a coffee shop (not Starbucks) where people can sit and browse online catalogues, google books, but mostly talk with other knowledgeable people about books. The communication face-to-face will be much faster (and more civil) than the online discussion forums that Amazon tries to run under each books page.
People will be able to buy their ebooks there, but the place will also have one of those print-on-demand machines, for people who want to print off a hand held copy of a book. Either one bought from the store, or one they've prepared themselves via PDF on a memory stick.
There won't be any physical books in the book stores of the future.
Now add to this the idea that such depictions are essentially created as entertainment and to make money.
You do realise that the wars themselves are there to make money? And if you don't think there's a certain segment of the public deriving entertainment from it, you have never been to the youtube channel where you can read the comments on videos showing Iraqi insurgents being killed by Apache gunfire.
It's a brilliant documentary, but times have changed. And changed in a big way.
One of the best things in the documentary, was when the US government got a court injunction to prevent the publication of a US Newspaper. That was how they tried to plug the leaks.
In an amazing display of journalism doing its job, other newspapers collectively put their heads on the block, and took over the release of information.
As the government shut one down, another would step up and take over.
It was like a pre-internet version of whack-a-mole, but with potentially very very serious consequences for each of the news papers involved, including their owners, editors, CEO's.
You simply wouldn't see that today. Murdoch put his neck on the line to release damaging papers criticising the war? You must be mad.
The IRA have not killed anywhere NEAR the number of people that have been killed by the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
To even suggest they have, is delusional.
Even if you narrow the numbers in the current middle east occupations down to "collateral damage" which is what the Pentagon frequently calls accidental civilian deaths which terrorise the local populace, it's still far far more than the IRA ever laid claim to.
Funny, I don't see an "except for the border" clause in the Bill of Rights.
It's been that way since 1985. (United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985))
Only recently has the government redefined what a border means, to be a 100 mile wide strip around the boundaries of the United States.
Since two thirds of the country lives within 100 miles of the old defined "border", that means almost 200 million people live in a constitutional free zone.
"They didn't use the incident to justify flagrantly violating the constitution. Imagine if they had though. What sort of country would we live in now if they had?"
Wasn't the details of the case even more insidious? Like, the semen in the rape victim showed that it didn't match the blood type of the defendant? And the prosecutor argued that this didn't mean anything?
Not entirely true. I was about 6 years old when the concept of donating blood was explained to me. I couldn't *wait* to do it, because it made SO much sense, and seemed to be really important in helping others.
On the day of my 18th birthday, when it was legal for me to donate blood, I went in. I've been a regular doner ever since.
I wasn't particularly a genius at age 6 but the idea of donating blood or organs wasn't hard to grasp.
(And by the by, the only reason I didn't become a registered organ doner was for religious reasons. The idea still seemed good, but apparently God was against it. I'll give you that. At 6, I was a lot less resistant to religious ideas.)
Since I can't legally put certain substances into my body, or self-euthanise, or self-pleasure in various public places, etc... you'd have to admit that there's plenty of things I can't do with my own body.
Slashdot Mirror
a coffee shop (not Starbucks) where people can sit and browse online catalogues, google books, but mostly talk with other knowledgeable people about books. The communication face-to-face will be much faster (and more civil) than the online discussion forums that Amazon tries to run under each books page.
People will be able to buy their ebooks there, but the place will also have one of those print-on-demand machines, for people who want to print off a hand held copy of a book. Either one bought from the store, or one they've prepared themselves via PDF on a memory stick.
There won't be any physical books in the book stores of the future.
It's as silly as creating a game where people pay money so they can water virtual flowers in their virtual garden.
Yeah, but normally, idiots aren't interested in Nasa.
They do, however, like bright primary colours.
Have you tried renaming the shuttle to something other than Challenger?
I think that solves the crash problem.
Now add to this the idea that such depictions are essentially created as entertainment and to make money.
You do realise that the wars themselves are there to make money?
And if you don't think there's a certain segment of the public deriving entertainment from it, you have never been to the youtube channel where you can read the comments on videos showing Iraqi insurgents being killed by Apache gunfire.
At least the video games are honest about it.
but why is no one asking these questions?
Glenn Beck is asking these questions!
If Congress represented us,
Oh, since we're in Imaginationland, can I have a pony?
It's a brilliant documentary, but times have changed. And changed in a big way.
One of the best things in the documentary, was when the US government got a court injunction to prevent the publication of a US Newspaper.
That was how they tried to plug the leaks.
In an amazing display of journalism doing its job, other newspapers collectively put their heads on the block, and took over the release of information.
As the government shut one down, another would step up and take over.
It was like a pre-internet version of whack-a-mole, but with potentially very very serious consequences for each of the news papers involved, including their owners, editors, CEO's.
You simply wouldn't see that today. Murdoch put his neck on the line to release damaging papers criticising the war? You must be mad.
That is why we need wikileaks.
The IRA have not killed anywhere NEAR the number of people that have been killed by the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
To even suggest they have, is delusional.
Even if you narrow the numbers in the current middle east occupations down to "collateral damage" which is what the Pentagon frequently calls accidental civilian deaths which terrorise the local populace, it's still far far more than the IRA ever laid claim to.
Funny, I don't see an "except for the border" clause in the Bill of Rights.
It's been that way since 1985. (United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985))
Only recently has the government redefined what a border means, to be a 100 mile wide strip around the boundaries of the United States.
Since two thirds of the country lives within 100 miles of the old defined "border", that means almost 200 million people live in a constitutional free zone.
Robert Gates said that the release of the WikiLeaks documents may damage our reputation in Afghanistan.
Yes, truth is frequently damaging to Propaganda.
I do not see how the Army can tell him he is "detained."
Posse Comitatus would seem to indicate that they can't.
But then, the constitutional rule of law hasn't applied in America for some time now.
We should abolish it. As has been indicated under the Obama administration in a statement by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 13, 2009.
So why hasn't he then?
Welcome to the United Federal Fascist State of America.
No, you'll know the end has truly come when they start referring to it as the Peoples Democratic Republic of America.
"They didn't use the incident to justify flagrantly violating the constitution. Imagine if they had though. What sort of country would we live in now if they had?"
Ask your grandchildren in about 50 years.
Wasn't the details of the case even more insidious? Like, the semen in the rape victim showed that it didn't match the blood type of the defendant? And the prosecutor argued that this didn't mean anything?
Not entirely true. I was about 6 years old when the concept of donating blood was explained to me. I couldn't *wait* to do it, because it made SO much sense, and seemed to be really important in helping others.
On the day of my 18th birthday, when it was legal for me to donate blood, I went in. I've been a regular doner ever since.
I wasn't particularly a genius at age 6 but the idea of donating blood or organs wasn't hard to grasp.
(And by the by, the only reason I didn't become a registered organ doner was for religious reasons. The idea still seemed good, but apparently God was against it. I'll give you that. At 6, I was a lot less resistant to religious ideas.)
You don't think immortality would be available under say, a 5000 year mortgage plan?
The dead are walking!
And they're chipper!!
Since I can't legally put certain substances into my body, or self-euthanise, or self-pleasure in various public places, etc... you'd have to admit that there's plenty of things I can't do with my own body.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Historically, nuclear was heavily subsidised. Without those subsidies, it was far more expensive.
To the Republicans, the "little guy" is Enron. The Big Guy is the government.
You are not the little guy. You are less than nothing.
No, some people WILFULLY choose not to understand that.
"Error prone time travel is however allowed."
Hence, the Tardis is so erratic.
As opposed to, say, when the Americans used the bomb on japan without fear of retaliation?
When we tear this drive apart to get access to the lazer, will it be capable of more than just lighting a match and bursting a balloon?