When Linus Torvalds purchased his first computer on which he began writing the Linux kernel, the state-of-the art PC with 4 megabytes of RAM and running at 33 megahertz was too expensive for him to buy outright.
Call me new-age, but I think PublixDirect.com is probably the best innovation so far in grocery shopping. It's easy, it's convenient, and you just have to put away the groceries, and be home when the delivery comes. Although...the possibility of running linux on a shopping cart may be irresistable... ^_^
Honestly, I was always under the impression that thievery implied a very crucial factor that online music 'piracy' lacks. The reproduction of said stolen materials as the thief's own, and/or the selling of stolen materials for the gain of the thief. A bank robber steals money from a bank, launders it, and passes it off as his own 'hard earned' money (which in actuality, it's probably harder to steal money, and get away with it, than it is to earn that amount of money...). An art thief steals priceless paintings from galleries, sells them to a 'fence', and profits off of the theft.
Online music downloading lacks these two points. Downloading music doesn't deprive an artist of profits, at least not directly. If, while in a music store, you went to a computer, downloaded music from the internet upon that computer, and burned it to a CD, for free, instead of buying that CD (which you, at some point in time, had an intention of buying), I could see it as theft. The problem here is, that the RIAA is trying to justify data, recorded media, as physically existing. Well, to make an example, if you could either view the news on the internet, or go down the street and buy it from the paperboy, which would you do? Personally, I'd say the digital version would last as long as you could keep it backed up on either hard drive, floppy disc, CD, Tape Drive, etc. The newspaper could, and will deteriorate, age, mildew, and slowly destroy itself.
CDs today are quite sturdy, and it's a poor arguement to just say I'd rather download music because buying a CD, and never ripping it to my hard drive (because that could be construed as an intent to distribute copyrighted works) is a losing proposition. Eventually, that CD is either going to be dropped, stepped on, cracked, scratched, or melted to the point where it's no longer usable. An mp3, on the other hand, barring major damage to your harddrive (without an appreciable backup), will remain an mp3, until you make it cease to be an mp3. It can be transferred, stored, reproduced, all sorts of things, even remixed, edited, and such, very easily. I honestly think that people would pay money to have a music (and really, files in general) sharing program where your request would be guarenteed to be in the system, your speed was guarenteed at a certain k/second, and you wouldn't have to download 30 copies of the same song just to find one that's good quality.
Of course, as an advocate of free flow of information, I really do think that the RIAA needs to recognize their lack of importance in today's economy, and release their stranglehold on the industry. I believe that free flow of information should be free, in fact, I believe that the abolishment of material wealth would be the greatest thing to happen to our culture since our culture began. Imagine a pseudo-star trek society where everyone was given for free everything they would need for survival, plus anything required by their occupation, and custom-tailored extras for allowed leisure activities. Oh well, I'll rant about the abolishment of economy some other time.
Phew, I sure am glad that MediaForce is around...if they weren't, I'd never get my works off of KaZaA, iMesh, and Aimster. All six people who still use those programs would have full access to everything I've ever done, that belongs to me. It sure is a good thing that no other peer to peer programs have cropped up in the recent past to replace them, or I might be out of BIG BUCKS.
You are making your post on the assumption that people that download this film are both: a) not going to see the movie in theatres, and b) not going to buy the movie on DVD.
Now, this verson of The Two Towers, no matter how good, would NEVER compare to the version seen in theatres, on the big screen (unless you have 10 million dollars, and a house with a true home theatre). I know that even though I may download it, or get it from someone who does, I'm still going to see it in theatres just as many times as I saw Lord of the Rings (which is every chance I get).
And once again, the picture quality of the downloaded version is going to be nowhere near DVD quality, will have none of the extras, etc. While this may be an issue when quality goes up, and bandwidth along the length of the internet to compensate, it's not one now. Once again, I may dl it, watch it a few times just because I'm bored and can't get to a theatre, but I'd do the same after I buy the DVD, which will have enough special features to warrant the extra couple bucks I'm willing to shell out.
While your concern is noted for the sake of all the.0001% out there who are big enough fans of the series to download the movie and never sink a dime into the franchise, it's this kind of anti-filesharing mindset that will doom the filesharing industry not to expand until there are sufficient measures in place to make sure that the flow of information is always controlled by the media industry. It's like the ages (or at least months)-older anti-MP3 arguements. Sure, people may be downloading mp3s, they may even be burning them onto CDs. But those CDs will not compare to being able to say, "I own this CD, the original, not a burnt copy." And those CDs and live.mp3s will not compare to being able to say, "I was at Warped Tour 2002" or "I was at the Pop Sucks Tour."
In conclusion, your arguement is flawed in that you make a crucial assumption central to your case. You assume that people download from file sharing programs to the exclusion of other mediums, as opposed to in addition to other mediums. Sure, I shop on Half.com, does that make me a thief, just because I want to buy CDs for less than 20 bucks apiece? Sure, I go over to my friend's house and watch his copy of "The Lord of the Rings" on DVD, does that make me a pirate, because I don't just buy my own copy to save me the 5 minutes of walking across the street, or *gasp* god forbid I were to borrow it from him, and rip it to my computer to view at my leisure. I'd still want my own copy eventually, when I stopped being as strapped for cash as I am.
And besides, I thought that copyright infringement protected artists from having me steal their work, and pass it off as my own...
I have a friend who's a traffic, who's told me several times, that there are so many archeic laws that still apply today, that you could be going the speed limit, driving the safest car in existance, and have 0% co2 emmisions, and he could still pull you, ticket you, and justify it in court if he really wanted. That's just wrong.
Gun companies don't alienate their users by pushing end user license agreements or suing their customers when they take their guns apart.
End User License Agreements : Software:: Concealed Weapons Permit/Hunting License : Guns
And about the second part, the gun compaines have nothing to lose if you take apart their guns, you can't use the individual parts, or mix and match with other guns, without it being more trouble than it's worth. It would be the equivalent of having practically every program in existance written in a different, unchangable language. Therefore, unsuitable analogy. (Sorry to bust your balls there, though)
Firearms manufacturers contribute quite a bit to the NRA and though gun nuts have varying opinions on WHICH gun manufacturers they prefer, they can all see a common goal in the 2nd amendment that benefits everyone.
But we don't now, and probably won't (at least for a while) have any major legistlation (i.e. a constitutional amendment) that guarentees you free access to information, fair prices on software, security of virtual data, or anything of the kind. And even then, would we want the government to care that much about our security? We already bitch and moan enough that the army has too much power, that if there were ever a civil war it would be put down faster than a rabid dog. How would we feel about a cyber-army of government trained 'hax0rs'? Sure, we'd be safe from major attacks, but that's not how computer system attacks work, they're small strikes in vital areas, where blanket defenses *don't* cover. *sigh*
those people can all agree on the main central issues...that being "don't legislate how we use our fucking computers."
But we need some kind of united front to rally behind, that we get ALL the tech-oriented people to rally behind. We need a battle cry, and a flag. And then we need to agree not to squabble over how best to get them not to legistlate how we use our fucking computers.
It's the tech companies like Microsoft that want complete control over the market and end users that make unifying a difficult proposition. Let's face it, corporations are heard by legislators a lot more than individuals, and without corporate sponsorship and cooperation, no sort of unified tech organization is going to get anywhere.
Ah, the sad sad voice of reality. This kind of harshness prevents the truth about tobacco from getting out in a means other than corny commercials. It prevents Hydrogen Fuel Cells from being available within the next decade. It proports the kind of thinking that we can't do anything about global warming, and therefore need 5 more years to think about it. It supports the belief that whatever the christian coalition says is golden. It allows the Goliaths of the world to crush every single David before the fight even starts. They've got us believing that we can't fight them, that they're too big, and we're too small. Well I don't fucking buy it. I know this is hypocritical, as I'm a windoze user (Sue me, I grew up on it, and I haven't had time to learn Linux yet, at least I built my b0xen), but still, it proves that even those the system has in it's grip can be vocally against it.
If only we could all agree that we need to unify, and how to unify, then we'd be much better off. And we'd need a figurehead, someone who speaks for the g33k community. Someone who has the bullshit tolerance of buddha, and the diplomatic ability of Colin Powell. I elect myself, once I'm no longer a minor ^_^. But still, every great group has a leader, a face, a voice for their cause. The NRA has Charleton Heston. Don't let us just be those damn dirty g33ks.
Are you in SoFla by any chance? (south florida for the unenlightened) My friend Alan went to see it, and the exact same thing happened at his showing...maybe it's some subliminal thing in the previews that only 5/126ths of the population can see (his particular theatre has a 125 person-per-theatre occupancy, but there was one guy who walked in late and just sat in the aisle)
I'm not, and nobody else is arguing that they buy the cds for any other reason than the fact that they like them. But you must also yield to the fact that it is difficult to form an opinion about anything else but 'pop' music when that is what has so penetrated the culture that it is impossible to turn anywhere without running into a 500' billboard of britney spears drinking a pepsi, pointed at the 501' billboard of christina aguilera drinking a coke (being facetious, of course). Normally it requires meeting someone who 'introduces' you to a band for one to listen to a new kind of music with an open mind. If you grow up without associating with anyone who listens to anything other than you...well, you begin to realize the closed-mindedness that stereotypes most people who listen to only 'pop' music. Sadly, many of the same things could be said about any genre of music, and the class of people within that thinks that everything else Sux0rz because it's different. I think the most classic example of this would be Punk Rock (which happens to be my personal favorite genre, coincidentally), but it's found everywhere. The problem is, you can't force someone to be open-minded, if we could, well, slashdot wouldn't be necessary, now would it?
Printer: $50 Enough paper to print out total of collected consumer information: $8,000 A way to get around losing valuable information to a lawsuit: Priceless.
Capitalism Express, some things trickery can't buy, for everything else, well, you just don't need it anyway.
Sorry to make a star trek reference, but how hard would it be to make ebook readers convenient, like the Padds were in ST:TNG? I mean, PDAs are about the closest we've come, but their displays are far too small for the intended purpose.
I could see ebooks eclipsing books, and causing reading to slowly build among people. I mean, this could have a good effect, by causing people that wouldn't normally read to say, "Hey, look, shiny new toy...hey, it has words...these words mean somehting" and from there, utopia (in little steps of course). You never know. People stopped being able to listen to a lot of radio shows when the TV came out, now all the radio is good for is music. Why? Because it's the most efficient medium for music to be transmitted on. TV, is the most efficient video interface. Ebook readers/laptops/PDAs may become the most efficient text interface. This doesn't mean they'll remove the nostalgia of paperback/hardcover books, and I doubt that traditional publishing will ever truly die. It just can't continue in the face of new technology. Whether the killer app is Harry Potter 5, or an independent book that comes out in 6 months that makes Harry Potter look like Larry Potter, it'll come eventually.
You know, there already exists a perpetual motion machine, which started at the beginning of time, and will end at complete entropy. It runs of gravity, heat, magnetic fields, even time itself. Anyone know what it is? The universe. Even it isn't perpetual. Just some food for thought.
Well, I recently did a survey, and found that over 75% of my friends would kill a 12 year old with mind bullets for an Xbox, while only 28% would kill a 12 year old with mind bullets for a gamecube. In related news, 68% would suffice with a crowbar...
Is it just me, or are americans completely ignoring the possibility of al-quaeda, or, for that matter, any other organization (country, terrorist group, whatever), staging a major attack on the US? I mean, we take it as a major offense to our pride to attack us at all, but yet we attack other countries like it's nothing. I mean, we are bordered on both sides by countries that're scared ****less of us, or that we believe are not able to be influenced by anyone else. Anyone here ever play Red Alert 2? Where Russia was our enemy, and invaded through mexico? Change Russia to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other country we've ticked off (Vietnam isn't too fond of us still...), and you get a major staging point of attacks on the oil of texas, the cash of vegas, the technology of silicon valley. Even a 'regular' attack, staged anywhere in the country, say by the equivalent of four chinook helicopters landing afghani troops, each wrapped in C4, ready to explode if they're about to die, with an AK-47, landing anywhere in the country, and levelling a major city, or at the very least, killing a ton of people, would completely stun us, we wouldn't know what to do. Lemme put this in what-does-this-mean-to-me terms. Let's say you live in Nowheresville. Nowheresville is relatively urban, slightly rural, but gets it's power from a centralized source, say, a hydroelectric plant. A few helicopters land, blow up the plant, and contaminate the water supply, making sure to destroy the roads on the way out, and blow up pretty much all the gas stations just for fun. Would you know what to do to hold out for long enough just to survive? Another scary thought, what if they were to just start targetting random major cities, forcing the population to go into the rural areas, and live off the land? How many americans would be able to live without their palm pilots and computers? How about running water and electricity? I mean, I may be rousing paranoia that normally lays dormant, but these days it's a bit healthy to think in worst-case-scenario terms.
Hey, in all seriousness, since these MEMS would be able to build real-world objects on a much smaller scale, wouldn't it be feasible to have a micro machine that actually worked? It'd be cool to have a little toy RX-7, guided by an internal computer, to go around that track by itself at speeds normally unknown to a small pewter car.
Actually, it's more of the 'how much is it going to cost me personally' and 'why should I be paying for it' that people need gotten across to them. The thing is, most people are more concerned with 'how is this going to affect me' as opposed to 'how is this going ot affect the world'. Besides, if man needed PR to create fire, we'd have died out a long time ago. Life finds a way, if the researchers are hell bent on getting things done, they'll hire someone to back it who knows how to bottom-line it. Or at least someone charismatic. Like Leonardo DiCaprio backing the environment.
Ok, this is kinda more towards the Please Don't Start World War III edge of the topic spectrum, don't kill (recruit) me for it...
Is it just me, or every time we back one side of a foriegn conflict, we suddenly realize a double-decade later that we made the wrong move. I think, if we want to stop having wars, WE SHOULD STOP ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO HAVE WARS!!!! My god...for a peace-loving country, we sure do love to get involved in war, we sure do love to flip a coin and back whichever 'donkey' it lands on, and we sure do love to miraculously ignore any wrongdoings that country does/did until after they've won (and of course, they will, thanks to the irresistable force that is (begin echo)American Egoism -ism -ism -ism -ism...(end echo)) So what *should* we do? Well, we should handle our own damn business! We need to swallow our inflated ego, and realize that the more we get involved in everyone else's business, the more everyone else resents it. The only problem is, I think it's already too late, considering that given our american paranoia, we're going to see terrorists (just like communists) bloody everywhere, and we'll end up declaring war on everyone that doesn't eunanimously support us. Hasn't anyone else realized that this war is the perfect excuse for america to do whatever it damn well pleases to whomever it could possibly find a reason to move against. I say the best thing anyone can do to make an intelligent decision of position in this conflict is to research it, bin laden, the US history with afghanistan/terrorist groups, etc... (And I mean from unbiased sources, like...umm...ENCYCLOPEDIAS, and not relying on the networks' sensationalism of what little truth they allow to trickle down to inform them)
Slashdot Mirror
When Linus Torvalds purchased his first computer on which he began writing the Linux kernel, the state-of-the art PC with 4 megabytes of RAM and running at 33 megahertz was too expensive for him to buy outright.
Oh my god, it's a diesel!
no, when a country threatens another country based off of desired action/inaction of that country, it's terrorism.
imposing democracy afterwards is patriotic.
I'll take anal bum covers for 500, alex.
^_^ I'll never get tired of the sean connery character in SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy.
Call me new-age, but I think PublixDirect.com is probably the best innovation so far in grocery shopping. It's easy, it's convenient, and you just have to put away the groceries, and be home when the delivery comes. Although...the possibility of running linux on a shopping cart may be irresistable... ^_^
In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream.
And what happens when people realize that all they have to do to get around this is pluck out someone's eyeball?
Puts the phrase 'an eye for an eye' in a renewed perspective, now doesn't it...
Honestly, I was always under the impression that thievery implied a very crucial factor that online music 'piracy' lacks. The reproduction of said stolen materials as the thief's own, and/or the selling of stolen materials for the gain of the thief. A bank robber steals money from a bank, launders it, and passes it off as his own 'hard earned' money (which in actuality, it's probably harder to steal money, and get away with it, than it is to earn that amount of money...). An art thief steals priceless paintings from galleries, sells them to a 'fence', and profits off of the theft.
Online music downloading lacks these two points. Downloading music doesn't deprive an artist of profits, at least not directly. If, while in a music store, you went to a computer, downloaded music from the internet upon that computer, and burned it to a CD, for free, instead of buying that CD (which you, at some point in time, had an intention of buying), I could see it as theft. The problem here is, that the RIAA is trying to justify data, recorded media, as physically existing. Well, to make an example, if you could either view the news on the internet, or go down the street and buy it from the paperboy, which would you do? Personally, I'd say the digital version would last as long as you could keep it backed up on either hard drive, floppy disc, CD, Tape Drive, etc. The newspaper could, and will deteriorate, age, mildew, and slowly destroy itself.
CDs today are quite sturdy, and it's a poor arguement to just say I'd rather download music because buying a CD, and never ripping it to my hard drive (because that could be construed as an intent to distribute copyrighted works) is a losing proposition. Eventually, that CD is either going to be dropped, stepped on, cracked, scratched, or melted to the point where it's no longer usable. An mp3, on the other hand, barring major damage to your harddrive (without an appreciable backup), will remain an mp3, until you make it cease to be an mp3. It can be transferred, stored, reproduced, all sorts of things, even remixed, edited, and such, very easily. I honestly think that people would pay money to have a music (and really, files in general) sharing program where your request would be guarenteed to be in the system, your speed was guarenteed at a certain k/second, and you wouldn't have to download 30 copies of the same song just to find one that's good quality.
Of course, as an advocate of free flow of information, I really do think that the RIAA needs to recognize their lack of importance in today's economy, and release their stranglehold on the industry. I believe that free flow of information should be free, in fact, I believe that the abolishment of material wealth would be the greatest thing to happen to our culture since our culture began. Imagine a pseudo-star trek society where everyone was given for free everything they would need for survival, plus anything required by their occupation, and custom-tailored extras for allowed leisure activities. Oh well, I'll rant about the abolishment of economy some other time.
Sure is annoying when that little doesn't preserve to my actual post. ^_^
Phew, I sure am glad that MediaForce is around...if they weren't, I'd never get my works off of KaZaA, iMesh, and Aimster. All six people who still use those programs would have full access to everything I've ever done, that belongs to me. It sure is a good thing that no other peer to peer programs have cropped up in the recent past to replace them, or I might be out of BIG BUCKS.
You are making your post on the assumption that people that download this film are both:
.0001% out there who are big enough fans of the series to download the movie and never sink a dime into the franchise, it's this kind of anti-filesharing mindset that will doom the filesharing industry not to expand until there are sufficient measures in place to make sure that the flow of information is always controlled by the media industry. It's like the ages (or at least months)-older anti-MP3 arguements. Sure, people may be downloading mp3s, they may even be burning them onto CDs. But those CDs will not compare to being able to say, "I own this CD, the original, not a burnt copy." And those CDs and live .mp3s will not compare to being able to say, "I was at Warped Tour 2002" or "I was at the Pop Sucks Tour."
a) not going to see the movie in theatres, and
b) not going to buy the movie on DVD.
Now, this verson of The Two Towers, no matter how good, would NEVER compare to the version seen in theatres, on the big screen (unless you have 10 million dollars, and a house with a true home theatre). I know that even though I may download it, or get it from someone who does, I'm still going to see it in theatres just as many times as I saw Lord of the Rings (which is every chance I get).
And once again, the picture quality of the downloaded version is going to be nowhere near DVD quality, will have none of the extras, etc. While this may be an issue when quality goes up, and bandwidth along the length of the internet to compensate, it's not one now. Once again, I may dl it, watch it a few times just because I'm bored and can't get to a theatre, but I'd do the same after I buy the DVD, which will have enough special features to warrant the extra couple bucks I'm willing to shell out.
While your concern is noted for the sake of all the
In conclusion, your arguement is flawed in that you make a crucial assumption central to your case. You assume that people download from file sharing programs to the exclusion of other mediums, as opposed to in addition to other mediums. Sure, I shop on Half.com, does that make me a thief, just because I want to buy CDs for less than 20 bucks apiece? Sure, I go over to my friend's house and watch his copy of "The Lord of the Rings" on DVD, does that make me a pirate, because I don't just buy my own copy to save me the 5 minutes of walking across the street, or *gasp* god forbid I were to borrow it from him, and rip it to my computer to view at my leisure. I'd still want my own copy eventually, when I stopped being as strapped for cash as I am.
And besides, I thought that copyright infringement protected artists from having me steal their work, and pass it off as my own...
I have a friend who's a traffic, who's told me several times, that there are so many archeic laws that still apply today, that you could be going the speed limit, driving the safest car in existance, and have 0% co2 emmisions, and he could still pull you, ticket you, and justify it in court if he really wanted. That's just wrong.
Gun companies don't alienate their users by pushing end user license agreements or suing their customers when they take their guns apart.
:: Concealed Weapons Permit/Hunting License : Guns
End User License Agreements : Software
And about the second part, the gun compaines have nothing to lose if you take apart their guns, you can't use the individual parts, or mix and match with other guns, without it being more trouble than it's worth. It would be the equivalent of having practically every program in existance written in a different, unchangable language. Therefore, unsuitable analogy. (Sorry to bust your balls there, though)
Firearms manufacturers contribute quite a bit to the NRA and though gun nuts have varying opinions on WHICH gun manufacturers they prefer, they can all see a common goal in the 2nd amendment that benefits everyone.
But we don't now, and probably won't (at least for a while) have any major legistlation (i.e. a constitutional amendment) that guarentees you free access to information, fair prices on software, security of virtual data, or anything of the kind. And even then, would we want the government to care that much about our security? We already bitch and moan enough that the army has too much power, that if there were ever a civil war it would be put down faster than a rabid dog. How would we feel about a cyber-army of government trained 'hax0rs'? Sure, we'd be safe from major attacks, but that's not how computer system attacks work, they're small strikes in vital areas, where blanket defenses *don't* cover. *sigh*
those people can all agree on the main central issues...that being "don't legislate how we use our fucking computers."
But we need some kind of united front to rally behind, that we get ALL the tech-oriented people to rally behind. We need a battle cry, and a flag. And then we need to agree not to squabble over how best to get them not to legistlate how we use our fucking computers.
It's the tech companies like Microsoft that want complete control over the market and end users that make unifying a difficult proposition. Let's face it, corporations are heard by legislators a lot more than individuals, and without corporate sponsorship and cooperation, no sort of unified tech organization is going to get anywhere.
Ah, the sad sad voice of reality. This kind of harshness prevents the truth about tobacco from getting out in a means other than corny commercials. It prevents Hydrogen Fuel Cells from being available within the next decade. It proports the kind of thinking that we can't do anything about global warming, and therefore need 5 more years to think about it. It supports the belief that whatever the christian coalition says is golden. It allows the Goliaths of the world to crush every single David before the fight even starts. They've got us believing that we can't fight them, that they're too big, and we're too small. Well I don't fucking buy it. I know this is hypocritical, as I'm a windoze user (Sue me, I grew up on it, and I haven't had time to learn Linux yet, at least I built my b0xen), but still, it proves that even those the system has in it's grip can be vocally against it.
If only we could all agree that we need to unify, and how to unify, then we'd be much better off. And we'd need a figurehead, someone who speaks for the g33k community. Someone who has the bullshit tolerance of buddha, and the diplomatic ability of Colin Powell. I elect myself, once I'm no longer a minor ^_^. But still, every great group has a leader, a face, a voice for their cause. The NRA has Charleton Heston. Don't let us just be those damn dirty g33ks.
Are you in SoFla by any chance? (south florida for the unenlightened) My friend Alan went to see it, and the exact same thing happened at his showing...maybe it's some subliminal thing in the previews that only 5/126ths of the population can see (his particular theatre has a 125 person-per-theatre occupancy, but there was one guy who walked in late and just sat in the aisle)
I'm not, and nobody else is arguing that they buy the cds for any other reason than the fact that they like them. But you must also yield to the fact that it is difficult to form an opinion about anything else but 'pop' music when that is what has so penetrated the culture that it is impossible to turn anywhere without running into a 500' billboard of britney spears drinking a pepsi, pointed at the 501' billboard of christina aguilera drinking a coke (being facetious, of course). Normally it requires meeting someone who 'introduces' you to a band for one to listen to a new kind of music with an open mind. If you grow up without associating with anyone who listens to anything other than you...well, you begin to realize the closed-mindedness that stereotypes most people who listen to only 'pop' music. Sadly, many of the same things could be said about any genre of music, and the class of people within that thinks that everything else Sux0rz because it's different. I think the most classic example of this would be Punk Rock (which happens to be my personal favorite genre, coincidentally), but it's found everywhere. The problem is, you can't force someone to be open-minded, if we could, well, slashdot wouldn't be necessary, now would it?
Printer: $50
Enough paper to print out total of collected consumer information: $8,000
A way to get around losing valuable information to a lawsuit: Priceless.
Capitalism Express, some things trickery can't buy, for everything else, well, you just don't need it anyway.
Sorry to make a star trek reference, but how hard would it be to make ebook readers convenient, like the Padds were in ST:TNG? I mean, PDAs are about the closest we've come, but their displays are far too small for the intended purpose.
I could see ebooks eclipsing books, and causing reading to slowly build among people. I mean, this could have a good effect, by causing people that wouldn't normally read to say, "Hey, look, shiny new toy...hey, it has words...these words mean somehting" and from there, utopia (in little steps of course). You never know. People stopped being able to listen to a lot of radio shows when the TV came out, now all the radio is good for is music. Why? Because it's the most efficient medium for music to be transmitted on. TV, is the most efficient video interface. Ebook readers/laptops/PDAs may become the most efficient text interface. This doesn't mean they'll remove the nostalgia of paperback/hardcover books, and I doubt that traditional publishing will ever truly die. It just can't continue in the face of new technology. Whether the killer app is Harry Potter 5, or an independent book that comes out in 6 months that makes Harry Potter look like Larry Potter, it'll come eventually.
You know, there already exists a perpetual motion machine, which started at the beginning of time, and will end at complete entropy. It runs of gravity, heat, magnetic fields, even time itself. Anyone know what it is? The universe. Even it isn't perpetual. Just some food for thought.
Granted, in areas where the action would stop long enough for some RP time, there is going to be some 1337 H4>
Well, I recently did a survey, and found that over 75% of my friends would kill a 12 year old with mind bullets for an Xbox, while only 28% would kill a 12 year old with mind bullets for a gamecube. In related news, 68% would suffice with a crowbar...
Kinda OT, but what the heck, huh?
Is it just me, or are americans completely ignoring the possibility of al-quaeda, or, for that matter, any other organization (country, terrorist group, whatever), staging a major attack on the US? I mean, we take it as a major offense to our pride to attack us at all, but yet we attack other countries like it's nothing. I mean, we are bordered on both sides by countries that're scared ****less of us, or that we believe are not able to be influenced by anyone else. Anyone here ever play Red Alert 2? Where Russia was our enemy, and invaded through mexico? Change Russia to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other country we've ticked off (Vietnam isn't too fond of us still...), and you get a major staging point of attacks on the oil of texas, the cash of vegas, the technology of silicon valley. Even a 'regular' attack, staged anywhere in the country, say by the equivalent of four chinook helicopters landing afghani troops, each wrapped in C4, ready to explode if they're about to die, with an AK-47, landing anywhere in the country, and levelling a major city, or at the very least, killing a ton of people, would completely stun us, we wouldn't know what to do. Lemme put this in what-does-this-mean-to-me terms. Let's say you live in Nowheresville. Nowheresville is relatively urban, slightly rural, but gets it's power from a centralized source, say, a hydroelectric plant. A few helicopters land, blow up the plant, and contaminate the water supply, making sure to destroy the roads on the way out, and blow up pretty much all the gas stations just for fun. Would you know what to do to hold out for long enough just to survive? Another scary thought, what if they were to just start targetting random major cities, forcing the population to go into the rural areas, and live off the land? How many americans would be able to live without their palm pilots and computers? How about running water and electricity? I mean, I may be rousing paranoia that normally lays dormant, but these days it's a bit healthy to think in worst-case-scenario terms.
Hey, in all seriousness, since these MEMS would be able to build real-world objects on a much smaller scale, wouldn't it be feasible to have a micro machine that actually worked? It'd be cool to have a little toy RX-7, guided by an internal computer, to go around that track by itself at speeds normally unknown to a small pewter car.
Actually, it's more of the 'how much is it going to cost me personally' and 'why should I be paying for it' that people need gotten across to them. The thing is, most people are more concerned with 'how is this going to affect me' as opposed to 'how is this going ot affect the world'. Besides, if man needed PR to create fire, we'd have died out a long time ago. Life finds a way, if the researchers are hell bent on getting things done, they'll hire someone to back it who knows how to bottom-line it. Or at least someone charismatic. Like Leonardo DiCaprio backing the environment.
Ok, this is kinda more towards the Please Don't Start World War III edge of the topic spectrum, don't kill (recruit) me for it...
Is it just me, or every time we back one side of a foriegn conflict, we suddenly realize a double-decade later that we made the wrong move. I think, if we want to stop having wars, WE SHOULD STOP ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO HAVE WARS!!!! My god...for a peace-loving country, we sure do love to get involved in war, we sure do love to flip a coin and back whichever 'donkey' it lands on, and we sure do love to miraculously ignore any wrongdoings that country does/did until after they've won (and of course, they will, thanks to the irresistable force that is (begin echo)American Egoism -ism -ism -ism -ism...(end echo)) So what *should* we do? Well, we should handle our own damn business! We need to swallow our inflated ego, and realize that the more we get involved in everyone else's business, the more everyone else resents it. The only problem is, I think it's already too late, considering that given our american paranoia, we're going to see terrorists (just like communists) bloody everywhere, and we'll end up declaring war on everyone that doesn't eunanimously support us. Hasn't anyone else realized that this war is the perfect excuse for america to do whatever it damn well pleases to whomever it could possibly find a reason to move against. I say the best thing anyone can do to make an intelligent decision of position in this conflict is to research it, bin laden, the US history with afghanistan/terrorist groups, etc... (And I mean from unbiased sources, like...umm...ENCYCLOPEDIAS, and not relying on the networks' sensationalism of what little truth they allow to trickle down to inform them)