I'll tell it to an electrician. I'll tell him that if he can't help a business with their energy needs in a timely fashion that he is out on his ass. I'll tell the refrigeration specialist that if he doesn't get the AC working in the control room that he's out on his ass. It all boils down to business. Get over it.
I'm not surprised that your company took the dive. Coding shops are either not hiring and letting attrition do the dirty work, firing a few select to thin the herd, or are closing shop. Now is NOT a good time to be in a business that only serves other businesses, as these businesses are always the first to get hit by any economic bump and the last to recover.
As an aside, only a coding shop would take someone who has done NOTHING but coding. I'm not saying that this is you(although it seems the case, given your point of pride regarding "programming since I was 7") but frankly, if you can't help business get done, you are done in the business world. Yeah, harsh. But real.
Take your med's, bud. You've gotten a little hot under the collar at some dude on a message board.
Seems to me you should just own up to the fact that he scored a point or two on you. So what. Walk it off, champ.
Might want to lay off the bad grammar and fifth grade insults(even bigger loser) if you want to paint yourself as socially capable and yet different. Just sayin'.
Ahh well, actually I believe the real term for the bombings you have mentioned is war crime, a targetting of civilians by a state-based military command. For it to be considered terrorism, the targetting of civilians is done by irregulars, which you set me straight on.
As far as the enemy being the only one to commit terror, that double standard is alive and well, isn't it. What else would you call a campaign by a non-military wing of the U.S. government(CIA anyone?) to knock over a government or three? Espionage is a really nice-sounding way of saying terrorism.
One final note...the Americans did get better throughout the course of the war....<sheepish grin>
Non-governmental supported organized warfare(warfare, violence, tomato, tomahto) is conducted by guerillas. Terrorists specifically target civilian, non-military targets to inspire fear in order to further a political agenda. Setting up in lines on a battlefield across from the military of the government is NOT a terrorist act.
Who the hell uses ActiveX? I've gone to all kinds of sites(sans porn...ask me why:P) and some quite the microsoft-oriented POS(iframes, their DOM, etc.) and have yet to install an ActiveX control in at least six months. Seriously, who is really using ActivX controls?
Sources. Give me your sources. All the literature I've read says that this "development" most likely occured while the to-be criminal was being violated when they were a child.
Pornography viewing is the RESULT of a mindset, not the cause, especially in this case. Honestly, do you think someone who's in their right mind will look at fake kiddie porn and start to think, "Gee, I think I'll try that!"
Crackhead moron, I wish you were alone in your simplistic response to a complex problems. If public castrations were the result, you'd be seeing more child abductions and murders. Do the world a favor and don't breed.
Pedophilia is not an "aquired" taste like coffee or cigarettes. It is a mental instability that is found in some individuals. Don't screw up the cause and effect here. People don't become pedophiles, or more active pedophiles, because they are looking at kiddie porn. People look at kiddie porn BECAUSE they are either passive or active pedophiles.
Look into Passport before you talk. The security of the environment is based on someone not fooling any participating website into thinking they're you. A little bit of social engineering, and you're toast. Not just on one web site, but all of them.
Whew. I feel much better now. Yeah yeah, kick em while they're down.
Funny thing....in the passport documentation, they had laid out the possibility of the federated model, but it was quite clear from the verbage that that was NOT the way they wanted to go with this. Feeeeels goood.
Rather than talk out my ass about developer kits and return on investment expectations, I'll just go with what I actually know: what are the ways people get consoles, and who gets the advantage with each approach.
Mom buys it for you for Christmas, and you are under thirteen years of age. She goes to Walmart or Target, and looks at the game demo's. The X-box looks like a computer game, complete with its killer application being an ultra-violent FPS. Mom keeps going. The PS2 has a crapload of *board games, with people falling on concrete. Pass. The Gamecube has a cartoon. Mom picks up a Gamecube.
Mom buys it for you for Christmas, and you are over thirteen years of age. Mom buys you what you ask for. You probably already have a PS1. Thus, you probably ask for a PS2.
You are poor, but want a new console. You don't care about internet connectivity, because 50 bucks a month is beer money for the same period. You are either going to pick up a gamecube because it's nintendo and you're a fanboy, or you'll go with the PS2 because its sony and you're a fanboy. Poor people don't take chances on new consoles.
You have every goddamn console before and you want the new ones. Everyone wins, you buy all three.
You are a PC gamer. You have a HDTV and a kickass stereo setup. You hear that the X-Box is the only one that doesn't look like shit on your set up. You buy the X-Box. You buy PS2 when you hear your friends talk about GT3.
You aren't rich, but you like consoles. You don't want to pay extra for the priviledge of playing DVD's. You buy a PS2 to serve as new console and a DVD player.
Is it any surprise that all the computer gamers have already bought their X-box? Come on now.
I still think it might be a matter of perspective.
If I post that I spend 20-30 hours a week doing all manners of activity on my computer, people here would react like I said I walk using both legs. On the other hand, people at the rec center would look at me like I grew a third arm out of my forehead.
The real litmus test is this: by doing this activity for this duration, am I harming myself by either causing myself some kind of damage or removing opportunities for other activities that I value? If the answer to this question is no, then no harm no foul. If the answer's yes, for any activity, I have problems.
Actually it is my friend of ten years or so. I don't play EQ....my wife would cut off my balls if I got hooked like he is.
As for going out and socializing, once again, we're assuming a great deal about the availability of someone's potential mate. My bud happens to have rather odd(from my perspective) tastes, and thus has a VERY hard time meeting these people. No, it's none of your fucking business, but rest assured its legal in every country in the world(even southern U.S.!) Ah well, my point is this: don't be so quick to judge people who can't find things they like doing beyond going online and fantasizing all day. After all, wtf are you doing, going to bands, listening to their music? What are you doing, going to movies? What are you doing, reading? Same fucking thing: fantasizing. Entertainment is all about the unreal.
...but I think that games where you do cool stuff you never usually do...
People who do this are living lives they can't live here and now. Maybe they're not attractive. Maybe they're balding epileptics who live in their mother's house and spend all damn day between contracts playing Everquest. Maybe I have good friends like this, and maybe you should back the fuck off. My bud is having it hard, and self-esteem issues like his aren't helped when some self-appointed judge comes along and calls him a loser.
I can tell you from experience that this isn't true. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Since entry level folks tend to not understand how to goof off on Linux or any Unix for that matter, they tend to spend more time on real work and are more productive. Of course, my experience is in software, I don't know if the same applies to other fields. </snip>
You're still talking about developers. Developers are a very small portion of the population of desktop users. Even the incompetent developers I've met could get Windows or OS X. They sure as hell couldn't get a Unix environ.
<snip>
BTW: RedHat has taken the model to foster what Linux is good at and they've been doing quite well. For all the people that say that Linux can't succeed without succeeding on the desktop, I say that they are full of crap.
</snip>
The lack of substantive text is beginning to make me think I'm dealing with a troll. Please elucidate on this point in particular in any response.
<snip> Linux has already succeeded far beyond anyone could ever imagine. It did so by establishing a quality product that did it's job well. I wouldn' be so hestitant to deviate from this path - and I don't think many Linux folks are. If it takes 2 years to achieve a noticable desktop market, that's fine, because that means the product will be 2 years better. I'd rather wait 2 years and have a quality desktop then rush out MS-quality software as soon as possible. Isn't that why we use Linux in the first place?
</snip>
So many things are wrong with this little block....let's nail a couple.
Who's defining success in this case, the developer with an axe to grind, or someone with a business leaning to their definition?
"It", meaning a singular Linux, did so? Get it straight. There is no "It" in this case. This is like saying the protestant church...doesn't work.
Well, no shit you wouldn't deviate from a successful path to a quality product. But once again....who's sense of successful, the stinky guy in the basement, or the billionaire?
Um, two years of waiting does not mean the product has increased in quality over the period of time.
MS-Quality. Karma whoring, maybe, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
There is no "we" that use "the Linux" and there never will be. Your desire for belonging to the gang is noted.
Your response is exactly the kind of response I expect from someone who has an axe to grind. Maybe I've been trolled, maybe you're clueless as to how to operate a business or invade a market. Whatever the case, the argument that the desktop is the way to the hearts of those who make the decisions stands unchallenged. Bring something real to the discussion.
You dear sir, are speaking out your ass. Get it straight. Microsoft was born on the the desktop. Not the server. It moved to the server. If you want to take out Microsoft, you have to take it out by its roots in the desktop. Talk all you want about server software blah blah it won't matter if Linux doesn't get real facetime with the people who count: management. Do managers look at servers? No, they do not. They look at their laptops and desktops, their pda's and their uberphones. If you want to give Mandrake or any other distro a name, you do it where the people will see it's name.
Not to be rude.....
No one, and I mean no one(not even your mom, she's just being nice) gives a shit that your prefer Linux Redhat-style because of what Linux does well(nice ambiguous phrasing there, chief.) If you stick a novice in front of a typical Linux distro for a couple weeks, the productivity will be measurably equivalent to sticking them in front of a TRS-80. If you stick a novice in front of Windows *.* for a couple of weeks, you will get some documents, maybe some internet, maybe some freecell. If you stick a novice in front of OS X for a couple of weeks, you will have documents, e-mail, games, plenty of wasted time on the internet, and a genuine sense of comfortability.
Mandrake has it right: if it looks easy, that's half the way to being easy.
I was looking for something, anything, in the review that said this advisory text was specifically targetted at a super-intelligent audience. Not a bright audience, mind you. After all, Einstein wasn't merely bright(like me.) He was a genius for the ages. Of course, I was curious as to where all these super-geniuses were when the business plans were being drawn up, but ahh well, who am I to question them.
There was nothing that was targetted specifically at said employee subset. Not a thing was said that wouldn't apply to every employee.
On the plus side, this book doesn't even have to be read to be helpful. This book is a standard management text with the marketing built into the title of the book and nowhere else.
Lessee....
I can type for hours and hours on end, barely stopping to go to the bathroom and drink beverage, and my hands and wrists are none the sorer. I can do a modest 75 wpm at max speeds, even while using all the !@#$%^&*( keys.
or....
I can use the crap entry device, the pen, and write for about an hour before my hand cramps up and do about 15 wpm legibly.
Thanks, but no thanks for this crap invention. Just because its hard to make technologically doesn't make it a good idea. Now, gimme the shunt, and we'll see....
Re:It's good to see everyone's getting back to nor
on
Carnivore Update
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, it is a shame no one will see your comment. Obviously, I can't mod it up as you're replying to me. So, I'll just do my best to engage you in conversation.
You raise good historical points, and, for that matter, conveniently ignore the nastier episodes in U.S. history concerning our dealings with others in favor of the more recent. I will be the first to not admit, but proclaim that international policy is almost always a choice of evils. What makes such policy even more morally ambiguous is that we know we are dealing with people every bit as vicious and authoritarian in order to suppress what we at that point consider the more immediate and dangerous evil. Of course, I would be a naive and colonial apologist if I didn't point out that this is nothing new. In fact, such choices have been present since the dawn of inter-civilization communication.
In our dealings with Panama, Libya, Iraq, Al Qaida and the like, every decision made between 1942 and 1992 was made with the Sovient Union in mind. Why? Well, they were the only true complete threat. While it is true that states with chemical weapons such as Iraq can kill thousands or possibly millions within the U.S. with coordinated strikes, and while its true that organizations such as Al Qaida could bring the world economy to its knees and possibly a recession with enough coordinated strikes, both threats absolutely vanish in the face of a true nuclear holocaust. Thus, we dealt with the less immediate evil.
The U.S. is not special with regards to its international policy. While we generally do pretty well with regards to human rights, there are atrocities with our names on them. This could be said about just about every country with an international agenda. In fact, the attitude of impunity is not special. Every country throughout history that has held such a strong position has held exactly that attitude, until their day in the sun finally ended.
I do recognize that the U.S. is a threat to theocrats everywhere. Consumerism doesn't work without the individual consumer, and we are the consummate consumerist society. Don't forget it's the reason we have the billions to spend on our military budget.
Once a person is capable of seeing that these issues are this large, that they concern not aspects of individual societies but the conflict between two very potent and robust societies, hopefully that person is capable of seeing that knee jerk reactions(such as those present in the posts that inspired my original comment, not your's) are inappropriate.
Spider Robinson had you beat. He wrote a book called Mindkiller...in it, people have the shunt into the head, allowing them to hook right into VR. Of course, this theme has been covered in depth by many authors. Oddly enough, I think your concern would be more addressed by reading Frankenstein, rather than any SF. I just hope our ethics are capable of at least keeping up with science before the ability to shunt in becomes a reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll tell it to an electrician. I'll tell him that if he can't help a business with their energy needs in a timely fashion that he is out on his ass. I'll tell the refrigeration specialist that if he doesn't get the AC working in the control room that he's out on his ass. It all boils down to business. Get over it.
I'm not surprised that your company took the dive. Coding shops are either not hiring and letting attrition do the dirty work, firing a few select to thin the herd, or are closing shop. Now is NOT a good time to be in a business that only serves other businesses, as these businesses are always the first to get hit by any economic bump and the last to recover.
As an aside, only a coding shop would take someone who has done NOTHING but coding. I'm not saying that this is you(although it seems the case, given your point of pride regarding "programming since I was 7") but frankly, if you can't help business get done, you are done in the business world. Yeah, harsh. But real.
Ummm, no, it's not. Phoenix isn't small compared to anywhere except New York.
Population of Phoenix : 1,210,420 (7th largest city in the U.S.)[source]
Take your med's, bud. You've gotten a little hot under the collar at some dude on a message board.
Seems to me you should just own up to the fact that he scored a point or two on you. So what. Walk it off, champ.
Might want to lay off the bad grammar and fifth grade insults(even bigger loser) if you want to paint yourself as socially capable and yet different. Just sayin'.
Ahh well, actually I believe the real term for the bombings you have mentioned is war crime, a targetting of civilians by a state-based military command. For it to be considered terrorism, the targetting of civilians is done by irregulars, which you set me straight on.
As far as the enemy being the only one to commit terror, that double standard is alive and well, isn't it. What else would you call a campaign by a non-military wing of the U.S. government(CIA anyone?) to knock over a government or three? Espionage is a really nice-sounding way of saying terrorism.
One final note...the Americans did get better throughout the course of the war....<sheepish grin>
Non-governmental supported organized warfare(warfare, violence, tomato, tomahto) is conducted by guerillas. Terrorists specifically target civilian, non-military targets to inspire fear in order to further a political agenda. Setting up in lines on a battlefield across from the military of the government is NOT a terrorist act.
Who the hell uses ActiveX? I've gone to all kinds of sites(sans porn...ask me why :P) and some quite the microsoft-oriented POS(iframes, their DOM, etc.) and have yet to install an ActiveX control in at least six months. Seriously, who is really using ActivX controls?
Sources. Give me your sources. All the literature I've read says that this "development" most likely occured while the to-be criminal was being violated when they were a child.
Pornography viewing is the RESULT of a mindset, not the cause, especially in this case. Honestly, do you think someone who's in their right mind will look at fake kiddie porn and start to think, "Gee, I think I'll try that!"
Crackhead moron, I wish you were alone in your simplistic response to a complex problems. If public castrations were the result, you'd be seeing more child abductions and murders. Do the world a favor and don't breed.
Bullshit.
Pedophilia is not an "aquired" taste like coffee or cigarettes. It is a mental instability that is found in some individuals. Don't screw up the cause and effect here. People don't become pedophiles, or more active pedophiles, because they are looking at kiddie porn. People look at kiddie porn BECAUSE they are either passive or active pedophiles.
Oh lordy, I'm feeding a troll.
Look into Passport before you talk. The security of the environment is based on someone not fooling any participating website into thinking they're you. A little bit of social engineering, and you're toast. Not just on one web site, but all of them.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Whew. I feel much better now. Yeah yeah, kick em while they're down.
Funny thing....in the passport documentation, they had laid out the possibility of the federated model, but it was quite clear from the verbage that that was NOT the way they wanted to go with this. Feeeeels goood.
- Mom buys it for you for Christmas, and you are under thirteen years of age.
- Mom buys it for you for Christmas, and you are over thirteen years of age.
- You are poor, but want a new console.
- You have every goddamn console before and you want the new ones. Everyone wins, you buy all three.
- You are a PC gamer. You have a HDTV and a kickass stereo setup. You hear that the X-Box is the only one that doesn't look like shit on your set up. You buy the X-Box. You buy PS2 when you hear your friends talk about GT3.
-
You aren't rich, but you like consoles. You don't want to pay extra for the priviledge of playing DVD's. You buy a PS2 to serve as new console and a DVD player.
Is it any surprise that all the computer gamers have already bought their X-box? Come on now.She goes to Walmart or Target, and looks at the game demo's. The X-box looks like a computer game, complete with its killer application being an ultra-violent FPS. Mom keeps going. The PS2 has a crapload of *board games, with people falling on concrete. Pass. The Gamecube has a cartoon. Mom picks up a Gamecube.
Mom buys you what you ask for. You probably already have a PS1. Thus, you probably ask for a PS2.
You don't care about internet connectivity, because 50 bucks a month is beer money for the same period. You are either going to pick up a gamecube because it's nintendo and you're a fanboy, or you'll go with the PS2 because its sony and you're a fanboy. Poor people don't take chances on new consoles.
I still think it might be a matter of perspective.
If I post that I spend 20-30 hours a week doing all manners of activity on my computer, people here would react like I said I walk using both legs. On the other hand, people at the rec center would look at me like I grew a third arm out of my forehead.
The real litmus test is this: by doing this activity for this duration, am I harming myself by either causing myself some kind of damage or removing opportunities for other activities that I value? If the answer to this question is no, then no harm no foul. If the answer's yes, for any activity, I have problems.
Actually it is my friend of ten years or so. I don't play EQ....my wife would cut off my balls if I got hooked like he is.
As for going out and socializing, once again, we're assuming a great deal about the availability of someone's potential mate. My bud happens to have rather odd(from my perspective) tastes, and thus has a VERY hard time meeting these people. No, it's none of your fucking business, but rest assured its legal in every country in the world(even southern U.S.!) Ah well, my point is this: don't be so quick to judge people who can't find things they like doing beyond going online and fantasizing all day. After all, wtf are you doing, going to bands, listening to their music? What are you doing, going to movies? What are you doing, reading? Same fucking thing: fantasizing. Entertainment is all about the unreal.
Christ all fucking mighty, be nice.
...but I think that games where you do cool stuff you never usually do...
To start, pay attention to what you wrote.
People who do this are living lives they can't live here and now. Maybe they're not attractive. Maybe they're balding epileptics who live in their mother's house and spend all damn day between contracts playing Everquest. Maybe I have good friends like this, and maybe you should back the fuck off. My bud is having it hard, and self-esteem issues like his aren't helped when some self-appointed judge comes along and calls him a loser.
Or maybe, I'm just havin' fun. Dunno.
I can tell you from experience that this isn't true. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Since entry level folks tend to not understand how to goof off on Linux or any Unix for that matter, they tend to spend more time on real work and are more productive. Of course, my experience is in software, I don't know if the same applies to other fields.
</snip>
You're still talking about developers. Developers are a very small portion of the population of desktop users. Even the incompetent developers I've met could get Windows or OS X. They sure as hell couldn't get a Unix environ.
<snip>
BTW: RedHat has taken the model to foster what Linux is good at and they've been doing quite well. For all the people that say that Linux can't succeed without succeeding on the desktop, I say that they are full of crap.
</snip>
The lack of substantive text is beginning to make me think I'm dealing with a troll. Please elucidate on this point in particular in any response.
<snip>
Linux has already succeeded far beyond anyone could ever imagine. It did so by establishing a quality product that did it's job well. I wouldn' be so hestitant to deviate from this path - and I don't think many Linux folks are. If it takes 2 years to achieve a noticable desktop market, that's fine, because that means the product will be 2 years better. I'd rather wait 2 years and have a quality desktop then rush out MS-quality software as soon as possible. Isn't that why we use Linux in the first place?
</snip>
So many things are wrong with this little block....let's nail a couple.
- Who's defining success in this case, the developer with an axe to grind, or someone with a business leaning to their definition?
- "It", meaning a singular Linux, did so? Get it straight. There is no "It" in this case. This is like saying the protestant church...doesn't work.
- Well, no shit you wouldn't deviate from a successful path to a quality product. But once again....who's sense of successful, the stinky guy in the basement, or the billionaire?
- Um, two years of waiting does not mean the product has increased in quality over the period of time.
- MS-Quality. Karma whoring, maybe, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
- There is no "we" that use "the Linux" and there never will be. Your desire for belonging to the gang is noted.
Your response is exactly the kind of response I expect from someone who has an axe to grind. Maybe I've been trolled, maybe you're clueless as to how to operate a business or invade a market. Whatever the case, the argument that the desktop is the way to the hearts of those who make the decisions stands unchallenged. Bring something real to the discussion.You dear sir, are speaking out your ass. Get it straight. Microsoft was born on the the desktop. Not the server. It moved to the server. If you want to take out Microsoft, you have to take it out by its roots in the desktop. Talk all you want about server software blah blah it won't matter if Linux doesn't get real facetime with the people who count: management. Do managers look at servers? No, they do not. They look at their laptops and desktops, their pda's and their uberphones. If you want to give Mandrake or any other distro a name, you do it where the people will see it's name.
Not to be rude.....
No one, and I mean no one(not even your mom, she's just being nice) gives a shit that your prefer Linux Redhat-style because of what Linux does well(nice ambiguous phrasing there, chief.) If you stick a novice in front of a typical Linux distro for a couple weeks, the productivity will be measurably equivalent to sticking them in front of a TRS-80. If you stick a novice in front of Windows *.* for a couple of weeks, you will get some documents, maybe some internet, maybe some freecell. If you stick a novice in front of OS X for a couple of weeks, you will have documents, e-mail, games, plenty of wasted time on the internet, and a genuine sense of comfortability.
Mandrake has it right: if it looks easy, that's half the way to being easy.
Looks likes its confirmed: slashdotters will finally be able to reproduce. Kinda. Of course, I didn't say anything about getting laid....
I was looking for something, anything, in the review that said this advisory text was specifically targetted at a super-intelligent audience. Not a bright audience, mind you. After all, Einstein wasn't merely bright(like me.) He was a genius for the ages. Of course, I was curious as to where all these super-geniuses were when the business plans were being drawn up, but ahh well, who am I to question them.
There was nothing that was targetted specifically at said employee subset. Not a thing was said that wouldn't apply to every employee.
On the plus side, this book doesn't even have to be read to be helpful. This book is a standard management text with the marketing built into the title of the book and nowhere else.
AMEN to that! I mean....well, I mean I agree.
>ahem<
Lessee....
I can type for hours and hours on end, barely stopping to go to the bathroom and drink beverage, and my hands and wrists are none the sorer. I can do a modest 75 wpm at max speeds, even while using all the !@#$%^&*( keys.
or....
I can use the crap entry device, the pen, and write for about an hour before my hand cramps up and do about 15 wpm legibly.
Thanks, but no thanks for this crap invention. Just because its hard to make technologically doesn't make it a good idea. Now, gimme the shunt, and we'll see....
Well, it is a shame no one will see your comment. Obviously, I can't mod it up as you're replying to me. So, I'll just do my best to engage you in conversation.
You raise good historical points, and, for that matter, conveniently ignore the nastier episodes in U.S. history concerning our dealings with others in favor of the more recent. I will be the first to not admit, but proclaim that international policy is almost always a choice of evils. What makes such policy even more morally ambiguous is that we know we are dealing with people every bit as vicious and authoritarian in order to suppress what we at that point consider the more immediate and dangerous evil. Of course, I would be a naive and colonial apologist if I didn't point out that this is nothing new. In fact, such choices have been present since the dawn of inter-civilization communication.
In our dealings with Panama, Libya, Iraq, Al Qaida and the like, every decision made between 1942 and 1992 was made with the Sovient Union in mind. Why? Well, they were the only true complete threat. While it is true that states with chemical weapons such as Iraq can kill thousands or possibly millions within the U.S. with coordinated strikes, and while its true that organizations such as Al Qaida could bring the world economy to its knees and possibly a recession with enough coordinated strikes, both threats absolutely vanish in the face of a true nuclear holocaust. Thus, we dealt with the less immediate evil.
The U.S. is not special with regards to its international policy. While we generally do pretty well with regards to human rights, there are atrocities with our names on them. This could be said about just about every country with an international agenda. In fact, the attitude of impunity is not special. Every country throughout history that has held such a strong position has held exactly that attitude, until their day in the sun finally ended.
I do recognize that the U.S. is a threat to theocrats everywhere. Consumerism doesn't work without the individual consumer, and we are the consummate consumerist society. Don't forget it's the reason we have the billions to spend on our military budget.
Once a person is capable of seeing that these issues are this large, that they concern not aspects of individual societies but the conflict between two very potent and robust societies, hopefully that person is capable of seeing that knee jerk reactions(such as those present in the posts that inspired my original comment, not your's) are inappropriate.
Spider Robinson had you beat. He wrote a book called Mindkiller...in it, people have the shunt into the head, allowing them to hook right into VR. Of course, this theme has been covered in depth by many authors. Oddly enough, I think your concern would be more addressed by reading Frankenstein, rather than any SF. I just hope our ethics are capable of at least keeping up with science before the ability to shunt in becomes a reality.