In the end it will be a moot point. If you haven't been paying attention to these consoles they are quickly becoming more and more like PCs anyway. In the end, you won't be able to tell the difference between the two.
The answer of course is to get yourself a 56k modem like I have. After waiting five minutes for a single slashdot screen to load, you quickly become so fustrated with everything not on your computer that you just drop it and go to playing games. The only downside of this method is that you tend to become extremely violent in gameplay - murdering the peasents in theif for example.
But their will just be other problems to try to solve and we are running out of time to get off this planet. The asteroid is coming. We don't know from where, we haven't even foudn it yet, but somewhere in the vastness of space it is coming. Somewhere cheap oil is running out too. Time is not on our side when it comes too space exploration.
No one seems to be able to totally agree on much but it woudl seem:
The oldest fossils are about 3.5 billion years; however, in rocks dated 3.8 billion years, analyses of isotopes of carbon suggest that carbon fixation and maybe even photosynthesis was around then. So now we have evidence of life at 3.8 billion years ago, some rocks at 3.96 billion and habitability maybe as far back as 4.4 billion.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/bioforum/bf02/awra mik/
Complex life only existed on this planet for about 500 million years. In other words, if we send a multicelled life form to a planet that it could survive in and got it to flourish, we might see a world like our own in a half a billion years. Of course by then, we probably would have seen a asteroid and at least one major extinction before then. Plus when you consider we as a species have only been around about 40,000 years and a mere 2 million years ago we had only reached the point of Lucy, we can judge that our evolution probably would make us drastically different between now and then. We also would have to also worry about galacial periods before then. Not to mention the earth may have already gone through more than 90% of its habitable life span and most planets like mars have already exceeded thiers.
As to where life came from? Their is a possibility that the first dna and rna building blocks, along with a good portion of the earths water, may have orginated in comets but that's a long shot and in the end no one knows.
The probel with fuel cells is the same with coal. same with ethanol. It takes more energy to get it than you get from it. Natural gas, oil, and uranium are just about the only substances on earth where that is true. For every one barrel of oil you spend drilling, you get 1.35 (Ithink but don't qoute me on it) barrels worth of oil out of the ground. That isn't true for hydrogen. That isn't true with solar panels (though there is the potential with the panels to do so.) In additon, we don't just use petroleum for transportation. Petroleum derived fertilizers are largely responsible for the huge increase in crop yields we have had over the last century. Petroleum derived plastics make our modern world possible. There is no current substitutes for petroleum at the moment taht will take care of that. When cheap oil ends, so will cheap food, and a whole lot of other cheap products. Their is a grave danger there. We could see massive famines from bad crops. And even in transportation remember, hydrogen fuel cells are not inexpensive. We could afford the switch to them and to hybrids but what about all those other countries. China is really just entering the 1870's when it comes to the industrial revolution. They need oil just as badly as we did then. That's why they are making behind closed doors deals to secure rights to more of it.
When cheap oil runs out, the great divide between haves and have not is going to become an uncrossable abyss. We will probably see food riots in many of the worlds countries who either grow their own with our fertilizer or buy food off of us. We will see great anger over countries that will be permanetly stuck in the thrid world due to the dissapearance of the materials that fueled our industrial revolution. And more importantly, we will probably see the great wars depicted in fallout as the great countries of the planet fight for the last remianing and ever dwindling resources on Earth.
Re:Spending money on space also creates jobs
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 1
Actaully spending money on space does create jobs becuase you cannot hoard the money you invest in space. The tax cuts we have seen with trickle down economics don't work becuase either the person kept the money and it never entered the economy or they spent it on chinese imports which helps the chinese economy but not our own. However, that is not the case in space flight investment. You cannot outsource cape canaveral. The Johnson Propulsion labatories won't move to india. Now the multitude of contractors may outsource the work to inida but taht could easily be solved by not allowing the companies that contract the work from outsourcing. We won't get the lowest bidders but we'll also know the money didn't go to china instead of here.
Screw science. Why does everything have to be done to further science? Why do we enslave ourselves to progress? After the scientific revolution, we began investing huge sums of money in science and technology in order to achieve more progress. Of course that is only if you define progress as having more science and more technology. As the author James Welles noted: 'However, our belief in progress may be neither profoundly important nore even justified. The modern world is material sucessful but is as ethically hllow as the Roman Empire was at its best and worst. Whatever the similiarities are between the Romans and oursleves, we would do well to note the danger of becoming a siociety known for doing what it does without believeing in anything greater than itself.' (The History of Stupidity, Pg 86)
Now I am not saying halt all progress but I am saying we need not make progress our only goal. Instead, why not invest not only in progress but also in a dream. Even though our siociety doesn't seem to, we at least can see a future dominated by a culture greater than our own - a culture of explorers who have reached up into the heavens. Manned and unmanned space flight makes no sense at all from a economic viewpoint. We gain no material benefit from looking up into the heavens. But we do it anyway becuase wse believe in something greater than money and graeter than ourselves. That is what justifies manned space flight. Not money. Not progress. But the drive to be more than what we are.
Don't you knwo anything? In a few years we can buy chinese made rockets at a fraction of the cost and outsource mission command to india. We can even get illegal immigrants to fly the thing so we don't have to pay minimum wage. That should cut the costs down so that three times is not too much. Walmart can even sponsor it so that we as the consumers will all have lower prices on space tourism. Of course, their is the whole no longer made in america issue but remeber that chinese space travel is better for the economy in the long term.
In the end the problem is simple. Rockets don't work. Evene with the most effecient fuel, it still takes x amount of thrust per pound to escape the earth's gravity. That x amount of pounds is never going to go down. It will always take that amount and to generate taht amount with fuel will always be expensive. What we need to do is find a way to use something other than rockets to get ourselves off the Earth. It was great as a temporary solution but it simply is not a viable loong term one. Skylon might be the solution but it is looking more and more like only another temporary one. It still takes x amount of thrust to get up enough velocity to leave Earth Orbit. Maybe the solution is teleportation or warp engines or antigravity machines or something but we have to stand back and look at the probelm from a different angle than overcoming gravity with thrust.
Actually, there isn't enough uranium to fuel nuclear power for more than two or three decades anyway. Afterall, to convert totally over to nuclear energy, we'd have to build 1000's of reactors in the US alone. That doesn't even consider the possibility of three mile island or chernobyl like accidents that will undoubtfully occur. The problem is this: oil may not come from fossil fuel but it is still finite. More importantly, cheap oil is finite. Cheap oil is any oil that you get more back from than you put into getting it. There is no substance on Earth that is as effecient in this regard as oil. Our countries and our way of life is based on oil. We are already seeing competition between ourselves and china over what is left. That will only increase. As this comeptition increases, we will look for alternatives but they do not now or ever will be effecient as oil. Een then, we begin to run out of them too. Cheap natural gas will begin to run out. Uranium will last a while but it will run out too. In the end we will end up fighting each other over the last resources on the face of the earth. Read 'The Redemption of Christopher Columbus' by Orson Scott Card. That is the future. An era of peace at the end after the great war but it will be too late. Maybe our distant ancestors will learn how to create solar panels out of the remaments of our fallen sky scrapers but their simply may no longer be enough resources left on Earth to continue to flourish. That is why we need to go to space. We need to get more resources. Simple as that. If we burn out all the fuel here and don't have another location to get resources, that's it.
We have probably already passed the point where we can say 'let's stay at home and solves earth's problems first'. The fact of the matter is we probably passed that point sometime in the 1960's at the latest. We have screwed Earth up so much that it simply can no longer be fixed wih just the resources of Earth. There is a possibility Earth can't be fixed no matter how much we work it. With the tiem we have left, we need to go into space now. We can't afford to wait. If we do, at best we get what card perdicted: a magical future enlightenment where everyone becoems environmentalist pacificists but at a point when it is simply too late. At worst, Earth is like the Titanic after it has already struck the iceberg. You can either stay on board and pretend that your foolish efforts trying to bail the ship out with buckets is going to solve the problem or you can jump ship. The bailing buckets may look like your solving the problem but the ship is already beyond hope.
Okay I haven't had a chanced to read the article yet, but I feel it necessary to point out that from an economic standpoint, Cristopher Columbus's mission was a stupid investment too. The spanish sent him out knowing that not only was his theory that the atlantic/pacific was a lot of smaller than nearly everone else in history said it was was undoubtfully incorrect but that beating the portugeuses to the east was a pipedream. Yet they sent him out knowing that the threee ships they were sending out who at best return in one piee finding nothing and hence leaving a net loss for the voyage. But they still sent him out. Same with the astronuats. It may look stupid from an economic standpoitn now but who really knows what they might turn up.
In addition, to qoute Daystrum from Star Trek, "There are somethings men must do to remain men." Same here. We must explore new frontiers ourselves. If we never left our small villages to explore a greater world, we would all still be in africa. Curiosity and our need to escape the prison that is our current boundaries is one of our greatest evolutionary traits. To explore and innovate is what has pushed our species to the top of the food chain.
Why not just send robots? I have to admit that yes, that would seem to be the best option while we continue to develope better modes of space travel but at some point, we have to go ourselves. It will be risky. It will dangerous. It will be expensive (maybe we need to wait for a civilization that thinks more about the long term and less about the current bottom line). But we need to do it nonetheless. If for nothing else to protect our own dignity as a species. To qoute spock, "I said it was more efficient, but not preferable. Computers are useful tools but I have no wish to serve under one." Their is a difference between putting a probe on another planet and putting our footprint on another planet - and that difference is worth the extra money.
There is more to open-sourcing something than just the benefits of doing so. Has he thought at all about the penalities for not doing so(like a million pissed off geeks)?
I can already hear the 'a million pissed off geeks didn't help Dean'...
Yeah, gard school is a real smart move at this point. The industry is looking worse by the day and you think investing mroe moeny in it is a good move? Go in so by the time you get out the profession will be hopelessly screwed, your chances of making enough money to retrain before all the jobs go to india will be gone, and you'll be even more in debt. I'd personally save the money and wait to see what happens if I were you. If the industry ends up pushing up daisies in two years, its better you kept the money so you can use it to get a degree in another industry. But then again, in the 70's nose dive a lot of ppl went right back in to grad school and then came out during the boom with an even better position then the ppl who stuck around in the workplace.
What's the old phrase? 'Get in, drug up, drop out.' Its the new summer o love - only instead of each other its our computers that we have a passion for.
That's alright. A company of all techies will still get stuff done. A company of all management will starve while trying to tell each other to do the work.
You can't eat money. When the economy collapses from the horrdenous mismanagemnt it had endured, the people who are going to eat are the ones who work. The people whose only skill is telling other people to work will end up starving.
The Encyclopedia Galactica:
Entry #25734
Topic: Management
Description: 1. Clueless users selected by even more clueless users to demand products that the most clueless users believe will make money.
2. People who have sold their soul in exchange for money, they have been cursed by a demonic possession that leaves them only able to spout meaningless phrases like 'out of the box' and 'maximizing potential'. They lack ethics, empathy, and the basic intelligence required to be of any use to a functioning civilization. Paradoxically, finding no other use for these wasted dead ends in the evolutionary ladder, primitive cultures often select these same people to run the civilization, usually into the ground. Like the nobility of the same primitive cultures, they are eventually purged as the civilization matures. The label 'management' has been deemed by almost all respectable theologists to be the second most likely canidate for the mark of the beast, surpassed only be the label 'laywer'. Also refered to as 'the scum of the earth' by the forces of good, the forces of the working man, and the forces of the useful.
3. The first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes.*
*Future versions indicate that this will at some point need to be changed to 'the first ones up against the wall when the revolution came'. Afterwards the galactic conference declared 'management' to be a sin against god, logic, nature, and the laws of reason. To declare yourself a 'manager' was deemed a sin against humanity and to subject someone to being 'managed' was declared one of only three crimes in the universe were the death penalty was applicable (by the insignificance method). Since then, calling a person 'management' is considered to be the worst insult in known reality and has on several occasions led to horrible and extremely destructive wars.
Note: Phrases such as 'Their bellies are full but their spirits are empty.'(Star Trek) and 'They measured their worth by the gold in their coffers instead of the value of their spirits.'(Theif 2: The Metal Age) repeated over and over whenever one comes in contact with these abominations are considered to be the only known ways to keep oneself pure of contamination.
But it doesn't matter how great it is if your like me and simple can't afford it. All these graet gains in networking won't mean jack for the market unless it makes broadband chaper. Simple as that.
Simple: Stop eating spicy foods if you can't umm... take the heat. It's like woman. Sex is great with hot women but not if they have herpes. Same with spicy food - it may look good but it ain't worth it.
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with the RIAA suing people who are illegally distributing their product."
I know a lot of people who see it in the light of the Boston Tea Party. The English taxed tea - a tax some saw as unfair. In addition, if I remember correctly, tea was controlled by a company that had a monopoly on it. So a bunch of colonials boarded a ship and dumped a whole shitload of tea into the harbor. Today they are seen as patriots. Now the RIAA is unfairly price fixing and overcharging for their product becuase they have an unfair near-monopoly as well. Well, the sharers are doing the same thing as the boston tea party, only instead of destroying the profit through destroying the product (which is pretty much impossible), they are instead pirating it.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end it will be a moot point. If you haven't been paying attention to these consoles they are quickly becoming more and more like PCs anyway. In the end, you won't be able to tell the difference between the two.
The answer of course is to get yourself a 56k modem like I have. After waiting five minutes for a single slashdot screen to load, you quickly become so fustrated with everything not on your computer that you just drop it and go to playing games. The only downside of this method is that you tend to become extremely violent in gameplay - murdering the peasents in theif for example.
Rbots also don't reproduce and don't insure the survival of the human species if we get wiped out on Earth.
Let's head out to the home of the gods and ask him. I hear his wife makes excellent bread.
But their will just be other problems to try to solve and we are running out of time to get off this planet. The asteroid is coming. We don't know from where, we haven't even foudn it yet, but somewhere in the vastness of space it is coming. Somewhere cheap oil is running out too. Time is not on our side when it comes too space exploration.
No one seems to be able to totally agree on much but it woudl seem:
a mik/
The oldest fossils are about 3.5 billion years; however, in rocks dated 3.8 billion years, analyses of isotopes of carbon suggest that carbon fixation and maybe even photosynthesis was around then. So now we have evidence of life at 3.8 billion years ago, some rocks at 3.96 billion and habitability maybe as far back as 4.4 billion.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/bioforum/bf02/awr
Complex life only existed on this planet for about 500 million years. In other words, if we send a multicelled life form to a planet that it could survive in and got it to flourish, we might see a world like our own in a half a billion years. Of course by then, we probably would have seen a asteroid and at least one major extinction before then. Plus when you consider we as a species have only been around about 40,000 years and a mere 2 million years ago we had only reached the point of Lucy, we can judge that our evolution probably would make us drastically different between now and then. We also would have to also worry about galacial periods before then. Not to mention the earth may have already gone through more than 90% of its habitable life span and most planets like mars have already exceeded thiers.
As to where life came from? Their is a possibility that the first dna and rna building blocks, along with a good portion of the earths water, may have orginated in comets but that's a long shot and in the end no one knows.
The probel with fuel cells is the same with coal. same with ethanol. It takes more energy to get it than you get from it. Natural gas, oil, and uranium are just about the only substances on earth where that is true. For every one barrel of oil you spend drilling, you get 1.35 (Ithink but don't qoute me on it) barrels worth of oil out of the ground. That isn't true for hydrogen. That isn't true with solar panels (though there is the potential with the panels to do so.) In additon, we don't just use petroleum for transportation. Petroleum derived fertilizers are largely responsible for the huge increase in crop yields we have had over the last century. Petroleum derived plastics make our modern world possible. There is no current substitutes for petroleum at the moment taht will take care of that. When cheap oil ends, so will cheap food, and a whole lot of other cheap products. Their is a grave danger there. We could see massive famines from bad crops. And even in transportation remember, hydrogen fuel cells are not inexpensive. We could afford the switch to them and to hybrids but what about all those other countries. China is really just entering the 1870's when it comes to the industrial revolution. They need oil just as badly as we did then. That's why they are making behind closed doors deals to secure rights to more of it.
When cheap oil runs out, the great divide between haves and have not is going to become an uncrossable abyss. We will probably see food riots in many of the worlds countries who either grow their own with our fertilizer or buy food off of us. We will see great anger over countries that will be permanetly stuck in the thrid world due to the dissapearance of the materials that fueled our industrial revolution. And more importantly, we will probably see the great wars depicted in fallout as the great countries of the planet fight for the last remianing and ever dwindling resources on Earth.
Actaully spending money on space does create jobs becuase you cannot hoard the money you invest in space. The tax cuts we have seen with trickle down economics don't work becuase either the person kept the money and it never entered the economy or they spent it on chinese imports which helps the chinese economy but not our own. However, that is not the case in space flight investment. You cannot outsource cape canaveral. The Johnson Propulsion labatories won't move to india. Now the multitude of contractors may outsource the work to inida but taht could easily be solved by not allowing the companies that contract the work from outsourcing. We won't get the lowest bidders but we'll also know the money didn't go to china instead of here.
Screw science. Why does everything have to be done to further science? Why do we enslave ourselves to progress? After the scientific revolution, we began investing huge sums of money in science and technology in order to achieve more progress. Of course that is only if you define progress as having more science and more technology. As the author James Welles noted:
'However, our belief in progress may be neither profoundly important nore even justified. The modern world is material sucessful but is as ethically hllow as the Roman Empire was at its best and worst. Whatever the similiarities are between the Romans and oursleves, we would do well to note the danger of becoming a siociety known for doing what it does without believeing in anything greater than itself.' (The History of Stupidity, Pg 86)
Now I am not saying halt all progress but I am saying we need not make progress our only goal. Instead, why not invest not only in progress but also in a dream. Even though our siociety doesn't seem to, we at least can see a future dominated by a culture greater than our own - a culture of explorers who have reached up into the heavens. Manned and unmanned space flight makes no sense at all from a economic viewpoint. We gain no material benefit from looking up into the heavens. But we do it anyway becuase wse believe in something greater than money and graeter than ourselves. That is what justifies manned space flight. Not money. Not progress. But the drive to be more than what we are.
Don't you knwo anything? In a few years we can buy chinese made rockets at a fraction of the cost and outsource mission command to india. We can even get illegal immigrants to fly the thing so we don't have to pay minimum wage. That should cut the costs down so that three times is not too much. Walmart can even sponsor it so that we as the consumers will all have lower prices on space tourism. Of course, their is the whole no longer made in america issue but remeber that chinese space travel is better for the economy in the long term.
In the end the problem is simple. Rockets don't work. Evene with the most effecient fuel, it still takes x amount of thrust per pound to escape the earth's gravity. That x amount of pounds is never going to go down. It will always take that amount and to generate taht amount with fuel will always be expensive. What we need to do is find a way to use something other than rockets to get ourselves off the Earth. It was great as a temporary solution but it simply is not a viable loong term one. Skylon might be the solution but it is looking more and more like only another temporary one. It still takes x amount of thrust to get up enough velocity to leave Earth Orbit. Maybe the solution is teleportation or warp engines or antigravity machines or something but we have to stand back and look at the probelm from a different angle than overcoming gravity with thrust.
Actually, there isn't enough uranium to fuel nuclear power for more than two or three decades anyway. Afterall, to convert totally over to nuclear energy, we'd have to build 1000's of reactors in the US alone. That doesn't even consider the possibility of three mile island or chernobyl like accidents that will undoubtfully occur. The problem is this: oil may not come from fossil fuel but it is still finite. More importantly, cheap oil is finite. Cheap oil is any oil that you get more back from than you put into getting it. There is no substance on Earth that is as effecient in this regard as oil. Our countries and our way of life is based on oil. We are already seeing competition between ourselves and china over what is left. That will only increase. As this comeptition increases, we will look for alternatives but they do not now or ever will be effecient as oil. Een then, we begin to run out of them too. Cheap natural gas will begin to run out. Uranium will last a while but it will run out too. In the end we will end up fighting each other over the last resources on the face of the earth. Read 'The Redemption of Christopher Columbus' by Orson Scott Card. That is the future. An era of peace at the end after the great war but it will be too late. Maybe our distant ancestors will learn how to create solar panels out of the remaments of our fallen sky scrapers but their simply may no longer be enough resources left on Earth to continue to flourish. That is why we need to go to space. We need to get more resources. Simple as that. If we burn out all the fuel here and don't have another location to get resources, that's it.
We have probably already passed the point where we can say 'let's stay at home and solves earth's problems first'. The fact of the matter is we probably passed that point sometime in the 1960's at the latest. We have screwed Earth up so much that it simply can no longer be fixed wih just the resources of Earth. There is a possibility Earth can't be fixed no matter how much we work it. With the tiem we have left, we need to go into space now. We can't afford to wait. If we do, at best we get what card perdicted: a magical future enlightenment where everyone becoems environmentalist pacificists but at a point when it is simply too late. At worst, Earth is like the Titanic after it has already struck the iceberg. You can either stay on board and pretend that your foolish efforts trying to bail the ship out with buckets is going to solve the problem or you can jump ship. The bailing buckets may look like your solving the problem but the ship is already beyond hope.
Okay I haven't had a chanced to read the article yet, but I feel it necessary to point out that from an economic standpoint, Cristopher Columbus's mission was a stupid investment too. The spanish sent him out knowing that not only was his theory that the atlantic/pacific was a lot of smaller than nearly everone else in history said it was was undoubtfully incorrect but that beating the portugeuses to the east was a pipedream. Yet they sent him out knowing that the threee ships they were sending out who at best return in one piee finding nothing and hence leaving a net loss for the voyage. But they still sent him out. Same with the astronuats. It may look stupid from an economic standpoitn now but who really knows what they might turn up.
In addition, to qoute Daystrum from Star Trek, "There are somethings men must do to remain men." Same here. We must explore new frontiers ourselves. If we never left our small villages to explore a greater world, we would all still be in africa. Curiosity and our need to escape the prison that is our current boundaries is one of our greatest evolutionary traits. To explore and innovate is what has pushed our species to the top of the food chain.
Why not just send robots? I have to admit that yes, that would seem to be the best option while we continue to develope better modes of space travel but at some point, we have to go ourselves. It will be risky. It will dangerous. It will be expensive (maybe we need to wait for a civilization that thinks more about the long term and less about the current bottom line). But we need to do it nonetheless. If for nothing else to protect our own dignity as a species. To qoute spock, "I said it was more efficient, but not preferable. Computers are useful tools but I have no wish to serve under one." Their is a difference between putting a probe on another planet and putting our footprint on another planet - and that difference is worth the extra money.
There is more to open-sourcing something than just the benefits of doing so. Has he thought at all about the penalities for not doing so(like a million pissed off geeks)?
I can already hear the 'a million pissed off geeks didn't help Dean'...
Yoou can get a phd in plumbing? I bet ppl who have doctorates in it know a lot of shit...
So you want to be a writer? Well, in a couple of years, your going to be using that paper to roll doobies in your van down by the river!
Yeah, gard school is a real smart move at this point. The industry is looking worse by the day and you think investing mroe moeny in it is a good move? Go in so by the time you get out the profession will be hopelessly screwed, your chances of making enough money to retrain before all the jobs go to india will be gone, and you'll be even more in debt. I'd personally save the money and wait to see what happens if I were you. If the industry ends up pushing up daisies in two years, its better you kept the money so you can use it to get a degree in another industry. But then again, in the 70's nose dive a lot of ppl went right back in to grad school and then came out during the boom with an even better position then the ppl who stuck around in the workplace.
What's the old phrase? 'Get in, drug up, drop out.' Its the new summer o love - only instead of each other its our computers that we have a passion for.
Its for the oppertunity to own a dog that will go onto the rule the world. We must all bow down to Dogbert.
That's alright. A company of all techies will still get stuff done. A company of all management will starve while trying to tell each other to do the work.
You can't eat money. When the economy collapses from the horrdenous mismanagemnt it had endured, the people who are going to eat are the ones who work. The people whose only skill is telling other people to work will end up starving.
The Encyclopedia Galactica:
Entry #25734
Topic: Management
Description:
1. Clueless users selected by even more clueless users to demand products that the most clueless users believe will make money.
2. People who have sold their soul in exchange for money, they have been cursed by a demonic possession that leaves them only able to spout meaningless phrases like 'out of the box' and 'maximizing potential'. They lack ethics, empathy, and the basic intelligence required to be of any use to a functioning civilization. Paradoxically, finding no other use for these wasted dead ends in the evolutionary ladder, primitive cultures often select these same people to run the civilization, usually into the ground. Like the nobility of the same primitive cultures, they are eventually purged as the civilization matures. The label 'management' has been deemed by almost all respectable theologists to be the second most likely canidate for the mark of the beast, surpassed only be the label 'laywer'. Also refered to as 'the scum of the earth' by the forces of good, the forces of the working man, and the forces of the useful.
3. The first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes.*
*Future versions indicate that this will at some point need to be changed to 'the first ones up against the wall when the revolution came'. Afterwards the galactic conference declared 'management' to be a sin against god, logic, nature, and the laws of reason. To declare yourself a 'manager' was deemed a sin against humanity and to subject someone to being 'managed' was declared one of only three crimes in the universe were the death penalty was applicable (by the insignificance method). Since then, calling a person 'management' is considered to be the worst insult in known reality and has on several occasions led to horrible and extremely destructive wars.
Note: Phrases such as 'Their bellies are full but their spirits are empty.'(Star Trek) and 'They measured their worth by the gold in their coffers instead of the value of their spirits.'(Theif 2: The Metal Age) repeated over and over whenever one comes in contact with these abominations are considered to be the only known ways to keep oneself pure of contamination.
But it doesn't matter how great it is if your like me and simple can't afford it. All these graet gains in networking won't mean jack for the market unless it makes broadband chaper. Simple as that.
Simple: Stop eating spicy foods if you can't umm... take the heat. It's like woman. Sex is great with hot women but not if they have herpes. Same with spicy food - it may look good but it ain't worth it.
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with the RIAA suing people who are illegally distributing their product."
I know a lot of people who see it in the light of the Boston Tea Party. The English taxed tea - a tax some saw as unfair. In addition, if I remember correctly, tea was controlled by a company that had a monopoly on it. So a bunch of colonials boarded a ship and dumped a whole shitload of tea into the harbor. Today they are seen as patriots. Now the RIAA is unfairly price fixing and overcharging for their product becuase they have an unfair near-monopoly as well. Well, the sharers are doing the same thing as the boston tea party, only instead of destroying the profit through destroying the product (which is pretty much impossible), they are instead pirating it.