i think what the parent meant was that an exact copy of your brain would not be you. It would be your twin, and up-to-date copy of the data in your brain.
in other words, the goal of this hypothesizing is to make death of the consciousness, of your consciousness, optional. the counter argument is that your consciousness is inextricably tied to your physicality - and making a copy would be exaclty that... just backing up your data. It would not be you. *You* would still die.
Someone posted about a slow rate of transfer... a seamless integration of cybernetic components into the biological substrate so as to retain the integrity of you. That seams to make more sense. Something breaks down? Replace it... until a a point and time occurs when all my parts are new. It would still be me (i think).
i think you've hit something i think important. the idea in the short term is not to download the brain into another substrate. This involves science not yet understood, because it presupposes a complete model of the brain's workings and the ability to emulate such model in a bug-free environment. that's going to take way longer than 50 years to perfect.
On the other hand, I think that keeping a biological brain alive and functional using cybernetics seems a more plausible way to go in that same time span. In other words, I think we can perfect cybernetic means of brain survival way before we can digitally transfer one's data to a more permanent substrate.
hopefully I made it clear that I see the globalization of media as the clearest and nearest hope for genuine relations amongst disparate cultures. With that said, inroads need to be made so that selfsmae global media serves the interests of the people rather than the interests of the conglomerates controlling them. But that, alas, is another thread.... back to organic chem...
Translation: everyone needs to think like me, then all the worlds problems will be solved!
using babelfish again, I see?
wow. there are so many personal attacks in your post. I'll resist.
My statement DIDN'T NEED TRANSLATING; using media as a common bond - we can build bridges between disparate aspects of opposed cultures.
I recently had a lecture where we discussed the idea of racism in America - and how it's become a generational thing. Basically, most people born since the middle to late 70s, when polled, were much less likely to exhibit bigoted or racially preferential behavior. The major reason for this: the media. The explosion of diverse media platforms has made it so that younger people have been exposed to disparate cultures at a much younger age. Having grown up accustomed to the idea of other cultures and ideas of coexistence, they tend to exhibit less in the way of racial and cultural bias.
Because of the web, I play chess with some guys from Nigeria and we discuss politics and open source. I discuss movies with some film buffs in India on rediff. My point is that through media, we're allowed to see that we have a lot more in common with our peers in other cultures... that there is nothing to fear, that there is nothing to be afraid of. We bond over the same music, the same movies - they put me on to some cool stuff I've never heard before... I put them on to cool shit 2... it's all gravy. lol... I've been learning Japanese by watching Japanese television.
My point is the the POINT OF DISSONACE between two cultures is inherently that WE DON'T SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE. Media allows for some common ground - something that people on both sides of the fence can talk about.
In Ender's Game, the argument about the buggers attacking the humans was that as a closed source hive mind without language, they would NEVER BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH US, and vice versa. Because we could not communicate, each side ASSUMED BELLIGERENCE. I'll translate for you now - THIS IS ALLEGORY. It is no coincidence that the countries that we beef with are diametrically opposed in language, culture, and religion. There is no common ground - other than our humanity.
Media conveys the humanity in other cultures (mostly the depraved parts, but it's a fucking start). An Esperanto, if you will. And it isn't about saying that American culture is right to the exclusion of all else (it's clearly not) butthat we're willing to show you what we're thinking. Kind of an I'll show you mine if you show me yours instead of "I hate you let's fight."
Again, I reiterate... my focus in using media as a forge is because of the common ground it provides.
Because these societies censor media - it is because they too recognize that free media would undermine regimes and nationalistic stances. In other words, by the very fact that governments like China and Middle Eastern countries actively censor content, it is because they too see the dangers in allowing the apple to fall from the tree.
simply amazing. this is why i have no sympathy for any harm that is ever inflicted on your country.
wow. let me guess. You're an elected official somewhere, right? I'll put it to you like this, be I young, naive, American, whatever, I'd never wish harm on you. I would challenge you to some Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory on X-Box Live though. *shrugs* But only if you don't feel like it would be turning you into a brainwashed drone.
you're missing my point. my statement was in no way made to exalt the re-education of youth, nor was it made arrogantly. However, infiltration of media into censored societies is one of few ways to ensure that emerging politicians are exposed to new and unfiltered ideas. It's why countries in the middle east and China are actively opposed to free internet and free media.
I don't claim popular culture myself, much less choose to "force" it on others. However, I do realize the power of popular culture, and the commonality of a collective culture across the planet reduces the likeness of diametric opposition in ideology as generations progress.
Is there evil in popular culture, yes. That isn't my point though.
Do I prefer MTV drones to fundamentalism diametrically opposed to the United States' continued existence, yes. I'll gladly trade you a Britney Spears for an Osama Bin Laden.
First off, weapons placed in space cannot be hidden, so they sit in plain view of everyone.
Eh, planes used to sit in plain view of everyone too. part of our tactical advantage in current warfare is the continued research and money put into developing flying weapons designed to evade radar and emissions detection. Designing satellites that do not reflect radiation or otherwise obscure effective detection is a worthwhile endeavor. One could also hypothetically model such weapons to be designed cheaply and deployed in clusters to prevent wholesale destruction of the installation investment. In a similar vein, you can deploy one or two weapons amidst a cloud of decoys, in case an emeny develops precision methods of destroying space weapons.
In the case of kinetic space based weapons, I'm not sure of the exact science involved, but I assume that for accuracy's sake, the kinetic weapons need to more or less be above the target, or perpendicular to a tangent at the surface of the earth at that point. This would mean that the enemy, if choosing to use a nuke to get rid of the weapon, would be detonating nukes above its own country. High altitude nuclear bursts are accompanied by EMP pulses. EMP signals from high altitude nuclear bursts radiate to the HORIZON from the burst point. There's your enemy, in the dark. *shrugs* worth the investment.
The United States has the most to lose - it already has the largest world share of satellite-based commerce, its military relies on satellites to function more than any other military. By shifting battle into outer space, the U.S. is effectively threatening its own interests.
Exactly. the US shouldn't assume that its foes aren't exploring space as a military option, and if the US military presence in the form of spy satellites isn't lost on you, then I'm certain that someone's losing sleep over it elsewhere. Not having weapons in space doesn't make our current spy satellite system(s) any less of a target. I think it's worth a look... a fresh look.
I can just imagine someone saying the same thing about nukes, or stealth tech, or fly-by-wire, or whatever.
The Art of War is my favorite book, especially the part about adaptability to circumstance. This is a circumstance that needs adapting to. The US does have everything to lose, fundamentally, its hegemony on the planet. That's a big thing to lose on primitive warlike earth. I'd rather keep it, personally.
In regards to tactically being the first to deploy, I think you're right. There is no advantage to being first per se, but there is a HUGE disadvantage to not preparing for deployment at all (or minimally). We're going to have to do it some time; and if history is any indicant, world affairs are going to be dicey for a minute, which means that opposing nations will aggressively pursue militaristic and political advantage. Given the ramp up time from conception to deployment, and assuming that other countries are secretly exploring space war tech, it's just all a huge gamble to not put some cash into it and outline some scenarios. China could put a DeathStar Mini in orbit tomorrow. Would you think differently if we were playing fervent catch-up?
I agree with you on all your points, and they are well supported historically.
however, I also agree with the poster who noted that the space program's greatest successes came under the duress of the Cold War. Strife stimulates uncommon innovation. The same cold war that begat those nukes is responsible for everything up to the still functioning mars landers.
I'm opposed to war on the one hand, but I've accepted the notion that man is inherently warlike; it's something programmed into our genes. The same folks who espouse pacifism on the one hand scream bloody murder at football matches on the other, somehow missing the fact that all sports games are metaphors for war. that said, my hopes for a sudden paradigmatic shift in the very nature of the species is not something I'd put any money on.
If we're going to live in a warlike world, I'd like to be on the winning team. Call me a frontrunner if you wish, but if anybody is going to have space weapons, I'd certainly like it to be us. As a matter of fact, being the cynic that I am, I'd be surprised if there aren't some already - and these statements are just to warm us up to the fact before the government starts actively using them.
In regards to fostering positive relations with countries like China and regions like the Middle East, the issue here is fundamentalism, be it culture or religion. These are forces that will bend slowly at best, if at all. So the idea of genuine open positive relations with these regions is unlikely, in my estimation. The only way to foster change, in my estimation, is to actively promote american media in those regions (let MTV re-educate Afghani youth) and ride those guys into office, at which time we can deal with them. Can't deal with the hard line guys in office now.
All of which to say, space weapons now will put humans on the moon soon, and into the cosmos, where I think some iteration of humanity ultimately belongs.
i think everything is gonna go server side in the long run. it just works out better for software companies that way. broadband is an issue (in that not everyone is using it - CURSE YOUR fscking EXISTENCE AOL); another is the fact that PC makers haven't had the killer ap to force the upgrade of machines for a while now (so lots of older, compromised WINTEL systems running). But barring that, server-side google-type apps are going to be platform independent. that's the big concern for places like china - because it subverts all of China's isolationist tactics. That's why they don't want to borrow our wheel; they want to reinvent their own. *shrugs*
oh, in response to what you said. in the long run, big conglomerates and governments are probably gonna be the only ones running full clients - everyone else will be on a really thin client. All software will be subscription based - tiered of course. I'm willing to bet that China is looking to develop Chinese server side apps and a Chinese Intranet. They already have a strong foothold in potent computer making technology (lenovo et al) to produce uncompromised clients for the country itself.
The chinese definitely want to be certain that their software is not compromised. I too have heard about a proprietary fork of Linux being developed for governmental use.
The US government has taken it upon itself to depose governments it deems opposed to its own "ideals". China realizes that it falls into that category. They're looking to protect their infrastructure in two ways; first by preventing media from re-educating its youth - aka censorship. They know that's a losing battle. You can't win when the other guy offers drugs and porn on demand (the other guys would be us). Second, they're trying to preserve the integrity of their grid by obscuring its protocols.
that's a double edged sword. In my estimation, the reason the money guys have always had a problem as far as coding goes is that, for the most part, THEY CAN'T READ CODE. So even with your most loyal engineers, you ASSUME loyalty, because the bureaucrats and venture capitalists can't assure it for themselves. This is a huge hole in the CODE FOR THYSELF strategy. The coders REALLY HAVE ALL THE POWER. This leaves room for backdoors-for-hire... lots of black market cash to be made, etc... Imagine Mao telling scribes what he wanted in The Little Red Book, himself being unable to read or write. *shrugs*
(I think it's an interesting time for coding in general, because I tend to think of coders as this new underclass (undervalued by virtue of the fact that there are so many of them across regions with differing monetary systems), but literate (and thus possessing an information processing and storing advantage) to a degree that by and large supercedes the general population. Imagine the world after someone writes the Little Binary Book? Imagine, virtual populace, virtual governments - people don't tend plots of land, they tend lines of code - But I digress... )
But other than that, it makes good sense from China's perspective to eliminate the effect the United States has on its own populace and infrastructure. Increased US influence can only erode the Chinese power system; as such it should be feared and otherwise rallied against. So if I were the Chinese, I'd want Microsoft off my servers and clients too. In fact I'd want them out of my country. Nor would I want Google. Really... especially Google. Every time I think of Google these days, I think of the movie PI (by Darren Aronofsky - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138704/). The protagonist searched for a pattern in PI, and for a pattern in the stock market, which... all coincided with the pattern for God. Anyway, I can imagine that Google has its hands on a bundle of patterns these days. Again, I digress.
That said, you can find almost any movie on the street for like a buck. That alone would have Mao turning in his grave.
i think you made an interesting point about relative percentages of reproduction vs. perceived intelligence. Many have argued that it's in society's best interests to keep the number of "intelligent" low. The idea of intelligence as an advantage from an evolutionary standpoint comes from the fact that they are relatively few and far between.
the percentage of the population with perceived lower intellectual capacity - that's the societal workforce... the engine as it were. They tend not to be remarkable at anything, which in fact makes them highly adaptable to circumstance.
it's pretty much standard fare that intelligent people are overrepresented along all lines of deviant activity. For the most part they don't take orders well and are opposed to mindnumbing activity. You need ants for the colony - too many queens and nothing gets done. A friend of mine has an argument that the OSS movement is suffering from precisely this... TOO MUCH INTELLIGENCE. Endless distributions that don't speak to one another because too many smart people keep creating them insteading of just letting one smart person define the course and following his/her lead.
a couple of smart folks. They breed selectively, protect their caste and selectively introduce genetic material when it's to their advantage.
I also remember reading about left handers (I'm one - so naturally interested). Lefties are overrepresented in scientific and engineering circles, overrepresented in sports, overpresented in hollywood, but also overpresented in prisons. In fencing, and other close contact sports like boxing, lefties present a furious advantage. Anthro-biologists suspect that much of the advantage comes from relatively few numbers. In other words, evolution supports a system where a smaller subset is maintained at a critical mass (relatively 10 percent of the pop for lefties). Again, the idea is that the advantage that lefties present physically and/or intellectually are only worthwhile at this population ratio.
So the idea of intellectuals reproducing furiously seems disadvantageous for the system. You don't want a mugger with a 160 IQ.
I digress... ADHD.... sorry.
Re:Every game in the Xbox 360 is Live aware...
on
The Xbox 360 Unveiled
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
i think that's the point though. they're hedging their bets on the fact that the future of gaming in online, for a number of reasons.
first and foremost - the revenue stream from an online service allows them to sell the unit itself at a justifiable loss if they can demonstrate a consistent percentage of owner uptake to the online service.
the second thing about consoles that has yet to become a big problem is piracy. As more sophisticated methods of console piracy emerge, serious dents in the revenue stream will be made, as microsoft undoubtedly shares in revenues of games distributed on its console, again to offset the loss from the sale of the unit. So the other reason to hedge bets on online gaming is that the future of gaming plans to be SERVER SIDE - centrally distributed gaming. You'll log on to a service and have to pay for your game which is centrally housed.
No more disc for you to copy for your cool friends so they can play on their modded x-box. in fact, they're telling you to mod your x-box all you like... if you can't get free games, they couldn't care less.
if you don't think that's important, look at how the gamecube suffered because it refused to consider the implications of the future, i.e. dvd playback. Sony, ironically, has catchup to do. By not uniting developers on one platform for online gaming (something they're going to have to do eventually) they didn't have the foresight to realize that gaming, like all things, is something most folks like to do together. X-box live is gonna give people a place to do that (especially because of the x-box silver service, which is a FREE tier of x-box live).
agreed, to a certain degree. but i think the issue with most wintel users is that they associate microsoft products with windows. fundamentally, the issue here is with Office, and it is a windows product that many intrinsically associate with windows. never mind that you can use it on a mac... impressions and associations are what sells products.
i think google has the potential, if it can develop platform agnostic server side apps available whereever one can get an internet connection, that obviates the tenuous link between Office and Windows. Once price points are competitive with wintel boxes, then the average user has no reason to choose wintel over apple, as apple has historically had superior designs.
wow. i agree with you completely and I'll take your analysis one step further.
I think all the other manufacturers of PC hardware have essentially decided to play the waiting game with Apple. Apple products are niche; the major manufacturers will distill their ideas to the mainstream.
I think that if google succeeds in making itself the platform agnostic portal that it's trying to become, that paves the way for apple products to themselves distill into the mainstream, because the single argument against owning apple computing products (not enough software, etc) is essentially obviated. With the low cost mac mini, they're also trying to compete on price point as well, obviating the second major point. Once no arguments can be made against the widespread use of of apple products, they win by virture of intrinsic superior design.
i'm definitely gonna get modded down for this, but i couldn't resist.
Longhorn is behind its delivery date for a number of reasons, few of which have to do with problems to the actual OS.
Longhorn was designed to take into account features MS assumed would be more commonplace in the American marketplace - 64 bit processors for the end user being one of them.
the 64 bit revolution has failed to really jump off, partially because there is no pressure in the marketplace for it to do so. sales of PCs are lagging because what most people want to do with their pcs they already can do. despite the security issues with XP - a properly patched box is secure. So there quite simply is NO NEED for longhorn right now...... and what does a monopoly do when it's trying to sell you a product that you don't need? They advertise heavily. All over the place, until random blokes on message boards are talking about Longhorn.
In that sense, his rambling is a good move. It's free advertising for a non-product. Wintel users don't NEED Longhorn - as a matter of fact - windows xp (64 bit) should be out already. if not, it's on the way. And they've refocused much of their efforts onto windows mobile and media center.
it's just that they've sunk billions into longhorn, and now need to wait until the next killer app comes along, so they can quickly bundle it into longhorn and claim "must have" in their adverts.
Re: Microsoft copying Apple to the tune of billions, it's always the second rat to the trap that gets the cheese, eh? The history of industry is peppered with accounts of companies stepping over the carcass of an innovator to hoardes of cash. That's just the way these things work. *shrugs*
i think there's good data on both sides of this argument.
first, Apple's been trying to get into the music phone business for a minute. they've developed something with Motorola and shopped it to domestic telecoms. The telecoms didn't want the equivalent of an IPOD phone because an IPOD phone with ITUNES cuts telecoms out of the revenue stream. telecoms instead have been looking to make direct deals with the record companies. so gates isn't innovating when he says this - he's just reading his APPLE rss feed.
that said, i think the ipod will be here for a while. quite frankly, it's because of the apparent inability tech companies have had in getting a convergence product right. Lets assume that product X is possible. how is it going to get decent battery time and still allow me to listen to music all day like i do now? So convergence has serious holes.
That said though, even Apple is looking for post-Pod solutions.
the other side of the argument is elementary. convergence is the f*cking dog's bollocks. One lightweight communications/web/multimedia device with decent battery time, without the strictures of an arthritis-inducing form factor... this is good. It doesn't exist, and the current attempts tend to put most people off convergence devices. I guess we'll have to see where that goes.
On the whole though, I think Gates is right. Jobs saw it way before he did though.
however, having used a blackberry, a treo, and a pocket pc device, i honestly have to say that the blackberry's design and form factor are geared more specifically towards effective mobile communication than the other two devices. for calls, both outgoing and incoming, most blackberries are a one-hand device. scroll wheel to a contact number, one click and i'm on a call. one click and I'm taking an incoming call. I can parse contact data from text messages and emails directly into my contacts, again with one handed operation... no stylus... no menus. Its practicality as a communications device more than makes up for its ugly form factor. As an end user, I'm no so much concerned that hardware and software protocols are closed. I care that it works and it's pretty f*cking useful. Well, I do care that exporting data from contacts is a f*ckin bitch, but it's my only major gripe. It works so well that I don't really care that it doesn't look so good. It's like that chick that isn't so hot but is a really good no-strings lay.
I know I'm gonna get flamed by all the treo fanboys, but I don't get the hype about this POS. I had a palm tungsten C and that's a great f*ckin piece of work... but the treo is a joke. It weighs a ton and is unwieldy. It requires the use of a stylus which means two handed operation which all but obviates the usefulness of a communications device because it precludes multitasking. It's slow, and unlike other palm devices, not cleanly organized and functional. It's like the suicidal really hot chick with an eating disorder who, if you catch her in between well-measured medication doses, might be a really good lay. You're willing to be around her cause she's really hot, but ultimately, it just isn't worth your time.
pocket PC devices have the most upside to me because they allow for the evolution of handheld devices. in that sense i think pocket pc devices will scale well. But that's the downside. having used many iterations of pocket pcs, you're so locked in by your hardware platform. The exact same build of pocket pc on one handheld could be brilliant on the one hand and excruciating on the other. hardware configurations are the monkey here. If you're not gettig top of the line hardware, you're f*cked. But pocket PC is definitely the dog's bollocks... and they're getting better about one handed use (again, depends on your hardware). this is like the really hot chick that you can only hook up with if you have all the bells and whistles that really hot chicks dig ($) - and she's a great f*cking lay.
That said... blackberries serve their purpose well, but they will be killed off because I can't see how they can scale their hardware and software. As consumers begin to demand more and more from their handhelds, blackberries will need top-down redesigns to compete. If they're not in the pipeline with that already, I'd say that thy're f*cked.
this isn't the case on my IPAQ. using the itask button, you can manage all of your resources, including opening and closing programs. The itask button is a good resource, really, because it essentially puts many of the functions buried in menus readily available at the touch of a button.
it's possible that the function is disabled because of the hardware you're using.
i'm a palm os convert (from the superlative tungsten C), and the pocket pc experience for me has been a very good one. i think a lot of issues with windows pocket end up essentially being the same problem that desktop and notebook users have with windows, namely that attempting to shoehorn one iteration of an operating system onto hardware with near endless iterations is bound to be problematic. palm os and apple products have the luxury of designing for one platform of their own design and configuration, so the fit is always perfect. just my.02
interestingly enough, i think the author of the article brings up a salient point about the near religious quality of current IP protocol.
The idea of granting rights and powers to individuals and essentially exalting them onto a pedestal. It's this essential human quality that seeks to find something potent and potentially divine in the human experience.
the analogy of the ant colony was made before. Worker ants behind a queen. Maybe IP is an extension of the constant search for queens.
Beyond rewarding innovators, maybe it's importnat to note that we as a society WANT INNOVATORS TO BE NOTED, no matter how minor their innovation may be. WE WANT TO BE SPECIAL, so we reward those who have somehow proven that they are because it proves that it is possible for us too, to be different and special.
Maybe the answer to the grand question of "what is it all for?", the answer is, "a patent."
my question to you is this. the system you designed, was part of the impetus financial gain? did you think of the possibilities of financial gain during the development process?
in regards to promoting the greater good, regardless of the ethos of the original founders, the company is now publically traded. They are now beholden to meeting quarterly expectations, actually moreso than companies like Microsoft because the stock is currently overvalued. This "innovation" just happens to be them collecting server side apps already popular as judged by what people are looking for (they are google, after all) and BUYING companies that already code for those specialties. Sounds like MS to me.
The whole idea of a benevolent overlord is an oxymoron. To win, you must conquer. And actually, because Legg Mason, Value Trust, and Fidelity own 35% of google themselves, you should be welcoming them and other fund companies like them, who just so happen to rule the world with other people's money.
i've worked a bit in the industry, and was often frustrated by similar things in other films.
the "dumbness" meter in a film is inversely proportional to the size of the intended audience. Filmmakers try to visualize things on-screen (like the transfer of a file from one console to another) visually because they don't want to *confuse* the base audience, whom they *correctly* assume is not tech savvy. It's why a hacker's hacking ability is directly related to his ability to type really fast or be Seth Green... shopping bags always have french bread, etc. The film industry assumes that it needs to tickle its audience with anvils as opposed to feathers.
(A perfect example of this: it was a huge issue in the Spiderman films to make the webs come from his wrists as opposed to web shooters. As his primary visual *power* is web slinging, they felt that the audience would feel cheated by a super hero whose primary power came from a gadget he invented. Also, the film played down Peter Parker's intelligence because people hate feeling dumb.)
Living in an urban center where most people are relatively well educated, it's easy to assume that the country is homogenous. But the same half of the country that voted for George Bush probably shares his affinity for all things *internets*. The film industry has rightly concluded that its easier to impress duller people into parting with their cash. Smart folks ask too many questions and expect no plot holes. Dullards want cool explosions and obligatory punchlines. (Speaking of which, I know a punchline guy who gets 15-30K a punchline. he gets paid to go through scripts and put in a couple of punchlines. nepotism gig.)
these computers are being subsidized, right? is it possible that microsoft is trying to get brazil to pay up for the editions put on those computers? then it doesn't matter if there's an upgrade or not, cause Bill's made his sale?
or maybe it's insidious. someone mentioned how the limiting changes are probably soft-coded and easily amended. maybe bill's counting on the "overclock" hack... everyone's gonna jump on it, and that subversively kills linux there. the government will complain... but by then everyone will have hotmail and messenger accounts and it'll be too late.
Slashdot Mirror
i think what the parent meant was that an exact copy of your brain would not be you. It would be your twin, and up-to-date copy of the data in your brain.
in other words, the goal of this hypothesizing is to make death of the consciousness, of your consciousness, optional. the counter argument is that your consciousness is inextricably tied to your physicality - and making a copy would be exaclty that... just backing up your data. It would not be you. *You* would still die.
Someone posted about a slow rate of transfer... a seamless integration of cybernetic components into the biological substrate so as to retain the integrity of you. That seams to make more sense. Something breaks down? Replace it... until a a point and time occurs when all my parts are new. It would still be me (i think).
i think you've hit something i think important. the idea in the short term is not to download the brain into another substrate. This involves science not yet understood, because it presupposes a complete model of the brain's workings and the ability to emulate such model in a bug-free environment. that's going to take way longer than 50 years to perfect.
On the other hand, I think that keeping a biological brain alive and functional using cybernetics seems a more plausible way to go in that same time span. In other words, I think we can perfect cybernetic means of brain survival way before we can digitally transfer one's data to a more permanent substrate.
Agreed. totally.
... back to organic chem...
hopefully I made it clear that I see the globalization of media as the clearest and nearest hope for genuine relations amongst disparate cultures. With that said, inroads need to be made so that selfsmae global media serves the interests of the people rather than the interests of the conglomerates controlling them. But that, alas, is another thread.
Translation: everyone needs to think like me, then all the worlds problems will be solved!
using babelfish again, I see?
wow. there are so many personal attacks in your post. I'll resist.
My statement DIDN'T NEED TRANSLATING; using media as a common bond - we can build bridges between disparate aspects of opposed cultures.
I recently had a lecture where we discussed the idea of racism in America - and how it's become a generational thing. Basically, most people born since the middle to late 70s, when polled, were much less likely to exhibit bigoted or racially preferential behavior. The major reason for this: the media. The explosion of diverse media platforms has made it so that younger people have been exposed to disparate cultures at a much younger age. Having grown up accustomed to the idea of other cultures and ideas of coexistence, they tend to exhibit less in the way of racial and cultural bias.
Because of the web, I play chess with some guys from Nigeria and we discuss politics and open source. I discuss movies with some film buffs in India on rediff. My point is that through media, we're allowed to see that we have a lot more in common with our peers in other cultures... that there is nothing to fear, that there is nothing to be afraid of. We bond over the same music, the same movies - they put me on to some cool stuff I've never heard before... I put them on to cool shit 2... it's all gravy. lol... I've been learning Japanese by watching Japanese television.
My point is the the POINT OF DISSONACE between two cultures is inherently that WE DON'T SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE. Media allows for some common ground - something that people on both sides of the fence can talk about.
In Ender's Game, the argument about the buggers attacking the humans was that as a closed source hive mind without language, they would NEVER BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH US, and vice versa. Because we could not communicate, each side ASSUMED BELLIGERENCE. I'll translate for you now - THIS IS ALLEGORY. It is no coincidence that the countries that we beef with are diametrically opposed in language, culture, and religion. There is no common ground - other than our humanity. Media conveys the humanity in other cultures (mostly the depraved parts, but it's a fucking start). An Esperanto, if you will. And it isn't about saying that American culture is right to the exclusion of all else (it's clearly not) butthat we're willing to show you what we're thinking. Kind of an I'll show you mine if you show me yours instead of "I hate you let's fight."
Again, I reiterate... my focus in using media as a forge is because of the common ground it provides. Because these societies censor media - it is because they too recognize that free media would undermine regimes and nationalistic stances. In other words, by the very fact that governments like China and Middle Eastern countries actively censor content, it is because they too see the dangers in allowing the apple to fall from the tree.
simply amazing. this is why i have no sympathy for any harm that is ever inflicted on your country.
wow. let me guess. You're an elected official somewhere, right? I'll put it to you like this, be I young, naive, American, whatever, I'd never wish harm on you. I would challenge you to some Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory on X-Box Live though. *shrugs* But only if you don't feel like it would be turning you into a brainwashed drone.
you're missing my point. my statement was in no way made to exalt the re-education of youth, nor was it made arrogantly. However, infiltration of media into censored societies is one of few ways to ensure that emerging politicians are exposed to new and unfiltered ideas. It's why countries in the middle east and China are actively opposed to free internet and free media.
I don't claim popular culture myself, much less choose to "force" it on others. However, I do realize the power of popular culture, and the commonality of a collective culture across the planet reduces the likeness of diametric opposition in ideology as generations progress.
Is there evil in popular culture, yes. That isn't my point though.
Do I prefer MTV drones to fundamentalism diametrically opposed to the United States' continued existence, yes. I'll gladly trade you a Britney Spears for an Osama Bin Laden.
good post. I'll play devil's advocate.
First off, weapons placed in space cannot be hidden, so they sit in plain view of everyone.
Eh, planes used to sit in plain view of everyone too. part of our tactical advantage in current warfare is the continued research and money put into developing flying weapons designed to evade radar and emissions detection. Designing satellites that do not reflect radiation or otherwise obscure effective detection is a worthwhile endeavor. One could also hypothetically model such weapons to be designed cheaply and deployed in clusters to prevent wholesale destruction of the installation investment. In a similar vein, you can deploy one or two weapons amidst a cloud of decoys, in case an emeny develops precision methods of destroying space weapons.
In the case of kinetic space based weapons, I'm not sure of the exact science involved, but I assume that for accuracy's sake, the kinetic weapons need to more or less be above the target, or perpendicular to a tangent at the surface of the earth at that point. This would mean that the enemy, if choosing to use a nuke to get rid of the weapon, would be detonating nukes above its own country. High altitude nuclear bursts are accompanied by EMP pulses. EMP signals from high altitude nuclear bursts radiate to the HORIZON from the burst point. There's your enemy, in the dark. *shrugs* worth the investment.
The United States has the most to lose - it already has the largest world share of satellite-based commerce, its military relies on satellites to function more than any other military. By shifting battle into outer space, the U.S. is effectively threatening its own interests.
Exactly. the US shouldn't assume that its foes aren't exploring space as a military option, and if the US military presence in the form of spy satellites isn't lost on you, then I'm certain that someone's losing sleep over it elsewhere. Not having weapons in space doesn't make our current spy satellite system(s) any less of a target. I think it's worth a look... a fresh look.
I can just imagine someone saying the same thing about nukes, or stealth tech, or fly-by-wire, or whatever.
The Art of War is my favorite book, especially the part about adaptability to circumstance. This is a circumstance that needs adapting to. The US does have everything to lose, fundamentally, its hegemony on the planet. That's a big thing to lose on primitive warlike earth. I'd rather keep it, personally.
In regards to tactically being the first to deploy, I think you're right. There is no advantage to being first per se, but there is a HUGE disadvantage to not preparing for deployment at all (or minimally). We're going to have to do it some time; and if history is any indicant, world affairs are going to be dicey for a minute, which means that opposing nations will aggressively pursue militaristic and political advantage. Given the ramp up time from conception to deployment, and assuming that other countries are secretly exploring space war tech, it's just all a huge gamble to not put some cash into it and outline some scenarios. China could put a DeathStar Mini in orbit tomorrow. Would you think differently if we were playing fervent catch-up?
I agree with you on all your points, and they are well supported historically.
however, I also agree with the poster who noted that the space program's greatest successes came under the duress of the Cold War. Strife stimulates uncommon innovation. The same cold war that begat those nukes is responsible for everything up to the still functioning mars landers.
I'm opposed to war on the one hand, but I've accepted the notion that man is inherently warlike; it's something programmed into our genes. The same folks who espouse pacifism on the one hand scream bloody murder at football matches on the other, somehow missing the fact that all sports games are metaphors for war. that said, my hopes for a sudden paradigmatic shift in the very nature of the species is not something I'd put any money on.
If we're going to live in a warlike world, I'd like to be on the winning team. Call me a frontrunner if you wish, but if anybody is going to have space weapons, I'd certainly like it to be us. As a matter of fact, being the cynic that I am, I'd be surprised if there aren't some already - and these statements are just to warm us up to the fact before the government starts actively using them.
In regards to fostering positive relations with countries like China and regions like the Middle East, the issue here is fundamentalism, be it culture or religion. These are forces that will bend slowly at best, if at all. So the idea of genuine open positive relations with these regions is unlikely, in my estimation. The only way to foster change, in my estimation, is to actively promote american media in those regions (let MTV re-educate Afghani youth) and ride those guys into office, at which time we can deal with them. Can't deal with the hard line guys in office now.
All of which to say, space weapons now will put humans on the moon soon, and into the cosmos, where I think some iteration of humanity ultimately belongs.
i've been thinking about this.
i think everything is gonna go server side in the long run. it just works out better for software companies that way. broadband is an issue (in that not everyone is using it - CURSE YOUR fscking EXISTENCE AOL); another is the fact that PC makers haven't had the killer ap to force the upgrade of machines for a while now (so lots of older, compromised WINTEL systems running). But barring that, server-side google-type apps are going to be platform independent. that's the big concern for places like china - because it subverts all of China's isolationist tactics. That's why they don't want to borrow our wheel; they want to reinvent their own. *shrugs*
oh, in response to what you said. in the long run, big conglomerates and governments are probably gonna be the only ones running full clients - everyone else will be on a really thin client. All software will be subscription based - tiered of course. I'm willing to bet that China is looking to develop Chinese server side apps and a Chinese Intranet. They already have a strong foothold in potent computer making technology (lenovo et al) to produce uncompromised clients for the country itself.
The chinese definitely want to be certain that their software is not compromised. I too have heard about a proprietary fork of Linux being developed for governmental use.
The US government has taken it upon itself to depose governments it deems opposed to its own "ideals". China realizes that it falls into that category. They're looking to protect their infrastructure in two ways; first by preventing media from re-educating its youth - aka censorship. They know that's a losing battle. You can't win when the other guy offers drugs and porn on demand (the other guys would be us). Second, they're trying to preserve the integrity of their grid by obscuring its protocols.
that's a double edged sword. In my estimation, the reason the money guys have always had a problem as far as coding goes is that, for the most part, THEY CAN'T READ CODE. So even with your most loyal engineers, you ASSUME loyalty, because the bureaucrats and venture capitalists can't assure it for themselves. This is a huge hole in the CODE FOR THYSELF strategy. The coders REALLY HAVE ALL THE POWER. This leaves room for backdoors-for-hire... lots of black market cash to be made, etc... Imagine Mao telling scribes what he wanted in The Little Red Book, himself being unable to read or write. *shrugs*
(I think it's an interesting time for coding in general, because I tend to think of coders as this new underclass (undervalued by virtue of the fact that there are so many of them across regions with differing monetary systems), but literate (and thus possessing an information processing and storing advantage) to a degree that by and large supercedes the general population. Imagine the world after someone writes the Little Binary Book? Imagine, virtual populace, virtual governments - people don't tend plots of land, they tend lines of code - But I digress... )
But other than that, it makes good sense from China's perspective to eliminate the effect the United States has on its own populace and infrastructure. Increased US influence can only erode the Chinese power system; as such it should be feared and otherwise rallied against. So if I were the Chinese, I'd want Microsoft off my servers and clients too. In fact I'd want them out of my country. Nor would I want Google. Really... especially Google. Every time I think of Google these days, I think of the movie PI (by Darren Aronofsky - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138704/). The protagonist searched for a pattern in PI, and for a pattern in the stock market, which... all coincided with the pattern for God. Anyway, I can imagine that Google has its hands on a bundle of patterns these days. Again, I digress.
That said, you can find almost any movie on the street for like a buck. That alone would have Mao turning in his grave.
i think you made an interesting point about relative percentages of reproduction vs. perceived intelligence. Many have argued that it's in society's best interests to keep the number of "intelligent" low. The idea of intelligence as an advantage from an evolutionary standpoint comes from the fact that they are relatively few and far between.
the percentage of the population with perceived lower intellectual capacity - that's the societal workforce... the engine as it were. They tend not to be remarkable at anything, which in fact makes them highly adaptable to circumstance.
it's pretty much standard fare that intelligent people are overrepresented along all lines of deviant activity. For the most part they don't take orders well and are opposed to mindnumbing activity. You need ants for the colony - too many queens and nothing gets done. A friend of mine has an argument that the OSS movement is suffering from precisely this... TOO MUCH INTELLIGENCE. Endless distributions that don't speak to one another because too many smart people keep creating them insteading of just letting one smart person define the course and following his/her lead.
a couple of smart folks. They breed selectively, protect their caste and selectively introduce genetic material when it's to their advantage.
I also remember reading about left handers (I'm one - so naturally interested). Lefties are overrepresented in scientific and engineering circles, overrepresented in sports, overpresented in hollywood, but also overpresented in prisons. In fencing, and other close contact sports like boxing, lefties present a furious advantage. Anthro-biologists suspect that much of the advantage comes from relatively few numbers. In other words, evolution supports a system where a smaller subset is maintained at a critical mass (relatively 10 percent of the pop for lefties). Again, the idea is that the advantage that lefties present physically and/or intellectually are only worthwhile at this population ratio.
So the idea of intellectuals reproducing furiously seems disadvantageous for the system. You don't want a mugger with a 160 IQ.
I digress... ADHD.... sorry.
i think that's the point though. they're hedging their bets on the fact that the future of gaming in online, for a number of reasons.
first and foremost - the revenue stream from an online service allows them to sell the unit itself at a justifiable loss if they can demonstrate a consistent percentage of owner uptake to the online service.
the second thing about consoles that has yet to become a big problem is piracy. As more sophisticated methods of console piracy emerge, serious dents in the revenue stream will be made, as microsoft undoubtedly shares in revenues of games distributed on its console, again to offset the loss from the sale of the unit. So the other reason to hedge bets on online gaming is that the future of gaming plans to be SERVER SIDE - centrally distributed gaming. You'll log on to a service and have to pay for your game which is centrally housed.
No more disc for you to copy for your cool friends so they can play on their modded x-box. in fact, they're telling you to mod your x-box all you like... if you can't get free games, they couldn't care less.
if you don't think that's important, look at how the gamecube suffered because it refused to consider the implications of the future, i.e. dvd playback. Sony, ironically, has catchup to do. By not uniting developers on one platform for online gaming (something they're going to have to do eventually) they didn't have the foresight to realize that gaming, like all things, is something most folks like to do together. X-box live is gonna give people a place to do that (especially because of the x-box silver service, which is a FREE tier of x-box live).
agreed, to a certain degree. but i think the issue with most wintel users is that they associate microsoft products with windows. fundamentally, the issue here is with Office, and it is a windows product that many intrinsically associate with windows. never mind that you can use it on a mac... impressions and associations are what sells products.
i think google has the potential, if it can develop platform agnostic server side apps available whereever one can get an internet connection, that obviates the tenuous link between Office and Windows. Once price points are competitive with wintel boxes, then the average user has no reason to choose wintel over apple, as apple has historically had superior designs.
wow. i agree with you completely and I'll take your analysis one step further.
I think all the other manufacturers of PC hardware have essentially decided to play the waiting game with Apple. Apple products are niche; the major manufacturers will distill their ideas to the mainstream.
I think that if google succeeds in making itself the platform agnostic portal that it's trying to become, that paves the way for apple products to themselves distill into the mainstream, because the single argument against owning apple computing products (not enough software, etc) is essentially obviated. With the low cost mac mini, they're also trying to compete on price point as well, obviating the second major point. Once no arguments can be made against the widespread use of of apple products, they win by virture of intrinsic superior design.
Interesting times.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000377038931/
Your PDA with a hard drive. looks sweet.
i'm definitely gonna get modded down for this, but i couldn't resist.
... and what does a monopoly do when it's trying to sell you a product that you don't need? They advertise heavily. All over the place, until random blokes on message boards are talking about Longhorn.
Longhorn is behind its delivery date for a number of reasons, few of which have to do with problems to the actual OS.
Longhorn was designed to take into account features MS assumed would be more commonplace in the American marketplace - 64 bit processors for the end user being one of them.
the 64 bit revolution has failed to really jump off, partially because there is no pressure in the marketplace for it to do so. sales of PCs are lagging because what most people want to do with their pcs they already can do. despite the security issues with XP - a properly patched box is secure. So there quite simply is NO NEED for longhorn right now...
In that sense, his rambling is a good move. It's free advertising for a non-product. Wintel users don't NEED Longhorn - as a matter of fact - windows xp (64 bit) should be out already. if not, it's on the way. And they've refocused much of their efforts onto windows mobile and media center.
it's just that they've sunk billions into longhorn, and now need to wait until the next killer app comes along, so they can quickly bundle it into longhorn and claim "must have" in their adverts.
Re: Microsoft copying Apple to the tune of billions, it's always the second rat to the trap that gets the cheese, eh? The history of industry is peppered with accounts of companies stepping over the carcass of an innovator to hoardes of cash. That's just the way these things work. *shrugs*
i think there's good data on both sides of this argument.
first, Apple's been trying to get into the music phone business for a minute. they've developed something with Motorola and shopped it to domestic telecoms. The telecoms didn't want the equivalent of an IPOD phone because an IPOD phone with ITUNES cuts telecoms out of the revenue stream. telecoms instead have been looking to make direct deals with the record companies. so gates isn't innovating when he says this - he's just reading his APPLE rss feed.
that said, i think the ipod will be here for a while. quite frankly, it's because of the apparent inability tech companies have had in getting a convergence product right. Lets assume that product X is possible. how is it going to get decent battery time and still allow me to listen to music all day like i do now? So convergence has serious holes.
That said though, even Apple is looking for post-Pod solutions.
the other side of the argument is elementary. convergence is the f*cking dog's bollocks. One lightweight communications/web/multimedia device with decent battery time, without the strictures of an arthritis-inducing form factor... this is good. It doesn't exist, and the current attempts tend to put most people off convergence devices. I guess we'll have to see where that goes.
On the whole though, I think Gates is right. Jobs saw it way before he did though.
i agree with you on most points.
however, having used a blackberry, a treo, and a pocket pc device, i honestly have to say that the blackberry's design and form factor are geared more specifically towards effective mobile communication than the other two devices. for calls, both outgoing and incoming, most blackberries are a one-hand device. scroll wheel to a contact number, one click and i'm on a call. one click and I'm taking an incoming call. I can parse contact data from text messages and emails directly into my contacts, again with one handed operation... no stylus... no menus. Its practicality as a communications device more than makes up for its ugly form factor. As an end user, I'm no so much concerned that hardware and software protocols are closed. I care that it works and it's pretty f*cking useful. Well, I do care that exporting data from contacts is a f*ckin bitch, but it's my only major gripe. It works so well that I don't really care that it doesn't look so good. It's like that chick that isn't so hot but is a really good no-strings lay.
I know I'm gonna get flamed by all the treo fanboys, but I don't get the hype about this POS. I had a palm tungsten C and that's a great f*ckin piece of work... but the treo is a joke. It weighs a ton and is unwieldy. It requires the use of a stylus which means two handed operation which all but obviates the usefulness of a communications device because it precludes multitasking. It's slow, and unlike other palm devices, not cleanly organized and functional. It's like the suicidal really hot chick with an eating disorder who, if you catch her in between well-measured medication doses, might be a really good lay. You're willing to be around her cause she's really hot, but ultimately, it just isn't worth your time.
pocket PC devices have the most upside to me because they allow for the evolution of handheld devices. in that sense i think pocket pc devices will scale well. But that's the downside. having used many iterations of pocket pcs, you're so locked in by your hardware platform. The exact same build of pocket pc on one handheld could be brilliant on the one hand and excruciating on the other. hardware configurations are the monkey here. If you're not gettig top of the line hardware, you're f*cked. But pocket PC is definitely the dog's bollocks... and they're getting better about one handed use (again, depends on your hardware). this is like the really hot chick that you can only hook up with if you have all the bells and whistles that really hot chicks dig ($) - and she's a great f*cking lay.
That said... blackberries serve their purpose well, but they will be killed off because I can't see how they can scale their hardware and software. As consumers begin to demand more and more from their handhelds, blackberries will need top-down redesigns to compete. If they're not in the pipeline with that already, I'd say that thy're f*cked.
this isn't the case on my IPAQ. using the itask button, you can manage all of your resources, including opening and closing programs. The itask button is a good resource, really, because it essentially puts many of the functions buried in menus readily available at the touch of a button.
.02
it's possible that the function is disabled because of the hardware you're using.
i'm a palm os convert (from the superlative tungsten C), and the pocket pc experience for me has been a very good one. i think a lot of issues with windows pocket end up essentially being the same problem that desktop and notebook users have with windows, namely that attempting to shoehorn one iteration of an operating system onto hardware with near endless iterations is bound to be problematic. palm os and apple products have the luxury of designing for one platform of their own design and configuration, so the fit is always perfect. just my
interestingly enough, i think the author of the article brings up a salient point about the near religious quality of current IP protocol.
The idea of granting rights and powers to individuals and essentially exalting them onto a pedestal. It's this essential human quality that seeks to find something potent and potentially divine in the human experience.
the analogy of the ant colony was made before. Worker ants behind a queen. Maybe IP is an extension of the constant search for queens.
Beyond rewarding innovators, maybe it's importnat to note that we as a society WANT INNOVATORS TO BE NOTED, no matter how minor their innovation may be. WE WANT TO BE SPECIAL, so we reward those who have somehow proven that they are because it proves that it is possible for us too, to be different and special.
Maybe the answer to the grand question of "what is it all for?", the answer is, "a patent."
wow!
my question to you is this. the system you designed, was part of the impetus financial gain? did you think of the possibilities of financial gain during the development process?
sorry... i had to do it.
lol...
this overlord thing... isn't that dead yet?
in regards to promoting the greater good, regardless of the ethos of the original founders, the company is now publically traded. They are now beholden to meeting quarterly expectations, actually moreso than companies like Microsoft because the stock is currently overvalued. This "innovation" just happens to be them collecting server side apps already popular as judged by what people are looking for (they are google, after all) and BUYING companies that already code for those specialties. Sounds like MS to me.
The whole idea of a benevolent overlord is an oxymoron. To win, you must conquer. And actually, because Legg Mason, Value Trust, and Fidelity own 35% of google themselves, you should be welcoming them and other fund companies like them, who just so happen to rule the world with other people's money.
Bollocks. I paid 72% of my gross in taxes last fiscal year. That is why we have $20 broadband and 'free' healthcare. It is not magic and fairies.
sh*t, dude. that sucks. but the word bollocks always makes me laugh.
i've worked a bit in the industry, and was often frustrated by similar things in other films.
the "dumbness" meter in a film is inversely proportional to the size of the intended audience. Filmmakers try to visualize things on-screen (like the transfer of a file from one console to another) visually because they don't want to *confuse* the base audience, whom they *correctly* assume is not tech savvy. It's why a hacker's hacking ability is directly related to his ability to type really fast or be Seth Green... shopping bags always have french bread, etc. The film industry assumes that it needs to tickle its audience with anvils as opposed to feathers.
(A perfect example of this: it was a huge issue in the Spiderman films to make the webs come from his wrists as opposed to web shooters. As his primary visual *power* is web slinging, they felt that the audience would feel cheated by a super hero whose primary power came from a gadget he invented. Also, the film played down Peter Parker's intelligence because people hate feeling dumb.)
Living in an urban center where most people are relatively well educated, it's easy to assume that the country is homogenous. But the same half of the country that voted for George Bush probably shares his affinity for all things *internets*. The film industry has rightly concluded that its easier to impress duller people into parting with their cash. Smart folks ask too many questions and expect no plot holes. Dullards want cool explosions and obligatory punchlines. (Speaking of which, I know a punchline guy who gets 15-30K a punchline. he gets paid to go through scripts and put in a couple of punchlines. nepotism gig.)
these computers are being subsidized, right? is it possible that microsoft is trying to get brazil to pay up for the editions put on those computers? then it doesn't matter if there's an upgrade or not, cause Bill's made his sale?
or maybe it's insidious. someone mentioned how the limiting changes are probably soft-coded and easily amended. maybe bill's counting on the "overclock" hack... everyone's gonna jump on it, and that subversively kills linux there. the government will complain... but by then everyone will have hotmail and messenger accounts and it'll be too late.