Technology is not a thing that can be only used by the government or the elite ruling class. Technology I think (at least properly used) far more levels the playing field than giving one side a huge advantage/disadvantage.
That is possible but only if people take an active interest in making it so. As technology grows more and more complex, the facilities required to build technological devices grow more expensive, and therefore more easily controlled by those in power. It is perfectly possible for technology to be used to increase the power of the ruling class, and then for that ruling class to turn around and prohibit technology usage by the masses. Yes, if the people constantly insist on technological symmetry with the ruling authorities than technology can be a liberating tool, but I see no evidence that this is the case--where is the public outcry that the footage of these British CCTV cameras should be viewable by ALL people, not just law enforcement?
It must be remembered at all times that technology, like any other power, can be used to acquire more power. Any balance of technological power is unstable--as soon as one side get extra power, it starts to gain power faster than its rival, and the balance is destroyed.
So I oppose this "technology levels the playing field" idea, because technology can either level or steepen the playing field--it's up to us humans to decide which we would rather see. There is the saying that "God made men, but Colt made men equal"--that by giving all people equal killing power, the playing field was leveled. The folly of this was revealed with the rise of machine guns in early 20th century--only waring governments, strike-breaking corporations, and rich gangsters were able to afford this new marvel, a weapon designed for a single individual to take on an entire crowd.
I think there's a few interesting things going on here.
You can't expect people to lay money down and not know what they're getting. This may be symptomatic of a marketing system that doesn't know how to sell new types of games. If you're selling the next first person shooter, then all you have to do is say "it's just like that last game you liked, only better!" And in fact that's the only message video game marketing is any good at pushing.
Secondly, as video games get more popular, there's a whole crap load of people who haven't played the shooting and platform games you've gotten sick of. New consumers are born everyday, which means there's money to be made selling the same thing you sold yesterday, only NEWER(!!!) and SHINIER(!!!).
Finally, while it is possible for an innovative game to become famous mostly by word of mouth (The Sims would probably be a good example of that), it has to be a REALLY innovative or great game. Beyond Good and Evil and Prince of Persia are undoubtedly excellent games, but neither is a revolutionary game--PoP is a sequel to what was once a famous franchise, and BGaE sounds like just another Zelda-type of game. There's a LOT of games out there, so something has to be totally mind blowingly awesome to stand out without proper marketing.
And "increases purchase price of games"? That is so... trollish. Games have been at $50 for as long as I can remember, and Ubisoft actualy dropped the price for BG&E to $20 after poor sales. I ended up getting it for $15 with a coupon from Best Buy. For those of you considering getting it, $20 is a very good value for this game.
It's not just trolling, it's bad microeconomics. Fixed costs, like development and advertising, have no effect on the price that a rational firm sets on products. Since the cost of each new disk is near zero, companies set whatever price maximizes price*units--or at least they try to.
Re:Similiaries to Netscape vs MS not unfounded
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Probably true, but keep in mind how many users rely on a friend or relative more tech-oriented then they are to configure their computers. They won't put up with something outlandish like installing Linux or netscape, but selecting a different option in some obscure dialog just because my nerdy anti-Microsoft cousin says so--why not?
Re:Similiaries to Netscape vs MS not unfounded
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps an anti-trust office (either US or EU) will be quick to force MS to make any search features work with any search engine one wants.
Probably more important outside America.
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
I suspect that as anti-Microsoft sentiment rises outside America (which is inevitable as anti-American sentiment rises) the fact that linux web browsers might start setting google as the default search engine could be really significant for Google.
Oh, sorry, I thought you dissing F-Zero 64. Yeah, the N64/ PS1 era was definitely the "ugly" era of video games--3D graphics while 3D looked like crap. That's actually one of the reasons I liked F-zero 64--it was willing to sacrifice all graphics quality to make such a great game--the tracks look crappy, the cars look crappy, but framerate never drops even with 30 cars on the screen at one time.
I'm not saying these are modern demons, but compare CS to disciplines like political science, diplomacy, theology, ethics, etc. where you are seriously work
Geez, if you had said Chemistry, Medicine, Mechanical Engineering, or even Economics and Sociology, I would have been totally with you--but for God's sake, you just gave me a list of everything that's wrong with Human Civilisation! Perhaps the world would be no worse without Sun and Microsoft, but it would certainly be a million times better without Politics and God. I may not be saving the world, but at least I'm not knocking down skyscrapers with airplanes like your list has.
Actually, while the world would be just fine without any specific program, it would really suck ass without the Internet, the web, email, etc. I mean, don't you remember the 80s? They really sucked.
I don't care what YOU say, the F-Zero GX was just a remake of the F-Zero 64 with better graphics, new tracks, and a somewhat easier to use side-attack move. In particular, both games have the brilliant boost-drains-shields model, that forces a trade off between safety and speed, and that constant temptation in multiplayer games to drive a bit more dangerously and unsafe.
Actually, you're both wrong. The parent was saying your stuck running Mac OS X software on Apple hardware, and this is true. If the apparent quality of Apple hardware suddenly drops, as the logic board problem would seem to indicate, then you're stuck.
On the other hand, if you find yourself not liking OSX, or the Apple hardware itself, then you do have a problem. If you weren't ready to make such a commitment you should have played with one a bit more before buying, just as I said previously.
Then you would be in agreement with the anti-Apple folks--if you aren't comfortable with hardware lock-in, don't become dependent on Apple software.
Might this be a temporary lull in geekdom? Right now, I look at the world and don't really see an urgent need for programmers--everyone already has the internet to communicate, what else do I expect people to do with computers? Businesses already have databases and ecommerce--further improvements are merely differences in quality rather than in kind. Programmers are a dime a dozen.
But suppose in a decade or so robots really took off--every physical task done by humans could be done by robot, but only after geeks program the robot. There would be a trememndous rise in demand for software engineers. True, eventually the robots would replace all current physical labor, the need for programmes would diminish--UNLESS the increase in supply created more demand for newer and newer uses for robots.
Which might be the real problem geeks are having right now--the same problem everyone who makes money by WORKING instead of by OWNING--our economy right now is really bad at turning increased supply into future increased demand, mostly because of the vast wealth inequalities that have opened up. We have a small economy that works to produce goods for a small number of people at the top, and unless the government changes its policies things will continue this way for sometime.
Um, 2Mbits per second is 2,000,000 (don't add too many significant figures), not 2048. So we're talking about less than a 1000 times, which is much, but not much much faster.
There is a very long list of hardware gimicks Nintendo makes that serve little purpose. Like, for example, the vast majority of console peripherals? True, they probably did Nintendo little harm, but they also did gamers little good.
From the later GameInformer article, it sounds like the two screens are just arranged vertically, and can be used as one large screen. What this says to me is that Nintendo has created a divided screen possibly just so it can be folded up more compactly, and just for giggles is going to hype it as some new gaming feature because their entire marketing division is some sort of strange Japanese Postmodern (NipPoMo?) art project on the nature of consumerism and hype.
A case sensitive compiler lets you do horrible things like having two properties of an object with the same name except for the case. Example: myObject.list and myObject.List. A case insensitive compiler won't let you have that.
Readable code is a human responsibility, and can't be delegated to a mere compiler.
How is it again that it "strictly requires readable code"?
Well, in Java, you have to INTENTIONALLY make two different properties of an object which differ only in case (and there are probably code beautifying tools that check for that crap) while in a case insensitve language you could ACCIDENTALLY refer to the same thing with two different cases, detrimenting readability.
Did you know that Java is actually compiled? All the case insensitive stuff would be sorted out when producing bytecode.
That could work for the just-in-time compilation issues, but it still leaves extra work for plugins and interpretted scripting languages (but I guess letting users extend their own programs is BAD programming practice, because that would be total anarchy! That's why we must ban the GPL!)
You define a convention and stick to it. Tipically: first word lowercase, other words uppercase first like "thisIsAVariable".
So case sensitivity enforces your convention. (Though usually programmers have more sophisticated conventions). Otherwise, THISISAVARIABLE compiles. Since reading/debugging code is harder than writing it, it makes sense for the programming language to strictly require readable code.
Slower? There's just one more pass involved (an OR in the letters) which you parse anyways. I would hardly call it slower.
About twice as long for a string comparison is what I would definitely call slower.
And that is ONLY in BAD, SELF-WRITING code.
Including all interpretted scripting languages, loadable plugins, and just-in-time compiled code, the last of which being safer and (some day) faster than standard compilation?
Also please explain how does case insensitivity generate bugs. It actually prevents bugs by understanding that var and Var are actually the same thing!
In Java, since you have to explicitly declare variables before use, the compiler will notice that you typed Var when you meant var and complain. Your criticism is correct about, say, Python, because in Python referring to Var means a new variable Var is created. I believe Python is still case sensitive, because of speed reasons, although Python's developers would prefer case insensitivity if it had no speed cost, I suspect.
Multiplayer capability was the only use I could think of for two screens. And seperate components are much better for this than one. Now, maybe you have something else in mind, some sort of game idea that would justify such a drastic and bizarre hardware decision. But I cannot think of any, and no one in this entire discussion has suggested any. It's Nintendo, so unless the system completely flops virtual boy style immediately, then they'll probably mamage to make some good games for it, though guessing whether it'll beat or even coexist with the Sony PSP is difficult. Like you say, it will have lots of other features that are hopefully better than GBA features.
But I'm talking about this ONE feature, the one feature Nintendo has chosen to emphasize, and your post has cleared up one thing for me: no one can think of anything awesome to do with two stupid screens! I have an easier time imagining useful things to do with the GC/GBA link, stupid gimick that it is. I'm not saying the product will fail, I'm just saying that Nintendo is not famous for making brilliant hardware decisions, just brilliant games.
BTW, the GBA link cable is like 2 megabits/sec, with near zero latency. Did you ever wonder why no GBA emulator has netplay support, like snes9x, with the internet working as the link cable? The internet is too damn slow. Some games send a byte, and wait for a response before they continue processesing CPU instructions. My ethernet card probably produces more latency than GBA link emulation, if any emulator tried it, would allow. Perhaps a new cable will be much faster, but only one "much" is necessary.
No, all video games are NOT designed for one screen--what can this new dual screen feature do that two seperate units linked together, which has been possible with Gameboy for all eternity, cannot do better? Look at the stupid crap people are suggesting in this forum--RPGs with the game in one window while the status screen is in another--this is worth another screen?
And there's no "bringing up" the split screen argument--anyone hearing the dual screen idea is already thinking that. You can say its not the same, but if you are asking me to play (very obscure) devices to prove your point, that just kind of proves my point that it's hard to imagine, no?
I suppose the reason I am so very skeptical of this is because it reminds me too much of linking a game boy advance to a game cube--Nintendo keeps hyping that feature of new games like it's the most important thing in the world, but absolutely no one cares. This seems like a repeat of that. it's just another crazy hardware gimick, except this time it's permanently embedded in a piece of hardware that's supposed to be portable, adding very costly weight. You won't go broke betting against new Nintendo hardware gimicks actually being good ideas. It's a good thing they make such brilliant games to make up for it.
Look, Nintendo as a whole is profitable and I'm a huge fan of the company, but they also have a tendency to go on strange gimicky tangents and try to hype them as the next thing to revolutionize gaming. Everything from that stupid robot that you could buy for the NES to virtual boy to their recent obsession with the GBA-Gamecube linked games. This portable console might be cool, but, I mean, come on, TWO SCREENS?! There is no game play you could create on two side by side screens that could not also be created on one double split screen.
Perhaps we'll something later from Nintendo that makes this product and even justifies the dual screen concept. I am not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for the dual screen concept to work, just REALLY HARD TO IMAGINE. But the fact that they would expect anyone to get excited over this announcement, let alone 10% of people, makes me think somewhat less of Nintendo's wisdom. The ONLY way this announcement makes sense is if Nintendo WANTS people to think this product sucks, so they'll be pleasantly surprised when it does not suck, for some reason unclear to anyone at this time.
It's the duality of information. Faster information/knowledge is always power--but sometimes it is power for you, and sometimes it is power OVER you. The cellphone lets you call for help on the lonely stretch of highway when your car explodes. But it also lets your boss talk to you whenever he wants (or rather, it makes it physically possible for you to allow him to do that, which enables him to fire you if do not so allow it.) The cell phone is the Tyranny of the Possible.
My KDE 3.1.2 panel manages to group together all of the gimp windows, i'm pretty sure the latest gnome-panel is capable of that as well. sure, after you click on the single "gimp" icon, you then have to make another click to pick a gimp window--but one could imagine a window manager that remember which gimp window had focus last and then chose that one.
Infact, since the window managers are already capable of grouping together single windows, it seems like it would be possible for the window manager to turn a group of windows into an MDI interface. perhaps thats why MDI was opposed, because it takes over the role of window management from the users chosen window manager? Is gimp supposed to be aware of your window manager and make sub-window frames that look like your regular subwindows?
Geeks are always presumed innocent on Slashdot.
You think that's bad? I hear there's a place called "America" where EVERYONE is presumed innocent until proven guilty! Talk about insane! It must just be a legend.
Not really--the DRM machines are not crippled, they can play non-DRM content just as well as a non-DRM machine. But only the DRM machines can play DRM content. So from a purely individualistic, prisoner's dilemma kinda way, the DRM machine has more abilities than the non-DRM machine.
especially given recent and continuing advances in agriculture and medicine.
Well, there's the tradeoff. Either more research into agriculture and medicine (like perhaps off-world agriculture?) or more filling in the dots of starcharts. It is quite clear that given current technology we couldn't feed 10 billion--it's not even clear we can feed 6 billion right now. Technological advance doesn't happen on it's own--someone has to pay for it.
Just before I'd fall asleep, I would always envision the equations and logical symbols having an emotional context--like the professor is all "now the 3x^2 cancels the left side of this equation" and my drowsy mind starts to feel sorry for the recently deceased numbers...
Slashdot Mirror
That is possible but only if people take an active interest in making it so. As technology grows more and more complex, the facilities required to build technological devices grow more expensive, and therefore more easily controlled by those in power. It is perfectly possible for technology to be used to increase the power of the ruling class, and then for that ruling class to turn around and prohibit technology usage by the masses. Yes, if the people constantly insist on technological symmetry with the ruling authorities than technology can be a liberating tool, but I see no evidence that this is the case--where is the public outcry that the footage of these British CCTV cameras should be viewable by ALL people, not just law enforcement?
It must be remembered at all times that technology, like any other power, can be used to acquire more power. Any balance of technological power is unstable--as soon as one side get extra power, it starts to gain power faster than its rival, and the balance is destroyed.
So I oppose this "technology levels the playing field" idea, because technology can either level or steepen the playing field--it's up to us humans to decide which we would rather see. There is the saying that "God made men, but Colt made men equal"--that by giving all people equal killing power, the playing field was leveled. The folly of this was revealed with the rise of machine guns in early 20th century--only waring governments, strike-breaking corporations, and rich gangsters were able to afford this new marvel, a weapon designed for a single individual to take on an entire crowd.
You can't expect people to lay money down and not know what they're getting. This may be symptomatic of a marketing system that doesn't know how to sell new types of games. If you're selling the next first person shooter, then all you have to do is say "it's just like that last game you liked, only better!" And in fact that's the only message video game marketing is any good at pushing.
Secondly, as video games get more popular, there's a whole crap load of people who haven't played the shooting and platform games you've gotten sick of. New consumers are born everyday, which means there's money to be made selling the same thing you sold yesterday, only NEWER(!!!) and SHINIER(!!!).
Finally, while it is possible for an innovative game to become famous mostly by word of mouth (The Sims would probably be a good example of that), it has to be a REALLY innovative or great game. Beyond Good and Evil and Prince of Persia are undoubtedly excellent games, but neither is a revolutionary game--PoP is a sequel to what was once a famous franchise, and BGaE sounds like just another Zelda-type of game. There's a LOT of games out there, so something has to be totally mind blowingly awesome to stand out without proper marketing.
It's not just trolling, it's bad microeconomics. Fixed costs, like development and advertising, have no effect on the price that a rational firm sets on products. Since the cost of each new disk is near zero, companies set whatever price maximizes price*units--or at least they try to.
Probably true, but keep in mind how many users rely on a friend or relative more tech-oriented then they are to configure their computers. They won't put up with something outlandish like installing Linux or netscape, but selecting a different option in some obscure dialog just because my nerdy anti-Microsoft cousin says so--why not?
Perhaps an anti-trust office (either US or EU) will be quick to force MS to make any search features work with any search engine one wants.
I suspect that as anti-Microsoft sentiment rises outside America (which is inevitable as anti-American sentiment rises) the fact that linux web browsers might start setting google as the default search engine could be really significant for Google.
Oh, sorry, I thought you dissing F-Zero 64. Yeah, the N64/ PS1 era was definitely the "ugly" era of video games--3D graphics while 3D looked like crap. That's actually one of the reasons I liked F-zero 64--it was willing to sacrifice all graphics quality to make such a great game--the tracks look crappy, the cars look crappy, but framerate never drops even with 30 cars on the screen at one time.
Geez, if you had said Chemistry, Medicine, Mechanical Engineering, or even Economics and Sociology, I would have been totally with you--but for God's sake, you just gave me a list of everything that's wrong with Human Civilisation! Perhaps the world would be no worse without Sun and Microsoft, but it would certainly be a million times better without Politics and God. I may not be saving the world, but at least I'm not knocking down skyscrapers with airplanes like your list has. Actually, while the world would be just fine without any specific program, it would really suck ass without the Internet, the web, email, etc. I mean, don't you remember the 80s? They really sucked.
I don't care what YOU say, the F-Zero GX was just a remake of the F-Zero 64 with better graphics, new tracks, and a somewhat easier to use side-attack move. In particular, both games have the brilliant boost-drains-shields model, that forces a trade off between safety and speed, and that constant temptation in multiplayer games to drive a bit more dangerously and unsafe.
On the other hand, if you find yourself not liking OSX, or the Apple hardware itself, then you do have a problem. If you weren't ready to make such a commitment you should have played with one a bit more before buying, just as I said previously.
Then you would be in agreement with the anti-Apple folks--if you aren't comfortable with hardware lock-in, don't become dependent on Apple software.
It's not which computer is less compatible--it's which hard drive is less compatible. That would be the Mac's drive.
But suppose in a decade or so robots really took off--every physical task done by humans could be done by robot, but only after geeks program the robot. There would be a trememndous rise in demand for software engineers. True, eventually the robots would replace all current physical labor, the need for programmes would diminish--UNLESS the increase in supply created more demand for newer and newer uses for robots.
Which might be the real problem geeks are having right now--the same problem everyone who makes money by WORKING instead of by OWNING--our economy right now is really bad at turning increased supply into future increased demand, mostly because of the vast wealth inequalities that have opened up. We have a small economy that works to produce goods for a small number of people at the top, and unless the government changes its policies things will continue this way for sometime.
Um, 2Mbits per second is 2,000,000 (don't add too many significant figures), not 2048. So we're talking about less than a 1000 times, which is much, but not much much faster. There is a very long list of hardware gimicks Nintendo makes that serve little purpose. Like, for example, the vast majority of console peripherals? True, they probably did Nintendo little harm, but they also did gamers little good. From the later GameInformer article, it sounds like the two screens are just arranged vertically, and can be used as one large screen. What this says to me is that Nintendo has created a divided screen possibly just so it can be folded up more compactly, and just for giggles is going to hype it as some new gaming feature because their entire marketing division is some sort of strange Japanese Postmodern (NipPoMo?) art project on the nature of consumerism and hype.
Well, in Java, you have to INTENTIONALLY make two different properties of an object which differ only in case (and there are probably code beautifying tools that check for that crap) while in a case insensitve language you could ACCIDENTALLY refer to the same thing with two different cases, detrimenting readability.
Did you know that Java is actually compiled? All the case insensitive stuff would be sorted out when producing bytecode.
That could work for the just-in-time compilation issues, but it still leaves extra work for plugins and interpretted scripting languages (but I guess letting users extend their own programs is BAD programming practice, because that would be total anarchy! That's why we must ban the GPL!)
So case sensitivity enforces your convention. (Though usually programmers have more sophisticated conventions). Otherwise, THISISAVARIABLE compiles. Since reading /debugging code is harder than writing it, it makes sense for the programming language to strictly require readable code.
Slower? There's just one more pass involved (an OR in the letters) which you parse anyways. I would hardly call it slower.
About twice as long for a string comparison is what I would definitely call slower.
And that is ONLY in BAD, SELF-WRITING code.
Including all interpretted scripting languages, loadable plugins, and just-in-time compiled code, the last of which being safer and (some day) faster than standard compilation?
Also please explain how does case insensitivity generate bugs. It actually prevents bugs by understanding that var and Var are actually the same thing!
In Java, since you have to explicitly declare variables before use, the compiler will notice that you typed Var when you meant var and complain. Your criticism is correct about, say, Python, because in Python referring to Var means a new variable Var is created. I believe Python is still case sensitive, because of speed reasons, although Python's developers would prefer case insensitivity if it had no speed cost, I suspect.
But I'm talking about this ONE feature, the one feature Nintendo has chosen to emphasize, and your post has cleared up one thing for me: no one can think of anything awesome to do with two stupid screens! I have an easier time imagining useful things to do with the GC/GBA link, stupid gimick that it is. I'm not saying the product will fail, I'm just saying that Nintendo is not famous for making brilliant hardware decisions, just brilliant games.
BTW, the GBA link cable is like 2 megabits/sec, with near zero latency. Did you ever wonder why no GBA emulator has netplay support, like snes9x, with the internet working as the link cable? The internet is too damn slow. Some games send a byte, and wait for a response before they continue processesing CPU instructions. My ethernet card probably produces more latency than GBA link emulation, if any emulator tried it, would allow. Perhaps a new cable will be much faster, but only one "much" is necessary.
No, all video games are NOT designed for one screen--what can this new dual screen feature do that two seperate units linked together, which has been possible with Gameboy for all eternity, cannot do better? Look at the stupid crap people are suggesting in this forum--RPGs with the game in one window while the status screen is in another--this is worth another screen? And there's no "bringing up" the split screen argument--anyone hearing the dual screen idea is already thinking that. You can say its not the same, but if you are asking me to play (very obscure) devices to prove your point, that just kind of proves my point that it's hard to imagine, no? I suppose the reason I am so very skeptical of this is because it reminds me too much of linking a game boy advance to a game cube--Nintendo keeps hyping that feature of new games like it's the most important thing in the world, but absolutely no one cares. This seems like a repeat of that. it's just another crazy hardware gimick, except this time it's permanently embedded in a piece of hardware that's supposed to be portable, adding very costly weight. You won't go broke betting against new Nintendo hardware gimicks actually being good ideas. It's a good thing they make such brilliant games to make up for it.
Perhaps we'll something later from Nintendo that makes this product and even justifies the dual screen concept. I am not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for the dual screen concept to work, just REALLY HARD TO IMAGINE. But the fact that they would expect anyone to get excited over this announcement, let alone 10% of people, makes me think somewhat less of Nintendo's wisdom. The ONLY way this announcement makes sense is if Nintendo WANTS people to think this product sucks, so they'll be pleasantly surprised when it does not suck, for some reason unclear to anyone at this time.
It's the duality of information. Faster information/knowledge is always power--but sometimes it is power for you, and sometimes it is power OVER you. The cellphone lets you call for help on the lonely stretch of highway when your car explodes. But it also lets your boss talk to you whenever he wants (or rather, it makes it physically possible for you to allow him to do that, which enables him to fire you if do not so allow it.) The cell phone is the Tyranny of the Possible.
My KDE 3.1.2 panel manages to group together all of the gimp windows, i'm pretty sure the latest gnome-panel is capable of that as well. sure, after you click on the single "gimp" icon, you then have to make another click to pick a gimp window--but one could imagine a window manager that remember which gimp window had focus last and then chose that one. Infact, since the window managers are already capable of grouping together single windows, it seems like it would be possible for the window manager to turn a group of windows into an MDI interface. perhaps thats why MDI was opposed, because it takes over the role of window management from the users chosen window manager? Is gimp supposed to be aware of your window manager and make sub-window frames that look like your regular subwindows?
Geeks are always presumed innocent on Slashdot. You think that's bad? I hear there's a place called "America" where EVERYONE is presumed innocent until proven guilty! Talk about insane! It must just be a legend.
Not really--the DRM machines are not crippled, they can play non-DRM content just as well as a non-DRM machine. But only the DRM machines can play DRM content. So from a purely individualistic, prisoner's dilemma kinda way, the DRM machine has more abilities than the non-DRM machine.
Well, there's the tradeoff. Either more research into agriculture and medicine (like perhaps off-world agriculture?) or more filling in the dots of starcharts. It is quite clear that given current technology we couldn't feed 10 billion--it's not even clear we can feed 6 billion right now. Technological advance doesn't happen on it's own--someone has to pay for it.
Just before I'd fall asleep, I would always envision the equations and logical symbols having an emotional context--like the professor is all "now the 3x^2 cancels the left side of this equation" and my drowsy mind starts to feel sorry for the recently deceased numbers...
hey, maybe the poster was just gay? Nothing wrong with that.