I think it's the opposite of what you're saying. While there are many movies out there that just show T&A for money, there are a lot of movies that do these things for art; take for example American Beauty. It's all part of the art. If you censor that movie, the message is gone. In art, it's all or nothing. It's like reading Nietzsche without the 'God is dead' quotes because it might infect your kids minds. If someone is too young, ignorant, etc. to handle parts of the film, then don't show it to them at all; all people need are more false values. As an artist myself, I can say that I don't want edited versions of anything of mine going around. Parodying is one thing, as is copying; art is still there in one form or another. But in censoring...what's left?
Batteries may seem to be getting weaker, but the fact is that battery tech can't nearly compete with the break-neck pace of the electronics they power. Laptops today are so incredibly power hungry due to the ever increasing number of systems that each one has to support (now P4s and Athlons with seperate actual video cards; huge hard drives, huge screens, and our biggest power guzzling friend the WiFi card) that batteries loose it quite quickly. I've got a compaq armada 7700 from either 98 or 99 at 266 mhz. This thing will run for two or three hours on battery (I bought it off of auction, too; go figure) and stay on stand-by for literally days. Then again, it's got a 12 inch screen, is almost three inches thick and weighs about 29 pounds. But hey, I'm willing to sacrifice size, looks, and everything else for longevity. But if you want the latest, then power hungry ye be; better bring your adapter.
So I'm reading all of this, and I get to the last past and see the quote at the bottom of the screen that/. has so graciciously given us. 'Twas from Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 by Pink Floyd:
We don't need no education We don't need no thought control
I'll tell ya what, Clearchannel is nothing but bullshit ads and everything else controlling the population. I remember after 9/11, they had a list of songs they wanted their stations to 'opt out' of or something like that. Songs that even mentioned the word jet in the lyrics were thrown out. Pathetic. Nothing works better than denial. Plus, all their stations only play what they're being paid to, causing most people to buy from the same places over and over; effing mindless automatons. But hey, whatever; I listen to Beefheart and Zappa, and that's the way I likes it.
the cost of an album depends considerably on what you're trying to do, and who you are. Assuming you're in a small band (like myself), an album will usually cost maybe $600 just to record and master, and then another $2000 for a good amount of copies in cd and tape. This doesn't add a lot of frills, especially in the recording process; not much can be done on a budget such as that, like studio musicians and really nice effects and what not. But then again, you could get a bunch of buddies to do anything special on your album, and that'll usually work. Or, you could do it with less quality for even less money, or record it at home. But for some professionalism, thats the way to go, and it'll usually run between $2000 to $3000.
For big business music, however, several thousand dollars are spent. The average is raised a lot due to how many effects and how much processing goes into making pop music. Britney doesn't hit that note? Touch it up with several thousand dollars worth of software (if you're legit;) and special hardware and a technician that's expensive as hell. Plus, with all the processing, even more goes into it. Producers at that level are also hella expensive, further jacking up the price. And studio musicians are expensive as hell.
But the bottom line here is it depends on what you meant: Major recordings or a bunch of bumblefucks like myself on a budget.
Of course it's considered "corrupting and even socially distructive by others". So was the US at its inception. A bunch of nuts who thought they could run their own country; they wanted freedom! How silly! To quote Nathaniel Howe, "The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." So obviously any activity that's outside of the box, or considered dangerous, will be against society. History will tell one that a thousand times over. This applies to adults as well, not just children. But kids that'll grow up to be something and do something need to be fed early in life. Religion usually deosn't allow that avenue, and nor do strict, traditional parents. So where's a child supposed to get info that is dangerous, that will make him/her think? Or is it too dangerous for a child to know things?
I will agree with you, however, that it is a parent's responsibility to see what their child does/reads/watches/plays/etc. But which is better: all out censoring and refusal of discussion, or a little at a time, with discussion and answering of questions?
Of course that's all very idealistic and most parents are just too stupid to do any of that, but to get closer to any ideals--or just better ourselves in relation to any ideals that any individual may find better--sometimes we need to shift, no matter how unrealisitic. So which would be better? I'm not saying to pull the kid out of the sand box just to tell them where babies come from, but how long will it be before he/she finds out it's not the stork?
And blanket laws are very stupid. Very. And this situation it's doubly so. It doesn't make sense; the parent should be there at home. And so, maybe the kid sneaks it by. Good for the kid. The majoirty of us snuck the occasional porno by our parents, or covertly went into dad's closet to find his Playboy stash. Maybe watched a movie we weren't supposed to. Those are the fun things of being a kid; this is one step closer to a totaltarian society--to control the adults, get 'em while they're young.
By your logic, how many free-thinking individuals would be left? Video games are one thing (though I still don't think it's entirely right), but books?! How can one say something like that? I know kids that aren't even allowed to read books on different religions because of how their parents are. Is that fair to the children? Because a parent is closed minded, that child shouldn't have the right to expand their mind? What bullshit. How can you justify that? And a response would be nice.
There are several ways it could be done. First of all, if someone's going fast enough that they're moving people out of the way, or more than passing, than stop them. Enforced? We already have cops out on the streets, it's not like it would be that hard to ask them to use more common sense. Though they've had problems of it in the past...
And besides, if I think someone's going to fast, I'll push 'em over. If everyone does that, I don't think we'd have much of a problem.
That's what I thought as well, especially considering other applications of this thing as a regular credit card. Reading the magnetic strip is one thing, but writing to it is another. It didn't seem to me like they implemented any sort of shielding, so wouldn't writing to the magnetic strip mess up the data on the platter?
not only that, due to just how thin this thing is (seems to me that you could fit two or three width-wise into a PC card or CompactFlash card), you could put several into an iPod--or anything else, for that matter--at once. A RAID 0 array of 5gig credit-card sized drives? Sounds good to me.
But you don't have to go that fast. Most cars have top speeds well in excess of 100mph...so does that mean we have to ban cars from the street? No. It means we put restrictions on speed, or 'Speed Limits'. Just let Segway users recieve tickets if caught speeding. Have a registration system so that the people couldn't get away with not paying. Anything. Just not an ignorant ban before any interesting injuries even have the possibility to occur.
It's not a crazy notion; not everyone can be endowed the covetted title of 'astrophysicist'. I was referring to most people, by no means all. Most people would think that ET's would need oxygen, would need light, would need the things we do, because most people aren't versed enough in this subject, or because most people can't think outside of the box. They can't. Read some/. posts, and you'll realize that up and quick.
I know it's extremely hard to seach for things; I definately wasn't calling all the efforts put forth by your community a waste of time. They're more than commendable. I myself would like to help any way I can. And while it's reasonable to search for lifeforms similar to us, it'll be harder to find other types of life that may be more abundant. I think that SETI@Home has it just about right, because it's even more reasonable to think that no matter what the creatures use/need/look like, they'll need to communicate long distances. Then again, some life forms may find radio frequencies deadly, and use some sort of other electromagnetic radiation for communication. It all comes back down to "Who knows?" But I've seen a lot of posts on/., I've read a lot of articles, and engaged in many conversations about this topic, and most I've talked to (which is quite a lot; I'm very active in debates and things like that), have this view that life has to be like us, and behave like us, and use the same resources. It doesn't. People need to know that.
Oxygen and water? Again, people are assuming that earth's atmosphere and other conditions need to be recreated to sustain any life--bullshit, honey. remember, oxygen is a corrosive gas. And many organisms even here survive fine without it; even without water. Once and for all, this paradigm of everything having to be like us needs to be blown out of our systems like an explosive kidney stone. Think outside the box, or don't think at all.
Didn't mean to tear ya up if it came across that way; I just get frustrated very easily.
OK, let me get this out right now: OK, we have life way way down in our earth. That only proves that life as we know it can exist in that extreme of an environment. Comparing that to other planet's life forms or using that as evidence to further any point of extra terrestrial life is very much redundant; life elsewhere could be (and probably is) completely different from ours. Maybe no DNA. maybe no amino acids. Maybe their amino acids are left handed, who knows. But point being: this proves nothing that wasn't proven to any thinking person before.
Valid points, I'll more than give you that. But the average desktop user usually has some kids involved--beit themselves children or having kids. Kids like to play games, and usually will install a 3d one or two. That'll still tax a card, and even without good graphics, 3d games are getting larger and larger, and the cpu needs more power just to keep up. That's not even terribly high-end. I hate average users, but I don't think that most give them enough credit--I don't--and this is a good example of where. They know when something doesn't look good, and Quake III Arena on a built-in SiS video chip doesn't look good. Almost no gain from a built-in Wi-Fi chip won't look good.
But valid visions on just some place to screw in an antennae on the back. That wouldn't surprise me in the least. But most built-ins will be--just as they are now--inaddequate for all but the most trivial uses. And with Wi-Fi becoming more and more accepted and used, the more power will be needed. Joe Schmoe won't be able to get good reception from his desktop in the bedroom of his 3 room apartment from his kitchen computer unless he gets an add-on card. And that's going to be a lot of add-on cards.
So, let me get this straight: because Intel packs wi-fi onto each intel chip, wi-fi won't sell as an accessory? Ah, yes, I see...just like how motherboard venders include sound and video, and as such, the video card and sound card industries flail in lack of funds.
Oh wait, that's right...
The gain from a chip and antennae embedded on a chip isn't going to be that great. Intel's mainly doing it for internal purposes. If you want any sort of range, add-ons and accessories are the only way to go, and I foresee absolutely no change in that.
Ok, it's fine and dandy if people want to believe that these things were for water. But how did the people see them? And I'm not just talking about that you need to be high from the ground...you can't even see most of the markings from the ground! You wouldn't even know a line were there if it weren't for the fact that many of them are deeper than their surroundings. How does one explain that? I'm unaware of any primitive people's technology that includes anything like a material or coating or anything that changes with angle. None. And besides that, why would these people be in the desert? There's plenty of water everywhere else, not even 30 miles in each direction. People--primitive or not--don't do that.
Give me one piece of evidence that proves anything with any of these line sites, and it's probably wrong. A good book to read is "Arrival of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken. While I don't believe most of his beliefs, the book presented a lot of good points, such as those I've listed. Points that are easily provable scientifically and have been documented and cited and that lay to waste most theories formed.
I'd also like to point out that the theory in question has been around quite sometime.
But those signals are very week, especially when going 70 mph. It doesn't make sense to me; seems as though it wouldn't be worth the trouble. These oscillators can't be putting out much power, especially considering the interference produced by the amplifier also in your car's stereo. Output needs to be insanely low, and on top of that, depending on the frequency, the billboard would have to filter out actual radio stations.
But hey, if they want to waste their time, so beit.
if someone can infer the radio station you have tuned in, trust me: you're going to need more than rf shielding. more like a club to whack whoever's in your back seat listening along. there's no passive way to do this at all. this has got to be some sort of hoax, or the billboards are detecting an external peripheral hooked up to your stereo. uh uh, no way.
If you lodged any sort of pill in there I guess it would work as a contraceptive. I mean, Hank Hill's dad passed an entire city bus through his euretee...I don't see why a pill in there wouldn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
We are well on the way to eradicating polio.
Shit, they make such great shirts.
I think it's the opposite of what you're saying. While there are many movies out there that just show T&A for money, there are a lot of movies that do these things for art; take for example American Beauty. It's all part of the art. If you censor that movie, the message is gone. In art, it's all or nothing. It's like reading Nietzsche without the 'God is dead' quotes because it might infect your kids minds. If someone is too young, ignorant, etc. to handle parts of the film, then don't show it to them at all; all people need are more false values. As an artist myself, I can say that I don't want edited versions of anything of mine going around. Parodying is one thing, as is copying; art is still there in one form or another. But in censoring...what's left?
Batteries may seem to be getting weaker, but the fact is that battery tech can't nearly compete with the break-neck pace of the electronics they power. Laptops today are so incredibly power hungry due to the ever increasing number of systems that each one has to support (now P4s and Athlons with seperate actual video cards; huge hard drives, huge screens, and our biggest power guzzling friend the WiFi card) that batteries loose it quite quickly. I've got a compaq armada 7700 from either 98 or 99 at 266 mhz. This thing will run for two or three hours on battery (I bought it off of auction, too; go figure) and stay on stand-by for literally days. Then again, it's got a 12 inch screen, is almost three inches thick and weighs about 29 pounds. But hey, I'm willing to sacrifice size, looks, and everything else for longevity. But if you want the latest, then power hungry ye be; better bring your adapter.
So I'm reading all of this, and I get to the last past and see the quote at the bottom of the screen that /. has so graciciously given us. 'Twas from Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 by Pink Floyd:
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
I'll tell ya what, Clearchannel is nothing but bullshit ads and everything else controlling the population. I remember after 9/11, they had a list of songs they wanted their stations to 'opt out' of or something like that. Songs that even mentioned the word jet in the lyrics were thrown out. Pathetic. Nothing works better than denial. Plus, all their stations only play what they're being paid to, causing most people to buy from the same places over and over; effing mindless automatons. But hey, whatever; I listen to Beefheart and Zappa, and that's the way I likes it.
the cost of an album depends considerably on what you're trying to do, and who you are. Assuming you're in a small band (like myself), an album will usually cost maybe $600 just to record and master, and then another $2000 for a good amount of copies in cd and tape. This doesn't add a lot of frills, especially in the recording process; not much can be done on a budget such as that, like studio musicians and really nice effects and what not. But then again, you could get a bunch of buddies to do anything special on your album, and that'll usually work. Or, you could do it with less quality for even less money, or record it at home. But for some professionalism, thats the way to go, and it'll usually run between $2000 to $3000.
;) and special hardware and a technician that's expensive as hell. Plus, with all the processing, even more goes into it. Producers at that level are also hella expensive, further jacking up the price. And studio musicians are expensive as hell.
For big business music, however, several thousand dollars are spent. The average is raised a lot due to how many effects and how much processing goes into making pop music. Britney doesn't hit that note? Touch it up with several thousand dollars worth of software (if you're legit
But the bottom line here is it depends on what you meant: Major recordings or a bunch of bumblefucks like myself on a budget.
Of course it's considered "corrupting and even socially distructive by others". So was the US at its inception. A bunch of nuts who thought they could run their own country; they wanted freedom! How silly! To quote Nathaniel Howe, "The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." So obviously any activity that's outside of the box, or considered dangerous, will be against society. History will tell one that a thousand times over. This applies to adults as well, not just children. But kids that'll grow up to be something and do something need to be fed early in life. Religion usually deosn't allow that avenue, and nor do strict, traditional parents. So where's a child supposed to get info that is dangerous, that will make him/her think? Or is it too dangerous for a child to know things?
I will agree with you, however, that it is a parent's responsibility to see what their child does/reads/watches/plays/etc. But which is better: all out censoring and refusal of discussion, or a little at a time, with discussion and answering of questions?
Of course that's all very idealistic and most parents are just too stupid to do any of that, but to get closer to any ideals--or just better ourselves in relation to any ideals that any individual may find better--sometimes we need to shift, no matter how unrealisitic. So which would be better? I'm not saying to pull the kid out of the sand box just to tell them where babies come from, but how long will it be before he/she finds out it's not the stork?
And blanket laws are very stupid. Very. And this situation it's doubly so. It doesn't make sense; the parent should be there at home. And so, maybe the kid sneaks it by. Good for the kid. The majoirty of us snuck the occasional porno by our parents, or covertly went into dad's closet to find his Playboy stash. Maybe watched a movie we weren't supposed to. Those are the fun things of being a kid; this is one step closer to a totaltarian society--to control the adults, get 'em while they're young.
By your logic, how many free-thinking individuals would be left? Video games are one thing (though I still don't think it's entirely right), but books?! How can one say something like that? I know kids that aren't even allowed to read books on different religions because of how their parents are. Is that fair to the children? Because a parent is closed minded, that child shouldn't have the right to expand their mind? What bullshit. How can you justify that? And a response would be nice.
There are several ways it could be done. First of all, if someone's going fast enough that they're moving people out of the way, or more than passing, than stop them. Enforced? We already have cops out on the streets, it's not like it would be that hard to ask them to use more common sense. Though they've had problems of it in the past...
And besides, if I think someone's going to fast, I'll push 'em over. If everyone does that, I don't think we'd have much of a problem.
That's what I thought as well, especially considering other applications of this thing as a regular credit card. Reading the magnetic strip is one thing, but writing to it is another. It didn't seem to me like they implemented any sort of shielding, so wouldn't writing to the magnetic strip mess up the data on the platter?
not only that, due to just how thin this thing is (seems to me that you could fit two or three width-wise into a PC card or CompactFlash card), you could put several into an iPod--or anything else, for that matter--at once. A RAID 0 array of 5gig credit-card sized drives? Sounds good to me.
But you don't have to go that fast. Most cars have top speeds well in excess of 100mph...so does that mean we have to ban cars from the street? No. It means we put restrictions on speed, or 'Speed Limits'. Just let Segway users recieve tickets if caught speeding. Have a registration system so that the people couldn't get away with not paying. Anything. Just not an ignorant ban before any interesting injuries even have the possibility to occur.
I figure to stop obligatory movie references like this, we'll have to stop.
Shit, we can't do that...I think we have to slow down first.
If only he had but known...
It's not a crazy notion; not everyone can be endowed the covetted title of 'astrophysicist'. I was referring to most people, by no means all. Most people would think that ET's would need oxygen, would need light, would need the things we do, because most people aren't versed enough in this subject, or because most people can't think outside of the box. They can't. Read some /. posts, and you'll realize that up and quick.
/., I've read a lot of articles, and engaged in many conversations about this topic, and most I've talked to (which is quite a lot; I'm very active in debates and things like that), have this view that life has to be like us, and behave like us, and use the same resources. It doesn't. People need to know that.
I know it's extremely hard to seach for things; I definately wasn't calling all the efforts put forth by your community a waste of time. They're more than commendable. I myself would like to help any way I can. And while it's reasonable to search for lifeforms similar to us, it'll be harder to find other types of life that may be more abundant. I think that SETI@Home has it just about right, because it's even more reasonable to think that no matter what the creatures use/need/look like, they'll need to communicate long distances. Then again, some life forms may find radio frequencies deadly, and use some sort of other electromagnetic radiation for communication. It all comes back down to "Who knows?" But I've seen a lot of posts on
Oxygen and water? Again, people are assuming that earth's atmosphere and other conditions need to be recreated to sustain any life--bullshit, honey. remember, oxygen is a corrosive gas. And many organisms even here survive fine without it; even without water. Once and for all, this paradigm of everything having to be like us needs to be blown out of our systems like an explosive kidney stone. Think outside the box, or don't think at all.
Didn't mean to tear ya up if it came across that way; I just get frustrated very easily.
OK, let me get this out right now: OK, we have life way way down in our earth. That only proves that life as we know it can exist in that extreme of an environment. Comparing that to other planet's life forms or using that as evidence to further any point of extra terrestrial life is very much redundant; life elsewhere could be (and probably is) completely different from ours. Maybe no DNA. maybe no amino acids. Maybe their amino acids are left handed, who knows. But point being: this proves nothing that wasn't proven to any thinking person before.
Valid points, I'll more than give you that. But the average desktop user usually has some kids involved--beit themselves children or having kids. Kids like to play games, and usually will install a 3d one or two. That'll still tax a card, and even without good graphics, 3d games are getting larger and larger, and the cpu needs more power just to keep up. That's not even terribly high-end. I hate average users, but I don't think that most give them enough credit--I don't--and this is a good example of where. They know when something doesn't look good, and Quake III Arena on a built-in SiS video chip doesn't look good. Almost no gain from a built-in Wi-Fi chip won't look good.
But valid visions on just some place to screw in an antennae on the back. That wouldn't surprise me in the least. But most built-ins will be--just as they are now--inaddequate for all but the most trivial uses. And with Wi-Fi becoming more and more accepted and used, the more power will be needed. Joe Schmoe won't be able to get good reception from his desktop in the bedroom of his 3 room apartment from his kitchen computer unless he gets an add-on card. And that's going to be a lot of add-on cards.
So, let me get this straight: because Intel packs wi-fi onto each intel chip, wi-fi won't sell as an accessory? Ah, yes, I see...just like how motherboard venders include sound and video, and as such, the video card and sound card industries flail in lack of funds.
Oh wait, that's right...
The gain from a chip and antennae embedded on a chip isn't going to be that great. Intel's mainly doing it for internal purposes. If you want any sort of range, add-ons and accessories are the only way to go, and I foresee absolutely no change in that.
that proves two things: only terrorism spreads and doesn't make money, and according to the government, wi-fi is terrorism. it also means FP!
Ok, it's fine and dandy if people want to believe that these things were for water. But how did the people see them? And I'm not just talking about that you need to be high from the ground...you can't even see most of the markings from the ground! You wouldn't even know a line were there if it weren't for the fact that many of them are deeper than their surroundings. How does one explain that? I'm unaware of any primitive people's technology that includes anything like a material or coating or anything that changes with angle. None. And besides that, why would these people be in the desert? There's plenty of water everywhere else, not even 30 miles in each direction. People--primitive or not--don't do that.
Give me one piece of evidence that proves anything with any of these line sites, and it's probably wrong. A good book to read is "Arrival of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken. While I don't believe most of his beliefs, the book presented a lot of good points, such as those I've listed. Points that are easily provable scientifically and have been documented and cited and that lay to waste most theories formed.
I'd also like to point out that the theory in question has been around quite sometime.
Touche.
But those signals are very week, especially when going 70 mph. It doesn't make sense to me; seems as though it wouldn't be worth the trouble. These oscillators can't be putting out much power, especially considering the interference produced by the amplifier also in your car's stereo. Output needs to be insanely low, and on top of that, depending on the frequency, the billboard would have to filter out actual radio stations.
But hey, if they want to waste their time, so beit.
if someone can infer the radio station you have tuned in, trust me: you're going to need more than rf shielding. more like a club to whack whoever's in your back seat listening along. there's no passive way to do this at all. this has got to be some sort of hoax, or the billboards are detecting an external peripheral hooked up to your stereo. uh uh, no way.
MS-DOS is dead? What will MR-DOS do without her?
:'(
RIP TSR's...WOLF3D will miss you
no, jerkass...dogs lick their balls because they cant make a fist. duh.
If you lodged any sort of pill in there I guess it would work as a contraceptive. I mean, Hank Hill's dad passed an entire city bus through his euretee...I don't see why a pill in there wouldn't work.