No, if they put copy protection on the CD/DVD, then you cannot circumvent it, it's illegal. Don't like it, don't purchase that companies games.
Do I have to follow a law I find immoral, and not in the spirits of individual rights?
I put my own sense of morality, and right above that of the law any day, especially when said law was passed ignoring our interests as individuals, and only focusing on the potential profits of an industry. When government harms the rights of its citizens to maximize the profits corporations, I don't see the need to recognize it.
Yes, if caught in it, I accept the consequences of my objections. But it becomes an argument of government coercion, over being morally followable. Its a gun to your head, and not a guideline to right action.
Re:"Nerd" is a cop-out
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad I proved you point, but don't take TOO much credit. I've also actually had my morning pot of coffee today, as opposed to when I first replied.
As stated though, I think a lot of social interaction is innate, and often we feel the need to reach beyond our comfort zone because it is the "norm". That is when the misuse of various social learning programs can be harmful.
Conflict resolution is definitely always needed, though. But then again most of my college electives were filled by communications (mostly rhetoric and argumentation) and social psychology classes. I do like the irony of an Army class on it though, I understand the necessity, but it still is amusing.
But once piracy grows too large you have only 2 choices : 1) enforcement of copyright laws, irrespective of the means 2) no more production except for ideological reasons, or by way of a commercial (say "why stoning women is good for them" by your "friendly" neighbourhood imam)
I don't find this necessarily true. According to the **AAs piracy is rampant, but they still are making money hand over foot. Yes, they claim they could be making more, but I don't see the correlation between "lost potential profit" and piracy as iron clad. There are hundreds of reasons they could be not making as much money as they think they should be. Bad products, price inflation, and an expanding non-cartel (indie) market come to mind (I haven't bought anything off a RIAA signatory for a long time, and not by conscious boycott, most music I like is small label these days, like Neurot, Ipecac and Tzadik).
There is a market for music, but the RIAA is mad because they don't have the share they once had. The internet has facilitated finding a wider array of music, which don't have to benefit from billions of dollars in marketing and image consultants, so unlike years ago, you don't have to go to a monolithic producer to get your CDs.
As for movies, a possible reason for the down turn is that they have raised the prices of DVDs constantly, which would be normal for most products (ala inflation), but isn't traditionally true for media. Most people don't find value in a $20 DVD. BlueRay is even worse, with pricing reaching obscene levels (for a marginal increase in quality). I don't movie piracy is even that common outside of the college crowd.
Point being, I don't think we can launch into much of a discussion until we actually can begin to peg down how large the problem actually is. Its somewhere between negligible and the overinflated numbers that the self-interested (and previously proven untrustworthy) put forth. Which is a very wide gap.
Part of the problem too is that the current market model is rapidly getting antiquated. CDs are increasingly becoming a waste of my time, since I'll probably only listen to them digitally through some other device. Thus having to shoulder the costs of intermediaries (shipping, resale overhead) becomes unacceptable, as does having to pay for marketing and packaging. Chopping these out, allows the price to drop closer to an acceptable level.
They need to accept that piracy will happen, and stop trying to muck with legitimate software and protocols, and stop mucking with the rights of individuals. My rights as a person are greater (or at least should be) than any corporate interests. This does not include the right to privacy, but by fighting one, they fight the other.
They need to adapt their business model to the modern age, and try to add value that is not obtainable by privacy. They need to realize that restrictive DRM, and forcing obscene pricing models (charging retail for digital downloads) will only hurt them more, and these losses cannot be blamed on piracy in the long run.
As a political note, Republicans and Democrats are both equally in the pockets of business. Republicans lately have been "Business first" more than the Democrats. Neither value us as much as they do corporations. If you delve into the ideological heart of each party you'll find good, but sadly there are not that many people who actually believe that ideology, or act by it, in either party.
Actually I think Moz is a friend of the community, it is the most popular chunk of OSS around, and thus serves as an example of its power. Yes, it also is a money juggernaut, which makes OSS more attractive. Thanks to that money, Firefox is right now the most polished OSS product out there as well (perhaps tied with Ubuntu).
So, why isn't Mozilla a god guy anymore? The gobs of money? The fact isn't not a basement hobby with the UI of nightmares? That it isn't the communities baby anymore?
Re:"Nerd" is a cop-out
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 1
Sorry for the hostile tone, but often this type of book is used for collecting people, instead of propagating mutually meaningful interaction, or "networking".
Obviously, I too lack social skills. And yes, I agree that we do need people, but some of us need them less than others, and of that set, some of them feel like there is something wrong with them, because we live in an extrovert-centric society. So these books can be used to shirk our own natural inclinations.
I don't think social skills are mainly acquired, at least not at the same rate as C. C is pretty much completely acquired knowledge, social skills have a pretty large innate component. Sadly, for nerds/geeks/whatnot, I think the problem is that most people just aren't interesting enough to bother with (people are very boring and banal as a rule), not that they can't, just that there isn't much of a point.
Even the largest nerds I know (figuratively and literally) have friends, generally all fellow nerds, though I suppose there is a fallacy lurking in there. If they had no social skills, I wouldn't know them. Heh.
Sorry for the hostility again, was in a rather extreme mood.
I understand the current use of the term "soul", but find it rather absurd. It is a religious (or at least spiritual) term, granting a supernatural component to consciousness. It does imply that consciousness is not of "earth stuff", but of some special matter. Its a Cartesian duality, and Cartesian dualities run into serious problems (the interface between spirit stuff, and meat stuff.
We all have the same subjective feeling as you, but this does not make it true. And as of yet, there is no falsifiable criteria to justify, or advance, this feeling. There is nothing but faith.
I do agree that we (and most thinking beings) are beyond the sum of their parts though, but don't agree that there is an essence that imbues this synergy. TFA was somewhat on base with attributing consciousness with an emergent property. As for the computer metaphor, there also is some truth in that (as long as we, unlike most cognitive scientists, tread with caution), a computer is also a lump of inanimate junk that takes on a different meaning, or use, when animated by process. Time, and imbued energy (an AC adapter, or ATP) are then the essence of being.
Out of curiosity, have you read the works of Douglas Hofstadter? Especially his recent "I Am A Strange Loop"? Or his talk of Bach's brain as a book in GEB? Conscious life, like computers are procedural.
My qualm is still the use of the word soul, it adds connotations that are unnecessary. We might as well call evolution "God", since it fills his role fine as well. There might be linking factors, but it does not mean conceptual equality.
(its odd, the only time I get to use my schooling in philosophy is Slashdot, these days)
I agree as long as we accept the opposite corollary: the lack of evidence doesn't point towards its existence either.
Generally I don't believe in things without evidence, there is no evidence of a soul, so I don't believe in it. This isn't saying it doesn't exist, but just the expedient course of action would to be not to believe, for the sake of epistemological simplicity. If I believe in things without empirical evidence, I must then believe in infinite things (invisible dragons, angels, ESP, UFOs, and all of the god's who ever existed), unless there is a finite criteria (currently measurable) to proving falsehood attached to the concept.
The soul lacks this criteria, obviously.
I'm sick of people, as an aside, equating the term "soul" to consciousness, it only serves to muddy the waters with religious connotations. Consciousness can exist without a soul (by definition), thus the two cannot be equated.
As for the topic at hand, I doubt computers can have a soul (by the popular religious definition), since they lack the whole God thing. They may, perhaps, someday have consciousness, though. As for emotions, they might, but probably not that we could understand. I'm not banking on any of this happening in my life time though, if ever.
The worst is the current obsession with ultra-bright blue LEDs. My external HDD glows bright enough to actually read by. My HP laptop has thousands of ultra bright blue LEDs too, which flicker madly when its sleeping. My Wii decides to flash in a blinding blue at random intervals (which again, illuminates my bedroom bright enough to make sleep impossible). My other computer has a blue status light that also is bright enough to read by, and worse it flashes rapidly when sleeping.
ENOUGH WITH THE BLUE LIGHTS! I don't understand the attraction, perhaps it looks futuristic or something, they just annoy me. Especially since they hit the edge of the visible spectrum a bit, and appear to swim (disembodied from their source) out of the corner of my eye.
I do though, enjoy Apple's sleeping indicator, it is slightly relaxing and subdued.
I'm sick of arrogant electronics, that want me to pay attention to them at all times. I like to be able to ignore my gadgets. I already payed money for them, why should they care if I spend time with them?
Re:"Nerd" is a cop-out
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think part of it is more desire, than ability. I often fail to see the point of acting like someone other than myself for no other reason than to impress people, or make "contacts" (an idea that I actually find repulsive). The size of my "social network" is meaningless to me.
I find people always desperately grasping for human contact slightly pitiful, and rather sad. Your measure as a man has nothing to do with who, or how many people, you know, but only with how you value your experience of life. Especially people who need a book for it, if I ever caught people using the methodology of that book on me, I'd drop them quickly. These aren't people who want to know me, they want me as an object to count among their resources. This is a rather sociopathic way of relating to your fellow man.
If there is no connection, then they are a waste of time. If it requires work to know someone, they probably aren't worth my time, be civil with them, nothing more.
Yes, your trying to outline a very precise concept in detail. Or trying to express something deep enough where words don't capture it that well.
This, though, is Slashdot.
Re:Revenge of the Nerds...
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 1
Its the opposite in my circle of friends. Geeks are the ones who have intellectual ADD, and must fully master a field with an obsession, until they get bored. They generally are smart, and social, if somewhat erratic and ignorant of social graces. They generally have friends, girl friends, and a brew beer in their kitchen while fixing a computer and tricking out their car.
Nerds are savants, who are really good at one field at the exclusion of everything else, including bathing, or social contact. They have no interpersonal skills, and find people a waste of time, a distraction for whatever intellectual pursuit they hold highest.
For me that five minutes are spent talking to real life friends (some of which I never would have gotten reacquainted with if it wasn't for the game), and generally spend traveling to somewhere to do some questing with "virtual" friends, who I also spend lots of time with just talking to, and have been doing so for a year or so, but thanks to real life geography I can't invite to the local pub. Often I'm also chatting with my real life (and local) girlfriend, who also plays from time to time, sometimes, even, when we're sitting in the same room, less than 5 feet from each other.
I really don't understand the amount of hate that people spew towards WoW (and online games in general).
Yes, some people can go to far. As they can in ALL things. I knew a couple people in college who blew all their money hanging out in bars, talking to the same circle of friends every night, and their grades/job/whatnot suffered. I know people who are obsessed with productivity and their jobs to the point of having no life to speak of, and will probably die 10 years sooner than me thanks to stress.
Lego will lose minimal market share because of this. Their brand name alone ensures that they will remain dominant in the market for a long time to come. Actually I don't see their business dropping much at all in the short-to-mid term. Having 6,000,000 types of bathroom tissues that are exactly the same as Kleenex didn't hurt them too much (even though I would now rule even their trademark dead), nor does it hurt Clorox that all bleaches are pretty much the same.
I'm guessing that Lego's other lines will not be hurt much either, such as Technix and Mindstorms.
I also doubt them moving to China very much, since they are one of the few eco-conscious companies out there. And I'm guessing finding lead-based Legos would be a much worse hit to their market than this.
Also... This is abuse of trademark law, IMO, so we do we protect it here on Slashdot, is it just because Lego is a sacred cow to us geeks? What if Microsoft pulled something equivalent? Would we be sad?
Also, Legos suck now. The only thing worth buying is their bulk "regular" blocks, all their kits are nothing but specialized shapes, that really are only good for one configuration, within the one set. I actually would be more likely to buy generic blocks for that reason alone, especially if I had children. Legos is about imagination, not mock-building movie tie-ins.
Speaking as someone who majored in ancient Greek and Latin as both an undergraduate and in graduate school at U Cal Berkeley, IMHO computer science is now at the cutting edge of philosophy.
Now that AI has been solved [google.com], the philosophy of mind has switched from theory-mode to practicum-mode, just as AstroNomy switched from theory-mode and observation-mode to practicum-mode when ManKind ventured into SpaceTravel in the nineteen-sixties.
Even NeuroScience is moving into computer science, as a Theory of Mind [sourceforge.net] for artificial intelligence gets implemented in Open-Source AI SoftWare.
Your kidding right? AI has NOT been solved, nor has the modeling problem attached to Cog Sci (the premise "the brain is a computer"). AI is still a very hard problem, that has had made very little progress since it was declared imminent and crucial to understanding cognition. Recently, even, some of the big old AI guns have been decrying the lack of progress in the field.
Also not all of the community (any community) is absolutely sure that "solving" AI will be as insightful to Phi of Mind as some seem to think.
Yes, everytime you say "fuck", 10 million teens get pregnant.
On the other hand I don't see whats so bad about sex. Yes, it can be overdone on the media, but I find it a little more tasteful than trying to raise our children as little Rambos.
As for "shit", not even my parents got mad at me for using that one, when I was growing up.
They're just words, words don't hurt, only our perceptions of them hurt us.
But then again, if I managed to stick around for 8 years of Bush, you can manage for however many years of Obama, it can't be worse, we can only go up hill.
As for me, I'm happy I can display my American flag again, since I'm no longer ashamed of my country. We might not be the evil cackling Skeletor of the world anymore.
Thank you. That was my first response last night watching the results roll in (besides quaffing almost a whole fifth of bourbon in relief/disbelief). Fake America is now Real America, take that you "dividing and conquering" morons. The McCain rhetoric machine might still destroy us, I fear. He's managed to make all of middle America feel disenfranchised in the last couple weeks, so I expect the wacko right (of the Moral Majority stripe) to start rebuilding, which is bad for us as a country, real or fake.
Agreed. But ironically we consider the "immature" to be mature, and the mature to be for the "immature". The gaming industry is stuck at using the adolescent model of maturity.
The mature you are, the more "kid friendly", and the more you sound like a 12 year old, the more "mature". Ironic, but applicable.
Look at the bout of "softcore porn" games in the late-90's-mid-2000's, these are all Mature rated, but for 13 year olds.
Yes, you are technically correct, but... How many wars have we had since WWII, and how many of them were legally declared congressional wars, and how many were picked by PotUS?
Because it makes a mockery of individual rights. The government should only be in the business of upholding and protecting individual rights.
So, it all comes down to our subjective visions of government? Nowhere contained in the term "government" is your definition implied. Thus its hard to state someone is wrong for coming to a judgment based on another subjective definition of "government". The government is what we make it be, by its own nature (think of a living social contract), thus if enough people like you existed, your version of government would be real (for good or ill).
Sadly, I would be there fighting the whole time.
I think the government should be a slave to the people (not industry). People are the ends. If the people wish for government internet, then the government should compete with industry. Disagreeing with this can lead to a slippery slope. Lets say that form a private, corporate, police department (lets call it OCP), then do I have the right for suing my local police department for competing with me? Probably not. What, here is the difference?
"People should get what they want immediately regardless of whose rights are violated in the process."
See, this is where of different definitions come to play; I don't see anyone's rights being violated. Just a company getting huffy since they finally have to compete. The individuals within this company have rights, yes, but NOT the company itself. Its an abstraction, and abstractions don't have rights.
Not that I should speak of "rights", since I really have no idea what they really are. No one has made a compelling argument of an a priori existence of rights as an actuality and not as a mere arbitrary convention. Rights, pretty much are, what we agree on as rights. Or what you can convince others are such.
So convince me; what flavor of individual rights is being violated?
Call your city and ask if you're allowed to dig around the road on your street and lay fiber optic lines all down your street, down the neighboring street, etc. They will laugh at you and hang up.
I'm glad my bureaucrats are doing their job then. City streets are PUBLIC property, not individual property. Some idiot tearing up my street for fiber is a pain in MY ass, and my neighbors. In busy areas its costs individuals and business' money, wastes their time, and generally is a mess. I don't WANT the government allowing access to ANY Joe Blow. Access to public property should only be weighed against the communal good, being communal property.
Oh know, its the red threat all over again! Where is Patrick Swayze when we need him?! How is life in false dichotomy land? I hear you guys are trying to build a strawman that will someday reach the moon!
Seriously though, I don't think anyone advocated the end of WESTERN CIVILIZATION, nor even would recommend such. Sure, maybe your particular view of western civilization is threatened, but I doubt that most of us in the West share your values (I'm guessing extreme libertarian/freemarketeer). Yes, perhaps the "me first, screw everything else" ethos will be threatened, I have a hard time crying over this.
When someone attacks (or you perceive it, in this case) your ideology, and your reaction is paroxysms of rage, you probably have too much personally at state with a mere academic ideology.
Also, the enlightenment was much bigger than Adam Smith, and capitalism (in some form) much older than the enlightenment. Also, socialism and capitolism are NOT mutually exclusive (a lot of countries believe that we have the moral obligation of trying to lift people up). Nor is planning, EVER a bad thing. Its called foresight, its much better than cleaning up after your boneheaded mistakes all the time.
So now to the issue at hand, with your FUD out of the way, Canada != Siberia. They actually are pretty far apart. I doubt a Canadian undersea eruption is enough to cause extensive sea floor heating in Siberia. But then again, I didn't RTFA, so I'm not sure if there is actually a temperature differential involved around the hydrates, or if there is some other process going on. To be clear, I have no idea.
I forgot Tool deliberately. Everyone knows who Tool is, and has probably formed an opinion on them by now. This isn't discrediting them, their one of the few bands that have matured well (See also Trent Reznor).
I also forgot (inadvertently) The Mars Volta, they are truly brilliant, its almost hard to believe that its 9/10s of a crappy Emo band.
Try Isis and Mastodon (Meshuggah if you lean harder), and if you think lyrics are superfluous, try bands such as Pelican and Russian Circles, and on the more silent side Red Sparowes and Grails.
Last.fm is your friend when it comes to discovering new things, as long as your taste isn't too popular (when the Beatles and Radiohead become suggestions for everything).
Slashdot Mirror
No, if they put copy protection on the CD/DVD, then you cannot circumvent it, it's illegal. Don't like it, don't purchase that companies games.
Do I have to follow a law I find immoral, and not in the spirits of individual rights?
I put my own sense of morality, and right above that of the law any day, especially when said law was passed ignoring our interests as individuals, and only focusing on the potential profits of an industry. When government harms the rights of its citizens to maximize the profits corporations, I don't see the need to recognize it.
Yes, if caught in it, I accept the consequences of my objections. But it becomes an argument of government coercion, over being morally followable. Its a gun to your head, and not a guideline to right action.
I'm glad I proved you point, but don't take TOO much credit. I've also actually had my morning pot of coffee today, as opposed to when I first replied.
As stated though, I think a lot of social interaction is innate, and often we feel the need to reach beyond our comfort zone because it is the "norm". That is when the misuse of various social learning programs can be harmful.
Conflict resolution is definitely always needed, though. But then again most of my college electives were filled by communications (mostly rhetoric and argumentation) and social psychology classes. I do like the irony of an Army class on it though, I understand the necessity, but it still is amusing.
But once piracy grows too large you have only 2 choices :
1) enforcement of copyright laws, irrespective of the means
2) no more production except for ideological reasons, or by way of a commercial (say "why stoning women is good for them" by your "friendly" neighbourhood imam)
I don't find this necessarily true. According to the **AAs piracy is rampant, but they still are making money hand over foot. Yes, they claim they could be making more, but I don't see the correlation between "lost potential profit" and piracy as iron clad. There are hundreds of reasons they could be not making as much money as they think they should be. Bad products, price inflation, and an expanding non-cartel (indie) market come to mind (I haven't bought anything off a RIAA signatory for a long time, and not by conscious boycott, most music I like is small label these days, like Neurot, Ipecac and Tzadik).
There is a market for music, but the RIAA is mad because they don't have the share they once had. The internet has facilitated finding a wider array of music, which don't have to benefit from billions of dollars in marketing and image consultants, so unlike years ago, you don't have to go to a monolithic producer to get your CDs.
As for movies, a possible reason for the down turn is that they have raised the prices of DVDs constantly, which would be normal for most products (ala inflation), but isn't traditionally true for media. Most people don't find value in a $20 DVD. BlueRay is even worse, with pricing reaching obscene levels (for a marginal increase in quality). I don't movie piracy is even that common outside of the college crowd.
Point being, I don't think we can launch into much of a discussion until we actually can begin to peg down how large the problem actually is. Its somewhere between negligible and the overinflated numbers that the self-interested (and previously proven untrustworthy) put forth. Which is a very wide gap.
Part of the problem too is that the current market model is rapidly getting antiquated. CDs are increasingly becoming a waste of my time, since I'll probably only listen to them digitally through some other device. Thus having to shoulder the costs of intermediaries (shipping, resale overhead) becomes unacceptable, as does having to pay for marketing and packaging. Chopping these out, allows the price to drop closer to an acceptable level.
They need to accept that piracy will happen, and stop trying to muck with legitimate software and protocols, and stop mucking with the rights of individuals. My rights as a person are greater (or at least should be) than any corporate interests. This does not include the right to privacy, but by fighting one, they fight the other.
They need to adapt their business model to the modern age, and try to add value that is not obtainable by privacy. They need to realize that restrictive DRM, and forcing obscene pricing models (charging retail for digital downloads) will only hurt them more, and these losses cannot be blamed on piracy in the long run.
As a political note, Republicans and Democrats are both equally in the pockets of business. Republicans lately have been "Business first" more than the Democrats. Neither value us as much as they do corporations. If you delve into the ideological heart of each party you'll find good, but sadly there are not that many people who actually believe that ideology, or act by it, in either party.
Actually I think Moz is a friend of the community, it is the most popular chunk of OSS around, and thus serves as an example of its power. Yes, it also is a money juggernaut, which makes OSS more attractive. Thanks to that money, Firefox is right now the most polished OSS product out there as well (perhaps tied with Ubuntu).
So, why isn't Mozilla a god guy anymore? The gobs of money? The fact isn't not a basement hobby with the UI of nightmares? That it isn't the communities baby anymore?
Sorry for the hostile tone, but often this type of book is used for collecting people, instead of propagating mutually meaningful interaction, or "networking".
Obviously, I too lack social skills. And yes, I agree that we do need people, but some of us need them less than others, and of that set, some of them feel like there is something wrong with them, because we live in an extrovert-centric society. So these books can be used to shirk our own natural inclinations.
I don't think social skills are mainly acquired, at least not at the same rate as C. C is pretty much completely acquired knowledge, social skills have a pretty large innate component. Sadly, for nerds/geeks/whatnot, I think the problem is that most people just aren't interesting enough to bother with (people are very boring and banal as a rule), not that they can't, just that there isn't much of a point.
Even the largest nerds I know (figuratively and literally) have friends, generally all fellow nerds, though I suppose there is a fallacy lurking in there. If they had no social skills, I wouldn't know them. Heh.
Sorry for the hostility again, was in a rather extreme mood.
I understand the current use of the term "soul", but find it rather absurd. It is a religious (or at least spiritual) term, granting a supernatural component to consciousness. It does imply that consciousness is not of "earth stuff", but of some special matter. Its a Cartesian duality, and Cartesian dualities run into serious problems (the interface between spirit stuff, and meat stuff.
We all have the same subjective feeling as you, but this does not make it true. And as of yet, there is no falsifiable criteria to justify, or advance, this feeling. There is nothing but faith.
I do agree that we (and most thinking beings) are beyond the sum of their parts though, but don't agree that there is an essence that imbues this synergy. TFA was somewhat on base with attributing consciousness with an emergent property. As for the computer metaphor, there also is some truth in that (as long as we, unlike most cognitive scientists, tread with caution), a computer is also a lump of inanimate junk that takes on a different meaning, or use, when animated by process. Time, and imbued energy (an AC adapter, or ATP) are then the essence of being.
Out of curiosity, have you read the works of Douglas Hofstadter? Especially his recent "I Am A Strange Loop"? Or his talk of Bach's brain as a book in GEB? Conscious life, like computers are procedural.
My qualm is still the use of the word soul, it adds connotations that are unnecessary. We might as well call evolution "God", since it fills his role fine as well. There might be linking factors, but it does not mean conceptual equality.
(its odd, the only time I get to use my schooling in philosophy is Slashdot, these days)
I agree as long as we accept the opposite corollary: the lack of evidence doesn't point towards its existence either.
Generally I don't believe in things without evidence, there is no evidence of a soul, so I don't believe in it. This isn't saying it doesn't exist, but just the expedient course of action would to be not to believe, for the sake of epistemological simplicity. If I believe in things without empirical evidence, I must then believe in infinite things (invisible dragons, angels, ESP, UFOs, and all of the god's who ever existed), unless there is a finite criteria (currently measurable) to proving falsehood attached to the concept.
The soul lacks this criteria, obviously.
I'm sick of people, as an aside, equating the term "soul" to consciousness, it only serves to muddy the waters with religious connotations. Consciousness can exist without a soul (by definition), thus the two cannot be equated.
As for the topic at hand, I doubt computers can have a soul (by the popular religious definition), since they lack the whole God thing. They may, perhaps, someday have consciousness, though. As for emotions, they might, but probably not that we could understand. I'm not banking on any of this happening in my life time though, if ever.
The worst is the current obsession with ultra-bright blue LEDs. My external HDD glows bright enough to actually read by. My HP laptop has thousands of ultra bright blue LEDs too, which flicker madly when its sleeping. My Wii decides to flash in a blinding blue at random intervals (which again, illuminates my bedroom bright enough to make sleep impossible). My other computer has a blue status light that also is bright enough to read by, and worse it flashes rapidly when sleeping.
ENOUGH WITH THE BLUE LIGHTS! I don't understand the attraction, perhaps it looks futuristic or something, they just annoy me. Especially since they hit the edge of the visible spectrum a bit, and appear to swim (disembodied from their source) out of the corner of my eye.
I do though, enjoy Apple's sleeping indicator, it is slightly relaxing and subdued.
I'm sick of arrogant electronics, that want me to pay attention to them at all times. I like to be able to ignore my gadgets. I already payed money for them, why should they care if I spend time with them?
I think part of it is more desire, than ability. I often fail to see the point of acting like someone other than myself for no other reason than to impress people, or make "contacts" (an idea that I actually find repulsive). The size of my "social network" is meaningless to me.
I find people always desperately grasping for human contact slightly pitiful, and rather sad. Your measure as a man has nothing to do with who, or how many people, you know, but only with how you value your experience of life. Especially people who need a book for it, if I ever caught people using the methodology of that book on me, I'd drop them quickly. These aren't people who want to know me, they want me as an object to count among their resources. This is a rather sociopathic way of relating to your fellow man.
If there is no connection, then they are a waste of time. If it requires work to know someone, they probably aren't worth my time, be civil with them, nothing more.
Yes, your trying to outline a very precise concept in detail. Or trying to express something deep enough where words don't capture it that well.
This, though, is Slashdot.
Its the opposite in my circle of friends. Geeks are the ones who have intellectual ADD, and must fully master a field with an obsession, until they get bored. They generally are smart, and social, if somewhat erratic and ignorant of social graces. They generally have friends, girl friends, and a brew beer in their kitchen while fixing a computer and tricking out their car.
Nerds are savants, who are really good at one field at the exclusion of everything else, including bathing, or social contact. They have no interpersonal skills, and find people a waste of time, a distraction for whatever intellectual pursuit they hold highest.
Dorks lack social skills, and intelligence.
For me that five minutes are spent talking to real life friends (some of which I never would have gotten reacquainted with if it wasn't for the game), and generally spend traveling to somewhere to do some questing with "virtual" friends, who I also spend lots of time with just talking to, and have been doing so for a year or so, but thanks to real life geography I can't invite to the local pub. Often I'm also chatting with my real life (and local) girlfriend, who also plays from time to time, sometimes, even, when we're sitting in the same room, less than 5 feet from each other.
I really don't understand the amount of hate that people spew towards WoW (and online games in general).
Yes, some people can go to far. As they can in ALL things. I knew a couple people in college who blew all their money hanging out in bars, talking to the same circle of friends every night, and their grades/job/whatnot suffered. I know people who are obsessed with productivity and their jobs to the point of having no life to speak of, and will probably die 10 years sooner than me thanks to stress.
All things in moderation.
I doubt this will happen.
Lego will lose minimal market share because of this. Their brand name alone ensures that they will remain dominant in the market for a long time to come. Actually I don't see their business dropping much at all in the short-to-mid term. Having 6,000,000 types of bathroom tissues that are exactly the same as Kleenex didn't hurt them too much (even though I would now rule even their trademark dead), nor does it hurt Clorox that all bleaches are pretty much the same.
I'm guessing that Lego's other lines will not be hurt much either, such as Technix and Mindstorms.
I also doubt them moving to China very much, since they are one of the few eco-conscious companies out there. And I'm guessing finding lead-based Legos would be a much worse hit to their market than this.
Also... This is abuse of trademark law, IMO, so we do we protect it here on Slashdot, is it just because Lego is a sacred cow to us geeks? What if Microsoft pulled something equivalent? Would we be sad?
Also, Legos suck now. The only thing worth buying is their bulk "regular" blocks, all their kits are nothing but specialized shapes, that really are only good for one configuration, within the one set. I actually would be more likely to buy generic blocks for that reason alone, especially if I had children. Legos is about imagination, not mock-building movie tie-ins.
Speaking as someone who majored in ancient Greek and Latin as both an undergraduate and in graduate school at U Cal Berkeley, IMHO computer science is now at the cutting edge of philosophy.
Now that AI has been solved [google.com], the philosophy of mind has switched from theory-mode to practicum-mode, just as AstroNomy switched from theory-mode and observation-mode to practicum-mode when ManKind ventured into SpaceTravel in the nineteen-sixties.
Even NeuroScience is moving into computer science, as a Theory of Mind [sourceforge.net] for artificial intelligence gets implemented in Open-Source AI SoftWare.
Your kidding right? AI has NOT been solved, nor has the modeling problem attached to Cog Sci (the premise "the brain is a computer"). AI is still a very hard problem, that has had made very little progress since it was declared imminent and crucial to understanding cognition. Recently, even, some of the big old AI guns have been decrying the lack of progress in the field.
Also not all of the community (any community) is absolutely sure that "solving" AI will be as insightful to Phi of Mind as some seem to think.
If you want to clarify, please do.
I'm not sure what an Astro Nomy is, either.
I want to add, written on skin, and inked in blood, not pulp and ink.
Yes, everytime you say "fuck", 10 million teens get pregnant.
On the other hand I don't see whats so bad about sex. Yes, it can be overdone on the media, but I find it a little more tasteful than trying to raise our children as little Rambos.
As for "shit", not even my parents got mad at me for using that one, when I was growing up.
They're just words, words don't hurt, only our perceptions of them hurt us.
Please do.
But then again, if I managed to stick around for 8 years of Bush, you can manage for however many years of Obama, it can't be worse, we can only go up hill.
As for me, I'm happy I can display my American flag again, since I'm no longer ashamed of my country. We might not be the evil cackling Skeletor of the world anymore.
Thank you. That was my first response last night watching the results roll in (besides quaffing almost a whole fifth of bourbon in relief/disbelief). Fake America is now Real America, take that you "dividing and conquering" morons. The McCain rhetoric machine might still destroy us, I fear. He's managed to make all of middle America feel disenfranchised in the last couple weeks, so I expect the wacko right (of the Moral Majority stripe) to start rebuilding, which is bad for us as a country, real or fake.
Partisanship should die.
That said, shame on Arizona and California.
Agreed. But ironically we consider the "immature" to be mature, and the mature to be for the "immature". The gaming industry is stuck at using the adolescent model of maturity.
The mature you are, the more "kid friendly", and the more you sound like a 12 year old, the more "mature". Ironic, but applicable.
Look at the bout of "softcore porn" games in the late-90's-mid-2000's, these are all Mature rated, but for 13 year olds.
Yes, you are technically correct, but... How many wars have we had since WWII, and how many of them were legally declared congressional wars, and how many were picked by PotUS?
Because it makes a mockery of individual rights. The government should only be in the business of upholding and protecting individual rights.
So, it all comes down to our subjective visions of government? Nowhere contained in the term "government" is your definition implied. Thus its hard to state someone is wrong for coming to a judgment based on another subjective definition of "government". The government is what we make it be, by its own nature (think of a living social contract), thus if enough people like you existed, your version of government would be real (for good or ill).
Sadly, I would be there fighting the whole time.
I think the government should be a slave to the people (not industry). People are the ends. If the people wish for government internet, then the government should compete with industry. Disagreeing with this can lead to a slippery slope. Lets say that form a private, corporate, police department (lets call it OCP), then do I have the right for suing my local police department for competing with me? Probably not. What, here is the difference?
"People should get what they want immediately regardless of whose rights are violated in the process."
See, this is where of different definitions come to play; I don't see anyone's rights being violated. Just a company getting huffy since they finally have to compete. The individuals within this company have rights, yes, but NOT the company itself. Its an abstraction, and abstractions don't have rights.
Not that I should speak of "rights", since I really have no idea what they really are. No one has made a compelling argument of an a priori existence of rights as an actuality and not as a mere arbitrary convention. Rights, pretty much are, what we agree on as rights. Or what you can convince others are such.
So convince me; what flavor of individual rights is being violated?
Call your city and ask if you're allowed to dig around the road on your street and lay fiber optic lines all down your street, down the neighboring street, etc. They will laugh at you and hang up.
I'm glad my bureaucrats are doing their job then. City streets are PUBLIC property, not individual property. Some idiot tearing up my street for fiber is a pain in MY ass, and my neighbors. In busy areas its costs individuals and business' money, wastes their time, and generally is a mess. I don't WANT the government allowing access to ANY Joe Blow. Access to public property should only be weighed against the communal good, being communal property.
Camera equipment in expensive. And, if this guy is a serious photography buff, then I'm guessing his computer is better than middle of the road.
Oh know, its the red threat all over again! Where is Patrick Swayze when we need him?! How is life in false dichotomy land? I hear you guys are trying to build a strawman that will someday reach the moon!
Seriously though, I don't think anyone advocated the end of WESTERN CIVILIZATION, nor even would recommend such. Sure, maybe your particular view of western civilization is threatened, but I doubt that most of us in the West share your values (I'm guessing extreme libertarian/freemarketeer). Yes, perhaps the "me first, screw everything else" ethos will be threatened, I have a hard time crying over this.
When someone attacks (or you perceive it, in this case) your ideology, and your reaction is paroxysms of rage, you probably have too much personally at state with a mere academic ideology.
Also, the enlightenment was much bigger than Adam Smith, and capitalism (in some form) much older than the enlightenment. Also, socialism and capitolism are NOT mutually exclusive (a lot of countries believe that we have the moral obligation of trying to lift people up). Nor is planning, EVER a bad thing. Its called foresight, its much better than cleaning up after your boneheaded mistakes all the time.
So now to the issue at hand, with your FUD out of the way, Canada != Siberia. They actually are pretty far apart. I doubt a Canadian undersea eruption is enough to cause extensive sea floor heating in Siberia. But then again, I didn't RTFA, so I'm not sure if there is actually a temperature differential involved around the hydrates, or if there is some other process going on. To be clear, I have no idea.
I forgot Tool deliberately. Everyone knows who Tool is, and has probably formed an opinion on them by now. This isn't discrediting them, their one of the few bands that have matured well (See also Trent Reznor).
I also forgot (inadvertently) The Mars Volta, they are truly brilliant, its almost hard to believe that its 9/10s of a crappy Emo band.
Try Isis and Mastodon (Meshuggah if you lean harder), and if you think lyrics are superfluous, try bands such as Pelican and Russian Circles, and on the more silent side Red Sparowes and Grails.
Last.fm is your friend when it comes to discovering new things, as long as your taste isn't too popular (when the Beatles and Radiohead become suggestions for everything).