'What have you done last week?' They may say they wrote a paper on this or that. So I tell them, 'Oh, you wrote a paper, and you got an A? Would it bother you if somebody could just take that paper and get an A too? Would that bug you?
No, because the educational system is a sham in this country.
Then, I return the question to Hilary "Swank" Rosen: What have you done lately, other than sit on your ass and collect money? What can you produce that no other human being can? What makes you special enough to keep you from, say, gas-pump-attendance work?
Nothing.
See, there's the difference. Whores are concerned about the money (a la your Lars Ulriches), whereas artists are concerned about the music (a la your Mobys and your Sheryl Crows).
It's easy to figure out. Follow the money. When Hilary Rosen puts an album of music out, I will wholeheartedly listen to whatever the hell Hilary "Swank" Rosen has to say about it. I don't listen to whores whimpering about lost profits.
Anybody wish to enlighten one of the unwashed, low-bandwidth folks as to what normal range on an 802.11 is? The article claims a 70% range area increase, effectively a 30% distance increase, etc., but gives no standard.
Essentially what a PDA is supposed to be: Yer Little Buddy.
Benefits of such a system are obvious: Never forget a face, never miss an appointment, never lose a note again. But what are the drawbacks?
Humans acclimate themselves to subtle stimuli; eventually this thing will -- because it might respond to pulse increases, pupil dilation, etc. -- measure your very emotional responses and respond in kind. This would produce a feedback loop. Do you really want to have such a thing tied intimately to your mental processes?
Further, if this is a device that ends up connected (which it would undoubtedly end up being, what with the rampant need to surf), they will invariably become hacked in some fashion. At first, this means lost/hijacked data; however, in the long run, there's no reason that the emotional feedback element couldn't be directly manipulated. Need to steal someone from a rival company? Make them fall in love with their interviewer, and let their hormones do your dirty work. Make them take the wrong turns to work so often in the morning that they start to think it's "fated".
People's perceptions are easy to mold, especially when they don't know any better.
Hey, I'd be first in line to buy such a rig. I won't pretend there aren't any possible problems, though. Everything is give-and-take. Pay attention to the take.
You are of the interesting view that one of our political parties is somehow different from the other.
However, I have never seen any evidence to that end. I see a lot of whimpering, and I see a lot of old people pretending to have good ideas, and I see a lot of clapping and speeches.
I have not seen any leaders in political office in my lifetime. I was born in 1979.
Back to the point: It's called kingmaking. In games, if there are two equally skilled opponents who are superior to all the rest, they cancel out. Who is left to determine the game's outcome? The next most powerful player. The kingmaker. He decides who wears the crown; so the crown had best treat him well.
Senator Disney and whoever might run against him are both on one side: The opposition. You just have to pick the lesser of two evils until some good shows up. That's how the game is played.
The reality of it is more depressing than your convenient fantasy; the Republicans and Democrats are in the same party.
Slashdot Mirror
"Like on the X-Files. ROSWELL STYLE!"
Just because Senator Bumblehead thinks something is too small to hurt the shuttle doesn't make it so.
No, because the educational system is a sham in this country.
Then, I return the question to Hilary "Swank" Rosen: What have you done lately, other than sit on your ass and collect money? What can you produce that no other human being can? What makes you special enough to keep you from, say, gas-pump-attendance work?
Nothing.
See, there's the difference. Whores are concerned about the money (a la your Lars Ulriches), whereas artists are concerned about the music (a la your Mobys and your Sheryl Crows).
It's easy to figure out. Follow the money. When Hilary Rosen puts an album of music out, I will wholeheartedly listen to whatever the hell Hilary "Swank" Rosen has to say about it. I don't listen to whores whimpering about lost profits.
What's the usual range?
Benefits of such a system are obvious: Never forget a face, never miss an appointment, never lose a note again. But what are the drawbacks?
Humans acclimate themselves to subtle stimuli; eventually this thing will -- because it might respond to pulse increases, pupil dilation, etc. -- measure your very emotional responses and respond in kind. This would produce a feedback loop. Do you really want to have such a thing tied intimately to your mental processes?
Further, if this is a device that ends up connected (which it would undoubtedly end up being, what with the rampant need to surf), they will invariably become hacked in some fashion. At first, this means lost/hijacked data; however, in the long run, there's no reason that the emotional feedback element couldn't be directly manipulated. Need to steal someone from a rival company? Make them fall in love with their interviewer, and let their hormones do your dirty work. Make them take the wrong turns to work so often in the morning that they start to think it's "fated".
People's perceptions are easy to mold, especially when they don't know any better.
Hey, I'd be first in line to buy such a rig. I won't pretend there aren't any possible problems, though. Everything is give-and-take. Pay attention to the take.
However, I have never seen any evidence to that end. I see a lot of whimpering, and I see a lot of old people pretending to have good ideas, and I see a lot of clapping and speeches.
I have not seen any leaders in political office in my lifetime. I was born in 1979.
Back to the point: It's called kingmaking. In games, if there are two equally skilled opponents who are superior to all the rest, they cancel out. Who is left to determine the game's outcome? The next most powerful player. The kingmaker. He decides who wears the crown; so the crown had best treat him well.
Senator Disney and whoever might run against him are both on one side: The opposition. You just have to pick the lesser of two evils until some good shows up. That's how the game is played.
The reality of it is more depressing than your convenient fantasy; the Republicans and Democrats are in the same party.
If you're uneducated, I suggest you get a copy and read it. If you're merely jealous, I suggest you move.