but did anyone ever think that having a copy of the Yellow Pages would "Change Society?"
No, but the internet is quite diffrent from the Yellow Pages...
Ok, general information aside, here is what I could do, if I wanted to, from my computer on the internet right now.
1)Order all my groceries and have them delivered to my door (if I use the right companies).
2)Read all the news I want to and look at all of opions from editiors, experts, slashdot users, etc. i want to. Most of it's free too.
3)Buy all the books, CD's, antiques, DVD's, video's, comics, etc. I want and have it delivered to my door.
4) With a microphone I can effectively call people anywhere in the world for no interntaional call charges. Or I can chat to them online in chat rooms, instant messaging and so on.
5) I can send my reports to work/university/wherever without having to pay postage.
How do these things change society? like this...
1)No more need for supermarkets or checkouts, o people running them... just a few big warehouses arount the area to deal with demand.
2)No more need for newspapers or magazines, or the newsagents who sell them.
3)No more need for most of the high street.
4)I pay less money to my phone operators and as I'm on a flat rate for my internet connection anyway I don't care how many people I call.
5) No more need for offices.
If everyone were to use the internet to it's full capability, and order everything they could exclusively through it, then society would change a lot. Our city's would have no need for malls or supermarkets, which seeing as we've used a place like that to shop for at least 2000 years, (think markets, then shops... and so on) it would be a huge change from the past.
Obviously shopping is an extreme example, but it shows well how having the ability to view everything you need (almost) in one central place (the screen on my desk) could have a huge effect on society.
the woe-is-me poor are at the store getting their free food.
Free food like Mrs Buell of Beecher (one of the poorest regions in the whole of the USA) gets?
The woman was moved off welfare by a "back to work" state initive.. she was a single parent and had two jobs both paying the minimum wage, and even then she couldn't afford all the bills. She got back to her kids at 10pm each night.
That sounds like free food to me!
So of course, you're right! How dare people be made to pay taxes so that parents can actually look after their kids? Why not make kids effectively parentless! Lord knows we don't want the rich college kids having to pay taxes when they become ever richer later in life.
Free medical care! What a way to bring the US into line with the rest of the civilised world!
Heaven forbid we should actually give a damn about someone and want to help them by maiking it so that they aren't bankrupted by illness.
Also, our unemployment rates now would make people from the 80s' mouths drop. The economy isn't bad at all.
And our living standards for the poor (or the number of poor people for that matter) would make medieval people's mouths drop.
Just because things are better now than they were 20 years a go doesn't mean I aint mad that we've come down from 3 years a go. When I elect a politician I don't want them to compare my country to one from 20 years a go... I want things better than before i elected them, otherwise why elect them in the first place?
Listen, I think either I miss understood your first post, or you have misunderstood mine so let me explain m point again.
You originaly said that the US ended its biological weapon programs (be it WMD or any other kind) 30 years ago.
Then you said,
"We didn't create the technology and we don't have or use it. Our bad?"
My point about the creation of biological weapons for use against tarmac and concrete was to illustrate both these points as being incorrect.
First, if the USA really had ended its biological weapon program 30 years ago, then it would not be developing NEW biological weapons today. Therefore the USA did not abandon its weapon program.
Second, if as you say, the USA doesn't "have or use" the technology to create biological weapons then how is it creating these new weapons?
1) Bio weapons are any weapons which use
bacteria, virus, or similar to do damage.
2) If a Bioweapon which attacked concrete was sprayed on a building, (or over a city) and the buildings become unsafe and people couldn't live in them, or work in them, or worse, if the buildings collapsed with people in or around them, then would this be anough injuring and killing people for you to classify it as a weapon?
3) Your original point was that the USA had given up the technology to make bio weapons, yet if they can create them to damage concrete and asphalt then surely the USA does have the technology.
"We terminated our actual weaponizing program around 30 years ago "
Though i would hate to call you a liar, I think you may be slightly misinformed. After September 11th the US government said openly that it had plans for
1)new development for nuclear weapons, including 'bunker buster' nukes that would be small and useful.
2) new development for biological weapons which attacked and destroyed asphalt and concrete. These could then be sprayed on, (for example) an enemy airport, making it impossible to use.
So therefore I think that, yes, the USA is 'weaponizing' with new types of biological weapons, as well as newtypes of nukes.
From the FAQ
"One of the facts that this myth ignores is the role of the capital markets in a free economy. So long as investors are left free from government controls, they are free to bring an unlimited amount of new capital into any given industry. Thus, for example, a software company that has built its way up to a $400 billion market capitalization over a period of twenty years (Microsoft), may suddenly face, almost overnight, a $350 billion rival (AOL Time Warner)--thanks to the free capital markets that make such a merger possible."
Remind me, are AOL Time-Warner making Operating Systmens? Or are they making products to run on Microsofts OS's, I.e. complimenting rather than competing with Microsoft. And if Microsoft makes money off it's OS and Office exclusively, as shown in the/. article, then why should Microsoft feel threatened by AOL Time-Warner?
Infact, are their any companies which are in a posistion to try and create an OS for the PC home market which could compete with Microsoft?
The answer, is no there isn't. Other companies do not have the commercial influence to threaten Microsofts posisiton in the OS market.
We've had DAB in the UK since 1995. (Don't know why the UK is so ahead on some of the broadcasting innovations, but hey. Maybe it's the BBC:)
Actually it is the BBC. As the BBC has to show that it's staying in the forefront of technology (I think it's in the charter) to keep recieving public money. What does this mean? Well, every new gizmo that is available the BBC snaps up and uses it; digital TV, digital radio, web TV (only partial but coming soon) and of course, all it's radio staitions are streamed on the web with missed shows available on demand.
If the BBC isn't the future of what broadcasting should be (technologicaly wise) then what is?
In the UK the BBC are to stop all nondigital TV signals by 2006 and it has hardly caused a stir.
The diffrence? VCR's work with BBC digital signals and there is noone trying to stop people from recording what they like. The effect in the UK has been that digital TV has not only become popular but semistandard as people embrace the new technology.
However the effect in America from what I can see is that this will alienate people from new technology. These laws need to be stopped so that Joe 6pack can enjoy technology like the geeks do and realise that it really is better in digital.
Due to wanting a computer to play games on I agreed to have a ready made Fujitsu-Siemens with an Intel Pentium 3 866 chip in it. Here's my problem, because this was the fastest computer in the house it also became my main work machine for graphics, typing and music. The first thing I did infact was upgrade the sound card.
However, I know wish to continue playing games on it and upgrade the processor. Any suggestions as to what I can do to upgrade without replacing the motherboard or supporting Intel?
My entire CD collection is recorded onto my hard disk so keeping my fair use rights as intact as possible, or keeping them intact for the future by not surporting Intel would make me happy.
Any Suggestions for me?
Thanks
But then who will make the music you listen to,
Err... the rest of Europe would... seeing as then the airways would be cleared of all that Back Street Boys, and Britney manufactured stuff you guys make by the bucketfull.
the shoes you wear?
If you mean the Nike shoes... I don't wear them, but I'm sure the third world kid will still make them for 5 cents a day for me. Infact... I get the the price lowered as there is no middle man!
Who will rescue you from your world wars?
Do you have any idea of the causes of the Second World War.... a major one was the decision of the USA not to involve itself in the League of Nations, which could have stopped Facism before it became strong.
Remember, arrogance is not a virtue!
P.S. Why does someone feel the need to go mad as soon as someone mentions Osama? You guys never had a problem with laughing at terrorism before 9/11 Just the other day I saw a Simpsons episode where people were celebrating Saint Patricks day and in it a British Restraunt is blown up. The action gets a chear from the crowd. This is obviously a weak joke based on the bombing of the UK by Northern Ireland terrorists, but noone objected to it in the USA, so why do you object now when someone has the same view about yourown terrorist problems.
Well actually, it's cheaper to lock someone away than to execute them. If someone is executed then they can have up to 18 years (that's the longest I can remember) of appeals in which they are locked up in a cell... much like a maximum security prison. Not only that but people who are facing the death penalty are a lot more likely to appeal than someone facing prison.
Oh... and the court case goes up too. An average LA homicide case costs $600,000, but when the death penalty is sought the cost increases to over $1 million. (Source: Scientific America).
So if it's value for money you're looking for... maximum security is the way to go.
But it doesn't matter what the Old Testament says, or if it's mistranslated as it is over written in Christianity by the New Testament, and seeing as the message of the New Testament is a definate forgive the sinner, it is hard to see how putting anyone to death is acting in accordance with the Bible.
However, the USA is suppose to be a secular society where government and law are concerned so I don't think it matters anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
but did anyone ever think that having a copy of the Yellow Pages would "Change Society?"
No, but the internet is quite diffrent from the Yellow Pages...
Ok, general information aside, here is what I could do, if I wanted to, from my computer on the internet right now.
1)Order all my groceries and have them delivered to my door (if I use the right companies).
2)Read all the news I want to and look at all of opions from editiors, experts, slashdot users, etc. i want to. Most of it's free too.
3)Buy all the books, CD's, antiques, DVD's, video's, comics, etc. I want and have it delivered to my door.
4) With a microphone I can effectively call people anywhere in the world for no interntaional call charges. Or I can chat to them online in chat rooms, instant messaging and so on.
5) I can send my reports to work/university/wherever without having to pay postage.
How do these things change society? like this...
1)No more need for supermarkets or checkouts, o people running them... just a few big warehouses arount the area to deal with demand.
2)No more need for newspapers or magazines, or the newsagents who sell them.
3)No more need for most of the high street.
4)I pay less money to my phone operators and as I'm on a flat rate for my internet connection anyway I don't care how many people I call.
5) No more need for offices.
If everyone were to use the internet to it's full capability, and order everything they could exclusively through it, then society would change a lot. Our city's would have no need for malls or supermarkets, which seeing as we've used a place like that to shop for at least 2000 years, (think markets, then shops... and so on) it would be a huge change from the past.
Obviously shopping is an extreme example, but it shows well how having the ability to view everything you need (almost) in one central place (the screen on my desk) could have a huge effect on society.
the woe-is-me poor are at the store getting their free food.
Free food like Mrs Buell of Beecher (one of the poorest regions in the whole of the USA) gets?
The woman was moved off welfare by a "back to work" state initive.. she was a single parent and had two jobs both paying the minimum wage, and even then she couldn't afford all the bills. She got back to her kids at 10pm each night.
That sounds like free food to me!
So of course, you're right! How dare people be made to pay taxes so that parents can actually look after their kids? Why not make kids effectively parentless! Lord knows we don't want the rich college kids having to pay taxes when they become ever richer later in life.
Free medical care! What a deal!
Free medical care! What a way to bring the US into line with the rest of the civilised world!
Heaven forbid we should actually give a damn about someone and want to help them by maiking it so that they aren't bankrupted by illness.
Also, our unemployment rates now would make people from the 80s' mouths drop. The economy isn't bad at all.
And our living standards for the poor (or the number of poor people for that matter) would make medieval people's mouths drop.
Just because things are better now than they were 20 years a go doesn't mean I aint mad that we've come down from 3 years a go. When I elect a politician I don't want them to compare my country to one from 20 years a go... I want things better than before i elected them, otherwise why elect them in the first place?
Listen, I think either I miss understood your first post, or you have misunderstood mine so let me explain m point again.
You originaly said that the US ended its biological weapon programs (be it WMD or any other kind) 30 years ago. Then you said,
"We didn't create the technology and we don't have or use it. Our bad?"
My point about the creation of biological weapons for use against tarmac and concrete was to illustrate both these points as being incorrect.
First, if the USA really had ended its biological weapon program 30 years ago, then it would not be developing NEW biological weapons today. Therefore the USA did not abandon its weapon program.
Second, if as you say, the USA doesn't "have or use" the technology to create biological weapons then how is it creating these new weapons?
1) Bio weapons are any weapons which use bacteria, virus, or similar to do damage.
2) If a Bioweapon which attacked concrete was sprayed on a building, (or over a city) and the buildings become unsafe and people couldn't live in them, or work in them, or worse, if the buildings collapsed with people in or around them, then would this be anough injuring and killing people for you to classify it as a weapon?
3) Your original point was that the USA had given up the technology to make bio weapons, yet if they can create them to damage concrete and asphalt then surely the USA does have the technology.
Though i would hate to call you a liar, I think you may be slightly misinformed. After September 11th the US government said openly that it had plans for
1)new development for nuclear weapons, including 'bunker buster' nukes that would be small and useful.
2) new development for biological weapons which attacked and destroyed asphalt and concrete. These could then be sprayed on, (for example) an enemy airport, making it impossible to use. So therefore I think that, yes, the USA is 'weaponizing' with new types of biological weapons, as well as newtypes of nukes.
From the FAQ
/. article, then why should Microsoft feel threatened by AOL Time-Warner?
Infact, are their any companies which are in a posistion to try and create an OS for the PC home market which could compete with Microsoft?
"One of the facts that this myth ignores is the role of the capital markets in a free economy. So long as investors are left free from government controls, they are free to bring an unlimited amount of new capital into any given industry. Thus, for example, a software company that has built its way up to a $400 billion market capitalization over a period of twenty years (Microsoft), may suddenly face, almost overnight, a $350 billion rival (AOL Time Warner)--thanks to the free capital markets that make such a merger possible."
Remind me, are AOL Time-Warner making Operating Systmens? Or are they making products to run on Microsofts OS's, I.e. complimenting rather than competing with Microsoft. And if Microsoft makes money off it's OS and Office exclusively, as shown in the
The answer, is no there isn't. Other companies do not have the commercial influence to threaten Microsofts posisiton in the OS market.
We've had DAB in the UK since 1995. (Don't know why the UK is so ahead on some of the broadcasting innovations, but hey. Maybe it's the BBC :)
Actually it is the BBC. As the BBC has to show that it's staying in the forefront of technology (I think it's in the charter) to keep recieving public money. What does this mean? Well, every new gizmo that is available the BBC snaps up and uses it; digital TV, digital radio, web TV (only partial but coming soon) and of course, all it's radio staitions are streamed on the web with missed shows available on demand.
If the BBC isn't the future of what broadcasting should be (technologicaly wise) then what is?
In the UK the BBC are to stop all nondigital TV signals by 2006 and it has hardly caused a stir. The diffrence? VCR's work with BBC digital signals and there is noone trying to stop people from recording what they like. The effect in the UK has been that digital TV has not only become popular but semistandard as people embrace the new technology. However the effect in America from what I can see is that this will alienate people from new technology. These laws need to be stopped so that Joe 6pack can enjoy technology like the geeks do and realise that it really is better in digital.
Thanks a lot.
Thanks a lot. To be honest I haven't really had a llok at the processors since I got it so thanks for the advice.
Due to wanting a computer to play games on I agreed to have a ready made Fujitsu-Siemens with an Intel Pentium 3 866 chip in it. Here's my problem, because this was the fastest computer in the house it also became my main work machine for graphics, typing and music. The first thing I did infact was upgrade the sound card. However, I know wish to continue playing games on it and upgrade the processor. Any suggestions as to what I can do to upgrade without replacing the motherboard or supporting Intel? My entire CD collection is recorded onto my hard disk so keeping my fair use rights as intact as possible, or keeping them intact for the future by not surporting Intel would make me happy. Any Suggestions for me? Thanks
But then who will make the music you listen to, Err... the rest of Europe would... seeing as then the airways would be cleared of all that Back Street Boys, and Britney manufactured stuff you guys make by the bucketfull.
the shoes you wear? If you mean the Nike shoes... I don't wear them, but I'm sure the third world kid will still make them for 5 cents a day for me. Infact... I get the the price lowered as there is no middle man!
Who will rescue you from your world wars? Do you have any idea of the causes of the Second World War.... a major one was the decision of the USA not to involve itself in the League of Nations, which could have stopped Facism before it became strong.
Remember, arrogance is not a virtue!
P.S. Why does someone feel the need to go mad as soon as someone mentions Osama? You guys never had a problem with laughing at terrorism before 9/11 Just the other day I saw a Simpsons episode where people were celebrating Saint Patricks day and in it a British Restraunt is blown up. The action gets a chear from the crowd. This is obviously a weak joke based on the bombing of the UK by Northern Ireland terrorists, but noone objected to it in the USA, so why do you object now when someone has the same view about yourown terrorist problems.
Well actually, it's cheaper to lock someone away than to execute them. If someone is executed then they can have up to 18 years (that's the longest I can remember) of appeals in which they are locked up in a cell... much like a maximum security prison. Not only that but people who are facing the death penalty are a lot more likely to appeal than someone facing prison. Oh... and the court case goes up too. An average LA homicide case costs $600,000, but when the death penalty is sought the cost increases to over $1 million. (Source: Scientific America). So if it's value for money you're looking for... maximum security is the way to go.
But it doesn't matter what the Old Testament says, or if it's mistranslated as it is over written in Christianity by the New Testament, and seeing as the message of the New Testament is a definate forgive the sinner, it is hard to see how putting anyone to death is acting in accordance with the Bible. However, the USA is suppose to be a secular society where government and law are concerned so I don't think it matters anyway.