As has been noted in other comments, there is plenty to be depressed about in the United States (and elsewhere). In fact, to be content is to be oblivious and fortunate to have adequate resources. I too have fought to keep my child off of medication (a faulty ADHD diagnosis in this case), and so I can totally appreciate what people are struggling with. Having to deal with systemic incompetence in psychology can be very distracting, especially considering all of the other concerns normal people typically have to deal with.
It takes ample energy to train competent psychologists, and unfortunately that is seen as being a luxury in our current economic environment. We've effectively had 40 years of an energy crisis (often denied) with no end in sight, and unless this condition is dealt with, the problems are very likely to continue. Malnutrition (obesity) is widespread as well (and growing), and this can be largely attributed to poor quality nutrients (cheap carbohydrates). As people continue to lose their jobs (minus more risky and indebting "stimulus packages"), we seem to have little to look forward to as the economic system continues to contract.
There is a way out of this mess. A very promising, but not very well-known or understood, form of nuclear energy production has been largely ignored for the better part of those past 40 years, and it is long past due to pursue agressive development of it. That technology has been discussed in this forum (Slashdot), and it remains by far the most promising energy solution we have. Unfortunately, treating the widespread fear of nuclear energy is not an easy task, and that fear continues to hamper promotion of this solution.
The anti-nuclear movement needs to concede on our need to develop sources of electrical generation that will afford a great net energy ratio. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors promise to dramatically reduce the cost of building plants, enabling a scaling capability that no other energy solution can match (we could have thousands of reactors within decades). The high temperatures at which these reactors operate remove the need for water cooling, thereby safeguarding our rivers, aquifers, and shorelines. The inherent safety features of this design (above a certain temperature, the fuel expands checking the nuclear reactions) means that we'll never have another meltdown. The excess neutrons produced in the core facilitate the elimination of long-lived radio-toxic isotopes, reducing the waste problem to about 300 years (down from about 10,000). The potentially low cost of electrical production (through a massive improvement in efficiency) will enable a revolution of the chemical industry, allowing for cheap synthetic carbon-neutral fuels and fertilizer, and we'll be able to sequester enough carbon to return our atmosphere to a pre-industrial state.
This innovative machine can provide us the hope that we need to transform our society from the sorry excuse that it currently is, to the potentially great one that we all know it can be. It is our escape pod from this depressing and reinforcing cycle of decay, confusion and division, to one of renewal and political unity.
The economic situation is not going to improve until we solve the Energy Crisis. We are sitting on the solution, Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors, a Green Nuclear technology that has the potential to radically transform our society for the better, but we need to aggressively pursue its commercialization immediately.
To summarize, this technology was already prototyped back in the 60s at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, so it definitely works. What remains involves system integration, scaling, interfacing with carbon collection systems and fuel production facilities, cost reduction, updating materials, and configuration exploration (among other things). What we will end up with will be far more affordable, safer, efficient, flexible, and scalable than what is currently available. Imagine complete energy independence, ample social services for everyone, massive carbon sequestration, and super cheap carbon-neutral synthetic fuels (check out Green Freedom).
We only require the will to become our own savior. If we continue our current course of confusion and division, we get the opportunity to watch the demise of Democracy and Freedom.
Yeah, there's a couple, but I think the best design is the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (Molten Salt Reactor)- it's super efficient, inherently safe, affordable, scalable, and very flexible. It's potentially so cost-efficient that we could synthesize carbon-neutral fuels for all of our transportation needs, and definitely for less than $2/gal (and longer term, significantly less than that). The high operating temperatures mean that water cooling would not be required, so it safeguards our shorelines, rivers, and aquifers. This isn't a theoretical design, as it has already been shown to be feasible by a prototype built in the 60s (the program was shut down in the 70s because it competed with the uranium/plutonium fuel cycle, and it didn't easily produce plutonium for weapons). Really, this is amazing technology for which I believe the "Green Nuclear" label is very appropriate, and the anti-nuclear movement ought to take a very close look at this.
In fact, "farming" energy through renewables is a terrible choice by comparison, and will not be able to generate the cheap energy we need in order to sequester the CO2 that threatens Civilization and end the water shortage (via desalination). China already announced this year that they are pursuing this technology (something the US pioneered the development of), so nearly everyone else in the developed world is lagging in the Thorium Race. I guess after another decade or so of suffering, we'll just go further in debt as we try to buy Chinese-made LFTRs.
This could be our greatest moment, commercializing perhaps the greatest machine ever conceived, ending our economic problems, revitalizing our manufacturing base, ending poverty- so much is possible with cheap energy. Are we instead going to go the way of the Amish, shunning such potential out of fear and ignorance?
Gates is right about the importance of nuclear, but our current technology sucks. Even the latest commercial designs leave much to be desired in terms of safety, flexibility, scalability, and efficiency.
Gates is behind the Traveling Wave Reactor, but a lot of research would be necessary to get that idea working, and we need something sooner and more scalable.
Thorium in a Molten Salt Reactor (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor- LFTR) should be our energy technology of choice. It has already been proven to be feasible (a prototype was built back in the 60s), and the research necessary to build a commercial version would be minimal. China is already pursuing this promising course, and we could join in the Thorium Race by pumping in say $10 billion or more (if we're serious) to take our society into a new era. Doing so would go a very long way towards solving many of the economic and social problems that currently have us deadlocked- so many things come down to the availability of energy.
This is our Green Nuclear solution, and it would allow us to build the society that we dream about with abundant services for everyone, but not unless we reform our attitudes away from fossil fuels or trying to "farm" our energy, which has kept us pre-occupied for some 40 years. It's time to wake up and get moving!
I believe that if we had a more accurate picture of the consequences of trying to move to expensive energy-diffuse sources (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, biofuels, etc), that we'd be thinking twice about our aversion to nuclear fission. The Green Party (of which I am a member) imagines a renewable future, and their platform explicitly forbids all nuclear development (including fusion). I think this is a disastrous and useless policy: it avoids technology best suited for drastically reducing waste by converting it into fuel (imagine radio-toxicity reduced to mere hundreds of years as opposed to thousands- the disposal problem essentially becomes a non-issue).
This is not a fantasy. Foundations for this technology were developed back in the 60's at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and today we call this the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR or even Molten Salt Reactor). The advantages are numerous: inherent stability (no meltdown possible), abundant fuel (thorium is 3-4 times as abundant as uranium), low start-up requirements (less than a couple tons of fissile material is needed- critical for scalability), proliferation resistant (U-233 is always contaminated with radioactive U-232), more than 100 times as efficient as the current fuel cycle, drastically reduced waste due to efficiency, considerably lower costs due to many factors, especially safety, and the list goes on. We need to be asking ourselves why we are not aggressively pursuing this promising technology. Cheap abundant energy is our best choice for both securing our future and dramatically reducing the prevalence of poverty throughout the rest of the world. The ability for our economy to provide the services we need is utterly dependent on energy.
In case you are not convinced that this path is necessary to avoid the most dire consequences of global economic collapse, I suggest checking out:
Our energy future is not a trivial concern. If we make the right choices, we will revitalize our economy, avoid the worst consequences of our ignorance, eliminate poverty, and live comfortably for thousands, if not millions of more years. Can you think that far ahead?
Practically speaking, what has relativity done for us? Or plate tectonics, for that matter? We still have catastrophic earthquakes, and we still can't time-warp with wormholes. How long have these theories been around now? Sure, they may be useful down the road, but probably not within the next decade or two. And evolution? Don't get me started on the practical applications of pondering our origins and the immediate tangible rewards thereof.
Theory provides the foundation for scientific disciplines. Einstein's early breakthroughs eventually led to the computing revolution. Plate tectonics is an integral part of geology, and probably helped petroleum companies make plenty of discoveries. Evolution is the basis of biology today, and understanding our ecological impact on the environment would be considerably more difficult without it. Without these ideas, there is practically no understanding of the universe that we live in- we could have all of this data, but it would make no sense.
And speaking of the obesity epidemic, heart disease, and whatnot... How many of these phenomena were caused directly by "scientific breakthroughs"? It could be (and has been) argued that artificial sweeteners, one such breakthrough, have actually contributed significantly to the obesity epidemic. There can be little doubt that our mostly sedentary lifestyles directly contribute to obesity as well as heart disease, and how much do you think we would sit around without our modern technology? And while we may be more aware of the world we live in now, how much of it have we destroyed or defiled with our science? (See also: DDT, plastics, killer bees.)
It is rather difficult to make any kind of coherent argument without knowing considerably more about your topic. Am I to believe that reading books, since one is technically sedentary while reading, contributes to fat accumulation? Particular nutrients (carbohydrates) break down easily into glucose, which drives insulin secretion, which regulates fat accumulation.
Here is Taubes' Berkeley lecture from 2007, hopefully you'll find it edifying:
Don't get me wrong, the quest for knowledge is a noble one. We have learned how to treat many diseases, feed more people, squeeze ever more people onto a planet that can barely support them, and even look for other planets that may be our only hope of continued existence once we've finished this one off. But human beings are ill-prepared to handle the knowledge we seek. We learn how to string hydrocarbons together, and what do we make? Styrofoam! We learn how to launch satellites, and what fills our exosphere? Space junk. We learn how to split atoms, and what's the first thing we make? Yeah.
The misuse of knowledge is a very old problem, and it will not go away by putting our head in the sand. We must become considerably smarter if we're going to use technology safely.
I must admit that I am very confused by your post. Are you trying to say that people do not experience hallucinations?
No, what I'm saying is that every person would go through this transition where they would have auditory/visual hallucinations, and its clear that not everyone at the time, centuries ago, did.
I do not believe that Jaynes' theory implies that exactly. As I understand it, there are particular social conditions that were once widespread that encouraged hallucinatory experiences. I would expect people to still experience hallucinations today, and they do: imaginary childhood "friends", dead relatives, and "god".
but I haven't seen anything that can be used to dismiss it today
I have, see the following;
Block, N. (1981). Review of Julian Jayne's Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the
Bicameral Mind. Cognition and Brain Theory
Implying that consciousness is a cultural construct?!
I believe Ned Block's criticism was that culture somehow changed to reflect what humans were doing all along. With what we understand about the role of language in thought, this now looks like nonsense. Broadly speaking, yes, consciousness is a cultural construct, but so is agriculture, and the Internet.
Asaad G, Shapiro B. What about the bicameral mind? Am J Psychiatry 1987
Dennett, Daniel (1986). "Julian Jaynes's Software Archeology". Canadian Psychology
That auditory hallucinations played such a major role in human human mind and history is somewhat difficult to believe.
An audio hallucination sounds just like the real thing to the brain. It can be pretty mysterious if you experience it, and do not know what it is. I do not find it at all difficult to accept that a group of people could adopt a "useful" interpretation of such an experience, such as attributing it to "god" or some other relation. In fact, I've met people who currently have these experiences, and attribute them to "ghosts" or "god" or whatever. It would seem that such talk is readily dismissed as nonsense. I tend to have some respect for the experiences of others, though perhaps not their interpretations.
Though I have been quite a fan of Dennett over the years, I am not familiar with his latest views, if they have in fact changed.
As for the transition from a bicameral world to the one we inhabit today, Jaynes discusses his idea in detail, perhaps you've forgotten it?
Well if your talking about religion, schizophrenia and the general need for external authority in decision-making as being the "left overs" of bicameralism, I would argue schizophrenia is a real chemical imbalance that has nothing to do with religion, but might have more in common with creative genius, http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/byrd.html
I do not find "a real chemical imbalance" to be very illuminating, even if it does imply a neurotransmitter deficiency. There are a few interesting associations with schizophrenia, but Jaynes proposes a far more useful way of looking at the condition.
And a need for external authority in decision-making, that's not a real strong argument in itself, as there are plenty of other reasons for this from even an evolutionary perspective.
I do not understand this criticism at all, please elaborate.
I must admit that I am very confused by your post. Are you trying to say that people do not experience hallucinations? Browsing the relevant scientific literature will show you that the phenomena is alive and well. There are certainly many questions that arise with Jaynes' theory (as with all great theories), but I haven't seen anything that can be used to dismiss it today. As for the transition from a bicameral world to the one we inhabit today, Jaynes discusses his idea in detail, perhaps you've forgotten it?
How well do you understand major scientific breakthroughs like Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and Relativity?
Right now part of the scientific community is buzzing with discussion of this idea of Diseases of Civilization. The problem is an old one, but recently science writer Gary Taubes has taken a stab at sorting out the confusion. His book was first published almost three years ago, and conservative estimates expect social changes in a decade or so. Considering the widespread concern over the Obesity Epidemic, heart disease, and whatnot, I would hope we could change things sooner than that. You could get a jump on this if you get into the science, but I suppose the biochemistry and social history is way too much trouble for most people.
I grew up in a Christian environment, and the only way that I have found to avoid cognitive dissonance is to adopt the view that the universe is understandable. So I examine religious experience as a series of related phenomena.
A common form of religious experience involves groups of people gathering together to sing, and to listen to some appointed person that performs motivational-type monologues, often intertwined with narration. Extra-curricular study of religious texts is strongly encouraged, so the central memes are reinforced.
The human brain is divided into semi-symmetrical hemispheres, with the left usually being dominate with speech. Imagine the individual moving through environments that are either unsafe or safe, the organism defending itself or opening itself up for influence. The religious context is one of safety (or at least where the participants defenses are lowered), and I believe from a meme standpoint, also one of suggestibility (to use a computer metaphor, programmability). Split-brain observations (see Michael Gazzaniga or Roger Sperry) have given rise to Dual Brain Theory, so under this paradigm we might suppose that each hemisphere has a semi-separate emotional experience, and consequently different memories of those experiences. Interestingly, dolphins in the wild appear to alternate which hemisphere is sleeping/functioning, with conditions varying from safe (captivity- both hemispheres can sleep), to dangerous (swift current- rapid cycling of hemispheres). Now try and imagine Dissociative Identity Disorder and Schizophrenia within this model.
So, "god" exists, but is actually just the non-dominant hemisphere programmed in a religious environment. The great psychologist Julian Jaynes put together a fascinating theory in his influential The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, and it remains a classic in psychology more than three decades after its original publication. Religion would be an evolutionary adaptation to larger tribes, made possible by agriculture. And Jaynes' ideas would not seem so radical if the field of psychology kept within the same vein of understanding pioneered by William James and Dr. Bois Sidis (it was however sidetracked by followers of Freud, and later Skinner). One of his most important works was The Psychology of Suggestion (1898).
So, science is definitely not religion. And we need to figure this communication problem out very soon, because a "perfect storm" of crises is upon us and our old tricks of technologically accommodating a mentality that believes that useful energy is infinite or that growth is inherently good has come to an end. To grasp the historical significance of not coping adequately with this mentality, all one has to do is look at the great disasters of the 20th century, beginning with WWII.
Apple has produced a device in both hardware and software that exceeds in areas of form factor, performance, and functionality. The size is comparable to a magazine and fairly lightweight at 1.5-1.6 pounds. The interface is intuitive and very responsive, and it functions pretty much all day. Apple's mature app-store and the device's elegance are encouraging the morphing of the computing landscape. The iPad will likely usher in the post-Flash web. The Internet has been waiting for this device for about 15 years. This is the dawn of a new era of computing, and those tablets that you mentioned were just the prologue.
Sure, there are competitors (JooJoo, HP Slate, Dell, Acer, etc.), but they fail in form factor, interface, simplicity, longevity, expandability, or responsiveness. When Google and Microsoft get their act together, we'll finally see some real competition, but they'll be minor players fighting over what is left of the market.
In the meantime, naysayers will see that neither cameras nor Flash will be necessary for success, but 'fun' is. Cameras will likely be an important and integral feature to appear in future iterations.
When a new artifact appears that is so well designed that its likeness becomes ubiquitous, what do we call that? It doesn't matter that there were similar things before that pioneered the artifact-space, they didn't have the features to succeed. We should be glad that the bar is being set so high with the iPad. As with the iPhone, alternatives will exist, but Google still hasn't figured out the app-store, and Microsoft is just now figuring out the touch interface. This is a huge indication of how far ahead Apple is in their thinking. It is the very definition of visionary- like Google with search. It is as if up to that point everyone else was trying to make due with the current technology, hacking away one little piece at a time, banging about in the dark, groping for a tiny bit of success. Will the JooJoo or Slate prove to be as useful, elegant, and fun to use?
In just a few years, these devices will be very low-margin products that will be in the price range of far more of us (less than US$100), the batteries will likely cycle a magnitude more, they'll be better for us and the environment, we'll be able to make good use of them outdoors, and it'll be a special occasion when we leave our bloody pads behind.
As for Flash, in all the years that I've used it on Linux, Mac, and Windows, it has been among the slowest and least reliable software. I banish thee to the deepest abyss of cold space, never again to entertain the gravity well of a sentient's dust speck!
There is some scientific disagreement over the nature of fat accumulation (consider Gary Taubes landmark book Good Calories, Bad Calories), and I would think that this plays an important role in how the culture views the qualities of various foods. Furthermore, as has been mentioned in other posts, TV ads are designed to affect those who watch them. It is non-trivial to resist the sophisticated suggestions (see Boris Sidis' The Psychology of Suggestion 1898) that vulnerable people encounter in broadcast media.
Maybe one of the central problems is that these disciplines actually need to be the same? We lack a unified theory of psychology that is evolutionary and ecological in nature, where the basis of the individual is rooted within the group, or tribe. The problems our civilization now face, where the needs of our economic system depend upon growth, contradict the necessity of developing an adaptation to live within the limitations of our ecology. Our current systems of law and history are in flux between an older religious mentality that stresses authority, and a newer one that explores the limits of scientific thinking. The inability of leadership to handle the complexity of the current crisis should be sensed by most of the population, even if they cannot properly articulate it in words. The popular culture has long explored dramatic themes of an apocalyptic future (usually involving nuclear annihilation), and I would guess that this is an expression of massive social anxiety.
The role of deception and economics in facilitating war (i.e. Gulf of Tonkin & The Vietnam War, Chamberlain's 3-Bloc system & pre-WWII Germany, 9/11) remains largely unexplored in popular history, which further exasperates communication problems when intellectuals try to discuss the real world.
Confirmation bias is incredibly widespread, and modern practitioners of older paradigms fail to address the critical short-comings of their views. The classic example goes back the the Copernican Revolution regarding whether the Sun orbits the Earth, or vice-versa. A modern example relates to the Obesity Epidemic. How many nutritionists have seriously considered the scientific implications of Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories? I believe Richard Rhodes called it the most important book on diet and nutrition in the past 100 years!
Psychologists need a much better paradigm if they are going to seriously contribute to solving our current crisis.
I have no insider contacts and have heard no details, but if I were to guess what the PS4 is going to look like in 2011(?) (just by glancing at the technology coming down the pipe), I'd venture the following:
32nm 4-5 Ghz Cell processor with 4-6 PPUs and 32-40 SPUs (actual numbers with cache and load store sizes would, of course, be determined via simulation)
Consider that the current Cell can theoretically perform ~200 gflops, while current Intel multi-core chips are still ~50 gflops.
Throw in the latest technology from Rambus, maybe that's XDR2? Previously they were selected based on their per-pin bandwidth and their ability to keep Cell well fed.
Include the latest design from Nvidia, maybe that's a GT300 or GT400 derivative.
I'd expect 1-2 gigs of XDR2 for Cell, and maybe 1 gig of GDDR5 for the GPU.
I would not expect the console to cost as much (relatively, considering inflation) as the PS3 at launch, and the performance leap will not be as great as it was from PS2 to PS3.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the dominant console cycle for the past few decades has been about 5 years. Microsoft released the 360 four years after the original Xbox probably for two primary reasons: 1) losses associated with the manufacture of the Xbox, and 2) to get the jump on Sony. The cost of that strategy has been record-setting poor quality, and they have had to compensate with a $1 billion 3-year limited warranty replacement/refurbishment system to stay in the game. So far from their current market share of about 30% (if one includes the Wii) or 60% (if one only includes the PS3), they are still very much in the game, but I wonder about the long-term effect on customer loyalty. Maybe I am completely wrong here in questioning this aspect of their business, and we should look as this whole RRoD (and E74) experience with reverence?
Re: technology and costs
As the videogame medium contains a very significant technical element, it is probably prudent to consider where performance is heading for the next generation. Realism as style in this medium has been very influential affecting everything from real-time ambient lighting, physics-based animation, precise collision detection, industrial design in modelling, and detailed, organic entity design. All of this detail can make for a more involving experience, and I believe it is essential for maturing the medium. The market for games has grown significantly, and so it makes a lot of sense that the industrial systems that produce films (with all those producers, directors, writers, actors, designers, and expert consultants) will also move into the creation of videogames, which of course carries with it significantly increased costs. The console as a device for creating these virtual experiences should provide as much capability as possible, as efficiently as possible. Currently the hardware designs most suited to processing the vast amounts of data required for constructing these virtual worlds involve many cores coordinating access to a very fat bus. Sony has overwhelmingly demonstrated that they understand these relationships, and appear to be set to launch a low-cost version of the PS3 sometime this year that will probably give them parity in the marketplace with their competitors.
I expect backwards compatibility to be more important for the next generation, especially considering the increased investment in software and services. I'd be surprised if any current player can again afford to start from scratch. As others have mentioned, Microsoft is likely to launch first probably in 2011, with Sony not too far behind. I believe Nintendo sees themselves as more of a toy company, and so occupy a different part of the market, but will still probably follow the 5-year-cycle.
Re: Motion control
Sony is obviously positioning themselves to both relate to the market that Nintendo created, and to offer a new experience to their customer base. Microsoft is attempting to break new ground by creating something entirely different, but I am not so sure that their technology gives them an advantage that Sony cannot largely replicate with some clever software, their motion and PSEye peripherals.
Re: OnLine
OnLive is interesting as the Cloud Computing/Timeshare model for gaming, but of course it depends on some pretty wide, low-latency pipes (which most of us can expect at some point in the future). It could offer a unique MMO experience where thousands of users could be in one shared virtual environment, but it is unclear whether this will be a compelling experience any time in the near future. OnLive's suitability for any serious gaming of course comes down to the latency and image quality issues, and I question whether this is a viable business in the near-term. But of course, I have not seen the demos, and I am not an investor, but I doubt any of the other console players are seriously concerned as of yet. When this model becomes viable, what prevents the other players from doing the same? Or will they have some arrangement with OnLive's service?
If we are going to challenge the sanity of the mental health establishment, it would behoove us to employ better tools than they use. I recommend the above links. The first is a book published in 1923 by a scientist who wished to popularize his lifetime of work exploring the use of talk in curing mental illness. His name was Boris Sidis, and his ideas were apparently overshadowed by the Freud camp, so you are unlikely to know who he was. The second is a site devoted to the radical ideas of a psychologist named Julian Jaynes who presented the bulk of his ideas in a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. If I am not mistaken, Jaynes' ideas are today supported by the likes of Daniel Dennett, Steve Pinker and Michael Persinger.
Just a short time ago, Slashdot ran an article that talked about Gary Taubes latest book Good Calories Bad Calories: Challenging the Convention Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease. How many Slashdot'ers actually examined what this article was all about? It appears that many posters have not given this topic the consideration it needs.
In short, Taubes argues very thoroughly and persuasively that there is much known about the cause of fat accumulation, and it goes very much against what the medical establishment claims. Anyone who has not closely looked at this matter is very likely in the dark about what is going on in our bodies, regardless of what they've heard or believe. Carbohydrates, specifically refined carbohydrates like white flour and sugar are the main culprits. Obesity is a disease that occurs because of poor nutrition, not because of poor willpower, gluttony, and sloth.
I had a back injury in mid-2000 that started out as just a pulled muscle. I wasn't more than maybe 15 pounds (if that) overweight, and I walked all the time (lived in Berkeley, CA). By the next morning I had spasms so bad that I couldn't walk. I tried bed rest and anti-inflammatories. Eventually I could get up and move around, but I had a difficult time standing up straight. I went to physical therapy, and specifically asked if I could ride a bicycle. Upon hearing an affirmative, I biked up a hill and blew out one of my discs. Next thing I knew I was walking (sort of) with a cane. I had a couple of MRIs and spinal injections. My condition worsened. Finally by Feburary of 2001 I was scheduled for back surgery, and in March when I couldn't even walk, I had the operation the day my son was born. Afterwards I felt wonderful- all of that chronic pain was gone! Almost immediately I was back to exercising and losing all of the weight that I had gained during my injury. I was extremely lucky to have coverage.
I must agree with you in regards to HMOs and our current health system. Preventive care should be the primary emphasis. We live in a society where almost 30% of the population is technically obese and 40+ million people do not have health insurance. When there was a push for universal healthcare under the Clinton administration, the insurance industry stepped forward with a powerful propaganda campaign and scared the shit out of everyone.
Healthcare is a right, not a privledge. What kind of society are we when we do not care for our fellow citizens? I encourage everyone to inform themselves of the issues and imagine yourself in an unprivileged position.
As a mid-30s gaming male, I've been playing since the Pong days. As the gaming medium matures, a whole new range of experiences will become possible. Partly this is enabled by technology, but it also has to do with the growth of the industry; the desire of these entertainment companies to reach more people. To do that, the content needs to change. Personally, I'm looking forward to alternatives to the standard stereotypes, because with them comes possible thematic depth. I want a gaming experience that feels like a Kurosawa or Kubrick film, and I think that is possible. So far, I've been extremely impressed with Ico and Shadow of the Colossus; just imagine what the future might hold. Criticism of how games are expressed now is very important in shaping the future of entertainment. Consider all the stereotypes in the past (racial, sexual, etc) that underwent a major change from the 60s to today. Of course stereotypes will always be with us, but criticism is necessary to effect change.
While I didn't find J2EE really compelling for a project I was working on back in 2003, JBoss in combination with both Hibernate and Spring was quite awesome. For those who don't know, Hibernate is a persistence framework for SQL databases; I found it to work very well with PostgreSQL. Spring is an MVC framework meant to make it easier to organize server-side application logic.
Some nice tools for building Java-based web-applications:
The proton-boron method using a laser reminds me of colliding beam fusion, which I first heard about in 1997. Interesting thing here is that energy capture occurs electromagnetically using a "decelerator." Read about it at:
Certainly, our view of the world affects what we think is probable. For someone who thinks that the United States primarily promotes freedom and democracy in its foreign policy, charges that the CIA has been responsible for countless assassinations and coups in the last 50 years may strike them as extremely ludicrous. Examination of the public record does not present a pleasant view of things.
Check out the documentary:
Inside the CIA: On Company Business
I suggest checking out the following books:
Inside the Company: CIA Diary In Search of Enemies Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon The Politics of Heroin Cocaine Politics Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the CIA Deep Politics and the Death of JFK The Iran-Contra Connection The Secret Team The Mafia, Bush, and the CIA Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler The Third Option The Grand Chessboard Hideous Dream Manufacturing Consent Imperial San Francisco Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire Killing Hope The Outlaw Bank Censored 2001 The Globalization of Poverty Patriots and Profiteers The Phoenix Program
Also drop by the National Security Archive website:
Slashdot Mirror
As has been noted in other comments, there is plenty to be depressed about in the United States (and elsewhere). In fact, to be content is to be oblivious and fortunate to have adequate resources. I too have fought to keep my child off of medication (a faulty ADHD diagnosis in this case), and so I can totally appreciate what people are struggling with. Having to deal with systemic incompetence in psychology can be very distracting, especially considering all of the other concerns normal people typically have to deal with.
It takes ample energy to train competent psychologists, and unfortunately that is seen as being a luxury in our current economic environment. We've effectively had 40 years of an energy crisis (often denied) with no end in sight, and unless this condition is dealt with, the problems are very likely to continue. Malnutrition (obesity) is widespread as well (and growing), and this can be largely attributed to poor quality nutrients (cheap carbohydrates). As people continue to lose their jobs (minus more risky and indebting "stimulus packages"), we seem to have little to look forward to as the economic system continues to contract.
There is a way out of this mess. A very promising, but not very well-known or understood, form of nuclear energy production has been largely ignored for the better part of those past 40 years, and it is long past due to pursue agressive development of it. That technology has been discussed in this forum (Slashdot), and it remains by far the most promising energy solution we have. Unfortunately, treating the widespread fear of nuclear energy is not an easy task, and that fear continues to hamper promotion of this solution.
The anti-nuclear movement needs to concede on our need to develop sources of electrical generation that will afford a great net energy ratio. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors promise to dramatically reduce the cost of building plants, enabling a scaling capability that no other energy solution can match (we could have thousands of reactors within decades). The high temperatures at which these reactors operate remove the need for water cooling, thereby safeguarding our rivers, aquifers, and shorelines. The inherent safety features of this design (above a certain temperature, the fuel expands checking the nuclear reactions) means that we'll never have another meltdown. The excess neutrons produced in the core facilitate the elimination of long-lived radio-toxic isotopes, reducing the waste problem to about 300 years (down from about 10,000). The potentially low cost of electrical production (through a massive improvement in efficiency) will enable a revolution of the chemical industry, allowing for cheap synthetic carbon-neutral fuels and fertilizer, and we'll be able to sequester enough carbon to return our atmosphere to a pre-industrial state.
This innovative machine can provide us the hope that we need to transform our society from the sorry excuse that it currently is, to the potentially great one that we all know it can be. It is our escape pod from this depressing and reinforcing cycle of decay, confusion and division, to one of renewal and political unity.
The economic situation is not going to improve until we solve the Energy Crisis. We are sitting on the solution, Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors, a Green Nuclear technology that has the potential to radically transform our society for the better, but we need to aggressively pursue its commercialization immediately.
To summarize, this technology was already prototyped back in the 60s at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, so it definitely works. What remains involves system integration, scaling, interfacing with carbon collection systems and fuel production facilities, cost reduction, updating materials, and configuration exploration (among other things). What we will end up with will be far more affordable, safer, efficient, flexible, and scalable than what is currently available. Imagine complete energy independence, ample social services for everyone, massive carbon sequestration, and super cheap carbon-neutral synthetic fuels (check out Green Freedom).
We only require the will to become our own savior. If we continue our current course of confusion and division, we get the opportunity to watch the demise of Democracy and Freedom.
Yeah, there's a couple, but I think the best design is the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (Molten Salt Reactor)- it's super efficient, inherently safe, affordable, scalable, and very flexible. It's potentially so cost-efficient that we could synthesize carbon-neutral fuels for all of our transportation needs, and definitely for less than $2/gal (and longer term, significantly less than that). The high operating temperatures mean that water cooling would not be required, so it safeguards our shorelines, rivers, and aquifers. This isn't a theoretical design, as it has already been shown to be feasible by a prototype built in the 60s (the program was shut down in the 70s because it competed with the uranium/plutonium fuel cycle, and it didn't easily produce plutonium for weapons). Really, this is amazing technology for which I believe the "Green Nuclear" label is very appropriate, and the anti-nuclear movement ought to take a very close look at this.
In fact, "farming" energy through renewables is a terrible choice by comparison, and will not be able to generate the cheap energy we need in order to sequester the CO2 that threatens Civilization and end the water shortage (via desalination). China already announced this year that they are pursuing this technology (something the US pioneered the development of), so nearly everyone else in the developed world is lagging in the Thorium Race. I guess after another decade or so of suffering, we'll just go further in debt as we try to buy Chinese-made LFTRs.
This could be our greatest moment, commercializing perhaps the greatest machine ever conceived, ending our economic problems, revitalizing our manufacturing base, ending poverty- so much is possible with cheap energy. Are we instead going to go the way of the Amish, shunning such potential out of fear and ignorance?
Gates is right about the importance of nuclear, but our current technology sucks. Even the latest commercial designs leave much to be desired in terms of safety, flexibility, scalability, and efficiency.
Gates is behind the Traveling Wave Reactor, but a lot of research would be necessary to get that idea working, and we need something sooner and more scalable.
Thorium in a Molten Salt Reactor (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor- LFTR) should be our energy technology of choice. It has already been proven to be feasible (a prototype was built back in the 60s), and the research necessary to build a commercial version would be minimal. China is already pursuing this promising course, and we could join in the Thorium Race by pumping in say $10 billion or more (if we're serious) to take our society into a new era. Doing so would go a very long way towards solving many of the economic and social problems that currently have us deadlocked- so many things come down to the availability of energy.
This is our Green Nuclear solution, and it would allow us to build the society that we dream about with abundant services for everyone, but not unless we reform our attitudes away from fossil fuels or trying to "farm" our energy, which has kept us pre-occupied for some 40 years. It's time to wake up and get moving!
I believe that if we had a more accurate picture of the consequences of trying to move to expensive energy-diffuse sources (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, biofuels, etc), that we'd be thinking twice about our aversion to nuclear fission. The Green Party (of which I am a member) imagines a renewable future, and their platform explicitly forbids all nuclear development (including fusion). I think this is a disastrous and useless policy: it avoids technology best suited for drastically reducing waste by converting it into fuel (imagine radio-toxicity reduced to mere hundreds of years as opposed to thousands- the disposal problem essentially becomes a non-issue).
This is not a fantasy. Foundations for this technology were developed back in the 60's at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and today we call this the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR or even Molten Salt Reactor). The advantages are numerous: inherent stability (no meltdown possible), abundant fuel (thorium is 3-4 times as abundant as uranium), low start-up requirements (less than a couple tons of fissile material is needed- critical for scalability), proliferation resistant (U-233 is always contaminated with radioactive U-232), more than 100 times as efficient as the current fuel cycle, drastically reduced waste due to efficiency, considerably lower costs due to many factors, especially safety, and the list goes on. We need to be asking ourselves why we are not aggressively pursuing this promising technology. Cheap abundant energy is our best choice for both securing our future and dramatically reducing the prevalence of poverty throughout the rest of the world. The ability for our economy to provide the services we need is utterly dependent on energy.
In case you are not convinced that this path is necessary to avoid the most dire consequences of global economic collapse, I suggest checking out:
Energy lecture by a theoretical physicist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeGijutBSx0
Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air: http://www.withouthotair.com/
Advantages of LFTR: http://energyfromthorium.com/lftradsrisks.html
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: http://energyfromthorium.com/essay3rs/
Our energy future is not a trivial concern. If we make the right choices, we will revitalize our economy, avoid the worst consequences of our ignorance, eliminate poverty, and live comfortably for thousands, if not millions of more years. Can you think that far ahead?
Practically speaking, what has relativity done for us? Or plate tectonics, for that matter? We still have catastrophic earthquakes, and we still can't time-warp with wormholes. How long have these theories been around now? Sure, they may be useful down the road, but probably not within the next decade or two. And evolution? Don't get me started on the practical applications of pondering our origins and the immediate tangible rewards thereof.
Theory provides the foundation for scientific disciplines. Einstein's early breakthroughs eventually led to the computing revolution. Plate tectonics is an integral part of geology, and probably helped petroleum companies make plenty of discoveries. Evolution is the basis of biology today, and understanding our ecological impact on the environment would be considerably more difficult without it. Without these ideas, there is practically no understanding of the universe that we live in- we could have all of this data, but it would make no sense.
And speaking of the obesity epidemic, heart disease, and whatnot... How many of these phenomena were caused directly by "scientific breakthroughs"? It could be (and has been) argued that artificial sweeteners, one such breakthrough, have actually contributed significantly to the obesity epidemic. There can be little doubt that our mostly sedentary lifestyles directly contribute to obesity as well as heart disease, and how much do you think we would sit around without our modern technology? And while we may be more aware of the world we live in now, how much of it have we destroyed or defiled with our science? (See also: DDT, plastics, killer bees.)
It is rather difficult to make any kind of coherent argument without knowing considerably more about your topic. Am I to believe that reading books, since one is technically sedentary while reading, contributes to fat accumulation? Particular nutrients (carbohydrates) break down easily into glucose, which drives insulin secretion, which regulates fat accumulation.
Here is Taubes' Berkeley lecture from 2007, hopefully you'll find it edifying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVvZP2av5Mk
Don't get me wrong, the quest for knowledge is a noble one. We have learned how to treat many diseases, feed more people, squeeze ever more people onto a planet that can barely support them, and even look for other planets that may be our only hope of continued existence once we've finished this one off. But human beings are ill-prepared to handle the knowledge we seek. We learn how to string hydrocarbons together, and what do we make? Styrofoam! We learn how to launch satellites, and what fills our exosphere? Space junk. We learn how to split atoms, and what's the first thing we make? Yeah.
The misuse of knowledge is a very old problem, and it will not go away by putting our head in the sand. We must become considerably smarter if we're going to use technology safely.
I must admit that I am very confused by your post. Are you trying to say that people do not experience hallucinations?
No, what I'm saying is that every person would go through this transition where they would have auditory/visual hallucinations, and its clear that not everyone at the time, centuries ago, did.
I do not believe that Jaynes' theory implies that exactly. As I understand it, there are particular social conditions that were once widespread that encouraged hallucinatory experiences. I would expect people to still experience hallucinations today, and they do: imaginary childhood "friends", dead relatives, and "god".
but I haven't seen anything that can be used to dismiss it today
I have, see the following;
Block, N. (1981). Review of Julian Jayne's Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Cognition and Brain Theory
Implying that consciousness is a cultural construct?!
I believe Ned Block's criticism was that culture somehow changed to reflect what humans were doing all along. With what we understand about the role of language in thought, this now looks like nonsense. Broadly speaking, yes, consciousness is a cultural construct, but so is agriculture, and the Internet.
Asaad G, Shapiro B. What about the bicameral mind? Am J Psychiatry 1987
Dennett, Daniel (1986). "Julian Jaynes's Software Archeology". Canadian Psychology
That auditory hallucinations played such a major role in human human mind and history is somewhat difficult to believe.
An audio hallucination sounds just like the real thing to the brain. It can be pretty mysterious if you experience it, and do not know what it is. I do not find it at all difficult to accept that a group of people could adopt a "useful" interpretation of such an experience, such as attributing it to "god" or some other relation. In fact, I've met people who currently have these experiences, and attribute them to "ghosts" or "god" or whatever. It would seem that such talk is readily dismissed as nonsense. I tend to have some respect for the experiences of others, though perhaps not their interpretations.
Though I have been quite a fan of Dennett over the years, I am not familiar with his latest views, if they have in fact changed.
As for the transition from a bicameral world to the one we inhabit today, Jaynes discusses his idea in detail, perhaps you've forgotten it?
Well if your talking about religion, schizophrenia and the general need for external authority in decision-making as being the "left overs" of bicameralism, I would argue schizophrenia is a real chemical imbalance that has nothing to do with religion, but might have more in common with creative genius, http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/byrd.html
I do not find "a real chemical imbalance" to be very illuminating, even if it does imply a neurotransmitter deficiency. There are a few interesting associations with schizophrenia, but Jaynes proposes a far more useful way of looking at the condition.
And a need for external authority in decision-making, that's not a real strong argument in itself, as there are plenty of other reasons for this from even an evolutionary perspective.
I do not understand this criticism at all, please elaborate.
I must admit that I am very confused by your post. Are you trying to say that people do not experience hallucinations? Browsing the relevant scientific literature will show you that the phenomena is alive and well. There are certainly many questions that arise with Jaynes' theory (as with all great theories), but I haven't seen anything that can be used to dismiss it today. As for the transition from a bicameral world to the one we inhabit today, Jaynes discusses his idea in detail, perhaps you've forgotten it?
How well do you understand major scientific breakthroughs like Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and Relativity?
Right now part of the scientific community is buzzing with discussion of this idea of Diseases of Civilization. The problem is an old one, but recently science writer Gary Taubes has taken a stab at sorting out the confusion. His book was first published almost three years ago, and conservative estimates expect social changes in a decade or so. Considering the widespread concern over the Obesity Epidemic, heart disease, and whatnot, I would hope we could change things sooner than that. You could get a jump on this if you get into the science, but I suppose the biochemistry and social history is way too much trouble for most people.
I want to blow your mind.
I grew up in a Christian environment, and the only way that I have found to avoid cognitive dissonance is to adopt the view that the universe is understandable. So I examine religious experience as a series of related phenomena.
A common form of religious experience involves groups of people gathering together to sing, and to listen to some appointed person that performs motivational-type monologues, often intertwined with narration. Extra-curricular study of religious texts is strongly encouraged, so the central memes are reinforced.
The human brain is divided into semi-symmetrical hemispheres, with the left usually being dominate with speech. Imagine the individual moving through environments that are either unsafe or safe, the organism defending itself or opening itself up for influence. The religious context is one of safety (or at least where the participants defenses are lowered), and I believe from a meme standpoint, also one of suggestibility (to use a computer metaphor, programmability). Split-brain observations (see Michael Gazzaniga or Roger Sperry) have given rise to Dual Brain Theory, so under this paradigm we might suppose that each hemisphere has a semi-separate emotional experience, and consequently different memories of those experiences. Interestingly, dolphins in the wild appear to alternate which hemisphere is sleeping/functioning, with conditions varying from safe (captivity- both hemispheres can sleep), to dangerous (swift current- rapid cycling of hemispheres). Now try and imagine Dissociative Identity Disorder and Schizophrenia within this model.
So, "god" exists, but is actually just the non-dominant hemisphere programmed in a religious environment. The great psychologist Julian Jaynes put together a fascinating theory in his influential The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, and it remains a classic in psychology more than three decades after its original publication. Religion would be an evolutionary adaptation to larger tribes, made possible by agriculture. And Jaynes' ideas would not seem so radical if the field of psychology kept within the same vein of understanding pioneered by William James and Dr. Bois Sidis (it was however sidetracked by followers of Freud, and later Skinner). One of his most important works was The Psychology of Suggestion (1898).
So, science is definitely not religion. And we need to figure this communication problem out very soon, because a "perfect storm" of crises is upon us and our old tricks of technologically accommodating a mentality that believes that useful energy is infinite or that growth is inherently good has come to an end. To grasp the historical significance of not coping adequately with this mentality, all one has to do is look at the great disasters of the 20th century, beginning with WWII.
Apple has produced a device in both hardware and software that exceeds in areas of form factor, performance, and functionality. The size is comparable to a magazine and fairly lightweight at 1.5-1.6 pounds. The interface is intuitive and very responsive, and it functions pretty much all day. Apple's mature app-store and the device's elegance are encouraging the morphing of the computing landscape. The iPad will likely usher in the post-Flash web. The Internet has been waiting for this device for about 15 years. This is the dawn of a new era of computing, and those tablets that you mentioned were just the prologue.
Sure, there are competitors (JooJoo, HP Slate, Dell, Acer, etc.), but they fail in form factor, interface, simplicity, longevity, expandability, or responsiveness. When Google and Microsoft get their act together, we'll finally see some real competition, but they'll be minor players fighting over what is left of the market.
In the meantime, naysayers will see that neither cameras nor Flash will be necessary for success, but 'fun' is. Cameras will likely be an important and integral feature to appear in future iterations.
When a new artifact appears that is so well designed that its likeness becomes ubiquitous, what do we call that? It doesn't matter that there were similar things before that pioneered the artifact-space, they didn't have the features to succeed. We should be glad that the bar is being set so high with the iPad. As with the iPhone, alternatives will exist, but Google still hasn't figured out the app-store, and Microsoft is just now figuring out the touch interface. This is a huge indication of how far ahead Apple is in their thinking. It is the very definition of visionary- like Google with search. It is as if up to that point everyone else was trying to make due with the current technology, hacking away one little piece at a time, banging about in the dark, groping for a tiny bit of success. Will the JooJoo or Slate prove to be as useful, elegant, and fun to use?
In just a few years, these devices will be very low-margin products that will be in the price range of far more of us (less than US$100), the batteries will likely cycle a magnitude more, they'll be better for us and the environment, we'll be able to make good use of them outdoors, and it'll be a special occasion when we leave our bloody pads behind.
As for Flash, in all the years that I've used it on Linux, Mac, and Windows, it has been among the slowest and least reliable software. I banish thee to the deepest abyss of cold space, never again to entertain the gravity well of a sentient's dust speck!
There is some scientific disagreement over the nature of fat accumulation (consider Gary Taubes landmark book Good Calories, Bad Calories), and I would think that this plays an important role in how the culture views the qualities of various foods. Furthermore, as has been mentioned in other posts, TV ads are designed to affect those who watch them. It is non-trivial to resist the sophisticated suggestions (see Boris Sidis' The Psychology of Suggestion 1898) that vulnerable people encounter in broadcast media.
Maybe one of the central problems is that these disciplines actually need to be the same? We lack a unified theory of psychology that is evolutionary and ecological in nature, where the basis of the individual is rooted within the group, or tribe. The problems our civilization now face, where the needs of our economic system depend upon growth, contradict the necessity of developing an adaptation to live within the limitations of our ecology. Our current systems of law and history are in flux between an older religious mentality that stresses authority, and a newer one that explores the limits of scientific thinking. The inability of leadership to handle the complexity of the current crisis should be sensed by most of the population, even if they cannot properly articulate it in words. The popular culture has long explored dramatic themes of an apocalyptic future (usually involving nuclear annihilation), and I would guess that this is an expression of massive social anxiety.
The role of deception and economics in facilitating war (i.e. Gulf of Tonkin & The Vietnam War, Chamberlain's 3-Bloc system & pre-WWII Germany, 9/11) remains largely unexplored in popular history, which further exasperates communication problems when intellectuals try to discuss the real world.
Confirmation bias is incredibly widespread, and modern practitioners of older paradigms fail to address the critical short-comings of their views. The classic example goes back the the Copernican Revolution regarding whether the Sun orbits the Earth, or vice-versa. A modern example relates to the Obesity Epidemic. How many nutritionists have seriously considered the scientific implications of Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories? I believe Richard Rhodes called it the most important book on diet and nutrition in the past 100 years!
Psychologists need a much better paradigm if they are going to seriously contribute to solving our current crisis.
I have no insider contacts and have heard no details, but if I were to guess what the PS4 is going to look like in 2011(?) (just by glancing at the technology coming down the pipe), I'd venture the following:
32nm 4-5 Ghz Cell processor with 4-6 PPUs and 32-40 SPUs (actual numbers with cache and load store sizes would, of course, be determined via simulation)
Consider that the current Cell can theoretically perform ~200 gflops, while current Intel multi-core chips are still ~50 gflops.
Throw in the latest technology from Rambus, maybe that's XDR2? Previously they were selected based on their per-pin bandwidth and their ability to keep Cell well fed.
Include the latest design from Nvidia, maybe that's a GT300 or GT400 derivative.
I'd expect 1-2 gigs of XDR2 for Cell, and maybe 1 gig of GDDR5 for the GPU.
I would not expect the console to cost as much (relatively, considering inflation) as the PS3 at launch, and the performance leap will not be as great as it was from PS2 to PS3.
Re: Microsoft
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the dominant console cycle for the past few decades has been about 5 years. Microsoft released the 360 four years after the original Xbox probably for two primary reasons: 1) losses associated with the manufacture of the Xbox, and 2) to get the jump on Sony. The cost of that strategy has been record-setting poor quality, and they have had to compensate with a $1 billion 3-year limited warranty replacement/refurbishment system to stay in the game. So far from their current market share of about 30% (if one includes the Wii) or 60% (if one only includes the PS3), they are still very much in the game, but I wonder about the long-term effect on customer loyalty. Maybe I am completely wrong here in questioning this aspect of their business, and we should look as this whole RRoD (and E74) experience with reverence?
Re: technology and costs
As the videogame medium contains a very significant technical element, it is probably prudent to consider where performance is heading for the next generation. Realism as style in this medium has been very influential affecting everything from real-time ambient lighting, physics-based animation, precise collision detection, industrial design in modelling, and detailed, organic entity design. All of this detail can make for a more involving experience, and I believe it is essential for maturing the medium. The market for games has grown significantly, and so it makes a lot of sense that the industrial systems that produce films (with all those producers, directors, writers, actors, designers, and expert consultants) will also move into the creation of videogames, which of course carries with it significantly increased costs. The console as a device for creating these virtual experiences should provide as much capability as possible, as efficiently as possible. Currently the hardware designs most suited to processing the vast amounts of data required for constructing these virtual worlds involve many cores coordinating access to a very fat bus. Sony has overwhelmingly demonstrated that they understand these relationships, and appear to be set to launch a low-cost version of the PS3 sometime this year that will probably give them parity in the marketplace with their competitors.
I expect backwards compatibility to be more important for the next generation, especially considering the increased investment in software and services. I'd be surprised if any current player can again afford to start from scratch. As others have mentioned, Microsoft is likely to launch first probably in 2011, with Sony not too far behind. I believe Nintendo sees themselves as more of a toy company, and so occupy a different part of the market, but will still probably follow the 5-year-cycle.
Re: Motion control
Sony is obviously positioning themselves to both relate to the market that Nintendo created, and to offer a new experience to their customer base. Microsoft is attempting to break new ground by creating something entirely different, but I am not so sure that their technology gives them an advantage that Sony cannot largely replicate with some clever software, their motion and PSEye peripherals.
Re: OnLine
OnLive is interesting as the Cloud Computing/Timeshare model for gaming, but of course it depends on some pretty wide, low-latency pipes (which most of us can expect at some point in the future). It could offer a unique MMO experience where thousands of users could be in one shared virtual environment, but it is unclear whether this will be a compelling experience any time in the near future. OnLive's suitability for any serious gaming of course comes down to the latency and image quality issues, and I question whether this is a viable business in the near-term. But of course, I have not seen the demos, and I am not an investor, but I doubt any of the other console players are seriously concerned as of yet. When this model becomes viable, what prevents the other players from doing the same? Or will they have some arrangement with OnLive's service?
I think you make a completely unwarranted assumption about the political process in the United States.
Let's consider two hypotheses:
1) The general population is apathetic to the political process because they are ignorant.
2) The general population is apathetic to the political process because they have learned that it is ineffective for solving their problems.
http://www.sidis.net/nervousillscontents.htm
http://www.julianjaynes.org/index.html
If we are going to challenge the sanity of the mental health establishment, it would behoove us to employ better tools than they use. I recommend the above links. The first is a book published in 1923 by a scientist who wished to popularize his lifetime of work exploring the use of talk in curing mental illness. His name was Boris Sidis, and his ideas were apparently overshadowed by the Freud camp, so you are unlikely to know who he was. The second is a site devoted to the radical ideas of a psychologist named Julian Jaynes who presented the bulk of his ideas in a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. If I am not mistaken, Jaynes' ideas are today supported by the likes of Daniel Dennett, Steve Pinker and Michael Persinger.
Just a short time ago, Slashdot ran an article that talked about Gary Taubes latest book Good Calories Bad Calories: Challenging the Convention Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease. How many Slashdot'ers actually examined what this article was all about? It appears that many posters have not given this topic the consideration it needs.
In short, Taubes argues very thoroughly and persuasively that there is much known about the cause of fat accumulation, and it goes very much against what the medical establishment claims. Anyone who has not closely looked at this matter is very likely in the dark about what is going on in our bodies, regardless of what they've heard or believe. Carbohydrates, specifically refined carbohydrates like white flour and sugar are the main culprits. Obesity is a disease that occurs because of poor nutrition, not because of poor willpower, gluttony, and sloth.
Here are the relevant links:
New York Times Magazine article from 2002: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63
MIT interview about the above article: http://web.mit.edu/knight-science/fellows/interviews/taubes.html
Taubes' recent article about the role of exercise: http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/
Happy reading! And good luck staying healthy!
I had a back injury in mid-2000 that started out as just a pulled muscle. I wasn't more than maybe 15 pounds (if that) overweight, and I walked all the time (lived in Berkeley, CA). By the next morning I had spasms so bad that I couldn't walk. I tried bed rest and anti-inflammatories. Eventually I could get up and move around, but I had a difficult time standing up straight. I went to physical therapy, and specifically asked if I could ride a bicycle. Upon hearing an affirmative, I biked up a hill and blew out one of my discs. Next thing I knew I was walking (sort of) with a cane. I had a couple of MRIs and spinal injections. My condition worsened. Finally by Feburary of 2001 I was scheduled for back surgery, and in March when I couldn't even walk, I had the operation the day my son was born. Afterwards I felt wonderful- all of that chronic pain was gone! Almost immediately I was back to exercising and losing all of the weight that I had gained during my injury. I was extremely lucky to have coverage.
I must agree with you in regards to HMOs and our current health system. Preventive care should be the primary emphasis. We live in a society where almost 30% of the population is technically obese and 40+ million people do not have health insurance. When there was a push for universal healthcare under the Clinton administration, the insurance industry stepped forward with a powerful propaganda campaign and scared the shit out of everyone.
Healthcare is a right, not a privledge. What kind of society are we when we do not care for our fellow citizens? I encourage everyone to inform themselves of the issues and imagine yourself in an unprivileged position.
As a mid-30s gaming male, I've been playing since the Pong days. As the gaming medium matures, a whole new range of experiences will become possible. Partly this is enabled by technology, but it also has to do with the growth of the industry; the desire of these entertainment companies to reach more people. To do that, the content needs to change. Personally, I'm looking forward to alternatives to the standard stereotypes, because with them comes possible thematic depth. I want a gaming experience that feels like a Kurosawa or Kubrick film, and I think that is possible. So far, I've been extremely impressed with Ico and Shadow of the Colossus; just imagine what the future might hold. Criticism of how games are expressed now is very important in shaping the future of entertainment. Consider all the stereotypes in the past (racial, sexual, etc) that underwent a major change from the 60s to today. Of course stereotypes will always be with us, but criticism is necessary to effect change.
While I didn't find J2EE really compelling for a project I was working on back in 2003, JBoss in combination with both Hibernate and Spring was quite awesome. For those who don't know, Hibernate is a persistence framework for SQL databases; I found it to work very well with PostgreSQL. Spring is an MVC framework meant to make it easier to organize server-side application logic.
Some nice tools for building Java-based web-applications:
http://www.hibernate.org/
http://www.springframework.org/
http://www.jboss.com/
http://www.postgresql.org/
http://ant.apache.org/
http://www.eclipse.org/
The proton-boron method using a laser reminds me of colliding beam fusion, which I first heard about in 1997. Interesting thing here is that energy capture occurs electromagnetically using a "decelerator." Read about it at:
4 2/1419?ijkey=A.zNwOzIwyrKA
7 5/307a
http://fusion.ps.uci.edu/beam/introb.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/278/53
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/281/53
http://www.stormingmedia.us/01/0116/A011653.html
Certainly, our view of the world affects what we think is probable. For someone who thinks that the United States primarily promotes freedom and democracy in its foreign policy, charges that the CIA has been responsible for countless assassinations and coups in the last 50 years may strike them as extremely ludicrous. Examination of the public record does not present a pleasant view of things.
Check out the documentary:
Inside the CIA: On Company Business
I suggest checking out the following books:
Inside the Company: CIA Diary
In Search of Enemies
Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon
The Politics of Heroin
Cocaine Politics
Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the CIA
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
The Iran-Contra Connection
The Secret Team
The Mafia, Bush, and the CIA
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
The Third Option
The Grand Chessboard
Hideous Dream
Manufacturing Consent
Imperial San Francisco
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
Killing Hope
The Outlaw Bank
Censored 2001
The Globalization of Poverty
Patriots and Profiteers
The Phoenix Program
Also drop by the National Security Archive website:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/