why isnt nazism called hitlerism yet communism is refered to as stalinism?
Actually this is very interesting. There is a distinct difference. Basically, major communist leaders have "isms" attached to their names because of the ideology present in how they attempted to implement communism, and their takes on communist ideology.
Leninism/Trotskyism calls for world communism, to the effect that communism cannot exist unless every country is involved
Stalinism is the idea that one nation can be communism separate from others
Communism is the governmental system they were trying to establish.
Furthermore, Nazism is Hitlerism, as the Nazi party was not "Nazist" but instead Socialist. A type of Socialism that most people would not like to be associated with, but empirically, it was socialist: a Nazist socialism.
I hope this clears it up. Stalinism =/= Communism. Hitlerism is essentially synonomous with Nazism, but isn't used.
I think you make a great point, and you should be modded up.
I think a good solution to the argument that you postulate would be to base the cost on the affluence of the driver. Insurance information is tied to many indicators of affluence, such as the make and model of the car, and from those indicators, a formula could be developed to determine the toll.
Clearly the purpose of this law is to make driving on London have an economic impact on the driver, and a variable toll based on affluence would be the only way to achieve this equitably.
Distribution of many types of code are illegal. For example, I couldn't broadcast bomb recipes over the radio, or methods of destruction of private property, and it should be the same for computers. It's time to take digital information out of this bubble of anarchy and deregulation and start enforcing already existing laws on it.
Those who call such a law obscure are incorrect. If I wrote a flow chart about how to write a virus, that would not be illegal, just like the chemical mechanism of synthesizing explosives is not illegal. However, just like the actual recipe (add 2 grams this, boil for 15 mins, etc.) cannot be distributed, neither should the actual source code.
The result of this law is not an Orwellian totallitarian society like many Slashdotters like to suggest will happen when the government considers regulating anything, but instead fewer virii.
This is pro-American war mongering trite. Modern wars aren't fought on battle fields, the A-Bomb and not American superdefense prevented that. Modern wars are of politics, economics, and ideology.
More importantly, this article fails to mention that while those ingenius bombs were hitting tanks and military buildings, they were also missing and hitting civilians, women and children. Furthermore, this whole concept of a "Pax Americana" only really exists for people who live in America, Canada, and Western Europe. America only gets involved in foreign wars if they are in the interest of Americans. Many wars are being fought today: civil wars, fighting between tribes, etc. Of course, these are the wars we are blind to because Americans would rather see what Brittany Spears is wearing than what is happening in foreign countries because of the greediness of the west.
Domestically, a "Pax Americana" may exist for threats from other countries, but what about the welfare of people in your own country. Considering the racism African Americans face as a daily reality, massive poverty faced by Native Americans and immigrants, and many other atrocities that happen within American soil, a "Pax Americana" is hardly an acceptable phrase, but instead a proclamation of the contemptuous and ignorant.
Sweet, I was getting bored of Dmitry, now we can save Finlay Dobbie...he has a much cooler name anyways. Good timing too, protesting is a good chance to go outside and catch some rays!
In Canada we have the CRTC for that job. I imagine a similar group could be established in the States. And don't try and tell me that they would just abuse their power. The CRTC has existed in Canada for a long time (since Trudeau), and has proven a useful and fair regulatory body.
Legal action is the only effective solution. Unfortunately, the same people who can identify the problem also will run around screaming "violation of first ammendment rights" to the solution, and thus nothing gets done. As long as there is laissez faire, there is exploitation and abuse, deal with it.
Civil libertarians need to realize that regulating speech that serves to hate or exploit does not lead to regulation of all speech. Regulation allows a fair playing ground for buisness to operate with individuals. Consumer rights involve regulation of that which is consumed.
Just because a program is free to download, this does not make it free (and I'm not talking about beer). If the author makes money through advertising, or allowing New.Net to invade your IP stack, there is profit being made. Therefore this is commercial software, and should be regulated. I don't think some free Linux utility needs the same level of regulation because it is non-profit, but still needs some acceptable level of regulation. This doesn't mean that you need to submit your application for a approval to some beurocrat, or that if it crashes you'll be sued. It just means that you can't write some trojan horse and distribute it as the latest version of bash and expect to get away with it.
Now my GameCube 0wnz all j00 who spent 100$ extra on a PS2 for nothing. No matter what you say.
Again slashdot is a podium for developed critical argument about the pros and cons of different platforms. Also notice the advanced discourse used by this critic. Truly a rational and developed mind.
Next time you "ORGASM!!!" please leave the jiz in some toilet paper and not on slashdot for me to read.
My office has had no deployment of XP, and for now we are sticking to 2000, but being a very Microsoft loyal office, I am confident they'll move to XP soon. Users will be confused to no end by it, and bundling with MSN messenger just creates more work for us to remove it. Despite this, I think that XP will reduce the TCO due to it's stability (and it is REALLY stable), less vulnerbility to virii, and the speed of the new GUI.
In the home, I have XP on my machine and am thouroughly impressed. I don't hate microsoft just for the purpose of having something to post about on slashdot. XP has really moved me back into Windows from Linux. I still use Linux, and think that GNOME is a great interface, but the interface on XP is immaculate. Before XP, I thought Mac OS X was the perfect interface, but this even beats the Mac at its own game.
The file navigation on the new explorer is fantastic. The organization of my pics and movies is very useful, and gadgets like that rarely impress me. I havent ever seen this crash, and that's something I can't boast about any other OS I have used.
In conclusion, Go Linux Go, but watch out, Goliath just got a whole lot more attractive and friendly.
I think the real military application of this is in the Navy. Mixed with modern biotechnology, there is a huge potential for sharks with lasers attached to their heads.
In response to the title of this post: Games do have the secret to the UI because they are single task programs. Saying a game has the perfect UI is like saying a Toaster has the perfect UI. I think that the number one rule of a UI is the less you can do, the easier it is to do it.
The article brings up some good points about making things more real, but personally, it's no more real to me now that it was in the days of Coleco Vision. Final Fantasy X doesn't make me feel any more like I'm "in the game" than Final Fantasy I did. Graphics and presentation have obviously gotten better, but that's only made games nicer to look at, and hasn't made them any more real for me.
I'd like to hear people's comments on whether or not these graphics bring a sense of realism. I equate it to the change from say twm to GNOME/KDE, it's prettier, but it's not any more "real".
I think your reply makes some good points. I don't agree, but I mentioned in my post that my view of the ritual of music is not shared by everyone. I still have to correct one of your comments:
Yeah, but how many audiophiles listen to CDs over vinyl? (I paid $50,000 for this hydrodynamic-bearing-stabilized turntable, and I will not have some $1.00 piece of plastic outperform it for wow and flutter!)
You've obviously never seen how much an audiophile will pay for a good CD player. They get these CD players with heavy weights that stabilize the spin to prevent from any errors being read off the CD (I don't understand how that makes sense, but it's true). The electronics are extremely streamlined for perfect audio reproduction. There also exists high fidelity CDs, as there are high fidelity vinyl. Slashdot had an article on the ones Sony makes. They're rare but you can find a lot of jazz recordings on that format.
Audiophiles tend to prefer vinyl. Honestly, I prefer vinyl, but they do use CDs quite a bit as well.
I just coud never bring myself to pay for online music for one reason: I can't touch it. Music for me is almost a ritual. I love taking the CD out of the case, admiring cover art, and putting it in the player. I take it to the extreme that I don't even want a 5 disc changer as it would erode the ritual. Records are like the Cigars of music.
Mp3's don't sit on your shelf. It's a bit vain, but music defines your personality, and having CDs on your shelf puts your personality on display. No one ever comes to visit and looks through your mp3 collection.
I know that people agree with this, not everyone of course, but in general, people like the ritual of listening to music. I only ever downloaded mp3s because it was free. Rituals are great but free is free. If I liked enough mp3s from an artist, I bought the CD. An mp3 was never a substitute for the Real Thing.
Take all this away from someone, and then restrict it to hell and it just won't work. Mp3s are just not as highly regarded as CDs. How many audiophiles listen to mp3s over CDs? This will fall by the wayside like eBooks for sale. Mp3s will be pirated and the consumers will save their dollars for CDs.
Who are you to tell me how I should use something I've purchased? Are you really that arrogant?
Your TV, Radio, Car, etc. are all regulated. Public entities are reguled by the public. If you buy a T1 between work and home, go ahead and register all the domains you want with yourself. Furthermore, if you don't like typing IPs when you ping yourself, put an entry in your hosts file.
The "who are you to do this" argument is a fallacy commonly used by civil libertarians. Who are you to tell me I can't murder my enemy?
Vanity domain names do not fall into either category you've laid out
I'm not arguing that Slashdot has to have anything to do with slashes or dots. If you tell ICANN that bitey is a cute name that I think is easy for people to remember, and my website is about fishing, that should be fine. What I'm after is people who create domain names that are a clear deception. Clasicgaming.org is not a cute generic name, it is specific to one thing, and even though it is spelled wrong, the idea is still there.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of domains that exist but do not have websites! Is there something inherently wrong with this?
The discorse on domain names needs to change. Yes, I would arge, this is wrong. Domain names is how users identify websites/ftp/etc. It is not for you to brag to your friends that you regestered www.ourteacherisfat.com. Domain names need to get out of this trough model, where everyone feeds from it until it is gone, and into the model of a medium for recognition. The domain name is how people identify your site, and recognize it.
There is a level of cognation that happens when one types in www.hotmail.com or www.slashdot.org. These catchy names have an appeal. It's the same when I dial 1-800-COLLECT. Domain names have a lot of power, and this power needs to be regulated or it will be used for deceptive sites like www.whitehouse.com.
I think that the issue of domain name registration is very problematic and needs to be completely re-evaluated.
Here is the issue: I wanted to visit classicgaming.org, spelled it wrong, and ended up with so many ads that I had to kill my browser. What does a million banner ads have to do with classic gaming?
Everyone has stories like this, and the issue here is deception. There has been no reprimand for deceiving people with domain names. If I create a website like www.guinnessucks.com, Guiness sues me, but there is no consumer watch organization that looks out for situations that clearly interfere with usage of the internet.
This consumer watch organization should be the ICANN. No more of this "do what you want with it" philosophy. If I create a website called clasicgaming.com, it better have something to do with the words in it's title, or lose my domain name. Registering a domain name should be like registering a Trade mark or a radio station, but just more streamlined.
In the name of civil liberty and through obscure definition of Free Speech, people are letting serious violation of a user's rights pass on the Internet. We are even defending this in fear that they'll come after us. It's time to realize that communities need policing, and usually the cops don't bust your door down if you're not breaking the law. It is time for regulation.
If Free Speech is regulated, it's not the corporations that will be silenced, and their content removed -- it's the independant sites who will be squelched - because they don't give nice cookies like the X10 people do.
I knew when I stated that Americans are blindly protective of Free Speech that I would be met with controversy (I was even outright called a moron by one of the replies). I am a Canadian, and in Canada, information mediums are (rather heavily) regulated.
In Canada, if I wanted to advertise a tiny camera that fits anywhere, so to imply I can use it for voyerism, on any medium, it would not be allowed. The CRTC monitors all forms of advertisement for taste and offensiveness. At times this can be invasive, but for the most part, it protects children and keeps broadcasting tasteful.
This is the regulation I am talking about. Does it violate Free Speech, perhaps (Free Speech is a very loose term). Am I a civil libertarian? No. Freedom comes with responsibilities, and if these mediums are not regulated, they are invaded by people purpotrating and penetrating it with tasteless junk. Ever browsed Slashdot at -1, I think this proves it.
The fear of corporate involvement is true now, but if you voted a president who can count to ten next time, maybe he'd have some political will.
As I understand it, the primary issue with Web appliances is the target consumer. I equate this piece of equipment to a small kitchen radio, or to make a bigger stretch, the dartboard in your games room.
The kitchen radio is simple because it is a broadcast medium. Sure, I wouldn't mind reading Slashdot while frying eggs, but there's no way I'm going to post. The radio, on the other hand, is fully functional when totally ignored.
Essentially, the computer is an active medium wheras the radio and television are passive mediums. It's hard to interact with something while you're frying eggs.
The second issue is cost, but that's a whole new can of worms. I never even understood why BeOS? Many other operating systems can do the same thing and need not be purchased. In fact, why not just put a computer in the kitchen. Anyone with the desire to be on the net while frying eggs probably has the expertise to set up a computer to do it.
Yeah 92 really sucked, I remember if I was surfing mindlessly I wouldn't get a single banner/popup ad! I mean who's going to tell me about a tiny wireless camera that goes ANWHERE!
I remember checking my email and not a single solicited message, not one! I mean what fun's email if the only email you get is the stuff you want. Without junk mail, I'd have never got my University diploma, and would still be an uneducated idiot in a low paying job.
Seriously, I think we should discuss how ADVERTISING now owns the internet. Corporate control has definately become a problem as it has removed information to the internet and replaced it with sensation. Advertising has removed convenience and taste from the Internet and turned it into a cesspool of free porn and useless products (Internet tupperware).
I compare the Internet to a Lord of the Flies situation. Let them be animals and they will be animals. If Americans weren't so blindly protective of "Free Speech", we could regulate it like other information mediums and return to an Internet with CONTENT!
if i come up (independently) with a random bin sequence which just happens to match someone else's copyrighted sequence how do you deal with it?
This statement is completely ridiculous. I will explain why in two ways:
1) First, imagine data in it's thermodynamic sense. By creating data we are bringing order out of disorder. If you tune into a non-existant radio station, you hear disorder, when you tune into a real radio station, you hear order. According to thermodynamics, creating order from disorder (moving to a lower state of entropy) requires energy. You are paying for this energy that has been exerted, as more energy is required in this situation to create the order, not to distribute it. Statistically, for you to create this kind of order out of a random number would be infeasable. Plus you are misunderstanding that the bits are a description of the order. Simply put, computers are bad at describing order (think about the supercomputing needed for SETI@Home). You are good at it. If it sounds like it, then it is it. If it's copyrighted, then it's copyrighted. The medium is not the information.
2) Secondly, from a common sense view, lets go back to the radio station. I dare you to listen to a radio station fuzz for hours and tell me when you hear Ooops I did it again or Beethoven's 9th. Not going to happen, the likelihood is infentismally small, and violates thermodynamic theory for information description.
I hope you understand this, as I am sick of this nonsense. Those mp3s you downloaded...I promise you that none of them were created by a random number generator.
The deception in the 586 chip was the fact that IT WAS A 486! I stand by the fact that Pr rating is total bullshit, but in this case they are deceptively calling a chip a 586. All of the Pentiums were faster than 486s, and when people think 586, they think Pentium, thus the deception.
Wasn't the 5X86 Cyrix? AMD went from the 486 to the K5 if I recall.
It wasn't a Cyrix chip that the computer I was speaking of was shipped with. I'm confident that AMD made a 586 or some model that sounds-like-a-pentium-but-isn't.
Proof that even the underdog can pull dirty marketing tricks
This clearly isn't the first time they've done this. I remember the 5x86 chip that was actually an overclocked 486 clone. People who bought it were honestly tricked they bought a Pentium 133, when in fact it delivered performance worse than a Pentium 60.
The whole pr rating scheme is nonsense. That's like saying my Canadian dollar is worth 1 PR American Dollar. If AMD sees this as a problem, then why not send retailers marketting material such as benchmarks to backup their support of the Megahertz Myth. Tricking consumers just ends up putting your face on CNN (or Slashdot).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually this is very interesting. There is a distinct difference. Basically, major communist leaders have "isms" attached to their names because of the ideology present in how they attempted to implement communism, and their takes on communist ideology.
Leninism/Trotskyism calls for world communism, to the effect that communism cannot exist unless every country is involved
Stalinism is the idea that one nation can be communism separate from others
Communism is the governmental system they were trying to establish.
Furthermore, Nazism is Hitlerism, as the Nazi party was not "Nazist" but instead Socialist. A type of Socialism that most people would not like to be associated with, but empirically, it was socialist: a Nazist socialism.
I hope this clears it up. Stalinism =/= Communism. Hitlerism is essentially synonomous with Nazism, but isn't used.
I think a good solution to the argument that you postulate would be to base the cost on the affluence of the driver. Insurance information is tied to many indicators of affluence, such as the make and model of the car, and from those indicators, a formula could be developed to determine the toll.
Clearly the purpose of this law is to make driving on London have an economic impact on the driver, and a variable toll based on affluence would be the only way to achieve this equitably.
Those who call such a law obscure are incorrect. If I wrote a flow chart about how to write a virus, that would not be illegal, just like the chemical mechanism of synthesizing explosives is not illegal. However, just like the actual recipe (add 2 grams this, boil for 15 mins, etc.) cannot be distributed, neither should the actual source code.
The result of this law is not an Orwellian totallitarian society like many Slashdotters like to suggest will happen when the government considers regulating anything, but instead fewer virii.
More importantly, this article fails to mention that while those ingenius bombs were hitting tanks and military buildings, they were also missing and hitting civilians, women and children. Furthermore, this whole concept of a "Pax Americana" only really exists for people who live in America, Canada, and Western Europe. America only gets involved in foreign wars if they are in the interest of Americans. Many wars are being fought today: civil wars, fighting between tribes, etc. Of course, these are the wars we are blind to because Americans would rather see what Brittany Spears is wearing than what is happening in foreign countries because of the greediness of the west.
Domestically, a "Pax Americana" may exist for threats from other countries, but what about the welfare of people in your own country. Considering the racism African Americans face as a daily reality, massive poverty faced by Native Americans and immigrants, and many other atrocities that happen within American soil, a "Pax Americana" is hardly an acceptable phrase, but instead a proclamation of the contemptuous and ignorant.
Sweet, I was getting bored of Dmitry, now we can save Finlay Dobbie...he has a much cooler name anyways. Good timing too, protesting is a good chance to go outside and catch some rays!
In Canada we have the CRTC for that job. I imagine a similar group could be established in the States. And don't try and tell me that they would just abuse their power. The CRTC has existed in Canada for a long time (since Trudeau), and has proven a useful and fair regulatory body.
Civil libertarians need to realize that regulating speech that serves to hate or exploit does not lead to regulation of all speech. Regulation allows a fair playing ground for buisness to operate with individuals. Consumer rights involve regulation of that which is consumed.
Just because a program is free to download, this does not make it free (and I'm not talking about beer). If the author makes money through advertising, or allowing New.Net to invade your IP stack, there is profit being made. Therefore this is commercial software, and should be regulated. I don't think some free Linux utility needs the same level of regulation because it is non-profit, but still needs some acceptable level of regulation. This doesn't mean that you need to submit your application for a approval to some beurocrat, or that if it crashes you'll be sued. It just means that you can't write some trojan horse and distribute it as the latest version of bash and expect to get away with it.
Logically, he must be an alcoholic, and it follows that if he weighs the same as a duck, he's a witch too.
Good thing you're not riding, I wouldn't want you to be hurt and not able to share your amazing wit and reasoning skills for others.
Again slashdot is a podium for developed critical argument about the pros and cons of different platforms. Also notice the advanced discourse used by this critic. Truly a rational and developed mind.
Next time you "ORGASM!!!" please leave the jiz in some toilet paper and not on slashdot for me to read.
M
In the home, I have XP on my machine and am thouroughly impressed. I don't hate microsoft just for the purpose of having something to post about on slashdot. XP has really moved me back into Windows from Linux. I still use Linux, and think that GNOME is a great interface, but the interface on XP is immaculate. Before XP, I thought Mac OS X was the perfect interface, but this even beats the Mac at its own game.
The file navigation on the new explorer is fantastic. The organization of my pics and movies is very useful, and gadgets like that rarely impress me. I havent ever seen this crash, and that's something I can't boast about any other OS I have used.
In conclusion, Go Linux Go, but watch out, Goliath just got a whole lot more attractive and friendly.
I think the real military application of this is in the Navy. Mixed with modern biotechnology, there is a huge potential for sharks with lasers attached to their heads.
The article brings up some good points about making things more real, but personally, it's no more real to me now that it was in the days of Coleco Vision. Final Fantasy X doesn't make me feel any more like I'm "in the game" than Final Fantasy I did. Graphics and presentation have obviously gotten better, but that's only made games nicer to look at, and hasn't made them any more real for me.
I'd like to hear people's comments on whether or not these graphics bring a sense of realism. I equate it to the change from say twm to GNOME/KDE, it's prettier, but it's not any more "real".
Yeah, but how many audiophiles listen to CDs over vinyl? (I paid $50,000 for this hydrodynamic-bearing-stabilized turntable, and I will not have some $1.00 piece of plastic outperform it for wow and flutter!)
You've obviously never seen how much an audiophile will pay for a good CD player. They get these CD players with heavy weights that stabilize the spin to prevent from any errors being read off the CD (I don't understand how that makes sense, but it's true). The electronics are extremely streamlined for perfect audio reproduction. There also exists high fidelity CDs, as there are high fidelity vinyl. Slashdot had an article on the ones Sony makes. They're rare but you can find a lot of jazz recordings on that format.
Audiophiles tend to prefer vinyl. Honestly, I prefer vinyl, but they do use CDs quite a bit as well.
Mp3's don't sit on your shelf. It's a bit vain, but music defines your personality, and having CDs on your shelf puts your personality on display. No one ever comes to visit and looks through your mp3 collection.
I know that people agree with this, not everyone of course, but in general, people like the ritual of listening to music. I only ever downloaded mp3s because it was free. Rituals are great but free is free. If I liked enough mp3s from an artist, I bought the CD. An mp3 was never a substitute for the Real Thing.
Take all this away from someone, and then restrict it to hell and it just won't work. Mp3s are just not as highly regarded as CDs. How many audiophiles listen to mp3s over CDs? This will fall by the wayside like eBooks for sale. Mp3s will be pirated and the consumers will save their dollars for CDs.
Freedom only exists in context.
Your TV, Radio, Car, etc. are all regulated. Public entities are reguled by the public. If you buy a T1 between work and home, go ahead and register all the domains you want with yourself. Furthermore, if you don't like typing IPs when you ping yourself, put an entry in your hosts file.
The "who are you to do this" argument is a fallacy commonly used by civil libertarians. Who are you to tell me I can't murder my enemy?
I'm not arguing that Slashdot has to have anything to do with slashes or dots. If you tell ICANN that bitey is a cute name that I think is easy for people to remember, and my website is about fishing, that should be fine. What I'm after is people who create domain names that are a clear deception. Clasicgaming.org is not a cute generic name, it is specific to one thing, and even though it is spelled wrong, the idea is still there.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of domains that exist but do not have websites! Is there something inherently wrong with this?
The discorse on domain names needs to change. Yes, I would arge, this is wrong. Domain names is how users identify websites/ftp/etc. It is not for you to brag to your friends that you regestered www.ourteacherisfat.com. Domain names need to get out of this trough model, where everyone feeds from it until it is gone, and into the model of a medium for recognition. The domain name is how people identify your site, and recognize it.
There is a level of cognation that happens when one types in www.hotmail.com or www.slashdot.org. These catchy names have an appeal. It's the same when I dial 1-800-COLLECT. Domain names have a lot of power, and this power needs to be regulated or it will be used for deceptive sites like www.whitehouse.com.
Here is the issue: I wanted to visit classicgaming.org, spelled it wrong, and ended up with so many ads that I had to kill my browser. What does a million banner ads have to do with classic gaming?
Everyone has stories like this, and the issue here is deception. There has been no reprimand for deceiving people with domain names. If I create a website like www.guinnessucks.com, Guiness sues me, but there is no consumer watch organization that looks out for situations that clearly interfere with usage of the internet.
This consumer watch organization should be the ICANN. No more of this "do what you want with it" philosophy. If I create a website called clasicgaming.com, it better have something to do with the words in it's title, or lose my domain name. Registering a domain name should be like registering a Trade mark or a radio station, but just more streamlined.
In the name of civil liberty and through obscure definition of Free Speech, people are letting serious violation of a user's rights pass on the Internet. We are even defending this in fear that they'll come after us. It's time to realize that communities need policing, and usually the cops don't bust your door down if you're not breaking the law. It is time for regulation.
I knew when I stated that Americans are blindly protective of Free Speech that I would be met with controversy (I was even outright called a moron by one of the replies). I am a Canadian, and in Canada, information mediums are (rather heavily) regulated.
In Canada, if I wanted to advertise a tiny camera that fits anywhere, so to imply I can use it for voyerism, on any medium, it would not be allowed. The CRTC monitors all forms of advertisement for taste and offensiveness. At times this can be invasive, but for the most part, it protects children and keeps broadcasting tasteful.
This is the regulation I am talking about. Does it violate Free Speech, perhaps (Free Speech is a very loose term). Am I a civil libertarian? No. Freedom comes with responsibilities, and if these mediums are not regulated, they are invaded by people purpotrating and penetrating it with tasteless junk. Ever browsed Slashdot at -1, I think this proves it.
The fear of corporate involvement is true now, but if you voted a president who can count to ten next time, maybe he'd have some political will.
The kitchen radio is simple because it is a broadcast medium. Sure, I wouldn't mind reading Slashdot while frying eggs, but there's no way I'm going to post. The radio, on the other hand, is fully functional when totally ignored.
Essentially, the computer is an active medium wheras the radio and television are passive mediums. It's hard to interact with something while you're frying eggs.
The second issue is cost, but that's a whole new can of worms. I never even understood why BeOS? Many other operating systems can do the same thing and need not be purchased. In fact, why not just put a computer in the kitchen. Anyone with the desire to be on the net while frying eggs probably has the expertise to set up a computer to do it.
I remember checking my email and not a single solicited message, not one! I mean what fun's email if the only email you get is the stuff you want. Without junk mail, I'd have never got my University diploma, and would still be an uneducated idiot in a low paying job.
Seriously, I think we should discuss how ADVERTISING now owns the internet. Corporate control has definately become a problem as it has removed information to the internet and replaced it with sensation. Advertising has removed convenience and taste from the Internet and turned it into a cesspool of free porn and useless products (Internet tupperware).
I compare the Internet to a Lord of the Flies situation. Let them be animals and they will be animals. If Americans weren't so blindly protective of "Free Speech", we could regulate it like other information mediums and return to an Internet with CONTENT!
This statement is completely ridiculous. I will explain why in two ways:
1) First, imagine data in it's thermodynamic sense. By creating data we are bringing order out of disorder. If you tune into a non-existant radio station, you hear disorder, when you tune into a real radio station, you hear order. According to thermodynamics, creating order from disorder (moving to a lower state of entropy) requires energy. You are paying for this energy that has been exerted, as more energy is required in this situation to create the order, not to distribute it.
Statistically, for you to create this kind of order out of a random number would be infeasable. Plus you are misunderstanding that the bits are a description of the order. Simply put, computers are bad at describing order (think about the supercomputing needed for SETI@Home). You are good at it. If it sounds like it, then it is it. If it's copyrighted, then it's copyrighted. The medium is not the information.
2) Secondly, from a common sense view, lets go back to the radio station. I dare you to listen to a radio station fuzz for hours and tell me when you hear Ooops I did it again or Beethoven's 9th. Not going to happen, the likelihood is infentismally small, and violates thermodynamic theory for information description.
I hope you understand this, as I am sick of this nonsense. Those mp3s you downloaded...I promise you that none of them were created by a random number generator.
It wasn't a Cyrix chip that the computer I was speaking of was shipped with. I'm confident that AMD made a 586 or some model that sounds-like-a-pentium-but-isn't.
This clearly isn't the first time they've done this. I remember the 5x86 chip that was actually an overclocked 486 clone. People who bought it were honestly tricked they bought a Pentium 133, when in fact it delivered performance worse than a Pentium 60.
The whole pr rating scheme is nonsense. That's like saying my Canadian dollar is worth 1 PR American Dollar. If AMD sees this as a problem, then why not send retailers marketting material such as benchmarks to backup their support of the Megahertz Myth. Tricking consumers just ends up putting your face on CNN (or Slashdot).