hunt in Britain was performed by a large number of people on horses and a large number of beagle hounds chasing after a fox until it was so physically exhausted that it simply gave up, at which point the dog would tear it apart while it was still alive. This was, I believe, the last remnant of the 'Royal Hunt', which was something European kings enjoyed doing; only, they would chase a stag, which would at the end just stand there, waiting for the sword to cut it down. It is said that the carcass was more or less just discarded, because the meat wouldn't be any good to eat after a chase like that. In other words, this was a kind of sport that was not only cruelty just for the fun of it, but also utterly pointless. The same could be said about the fox hunt - it was cruelty for fun, and it was pointless, because it had no discernible effect on the number of foxes.
A lot of stupid nonsense has been said in that debate; those in favour of fox hunting would say 'It's traditional', and 'It's necessary to regulate the number of foxes', whereas the other side would have their own, rather emotional nonsense. But what it boils down to in the end is: do we, as society, want to encourage the kind of mentality that sees meaningless cruelty as 'fun'?
The same goes for violent games, especially a thing like Manhunt 2. Yes, 'Freedom of speech' is important, and 'Simply don't buy it if you can't stomach it' - that all sounds very convincing, but at the end of the say - do we, as society, want to encourage the kind of mentality that enjoys meaningless cruelty and casual murder? I know that I don't; and although it is important to allow people to make up their own mind and to protect minorities, it doesn't make sense to protect minorities to the extent that it harms the majority. And it does harm the majority - the majority of parents don't want their children to be lured into that kind of mindset, just like they don't want their children to get into contact with other things they consider harmful; and as a parent YOU are the one that is responsible for your children, and therefore YOU have the right to decide what your children are exposed to.
So what is more important: 'Freedom of Speech' used as an excuse by a company out to make money, or the right to bring up our children according to what we believe is best? A company like Take Two willing to go right to the limit of what is legal and acceptable, and if we don't show where that limit is, they are not going to stop; they'll just wade on, as long as it makes a buck for them.
Oh yes, won't it just!
If there is anything that we can learn from the prison statistics, it is that jail time doesn't teach young people to stop with crime. The sad truth is that in jail you are generally treated as worthless rubbish, which teaches you that you place in society is at the bottom. And then you learn that even criminals have their values and honour, and that they stick together. In jail you learn how be a better criminal, you learn how to forge papers, where to go with stolen goods, and how to avoid getting caught.
It seems that airing smug opinions about things you haven't a clue about is a national sport on Slashdot.
In a sense - although it is stretching the concept. You are not allowed to put up CCTV unless you also put up sign the clearly warn about it; this is to allow people the choice of entering the CCTV zone.
Freedom of speech, as well as the other freedom ideals, have their origin more in Europe than in America; this is not surprising, since they arose in reaction to European society becoming more and more restrictive and oppressive. The American constitution was founded on those ideals with a good deal of influence from France at the time.
The purpose of freedom is to ensure that people have the freedom to live their life and pursue happiness; that they can point out faults in their society, for the benefit of all, and express their political, religious and other views without fear of prosecution. In America in particular, but also in many other countries, this ideal of freedom has been twisted by certain interest groups to mean 'the freedom to do anything at all', which is clearly absurd. So, the psychopathic killer will argue that he was pursuing his 'right to freedom', the swindler is exercising his 'freedom of speech' etc. Trash magazines like OK! and Hello exercise the freedom of speech by stalking celebrities and writing moronically sneering articles about Britney Speer's arse being too fat. Funny enough, her right to privacy is less important than the right of those magazines to make money out of their 'freedom of speech'.
The freedom to express your political or religious views is important for democratic society, because it enables the people to choose the leaders they want; but spewing out cheap pornorgraphic or extremely violent games and movies does not enable people to elect a better government and influence their society. It doesn't even make society happier - and its production, in the case of pornography, is often based on the exploitation of the vulnerable.
One example of too extreme porn is child porn. The world of pornography is not all about consenting adults entering into a situation that they enjoy; so, no, it would definitely not solve any problems for those who are victimised by the porn industry.
It may well be the case that the plasticky types that go through their robotic motions in most mainstream pornograhic movies produced somewhere in the US can be called consenting adults, although some of them are clearly young prostitutes being sold to this purpose by their pimps. There are, however, many situations where young girls in poor countries are being abducted and sold to prostitution and/or pornographic movies, in some cases of an extreme nature. The sad fact is that there are people who are turned on by the knowledge that they are watching abuse, such as rape or child pornography, so there is a market, and a big one. One of the things we have to do to fight it is legislate against it.
'Mob rule' is more or less what democracy is about: the majority wins the day. Democracy is just a refined version of it, and if you believe in democracy, you accept that the majority has a right to sometimes reject what you you would have liked. Your 'don't buy things you find offensive, and leave other people alone.' is just another way of saying that you want anarchy.
It is noteworthy that they felt they had to stress the fact that they respect the law, in this case copyright law, isn't it?
However, what it really means is 'We want to squeeze as much money out of this as we can' - they probably have a close partnership with the RIAA on this.
As a European I take it for granted that my privacy is completely my own, and it seems obvious that I have to give written permission for anybody else to use my data - even government agencies. And that is one of the things about America that I really dislike - it is as if the only thing that matters in America is big money, and whatever big money wants, it gets. Just take the outrage of Microsoft trying to change legislation in the US, which read about here on /. - the reactions of my colleagues here in UK were mostly disbelief; it really is something completely unheard of to most Europeans. Yes, the government consults the industry when they propose new legislation, but at the end of the day, the decision is up to the Parliament, and they often pass laws that are not at all popular with Big Business; that is the purpose of democratic government: to pass laws that benefit the people, not just a small, affluent upper class.
This situation is of course why Americans always go on about privacy - you are starved of it. It's like when people are hungry, all they can think is food. Probably the same thing with freedom, I reckon.
The header seems to suggest that this is all users, or the majority, which of course isn't the case. Most Chinese are not all that interested in the many websites that are mostly in foreign languages they don't understand.
Still, he has a point there - the Chinese censorship is becoming too restrictive and hinders too many things, and there is a risk that it becomes a serious hindrance to their progress, economically and otherwise, so I think they will have to reform their policy somewhat. But then that is exactly what they are doing - from what you hear, although it is mostly interpreted negatively in the West, they are trying to find the right balance. And as is the case in all governments, there are groups with different viewpoints; some want much a more restrictive censorship, others want to open up; my bet is on the ones that want more openness. It makes much more sense in the long run, and the Chinese aren't idiots.
I've seen the usual comments already here along the lines of 'China is a totalitarian, communist hell-hole', and 'Yang Zhou is going to disappear', which tells more about the people that make the comments than about the reality of life in China. In China, as in most other civilized countries, people don't 'disappear' for criticising a bad policy; thye can, however, get arrested for being a threat to society, as interpreted by those in power - this is no different from America or Europe, the difference lying more in what is considered a threat to society. And again, one may not agree with what China calls a threat to society, but they are a sovereign nation, and it is their right to make up their own minds about this - we in the West have one or two absurdly draconian security related laws too, don't we? In time it will change.
This is not so much about whether it is going to work - they know that very well. It is a statement to say 'This is not acceptable here'; that is really what censorship is about in most cases. In this case I must say I can see the point; most people would find a game like that revolting, I believe, and would want the government to say that there has to be a limit. It's like pornography, most of it is harmless and simply boring, but some of it is too extreme to be tolerated by the large majority of people, and I think it is fair to ban it.
Freedom of speech is important, but we shouldn't be slaves to that phrase, becuse it does get used as an excuse for a lot of grotesque rubbish. Freedom of speech is there to protect people's right to express their political and religious opinions without fear of prosecution - those things are important in a democratic society - but it's not there to protect small minded idiots who want to make money on crap.
I got myself a P990i a few months ago - it is a big, chunky thing with amazing capabilities. Qwerty keyboard, touch screen, handwriting capability, camera, word processor, Bluetooth etc etc; they've even squeezed a phone in there. Amazing stuff; but it is heavy, it drains its battery quickly when you use it, and it is incredibly awkward to use - something about the way things are laid out in menus. The system (Symbian) is full of bugs - it regularly reboots itself in the middle of things. The Bluetooth seem to turn itself on spontaneously, and there seems to be no way of turning it off permanently. Often the light doesn't dim automatically, and the only way to get it to do so is to reboot. There is a special unlock key on the side, which can very easily be activated, eg. if you take it out of the pocket or take something else out. The same goes for the camera cover, so you can end up having the camera turned on filming the inside of your pocket until the memory runs full, or calling somebody. Quite often I have found that the keyboard seems to e active even when it says it is locked; and now the touch screen doesn't work properly anymore. I can get it replaced on the warranty, but that means I'll just have to live longer with these problems, and I'll have to wait for maybe weeks until they repair the phone. It's simply too much hassle.
And I suspect maybe this is the same with most smartphones; too many features, too little thought has gone into the usability of the design. Ideally even a smartphone should simply be a phone primarily. It should be dead easy to simply use the phone, and you should have complete control over anything that connects you to things. I don't want to be 'bluejacked', I don't want to be on the Internet all the time, I don't want to be spammed when I pass shops or advertising billboards. A phone and a calendar is all I actually need, a camera can be fun to have, but all the other things are extras, and they should be tucked away until I actively ask for them.
All in all I'm not sure I will buy a smartphone in the future.
What a typically American response - an American, it seems, is always likely to see anything as a criticism os America, and to take it very, very personally; that is probably because you are insecure. You would so like to be genuinely proud of your country, but you find it hard, all things considered. Compare to myself - I'm from Denmark, this great big friend of America that unfortunately seems to have a tendency to be rather socialist. When someone comes to me and says 'Your country sucks', I say 'Really? In what way?', and quite often I can see their viewpoint. But I still love my country; there are many bad things there, but I can live with them, and there are a lot of good things.
Back to what I really said - namely that the article I replied to was load of bombastic trivia presented as if it was a significant contribution in the best tradition of the cold war, which some people in America can't seem to let go of. And then I pointed out that America in my view deserves it bad reputation. I didn't say 'therefore China is much better' - America has many qualities which should obvious to most people, and it is hardly necessary to point that out every time one criticises American politics; it's the thing about self-confidence again. If you really believed that your country is good and something to be mostly proud of, you wouldn't need to hear that sort of reassurance all the time - you would take part in the discussion in a constructive way.
Your questions, then. To take the easy one first: Do I still hold to the same conclusions? Yes, of course - my conclusions have nothing to do with what China is or does.
Censorship, you say? Yes, China does it, and so does America and most other countries. In China they do it explicitly, because they don't feel it is something to be ashamed of, in America is happens through massively funded, right-wing propaganda, that most Americans don't even notice anymore; this is why you in America feel such a deep-rooted anxiety and hatred when the talk is about communism and other thing you are not allowed to think clearly about. You have been conditioned to censor yourselves, which is much more efficient than what they do in China.
The Chinese government massacered people in Tiananmen Square. They saw 'a clear and imminent threat to security' (what a wonderful phrase for a politician) and they panicked - that is a big, black spot on Chinese history, and it is probably one of the main reasons why they have changed so drastically since then. It was not, if I'm any judge, because they were all that afraid of dissent, but because these anti-government movements are funded by certain foregin interests - like elements in the American government or big, rich, powerful, right-wing interest groups and the like. You don't hear much about this until there is yet another Iran-Contra Scandal. Apart from that - America has had its fair share of massacres on its own population (like the Native Americans) as well as populations in other countries (which China hasn't done a lot of, to be fair). Of course you don't do that any more - not much; but on the other hand, China hasn't either since Tiananmen. Perhaps now and the future is what we should concentrate on?
So, where would I feel most comfortable about expressing my misgivings about the government? There is no problem in either China or America if you, as an average person, criticise the government's policies - you are a nobody, and no threat. What would happen in America if an American citizen found out about something seriously rotten in the government, and found solid proof that could topple the government? Would they just sit there and take it? Wouldn't they abuse their power, or have somebody 'completely unconnected with the government' do something? In China you might get taken away for breaking some law or other, and you might end up being put out of circulation, perhaps even on false charges, who knows; in America perhaps you would come under suspicion for terrorism? I mean toppling the government is very nearly terrorism, isn't it? Especially when you are at war, as they call it.
You don't have to have been particularly 'watching China' to know these things - anyone with a brain knows that these things happen, and all you are doing is to proclaim banalities in a loud and clear voice. Just a few examples:
China can be expected to increase strategic intelligence operations with respect to the United States and its other adversaries, especially as it continues its campaign for "multi-polarity"
Yes, duh - this is what nations do, even to their 'friends'. Israel spies on America, America spies on UK and the rest of Europe. It would be naive in this context to expect that China - the alleged Great Enemy - would hold themselves too good, when the US don't.
China's Communists, much like the former Soviet Union's, believe world socialism is inevitable and that the Americans are a symbol of what is standing in their way
Yes, communists and socialists do believe that world socialism is what will naturally evolve if civilisation exists long enough. Some want to help this development by means of violent revolutions, but that is idiotic; true communism is not possible until everybody (or most) want it (and then it will happen democratically). American style capitalism is not 'in the way', but it will fail in the end. All we have to do is wait for it to happen.
China has also instituted a coordinated campaign to influence American politics in its favor
And America has never ever tried to influence the politics of other countries, or?
Having read and understood what you write, I come to the conclusion that 1) China is just a country like all others, who pursue Chinese interests vigorously and intelligently, which is why their importance is steadily growing, and 2) you are a paranoid fool who has more or less copied this from a standard factbook about China. If one were to substitute 'China' with 'America' and 'communism' with 'capitalism', it would be just as true.
America's bad reputation in the world is by and large well deserved, because of a) what the American governments have done over the years, b) what American companies do and have done for many years and c) what American military has done and still does. Most people in the world know that ordinary Americans are just people, who are reasonably good and decent, but we can all see what your 'representatives' do, and it leaves an unfortunate impression, to say the least. Perhaps it doesn't look as bad to the average American, but that is mainly because you sit in your comfortable homes and you don't hear all that much about it; and anyway, it happens 'somewhere else'.
This is not about 'the evil communists' trying to deceive us all with propaganda and slander against the 'purehearted and noble Americans'. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.