I could not easily find complete data for 2012, (odd in itself) but in 2011 just over 32,000 people died in car crashes. I think there will be an evolution towards driverless cars. The distracted generation will want their cars to drive for them. And I for one really want their cars to drive for them. Think of it. Each year ten times the number of people who died on 9/11 die in cars (or under them). Maybe we should declare war on Detroit. Oh, wait. It self destructed. Okay, Tokyo then. But you get my point. Higher levels of automated auto safety will save lives. Let's really put auto in the automobile. Of course you can have my Chevy pickup when you pry it from my cold dead hands. However that time may come sooner than later.
Many large corporations, including the entertainment industry, are using -- or are looking at using -- proactive strategies as part of their security playbook. There was an interesting report on NPR concerning this a few months back. Currently, deploying malware is, to all intents and purposes, simply illegal. As it should be. These guys want a self-defense avenue for deploying destructive or surveillance programs against their perceived enemies. IMHO our corrupt congress will -- sooner or later -- be bribed into letting them have their way.
YOYO. You're On Your Own.
The point of forking? In a word. Freedom.
on
Mageia 3 Released
·
· Score: 0
Distros proliferate in order to broaden freedom of choice. This allows users to choose the OS that will optimize their hardware to their needs.
It is the difference between a tailored suit and an off-the-rack suit that comes in only three sizes. Here, the unique bundle of task-targeted, tested, compatible, packages on a given Linux distro might be constructed to make it appealing for a special purpose. The user can have a distro for audio production, video production. T.V watching, math, science education etc etc. ad infinitum.
But, if a user wants an all-around distro, he or she also has plenty to choose from, too. And the hardware they have might make all the difference in what they choose. Perhaps they want something lean and mean for an older piece of hardware (Damn Small). Or something handsome and easy to use for Aunt Matilda (Mint). Sometimes one distro just installs better "out of the box" on a particular piece of hardware than does another. This, for reasons known only to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and, maybe, Linus Torvolds. For example: Quirky old PCLinux OS installed sweetly and completely on an old box I was repurposing when little else in the Distro Watch top 20 would even complete an install. And nothing (except PC Linux OS) would see anything near all the hardware. (I did not feel like engaging in a Gentoo marathon. Okay?) So, I just jumped distros until I achieved the best result. I, personally, am glad that there are lots to choose from.
I am sure that Mr Shuttleworth would have loved the world to continue to coalesce around Ubuntu, but it didn't. I do not know from whence comes the idea that all the distros are in a competition to dominate. Or even that Linux is in a competition with the commercial software sector. But IMHO such an idea is antithetical to the underlying ethos of the FOSS movement. Only the corporate distros have any interest in dominating. And that is in the enterprise sphere. But, all in all they have behaved pretty well it seems to me -- at least for a pack of suits. (Not that they care what I think.) Paradoxically (or perhaps understandably) corporate support has been crucial to a lot of the activity in the FOSS movement, too. After all money talks. Has it always been positive activity? Uhhhh... Can we not go there? Please? It makes my head hurt. It is like the "One Country Two Systems" thing in China.
It's. Just. So. Complicated.
Now, from the general to the specific subject at hand. This Mageia distro seems interesting because the distro's reason to be appears to rest not so much in the product, but in the process. The developers are stressing transparent governance and development community cohesion. To my mind it is a cool and very promising approach. Having witnessed so many good projects disintegrate and then self destruct this seems to me like a great place to be coming from. And as many have pointed out Mandrake - Mandriva was a pretty good distro. I am planning to repurpose my old Pentium 4 box soon (RIP XP) and will look at Mangeia because, judging from the website and the ethical values it espouses, the distro will progress apace and probably be around for a good while.
My Norwegian bank issued me a chip and pin card. I like it. The waitress or the teller never touches my card. I put it in the terminal when I see the total I am being charged. I punch in the PIN and the card verifies with the bank and the term. prints a receipt. In a restaurant the server brings a wireless terminal to the table and I do the same thing. The protocol allows for a gratuity to be added. As long as no thug or dip looks over my shoulder and sees my PIN I fell pretty safe from fraud. I use this card all over the continent. My US cards work, but they are less secure and I get a nasty foreign transaction fee and a disadvantageous exchange rate. Chip and PIN rocks. Hard to believe consumers wearied of punching in a little PIN. Besides, for small purchases cash works. Near Field Communication payment is an idea whose time is yet to come. I do not want an experimental-stage NFC. It will be cool when all my products are fitted with rfid tags and my NFC payment fob is in my pocket. I walk out of the store with my basket, pause at a terminal to visually scan the inventory for which I am being charged (or not), confirm, then get the receipt beamed to my fob or smart phone. Until then the chip and pin is fine. I was wondering at the profusion of stainless steel wallets on Travel Smith. They were not all passport sized. Now I understand. It makes me wonder if my current chip and pin is NFC too. Feh! Makes me want to return to the good old days of cowrie shells.
"Well one good thing, anyway. At least the massive EMP from the penultimate nuclear holocaust didn't destroy the good Jazz because it was all on vinyl. We won't miss those smelly humans at all (And they tasted like dookey!) But, damn!, that Bill Evans cut was sublime. Slip out and spin it again, won't ya Babe? And then come back to the water and stroke my tentacle. Hmmmm?"
Mr. Lessig and his followers do much to promote the public good and the quality of life. Copyright was invented to promote the public good by protecting the interests of creative people for a limited time. Now, in today's Market Society, (As opposed to Market Economy) this once-useful legal tool has been perverted to make money in perpetuity for property holders. These owners are rarely the creative people who developed the culture. For example: At the beginning of the 20th century a copyright lasted 14 years. The American songbook was remixed into jazz in the 1920s. The musicians had the right to do so because tunes from the sheet music craze a couple of decades before had devolved into the public domain. And from a little later? Just have a listen to Art Tatum's 1939 Tea for Two, which was written in the 1920s.
Jazz is an awesome cultural invention adored by fans all over the world. But, now, if you want to re-imagine or cover Sir Paul's Yesterday you still have to pay him (or somebody.) Hasn't society rewarded Mr. McCartney enough? It's time his music was kicked loose. Really. It is. And maybe if he was not still raking it in from work he did in his 20s he would be stimulated to do something new that was up to snuff. I am not a freetard. But, like Mr. Lessig, I hate to see society robbed of its heritage. And the culture held hostage by corporate interests.
A reasonable copyright term helped foster in the Jazz Age. And that is a beautiful thing. A thousand years from now someone will say: "America. Hmmm. Isn't that the place jazz was invented?" And twenty thousand years from now some being will say: "Earth? Hmmmm. Isn't that the place where Jazz was invented?" The point is that all we have left of any civilization is its culture. No one remembers the politicians and the rich guys. Just the artists they usually cheated.
After the black death. Without knowing the book, however I cannot say when this engineering revolution took place in the middle agess. But on to my original post. While a bit tongue in cheek (or tongue on metal cheek). The point I was trying to make is that an economy can work fine with a large part of the labor being performed without pay. Slaves required maintenance in the form of sustenance (as will our future robot servos). Over time Roman slaves even got a few more rights. Somehow I doubt that the world economy will fall apart when robots do most everything. Hopefully, those in command will use the increased productivity of the coming machine age to continue to improve the lives of those who have little. I am actually hopeful. Access to information and learning opportunities increase geometrically with the expansion and penetration of the information network. Ramanujan found one math book and it propelled him into a sublime realm. Amazing things are happening with cheap smart phones in Africa.
When it comes to protecting FOSS openness it seems that patents are an imperfect tool to say the least. A patent is a legal lock. Typically one does not open doors with a lock only. It is possible, of course. But, ideally, what you want is a door knob, too. The Creative Commons has done wonders for copyright IMHO. What about a family of similar staged protective instruments in the place of traditional patents? It seems Congress might have to get involved (Spaghetti Monster preserve us!), but perhaps via executive action the Patent Office could simply lend its imprimatur to new legal devices that guarantee openness. Could the EFF advocate for such a framework? The idea of defending openness seems very prudent in the current environment. However with the wrong kind of patent protections the FOSS community might wind up on its own doorstep locked out of the very house it built.
So what did the aristocracy do in those days? Many were wasters and drunks, although they knew the bankruptcy and shortness of such a life. They gambled. They intrigued. They fought. They screwed around. They did lots of hunting. Some worked in areas of interest. Some were genuinely religious. Some were good managers and organized their large farms. Some used their wealth to pursue science or art. Or patronize it. But they occupied themselves and tried not to overdo it. (Except the French who quite lost their heads.)
One does not see a classless world evolving in the coming robot age.. We are great apes wired to have status. We will find a way to stratify ourselves. The self starters and the gifted will make music and art -- cannot help themselves. Driven to it. . And some will gain status from it as they always have. Scientists, too, will plod on, with much help from smart machines. Einstein said computers were not very interesting because they did not ask questions. I suspect that no matter how smart machines get they probably won't ask meaningful ones. So we will need scientists -- if only to ask questions. But we may have to see about that. A lot of people, of course, will be happy to consume. To watch sports... and porn... and reality TV (Now there is an oxymoron for the morons.) And reality porn.
So how will society look? The holders of capital will do as they do now. Organize the disposition of production and consumption and distribution. They will decide where to build shopping centers and robot factories. So, at the top, where they are now and have been,we will have the wealthy. They will do what they have always done. Their 'work' will not change. They will own the bots. The priestly class of yore will be replaced by the computerists and roboticists. The machine tenders. Not everyone can do this, but it will be a far more widely spread ability. It is already happening. Even flacks and ad men are supposed to code. Feh! These cyber guys guys will have real work, lots of status, money and awesome sex appeal. Nerds are clearly enjoying more status than ever. Ten years ago not many girls would look at a guy wearing a computer on his head (there were a few) except to laugh.. Now he's the bad ass with the Google Glass on the red carpet. Anyway, I digress. Then, next level down, come the artists and other creative types. Next level down from that? There will be lots and lots of makers. And people will just make plastic choking hazards to trade and or sell. There will be a lot more yoga instructors and massage artists. Craft beer will be more popular in the future. MUCH more popular.
I think back to Ancient Rome where there were lots of slaves to do the farming and the drudgery. Thousands upon thousands of citizens were on the dole. Bloody sports were really popular. Then, at the bottom, as always there will be a percentage of people simply content to consume the food, clothes, music, and entertainment the machines and other people make while contributing little. They will get some support from the state, which should do its level best to educate and elevate them as well as placate them. In other words things won't change much.
Bee excretia anyone? Excretia, not excrement. There is a difference. More like bee vomit. By the way, I'll take any honey you don't want any more.
It is very interesting to see the negative reactions here to the prospect of eating these non-traditional insect foods. (In the West. Or perhaps I should I say "The North?") Anyway, such food aversions can be very powerful. People have died rather than eat survival foods like bugs and other bush tucker. Literally starving to death in the midst of plenty -- even when they are presented with the option by knowledgeable companions. As Spock would say: "Fascinating."
And, paradoxically, the arthropods we do eat are foul feeders. It is common knowledge that crabs and lobsters and their ilk eat sea-bottom carrion. Many insects (also arthropods of course) are vegetarians (take crickets). There are tribes in South America that think eating shrimp is disgusting (and with some justification), but who will scarf down a cricket with relish. There was a good upbeat article in the New Yorker some time ago on bug eating... Hmmm. Found the New Yorker citation, anyway. Paywalled so no link.
DEPT. OF GASTRONOMY GRUB BY DANA GOODYEAR,AUG 15, 2011 (P.38) ANNALS OF GASTRONOMY about entomophagy (eating insects). Insects were among the original specialty foods in the American gourmet marketplace...
I lived in Thailand for about five years and have eaten my share of bugs by choice. Toasted hoppers are very nice. And my particular favorite is a rich brown sauce made from rice bugs. I confess that for some time I thought it was made from peanuts. But once I found out it was made from big fat rice bugs I paused, shrugged, and continued to eat it.
I am not so fond of lizards... However, rural decorum has forced me to eat a few dishes of kow paht (fried rice) that included them. It is amazing how quickly one can adapt to new foods. Chocolate is notorious for its allowable inclusion of bug parts (as another poster has pointed out.). I have known this since boyhood. It never stopped me from eating a Hershey bar. The truth is pretty much everything that moves is edible. Plants, however, are a different matter. Many are highly toxic. Best to know what you are doing before tossing up a bush salad. My guess is that the "foraging" fad is going to kill a few people. They should stick to bugs. Much safer.
If a developer was up front about a distributed bitcoin mining scheme being baked into their software, Would some people go for it as an option to amortize, or even pay for, some useful application? Is anybody doing this already? I am wondering about the economics of this. How much does it cost per hour of mining on a modern reasonably energy efficient x86 box?
"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
what they seem to have discovered is that one and the same gene in each species can mutate in a different way and cause two different brain types. That is a single gene mutates rather than two separate and unique genes. From TFA:
"Because the human cerebral cortex is generally considered "special," some scientists have hypothesized that the genes that govern its development of cortical folds and furrows are also unique to humans..."
As evidenced by TSA's recent and uncharacteristically sensible decision to ignore pen knives and other little sharps the agency has reaffirmed that they only care about stuff that can down the aircraft. No one can hijack any more by threatening the life of another passenger or crew member because since 9/11 the response to such threats has shifted from compliance to defiance. Armed with a bow and arrow made from an "umbrella, hair dryer, socks, a leather belt and condoms." a would-be attacker would receive a hearty laugh and a face full of mace. Emergency landing to treat passenger wounded by umbrella shaft? Yes.
I dare you to try to visualize the weapon in question and keep a straight face.
Joking aside, a determined group of attackers could create a lot of chaos with or without crap bought in duty free. In the right hands even a pair of eyeglasses is lethal. Godfather III anyone? But with the flight deck firmly locked the bird is probably safe.
In modern use our mines are deployed to temporarily interdict a particular area in order to promote the objectives of a ground operation. Modern mines -- the ones the US uses - can be deactivated via timer or, I guess by now, an encrypted coded radio burst. Seventy two hours is a long time during a kinetic battle. That is a typical delay.
When I was at the big annual weapons show in Singapore many years ago I checked out various makes of mines. You had to ask. It was like porn. The vendors brought the catalogs out from under the counter. Nothing mine-like was on display. The Yugoslavians (Yes, THAT long ago.) made some of the sleaziest permanent types -- WMD in slow motion. These are used to pollute borders and terrorize and coral local populations. Lots of them in Afghanistan. Not ours. Next door in Tajikistan there is a big mine problem left over from their civil war.
As to helicopter gunships spraying mock ordinance over downtown Miami I say, "Tired." Now as to drones spraying mock ordinance over downtown Miami I say, "Wired."
I resemble very much being called a half wit, AC. And I have half a mind to tell you where to go. But I confess that when it comes to the American sheeple, you are sadly too right.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.
An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
The question is obvious. During a routine search at a sports event one of the TSA agents finds cannabis on your person? Of course at an airport they would contact law enforcement (happens all the time). Would they turn you over to the local authorities, who would give you back your legal weed. Or would you be turned over to the FBI?
Hyperbole aside, an expansion of the activities of this unpopular and relatively incompetent agency is unsettling to say the least. Most Americans would like them to disappear,. Not multiply. Feh!
Go up a few posts. It was opined that a solid-gold asteroid would be worth dragging back from space because sale of it would retrieve ten times the cost of the operation needed to do so. Somebody else pointed out that selling that much gold would depress the price and affect the profitability.
I got curious (read: I was bored) enough to see if selling 500 tonnes of gold would indeed depress the world market. Googled around a bit. And discovered that for some fairly obvious, as well as for some non-obvious, reasons it became clear that it would easily be enough to skew the market. And maybe even enough to 'correct' it from it's distorted and manipulated condition. I dug up an interesting blog entry by Krugman on the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
I could not easily find complete data for 2012, (odd in itself) but in 2011 just over 32,000 people died in car crashes. I think there will be an evolution towards driverless cars. The distracted generation will want their cars to drive for them. And I for one really want their cars to drive for them. Think of it. Each year ten times the number of people who died on 9/11 die in cars (or under them). Maybe we should declare war on Detroit. Oh, wait. It self destructed. Okay, Tokyo then. But you get my point. Higher levels of automated auto safety will save lives. Let's really put auto in the automobile. Of course you can have my Chevy pickup when you pry it from my cold dead hands. However that time may come sooner than later.
Many large corporations, including the entertainment industry, are using -- or are looking at using -- proactive strategies as part of their security playbook. There was an interesting report on NPR concerning this a few months back. Currently, deploying malware is, to all intents and purposes, simply illegal. As it should be. These guys want a self-defense avenue for deploying destructive or surveillance programs against their perceived enemies. IMHO our corrupt congress will -- sooner or later -- be bribed into letting them have their way.
YOYO. You're On Your Own.
Distros proliferate in order to broaden freedom of choice. This allows users to choose the OS that will optimize their hardware to their needs.
It is the difference between a tailored suit and an off-the-rack suit that comes in only three sizes. Here, the unique bundle of task-targeted, tested, compatible, packages on a given Linux distro might be constructed to make it appealing for a special purpose. The user can have a distro for audio production, video production. T.V watching, math, science education etc etc. ad infinitum.
But, if a user wants an all-around distro, he or she also has plenty to choose from, too. And the hardware they have might make all the difference in what they choose. Perhaps they want something lean and mean for an older piece of hardware (Damn Small). Or something handsome and easy to use for Aunt Matilda (Mint). Sometimes one distro just installs better "out of the box" on a particular piece of hardware than does another. This, for reasons known only to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and, maybe, Linus Torvolds. For example: Quirky old PCLinux OS installed sweetly and completely on an old box I was repurposing when little else in the Distro Watch top 20 would even complete an install. And nothing (except PC Linux OS) would see anything near all the hardware. (I did not feel like engaging in a Gentoo marathon. Okay?) So, I just jumped distros until I achieved the best result. I, personally, am glad that there are lots to choose from.
I am sure that Mr Shuttleworth would have loved the world to continue to coalesce around Ubuntu, but it didn't. I do not know from whence comes the idea that all the distros are in a competition to dominate. Or even that Linux is in a competition with the commercial software sector. But IMHO such an idea is antithetical to the underlying ethos of the FOSS movement. Only the corporate distros have any interest in dominating. And that is in the enterprise sphere. But, all in all they have behaved pretty well it seems to me -- at least for a pack of suits. (Not that they care what I think.) Paradoxically (or perhaps understandably) corporate support has been crucial to a lot of the activity in the FOSS movement, too. After all money talks. Has it always been positive activity? Uhhhh... Can we not go there? Please? It makes my head hurt. It is like the "One Country Two Systems" thing in China.
It's. Just. So. Complicated.
Now, from the general to the specific subject at hand. This Mageia distro seems interesting because the distro's reason to be appears to rest not so much in the product, but in the process. The developers are stressing transparent governance and development community cohesion. To my mind it is a cool and very promising approach. Having witnessed so many good projects disintegrate and then self destruct this seems to me like a great place to be coming from. And as many have pointed out Mandrake - Mandriva was a pretty good distro. I am planning to repurpose my old Pentium 4 box soon (RIP XP) and will look at Mangeia because, judging from the website and the ethical values it espouses, the distro will progress apace and probably be around for a good while.
Clearly.
am I not surprised? *Sigh*
My Norwegian bank issued me a chip and pin card. I like it. The waitress or the teller never touches my card. I put it in the terminal when I see the total I am being charged. I punch in the PIN and the card verifies with the bank and the term. prints a receipt. In a restaurant the server brings a wireless terminal to the table and I do the same thing. The protocol allows for a gratuity to be added. As long as no thug or dip looks over my shoulder and sees my PIN I fell pretty safe from fraud. I use this card all over the continent. My US cards work, but they are less secure and I get a nasty foreign transaction fee and a disadvantageous exchange rate. Chip and PIN rocks. Hard to believe consumers wearied of punching in a little PIN. Besides, for small purchases cash works. Near Field Communication payment is an idea whose time is yet to come. I do not want an experimental-stage NFC. It will be cool when all my products are fitted with rfid tags and my NFC payment fob is in my pocket. I walk out of the store with my basket, pause at a terminal to visually scan the inventory for which I am being charged (or not), confirm, then get the receipt beamed to my fob or smart phone. Until then the chip and pin is fine. I was wondering at the profusion of stainless steel wallets on Travel Smith. They were not all passport sized. Now I understand. It makes me wonder if my current chip and pin is NFC too. Feh! Makes me want to return to the good old days of cowrie shells.
"Well one good thing, anyway. At least the massive EMP from the penultimate nuclear holocaust didn't destroy the good Jazz because it was all on vinyl. We won't miss those smelly humans at all (And they tasted like dookey!) But, damn!, that Bill Evans cut was sublime. Slip out and spin it again, won't ya Babe? And then come back to the water and stroke my tentacle. Hmmmm?"
Mr. Lessig and his followers do much to promote the public good and the quality of life. Copyright was invented to promote the public good by protecting the interests of creative people for a limited time. Now, in today's Market Society, (As opposed to Market Economy) this once-useful legal tool has been perverted to make money in perpetuity for property holders. These owners are rarely the creative people who developed the culture. For example: At the beginning of the 20th century a copyright lasted 14 years. The American songbook was remixed into jazz in the 1920s. The musicians had the right to do so because tunes from the sheet music craze a couple of decades before had devolved into the public domain. And from a little later? Just have a listen to Art Tatum's 1939 Tea for Two, which was written in the 1920s.
Jazz is an awesome cultural invention adored by fans all over the world. But, now, if you want to re-imagine or cover Sir Paul's Yesterday you still have to pay him (or somebody.) Hasn't society rewarded Mr. McCartney enough? It's time his music was kicked loose. Really. It is. And maybe if he was not still raking it in from work he did in his 20s he would be stimulated to do something new that was up to snuff. I am not a freetard. But, like Mr. Lessig, I hate to see society robbed of its heritage. And the culture held hostage by corporate interests.
A reasonable copyright term helped foster in the Jazz Age. And that is a beautiful thing. A thousand years from now someone will say: "America. Hmmm. Isn't that the place jazz was invented?" And twenty thousand years from now some being will say: "Earth? Hmmmm. Isn't that the place where Jazz was invented?" The point is that all we have left of any civilization is its culture. No one remembers the politicians and the rich guys. Just the artists they usually cheated.
After the black death. Without knowing the book, however I cannot say when this engineering revolution took place in the middle agess. But on to my original post. While a bit tongue in cheek (or tongue on metal cheek). The point I was trying to make is that an economy can work fine with a large part of the labor being performed without pay. Slaves required maintenance in the form of sustenance (as will our future robot servos). Over time Roman slaves even got a few more rights. Somehow I doubt that the world economy will fall apart when robots do most everything. Hopefully, those in command will use the increased productivity of the coming machine age to continue to improve the lives of those who have little. I am actually hopeful. Access to information and learning opportunities increase geometrically with the expansion and penetration of the information network. Ramanujan found one math book and it propelled him into a sublime realm. Amazing things are happening with cheap smart phones in Africa.
When it comes to protecting FOSS openness it seems that patents are an imperfect tool to say the least. A patent is a legal lock. Typically one does not open doors with a lock only. It is possible, of course. But, ideally, what you want is a door knob, too. The Creative Commons has done wonders for copyright IMHO. What about a family of similar staged protective instruments in the place of traditional patents? It seems Congress might have to get involved (Spaghetti Monster preserve us!), but perhaps via executive action the Patent Office could simply lend its imprimatur to new legal devices that guarantee openness. Could the EFF advocate for such a framework? The idea of defending openness seems very prudent in the current environment. However with the wrong kind of patent protections the FOSS community might wind up on its own doorstep locked out of the very house it built.
So what did the aristocracy do in those days? Many were wasters and drunks, although they knew the bankruptcy and shortness of such a life. They gambled. They intrigued. They fought. They screwed around. They did lots of hunting. Some worked in areas of interest. Some were genuinely religious. Some were good managers and organized their large farms. Some used their wealth to pursue science or art. Or patronize it. But they occupied themselves and tried not to overdo it. (Except the French who quite lost their heads.)
One does not see a classless world evolving in the coming robot age.. We are great apes wired to have status. We will find a way to stratify ourselves. The self starters and the gifted will make music and art -- cannot help themselves. Driven to it. . And some will gain status from it as they always have. Scientists, too, will plod on, with much help from smart machines. Einstein said computers were not very interesting because they did not ask questions. I suspect that no matter how smart machines get they probably won't ask meaningful ones. So we will need scientists -- if only to ask questions. But we may have to see about that. A lot of people, of course, will be happy to consume. To watch sports... and porn... and reality TV (Now there is an oxymoron for the morons.) And reality porn.
So how will society look? The holders of capital will do as they do now. Organize the disposition of production and consumption and distribution. They will decide where to build shopping centers and robot factories. So, at the top, where they are now and have been,we will have the wealthy. They will do what they have always done. Their 'work' will not change. They will own the bots. The priestly class of yore will be replaced by the computerists and roboticists. The machine tenders. Not everyone can do this, but it will be a far more widely spread ability. It is already happening. Even flacks and ad men are supposed to code. Feh! These cyber guys guys will have real work, lots of status, money and awesome sex appeal. Nerds are clearly enjoying more status than ever. Ten years ago not many girls would look at a guy wearing a computer on his head (there were a few) except to laugh.. Now he's the bad ass with the Google Glass on the red carpet. Anyway, I digress. Then, next level down, come the artists and other creative types. Next level down from that? There will be lots and lots of makers. And people will just make plastic choking hazards to trade and or sell. There will be a lot more yoga instructors and massage artists. Craft beer will be more popular in the future. MUCH more popular.
I think back to Ancient Rome where there were lots of slaves to do the farming and the drudgery. Thousands upon thousands of citizens were on the dole. Bloody sports were really popular. Then, at the bottom, as always there will be a percentage of people simply content to consume the food, clothes, music, and entertainment the machines and other people make while contributing little. They will get some support from the state, which should do its level best to educate and elevate them as well as placate them. In other words things won't change much.
"Now. Bite my shiny metal ass."
You learn something new every day.
Got milk? Or should I say: "Have you some glandular secretion of a lower mammal?"
Oh these humans. The things they eat... And drink. Ha ha ha.
Bee excretia anyone? Excretia, not excrement. There is a difference. More like bee vomit. By the way, I'll take any honey you don't want any more.
It is very interesting to see the negative reactions here to the prospect of eating these non-traditional insect foods. (In the West. Or perhaps I should I say "The North?") Anyway, such food aversions can be very powerful. People have died rather than eat survival foods like bugs and other bush tucker. Literally starving to death in the midst of plenty -- even when they are presented with the option by knowledgeable companions. As Spock would say: "Fascinating."
And, paradoxically, the arthropods we do eat are foul feeders. It is common knowledge that crabs and lobsters and their ilk eat sea-bottom carrion. Many insects (also arthropods of course) are vegetarians (take crickets). There are tribes in South America that think eating shrimp is disgusting (and with some justification), but who will scarf down a cricket with relish. There was a good upbeat article in the New Yorker some time ago on bug eating... Hmmm. Found the New Yorker citation, anyway. Paywalled so no link.
DEPT. OF GASTRONOMY GRUB BY DANA GOODYEAR ,AUG 15, 2011 (P.38) ANNALS OF GASTRONOMY about entomophagy (eating insects). Insects were among the original specialty foods in the American gourmet marketplace...
I lived in Thailand for about five years and have eaten my share of bugs by choice. Toasted hoppers are very nice. And my particular favorite is a rich brown sauce made from rice bugs. I confess that for some time I thought it was made from peanuts. But once I found out it was made from big fat rice bugs I paused, shrugged, and continued to eat it.
I am not so fond of lizards... However, rural decorum has forced me to eat a few dishes of kow paht (fried rice) that included them. It is amazing how quickly one can adapt to new foods. Chocolate is notorious for its allowable inclusion of bug parts (as another poster has pointed out.). I have known this since boyhood. It never stopped me from eating a Hershey bar. The truth is pretty much everything that moves is edible. Plants, however, are a different matter. Many are highly toxic. Best to know what you are doing before tossing up a bush salad. My guess is that the "foraging" fad is going to kill a few people. They should stick to bugs. Much safer.
If a developer was up front about a distributed bitcoin mining scheme being baked into their software, Would some people go for it as an option to amortize, or even pay for, some useful application? Is anybody doing this already? I am wondering about the economics of this. How much does it cost per hour of mining on a modern reasonably energy efficient x86 box?
"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
Go here for more
what they seem to have discovered is that one and the same gene in each species can mutate in a different way and cause two different brain types. That is a single gene mutates rather than two separate and unique genes. From TFA:
"Because the human cerebral cortex is generally considered "special," some scientists have hypothesized that the genes that govern its development of cortical folds and furrows are also unique to humans..."
Apparently these scientists hypothesized wrong.
I for one welcome our new rodent overlords.
As evidenced by TSA's recent and uncharacteristically sensible decision to ignore pen knives and other little sharps the agency has reaffirmed that they only care about stuff that can down the aircraft. No one can hijack any more by threatening the life of another passenger or crew member because since 9/11 the response to such threats has shifted from compliance to defiance. Armed with a bow and arrow made from an "umbrella, hair dryer, socks, a leather belt and condoms." a would-be attacker would receive a hearty laugh and a face full of mace. Emergency landing to treat passenger wounded by umbrella shaft? Yes.
I dare you to try to visualize the weapon in question and keep a straight face.
Joking aside, a determined group of attackers could create a lot of chaos with or without crap bought in duty free. In the right hands even a pair of eyeglasses is lethal. Godfather III anyone? But with the flight deck firmly locked the bird is probably safe.
As in when Moe Howard says, "I'll moiderize ya, ya imbecile." Or is it Curly who says, moiderize?" I forget.
In modern use our mines are deployed to temporarily interdict a particular area in order to promote the objectives of a ground operation. Modern mines -- the ones the US uses - can be deactivated via timer or, I guess by now, an encrypted coded radio burst. Seventy two hours is a long time during a kinetic battle. That is a typical delay.
When I was at the big annual weapons show in Singapore many years ago I checked out various makes of mines. You had to ask. It was like porn. The vendors brought the catalogs out from under the counter. Nothing mine-like was on display. The Yugoslavians (Yes, THAT long ago.) made some of the sleaziest permanent types -- WMD in slow motion. These are used to pollute borders and terrorize and coral local populations. Lots of them in Afghanistan. Not ours. Next door in Tajikistan there is a big mine problem left over from their civil war.
As to helicopter gunships spraying mock ordinance over downtown Miami I say, "Tired." Now as to drones spraying mock ordinance over downtown Miami I say, "Wired."
A gem from the not too distant past
We should not forget about the plutonium.
I resemble very much being called a half wit, AC. And I have half a mind to tell you where to go. But I confess that when it comes to the American sheeple, you are sadly too right.
TSA gets a pass by most Americans.
Ben Franklin said it so nicely. His exact quote is as follows:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.
An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
The question is obvious. During a routine search at a sports event one of the TSA agents finds cannabis on your person? Of course at an airport they would contact law enforcement (happens all the time). Would they turn you over to the local authorities, who would give you back your legal weed. Or would you be turned over to the FBI?
Hyperbole aside, an expansion of the activities of this unpopular and relatively incompetent agency is unsettling to say the least. Most Americans would like them to disappear,. Not multiply. Feh!
Go up a few posts. It was opined that a solid-gold asteroid would be worth dragging back from space because sale of it would retrieve ten times the cost of the operation needed to do so. Somebody else pointed out that selling that much gold would depress the price and affect the profitability. I got curious (read: I was bored) enough to see if selling 500 tonnes of gold would indeed depress the world market. Googled around a bit. And discovered that for some fairly obvious, as well as for some non-obvious, reasons it became clear that it would easily be enough to skew the market. And maybe even enough to 'correct' it from it's distorted and manipulated condition. I dug up an interesting blog entry by Krugman on the topic.