You make a good case, as do the others talking about the same subject. However I think the point is, as on Star Trek, there wouldn't *be* any money anymore. There wouldn't *need* to be. Large corporations and rich and powerful men would cease to have their lever on the masses. You could make anything you needed, and no one would be 'rich' or 'poor' in their current definitions. We would probably see some form of barter system re-emerge, but my theory is that it would be design-swapping, example: I just built a really cool looking computer using my replicator, but only I know the design, so I could trade my cool computer design for your cool lawnmower design, or whatever. I would think that even the advent of a replication machine wouldn't make this happen overnight. It would have to be the advent of a free, publicly available database of designs. It would be nice to know you *could* make a microwave with it, but if you don't have the design....I guess my point is that there would still be some form of economy, it just wouldn't be monetary anymore.
How about making it harder for kids to learn how to do what most of us do? Let's try to have *fewer* people learning how to code. Let's try making kids *less* computer literate. Come on, people....do you think those kids that learn all the neat techie stuff aren't going to take your job for half the pay you're getting? Look what happened to mechanics.... When cars first became popular, mechanics were the 'geeks' and 'nerds'. People were afraid to work on their own cars, or were incompetent to do so. Mechanics made terrific money and the field was highly touted as 'in demand'. Now mechanics are a dime a dozen (not *good* mechanics, mind you) and it's trade-school fodder now. I don't want to be working as an admin in 15 years with a denim uniform and my name sewed in cursive over my pocket. Make using computers as simple as you want to, but keep fixing them difficult. Otherwise we're putting ourselves out of jobs. Besides....do we really need *more* just outta college know it alls flooding an already crowded job market?
Must there be profanity on the front page? That is offensive in the extreme, and also unprofessional. Words like that should not be used, when perfectly acceptable alternatives (such as "the company discovered in was in dire straits financially") would both be more eloquent and professional?
Not professional? Since when is SLASHDOT professional? Holy fucking shit, what web page have *you* been on? To whoever modded this troll up: Is the submitter getting paid compensation for submissions? Is it what he does 'professionally'? Why does someone else's eloquence or professionalism matter to you? Why should someone else verbally tiptoe around a million anonymous readers just because one is too weak emotionally to see the word 'shit' without freaking out? What if I said that the use of the word 'extreme' offended me completely? Would you stop using it? Also, why should anyone care what an anonymous coward thinks anyway? The AC who posted this is either a troll or needs to remove the large stick from his/her ass. Excuse me, I mean 'posterior region.' The only moderation the parent should have received was Offtopic. Yeah, same with my post, but at least I didn't post AC, nor pretend to be on topic, nor am I *looking* for any other moderation. Don't mod offtopic posts up. Mod them offtopic. We couldn't (and shouldn't try to) keep everyone from posting offtopic....but at least there could be some warning for those (I hear they exist) readers who want to stay on topic.
I seem to recall some company made something similar to this - a CD-ROM drive with a built-in hard drive, where the content of the CD was cached on the HDD to allow quicker access.
This would have been quite a while ago. Anybody else remember these?
Yes. I used to work in a small computer store. These 'wonders' were also sold w/o their own hard drive, as 100x cd-readers. What they did is spend about 10 minutes staging when you put a new cd in, making an image of it on the hard drive, but telling your PC that the image was the cd-rom drive. Sure, it was very fast, once you got past that initial insanely long wait time (that happened *every time* you inserted a different cd...) It was such a scam that you had to read the back of the box *very* carefully to figure out what they were doing. We got so many restock fees from those things (although I tried to *tell* people....they'd buy it anyway...i mean, it said 100x! that had to be better than the 8x that was sitting next to it....right?)
Exactly. So design the (newer) damn phones so they won't screw with (legacy) aircraft equipment.
Or just design the aircraft better than the phone. You know, it wouldn't be such a big deal to me if an airplane wasn't a life-support machine. Why should they be allowed to have such a flimsy design that a trivial amount of interference makes them kill people? Why shouldn't the *airline* industry be responsible for the lives of the people they're taking money from, instead of blaming the telecommunications industry?
After the original V, Mr. Englund did Nightmare On Elm Street, NOES2,NOES3,NOES4,NOES5,NOES6,NOES7... And finally there will be a NOES8.. Freddy Vs. Jason coming later.. Clearly he is on a one way ticket to movie obsecurity.
I saw him in a cheesy (but entertaining) space flick on SBYND yesterday. (showtime beyond? i dunno...something beyond. I just know the abbreviation from the program guide:) Anyhow, it was called something like 'a galactic rhapsody'. Wasn't worth renting or buying (InMyNotSoHumbleOpinion) but it was worth watching. It really surprised me to see him in a main role, though. I've seen a few other (really bad) movies with him in them, in very small roles. Not the most celebrated collection of movies, but I bet he has a nicer car than me:)
Are we supposed to read and be aware of every fucking thing so that whenever someone copies some sort of a concept we'll just instantly be able to recognize and know this?
I agree totally. We should just realize that nothing's truly original. Everyone's influenced by *something*, whether they know it or not. Every story is based on or similar to some other story. It's all been done before.
Note to everyone who doesn't like V but bothered to post about it anyway: Perhaps the intent of the creator of V was not to blaze new trails, or change the world, or make elitist professional bitchers and poseur intelligencia happy. Perhaps he just wanted to make some entertainment. Oh wait, I forgot, none of you people think anything should be simply entertaining anymore. (perhaps you just think that if *you* weren't entertained, no one could be) Fuck you. It's *my* time, I'll "waste" it being entertained by V if I want to. If you think it sucks or it isn't original enough for you, don't fucking watch it. How hard is that?
Turn your micro on next to your wireless router and see what happens.
Uh...why? I don't need to put my wireless router next to my microwave. They aren't designed to work together. Cellular phones are designed to be carried by people who are going to get on planes. Shield your wireless router (or your microwave) and they'll play just fine next to each other....You're driving along, and your two kids are in the back with a couple of 2004 model legacy laptops. Linksys WiFi cards installed, and they are playing Duke Nukem head to head. (Yes, it finally got released). Your wife is talking to her friend via a 2021 model Nokia phone/PDA/videocamera/nailpolisher....
I think the analogy you might have been looking for would be an 2004 SUV in 2024, with new wireless whatever causing the interference....but the answer's still the same.
Who is more responsible? Linksys for not predicting that the freq they used could also affect a car ABS system built 20 years from now? Or ToyNis, for not testing that their equipment was not affected by emissions from legacy equipment in popular use?
Obviously ToyNis failed to shield against harmful interference, and Linksys also failed to shield their product. ToyNis is the *more* responsible because Linksys doesn't make vehicles designed to protect people's lives. The responsibility rests with the company making the product that you are trusting your life to. Yes, Linksys should have shielded their device better, however the person making the $40k vehicle that I'm trusting my *life* and my family's *life* to has a greater responsibility. If they don't like that, they can make something else. Same goes for airlines. If they aren't responsible for making sure that their own fucking planes don't fall out of the fucking sky for *any* preventable reason, then they aren't doing their job. That and mechanics' tales of 'hilarious' mishaps and negligence keep me off airlines unless I can find no alternative.
However much I'd love to skip commercials, I can definitely see why advertisers and more importantly the networks are concerned (and you should be able to, too.) If fewer people watch the ads, the ads are worth less money - money which goes to producing shows. I'd be the first in line to sign a "Ray Romano gets paid too much" petition, but that's besides the point - without income from advertising (or with reduced income) I predict we'll either see show quality decline or cable costs go up. All it'll take is a few more years, when DVR comes built in every TV (or nearly everyone has a box.)
Nah. They're already starting to cope with this problem. They're just integrating sponsors into the shows either blatantly (Pepsi Presents: an american idol clone! yippie!) or as product placement. ('Raaaaaaaaay! The twins are out of Huggies Disposable Diapers with new stretchier material, can you go to the store and get some?)
People predict the death of the media all the time, and most of the time what they're saying makes a lot of sense. However, most people don't give a shit what anyone thinks, and they're going to keep on watching tv and buying stuff. Those phenomena may or may not be related; personally I can recall a zillion jingles/slogans/mascots and whatnot, but AFAIK commercials only influence me negatively. Example: I enjoy the food at Applebee's, but I'll never step foot into another one as long as I live because of their hideously annoying 'eatin' good in the neighborhood' campaign. Likewise, I'll never use 1-800-collect, 1-800-call-att, or any 10-10 number I've seen advertised, because their commercials make me physically ill. While I can recall numerous times I've decided *not* to buy something based on its commercial, I don't put any stock in them as far as recommending new products. I'd rather ask someone that's used it.
every day, fewer and fewer people use the English language properly.
and every post, people like you less and less because you're such a pompus cock head.
Yeah, if I ever find out who that Anonymous Coward person is, I'm gonna open up a big can of whoopass on 'em. Pompous cock head is a great insult though.
I was once told by a gas station attendant who had come back from a safety course (it was EXXON. Ride the Tiger baby!) the cell phone fire scenario is also due to static electricity. The claim is that static from the antenna might cause a problem. There is the additional possibility of the electronics inside the phone igniting gasoline fumes which permeate the case, but I would think this is something that could be tested for. Gasoline fumes are volatile but I have to wonder if they are really volatile enough to be ignited by the amount of current running through a cell phone.
Nokia couldn't make gas fumes explode with their phones...but they concede that, though extremely unlikely, it is *possible*. Of course, I tell people that it's *possible* I'll become the world's richest yet most beloved benevolent tyrant, but that doesn't mean it's *likely*.
Analogy: Should a wireless PCCard built today be designed so as to play nice with some unknown wireless device for your car built in 2023? Or should the future device be built so as not to interfere with, or accept interference from, the older equipment?
I'm not talking about a protocol. I'm talking about shielding. I'm sure it would add weight and cost. It would also protect the electronics from interference. That's called pros and cons. I'm not saying everyone is *going* to do what's best to do, I'm just pointing out that it *could* have been prevented with better design. The designers need not have had cell phones and laptops in mind. They *should* have had interference in mind. I would imagine that any decision not to use shielded cables would have been made by those above the engineers. At least, I would hope so. I would also hope that people building *planes* these days have the next 20 or so years in mind when designing their electronics. I've never seen my cordless phone kill anyone because of interference. Also, my microwave is not anywhere near my tv, stereo, cordless phone, or cellular phone. My tv and stereo play just fine. So do my cellular phone, cordless phone, and bluetooth devices, all in the same room with my tv, stereo, and caseless computer. No problems at all. Maybe I'm just lucky. However, I would hope that an airplane I was travelling in had a bit more safety built into it than my $100 cd player or my $40 cellular phone. Nahhhhh...that's crazy. Let's make airline safety the job of every industry *except* the airline industry. That sounds more feasible.
I'm not sure I buy the whole thing about cell phones causing fires at gas stations; but I also wouldn't call it impossible.
Well, I'm sure that there hasn't been a single reported case where cellular phones have been determined to cause a gas station fire. I'm also sure that Nokia attempted to cause a fire using a cellular phone in their labs, and were unable to. They kept a disclaimer about it because of public FUD and fear of being sued frivolously, say by a gas station fire victim that also happened to have a cellular phone. The best way to prevent gas station fires is to not have an open flame around the pumps (obviously) and to stay outside your car while filling up. (most people don't know this one) When people get into their cars to wait for the tank to fill, then get back out, they sometimes charge themselves statically. When they touch the metal pump handle, it may cause a small spark. In very rare cases, this can set off an explosion. Of course, you're more likely to have a rock fall on your head from space than to blow up at a gas station, but it *does* happen. Just hasn't happened due to cellular phones, and I for one would be extremely surprised if it *ever* did. Is it still *possible*? Sure, the same way that winning the powerball lottery 50 times in a row is *possible*. Don't spread FUD about this issue please. There's plenty of that in the world as it is.
I don't get why it's so hard to believe. Most of these airplanes were designed long before cell phones and laptops were the norm. It wasn't a danger anybody had conceived of.
yeah, interference only began with cellular phones! It was *never* a problem in electronics before that damned cellular phone was invented! Look, I'm sure cost or laziness or 'we don't need it' or something prevented them from shielding the cables on commercial airlines. I'm sure it was a reason that looked good in the budget, or whatever. That doesn't get around the fact that it *could* have been done differently in the beginning, it just wasn't; now it's too expensive to retrofit. Does it matter whose fault it is? At this point a soultion would require not only retrofitting commercial aircraft, but also changing the way the cellular tower network is constructed, and possibly even the way the whole system works. That just isn't going to happen. Can't we just agree that even if you *could* use your phone without screwing up the plane, it would still be a very bad idea given our current cellular tower/network design, so it doesn't really matter?
So an aircraft designed and built today, should be safe against a product that won't be invented for another 20 years? That uses previously unassigned freq range. That does things not conceived when the aircraft was built.
If the airplane is designed to be used for 20 years, then *yes it should.* Otherwise, it should not be specced for a 20 year life span. The fact is that the rate of change is only speeding up. If you aren't going to think about possible problems which haven't been invented yet and how to mitigate them, you shouldn't be designing your product to last 20 years. I mean, it's not like the engineers designing commercial airplanes had NO IDEA what interference was. The military was shielding its cables back then, and I'd expect Boeing knew about it. You don't have to know the *device* that's going to cause interference to know that it is possible and design around it. It seems hard to believe that cellular phones would be approved by the FCC for general use if they produced ridiculous amounts of em interference. If planes are *that* sensitive, then my irrational fear of flying seems a bit more rational.:)
Thanks! I will look it up. I'd like to see if I can dig deeper, maybe look into whether the schools built by contractors who build other 'institutions' have a higher rate of depression/dropout/failure.... Of course maybe I should apply for federal funding for the study because to do it properly would take more time than I currently have to give. I just think that we *should* be looking into why public schools are failing, not just throwing blame at the sacrificial goat of the day.
Yes well, 'same feel' 'same look' 'same kinda building materials' doesn't = same contractor. I want actual examples so that I can point out in an repeatable fashion the differences/similarities. I would like to know if the same people that build the schools really *do* build the jails. All I want is some hard data on the subject. Of course, I don't want it bad enough to expend much effort searching for it, then verifying it, then re-verifying it (after all, I have work to do, or at least that's my story)....so if you guys don't either, I won't blame you:)
Morality: "Thou shalt not worship a graven image". Next time you go to church, take a look at the back - you'll see a figurine of a blocke nailed to a dod of wood. In other words - a graven image. Doh!
Ask yourself how many people are praying to the *object*, believing that *it* will answer their prayers? There's a *huge* difference between a reminder or devotional aid and worshipping a graven image. One could also argue that you worship what you are totally devoted to. If you're totally devoted to that figure, to the exclusion of what it represents, you're worshipping it. If money comes before everything else to you, you are worshipping it. Same thing with yourself. If you put yourself before everything and everyone else, you are worshipping yourself. Just having something around, even important symbols, does not equal worship. Now, if instead of the cross, you had an image of the pope in every church, and people bowed or knelt to that image, and prayed to that image, and believed that the image had some sort of special powers....well then you might have a point. Personally, I prefer to worship at home, with people who believe what I do. (since I don't really like organized anything) However, that doesn't mean that I suddenly believe churchgoers everywhere are idolaters, and neither should you:)
I was trying to explain why the speeding most people currently do isn't a problem or morally wrong, while the illegal copying many people do is; there is no way to adjust the music listening public to copying just the right amount of music illegally, because the right amount is zero. You can control the speed at which people drive, by designing roads and putting up road signs accordingly. Everybody knows that a lot of people will speed, and a slightly intelligent person will know that the speed will to a great degree depend upon the speed limit. People speeding on the best highways in Norway (speed limit 90km/h) drive a lot slower than people speeding at comparable highways in continental Europe (speed limit 120km/h).
Wow. So basically you're saying that since breaking the speed limit is *expected* and can be *planned for*, that speeding is not a crime, or just that it is not morally wrong? I don't think you'll be able to explain how speeding is 'not a problem and not morally wrong' when speeders have killed many people, but trading files (which hasn't killed anyone to date) *is*. By your definition, shoplifting isn't a crime since stores know about how much they will lose to shoplifters and raise prices accordingly. Just because a law has expectations of being broken does not mean that it is either morally correct or morally incorrect. (Although I personally believe that a law which cannot be enforced or which is selectively enforced should be removed, it has nothing to do with morality, merely logic.)
Also, for the record, I do believe that theft is wrong. However, if I can 'take' a copy of something, and leave you with the exact same thing you had before, I don't see how that's been 'stolen.' Now, if someone prevented the music industry from using their own artists' music...I just don't see how it's piracy when the original is untouched.
There are almost as many P2P users as there are people with no healthcare coverage in that fine land of America!
The world is really impressed!
Man...not only does the world post as AC on slashdot, but the world talks like Bob Dole. I'm really impressed!
(also, flamebait or no, you should know that healthcare coverage != treatment here. coverage is for people who can afford it, treatment is for everyone.) (also also, healthcare coverage wouldn't be so damned expensive here if people didn't file so many freaking frivolous medical lawsuits)
Since when did capitalism decide the concept of right and wrong?
First of all, 'capitalism' *can not* determine right and wrong. It is not a religion, (which people look to to determine right and wrong) instead it is an economic system.
Secondly, when the government is forced to make many many laws helping large corporations and hurting smaller ones, that is not true capitalism. When government makes *any* laws having *anything* to do with commerce, it's no longer true capitalism. We can no longer have pure capitalism in this country, because it is (and is supposed to be) amoral and doesn't worry about anything but supply and demand, profit and loss. You are supposed to have your moral system determined outside of your economic model. If you have no morals, you will not conduct your business morally, whether it is a 'capitalist' system or not. Capitalism isn't to blame for this, it's just an economic model, not an entity deserving of blame for society's problems. Get off capitalism's nuts and start looking for the *problems* behind the symptoms, then try to fix those.
Residents of Texas, please tell me: Are you better off today than you were before Dubya?
Yes, but it has nothing to do with Mr. Bush nor any other politician. I'm simply better off because I have worked to improve my situation. As governor, Mr. Bush pissed off a vocal minority in TX but most people that I know wouldn't be able to tell you a single thing that he did as governor, good or bad. The fact of the matter is that for most people, who is in office has much less to do with their quality of life than local factors do. Leaders come and leaders go but the average person usually doesn't care enough to be able to tell the difference.
If in the next election we all voted for the liberterians or the greens, do you really think they would hand over power?
I think your a wee bit to drunk on the ideals they drugged you with in "history" class.
Yes, I do think they'd hand over power. The real question is, do you think anything would really change? The harsh fact about power is that those who would not abuse it do not want it, and those that seek it tend to abuse it. You can see this in small ways all around you. The policeman that parks in a fire lane, the grocer that makes his employees work unpaid overtime, the PHB that pushes problems on you but takes credit for your work, even something as basic as the bigger child taking the smaller's lunch money...'power corrupts' does not only refer to absoulte power. Most people who do well in politics are attracted to power and influence, not dedicated to serving their country. When statesman stopped being statesmen and started becoming 'politicians', this country started to die. We don't need an 'elite' class of career compromisers telling us how to live our lives. I do not now and will never accept that some shmuck in D.C. knows better than I do how to spend my money or live my life. Also, it really bugs me that while Congress has no problem making laws that affect the entire country, Congress is itself protected from those laws. I always thought no one was above the law...then I turned 5 and saw how it really works. If we want to save this country, we need to take 'politician' and 'lawyer' and 'tax accountant' and make them obsolete. *Why* are our laws so complicated that it takes 8 years to learn how to interpret them? Why is it SO HARD to ask your constituents how they want you to vote and then VOTE THAT WAY? Why does my tax accountant make more money than I do?
Have you noticed that the same contractors who build the prisons also build the schools?
Yes, I've heard this before. However, I would be really interested in knowing *which* contractors, or at least which prisons and schools...it would be interesting to contrast their designs. If anyone could provide links, maybe we could all learn something from it.
Slashdot Mirror
You make a good case, as do the others talking about the same subject. However I think the point is, as on Star Trek, there wouldn't *be* any money anymore. There wouldn't *need* to be. Large corporations and rich and powerful men would cease to have their lever on the masses. You could make anything you needed, and no one would be 'rich' or 'poor' in their current definitions. We would probably see some form of barter system re-emerge, but my theory is that it would be design-swapping, example: I just built a really cool looking computer using my replicator, but only I know the design, so I could trade my cool computer design for your cool lawnmower design, or whatever.
I would think that even the advent of a replication machine wouldn't make this happen overnight. It would have to be the advent of a free, publicly available database of designs. It would be nice to know you *could* make a microwave with it, but if you don't have the design....I guess my point is that there would still be some form of economy, it just wouldn't be monetary anymore.
What can be done to improve this situation?
How about making it harder for kids to learn how to do what most of us do? Let's try to have *fewer* people learning how to code. Let's try making kids *less* computer literate. Come on, people....do you think those kids that learn all the neat techie stuff aren't going to take your job for half the pay you're getting?
Look what happened to mechanics....
When cars first became popular, mechanics were the 'geeks' and 'nerds'. People were afraid to work on their own cars, or were incompetent to do so. Mechanics made terrific money and the field was highly touted as 'in demand'. Now mechanics are a dime a dozen (not *good* mechanics, mind you) and it's trade-school fodder now. I don't want to be working as an admin in 15 years with a denim uniform and my name sewed in cursive over my pocket. Make using computers as simple as you want to, but keep fixing them difficult. Otherwise we're putting ourselves out of jobs.
Besides....do we really need *more* just outta college know it alls flooding an already crowded job market?
Must there be profanity on the front page? That is offensive in the extreme, and also unprofessional. Words like that should not be used, when perfectly acceptable alternatives (such as "the company discovered in was in dire straits financially") would both be more eloquent and professional?
Not professional? Since when is SLASHDOT professional? Holy fucking shit, what web page have *you* been on?
To whoever modded this troll up:
Is the submitter getting paid compensation for submissions? Is it what he does 'professionally'?
Why does someone else's eloquence or professionalism matter to you? Why should someone else verbally tiptoe around a million anonymous readers just because one is too weak emotionally to see the word 'shit' without freaking out?
What if I said that the use of the word 'extreme' offended me completely? Would you stop using it?
Also, why should anyone care what an anonymous coward thinks anyway? The AC who posted this is either a troll or needs to remove the large stick from his/her ass. Excuse me, I mean 'posterior region.' The only moderation the parent should have received was Offtopic. Yeah, same with my post, but at least I didn't post AC, nor pretend to be on topic, nor am I *looking* for any other moderation.
Don't mod offtopic posts up. Mod them offtopic. We couldn't (and shouldn't try to) keep everyone from posting offtopic....but at least there could be some warning for those (I hear they exist) readers who want to stay on topic.
(And I like how the "DO" is capitalized instead of the "not")
Maybe he was imagining R. Lee Ermey saying it...
DO not attempt to replicate any of the experiments below, maggot! YOU WILL not live another day if you do, do you understand me? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
I seem to recall some company made something similar to this - a CD-ROM drive with a built-in hard drive, where the content of the CD was cached on the HDD to allow quicker access.
This would have been quite a while ago. Anybody else remember these?
Yes. I used to work in a small computer store. These 'wonders' were also sold w/o their own hard drive, as 100x cd-readers.
What they did is spend about 10 minutes staging when you put a new cd in, making an image of it on the hard drive, but telling your PC that the image was the cd-rom drive. Sure, it was very fast, once you got past that initial insanely long wait time (that happened *every time* you inserted a different cd...)
It was such a scam that you had to read the back of the box *very* carefully to figure out what they were doing. We got so many restock fees from those things (although I tried to *tell* people....they'd buy it anyway...i mean, it said 100x! that had to be better than the 8x that was sitting next to it....right?)
Exactly. So design the (newer) damn phones so they won't screw with (legacy) aircraft equipment.
Or just design the aircraft better than the phone.
You know, it wouldn't be such a big deal to me if an airplane wasn't a life-support machine. Why should they be allowed to have such a flimsy design that a trivial amount of interference makes them kill people? Why shouldn't the *airline* industry be responsible for the lives of the people they're taking money from, instead of blaming the telecommunications industry?
After the original V, Mr. Englund did Nightmare On Elm Street, NOES2,NOES3,NOES4,NOES5,NOES6,NOES7... And finally there will be a NOES8.. Freddy Vs. Jason coming later.. Clearly he is on a one way ticket to movie obsecurity.
:) :)
I saw him in a cheesy (but entertaining) space flick on SBYND yesterday. (showtime beyond? i dunno...something beyond. I just know the abbreviation from the program guide
Anyhow, it was called something like 'a galactic rhapsody'. Wasn't worth renting or buying (InMyNotSoHumbleOpinion) but it was worth watching. It really surprised me to see him in a main role, though. I've seen a few other (really bad) movies with him in them, in very small roles. Not the most celebrated collection of movies, but I bet he has a nicer car than me
Are we supposed to read and be aware of every fucking thing so that whenever someone copies some sort of a concept we'll just instantly be able to recognize and know this?
I agree totally. We should just realize that nothing's truly original. Everyone's influenced by *something*, whether they know it or not. Every story is based on or similar to some other story. It's all been done before.
Note to everyone who doesn't like V but bothered to post about it anyway:
Perhaps the intent of the creator of V was not to blaze new trails, or change the world, or make elitist professional bitchers and poseur intelligencia happy. Perhaps he just wanted to make some entertainment. Oh wait, I forgot, none of you people think anything should be simply entertaining anymore. (perhaps you just think that if *you* weren't entertained, no one could be) Fuck you. It's *my* time, I'll "waste" it being entertained by V if I want to. If you think it sucks or it isn't original enough for you, don't fucking watch it. How hard is that?
-1, no one says " - NOT!" anymore.
Like, no DURRRRRRR
Turn your micro on next to your wireless router and see what happens.
...You're driving along, and your two kids are in the back with a couple of 2004 model legacy laptops. Linksys WiFi cards installed, and they are playing Duke Nukem head to head. (Yes, it finally got released). Your wife is talking to her friend via a 2021 model Nokia phone/PDA/videocamera/nailpolisher....
Uh...why? I don't need to put my wireless router next to my microwave. They aren't designed to work together. Cellular phones are designed to be carried by people who are going to get on planes. Shield your wireless router (or your microwave) and they'll play just fine next to each other.
I think the analogy you might have been looking for would be an 2004 SUV in 2024, with new wireless whatever causing the interference....but the answer's still the same.
Who is more responsible?
Linksys for not predicting that the freq they used could also affect a car ABS system built 20 years from now?
Or ToyNis, for not testing that their equipment was not affected by emissions from legacy equipment in popular use?
Obviously ToyNis failed to shield against harmful interference, and Linksys also failed to shield their product. ToyNis is the *more* responsible because Linksys doesn't make vehicles designed to protect people's lives. The responsibility rests with the company making the product that you are trusting your life to. Yes, Linksys should have shielded their device better, however the person making the $40k vehicle that I'm trusting my *life* and my family's *life* to has a greater responsibility. If they don't like that, they can make something else. Same goes for airlines. If they aren't responsible for making sure that their own fucking planes don't fall out of the fucking sky for *any* preventable reason, then they aren't doing their job. That and mechanics' tales of 'hilarious' mishaps and negligence keep me off airlines unless I can find no alternative.
However much I'd love to skip commercials, I can definitely see why advertisers and more importantly the networks are concerned (and you should be able to, too.) If fewer people watch the ads, the ads are worth less money - money which goes to producing shows. I'd be the first in line to sign a "Ray Romano gets paid too much" petition, but that's besides the point - without income from advertising (or with reduced income) I predict we'll either see show quality decline or cable costs go up. All it'll take is a few more years, when DVR comes built in every TV (or nearly everyone has a box.)
Nah. They're already starting to cope with this problem. They're just integrating sponsors into the shows either blatantly (Pepsi Presents: an american idol clone! yippie!) or as product placement. ('Raaaaaaaaay! The twins are out of Huggies Disposable Diapers with new stretchier material, can you go to the store and get some?)
People predict the death of the media all the time, and most of the time what they're saying makes a lot of sense. However, most people don't give a shit what anyone thinks, and they're going to keep on watching tv and buying stuff. Those phenomena may or may not be related; personally I can recall a zillion jingles/slogans/mascots and whatnot, but AFAIK commercials only influence me negatively. Example: I enjoy the food at Applebee's, but I'll never step foot into another one as long as I live because of their hideously annoying 'eatin' good in the neighborhood' campaign. Likewise, I'll never use 1-800-collect, 1-800-call-att, or any 10-10 number I've seen advertised, because their commercials make me physically ill. While I can recall numerous times I've decided *not* to buy something based on its commercial, I don't put any stock in them as far as recommending new products. I'd rather ask someone that's used it.
every day, fewer and fewer people use the English language properly.
and every post, people like you less and less because you're such a pompus cock head.
Yeah, if I ever find out who that Anonymous Coward person is, I'm gonna open up a big can of whoopass on 'em. Pompous cock head is a great insult though.
I was once told by a gas station attendant who had come back from a safety course (it was EXXON. Ride the Tiger baby!) the cell phone fire scenario is also due to static electricity. The claim is that static from the antenna might cause a problem. There is the additional possibility of the electronics inside the phone igniting gasoline fumes which permeate the case, but I would think this is something that could be tested for. Gasoline fumes are volatile but I have to wonder if they are really volatile enough to be ignited by the amount of current running through a cell phone.
good link here
Nokia couldn't make gas fumes explode with their phones...but they concede that, though extremely unlikely, it is *possible*. Of course, I tell people that it's *possible* I'll become the world's richest yet most beloved benevolent tyrant, but that doesn't mean it's *likely*.
Analogy: Should a wireless PCCard built today be designed so as to play nice with some unknown wireless device for your car built in 2023? Or should the future device be built so as not to interfere with, or accept interference from, the older equipment?
I'm not talking about a protocol. I'm talking about shielding. I'm sure it would add weight and cost. It would also protect the electronics from interference. That's called pros and cons. I'm not saying everyone is *going* to do what's best to do, I'm just pointing out that it *could* have been prevented with better design. The designers need not have had cell phones and laptops in mind. They *should* have had interference in mind. I would imagine that any decision not to use shielded cables would have been made by those above the engineers. At least, I would hope so.
I would also hope that people building *planes* these days have the next 20 or so years in mind when designing their electronics. I've never seen my cordless phone kill anyone because of interference. Also, my microwave is not anywhere near my tv, stereo, cordless phone, or cellular phone. My tv and stereo play just fine. So do my cellular phone, cordless phone, and bluetooth devices, all in the same room with my tv, stereo, and caseless computer. No problems at all. Maybe I'm just lucky. However, I would hope that an airplane I was travelling in had a bit more safety built into it than my $100 cd player or my $40 cellular phone. Nahhhhh...that's crazy. Let's make airline safety the job of every industry *except* the airline industry. That sounds more feasible.
I'm not sure I buy the whole thing about cell phones causing fires at gas stations; but I also wouldn't call it impossible.
Well, I'm sure that there hasn't been a single reported case where cellular phones have been determined to cause a gas station fire. I'm also sure that Nokia attempted to cause a fire using a cellular phone in their labs, and were unable to. They kept a disclaimer about it because of public FUD and fear of being sued frivolously, say by a gas station fire victim that also happened to have a cellular phone. The best way to prevent gas station fires is to not have an open flame around the pumps (obviously) and to stay outside your car while filling up. (most people don't know this one) When people get into their cars to wait for the tank to fill, then get back out, they sometimes charge themselves statically. When they touch the metal pump handle, it may cause a small spark. In very rare cases, this can set off an explosion. Of course, you're more likely to have a rock fall on your head from space than to blow up at a gas station, but it *does* happen. Just hasn't happened due to cellular phones, and I for one would be extremely surprised if it *ever* did. Is it still *possible*? Sure, the same way that winning the powerball lottery 50 times in a row is *possible*. Don't spread FUD about this issue please. There's plenty of that in the world as it is.
I don't get why it's so hard to believe. Most of these airplanes were designed long before cell phones and laptops were the norm. It wasn't a danger anybody had conceived of.
yeah, interference only began with cellular phones! It was *never* a problem in electronics before that damned cellular phone was invented!
Look, I'm sure cost or laziness or 'we don't need it' or something prevented them from shielding the cables on commercial airlines. I'm sure it was a reason that looked good in the budget, or whatever. That doesn't get around the fact that it *could* have been done differently in the beginning, it just wasn't; now it's too expensive to retrofit. Does it matter whose fault it is? At this point a soultion would require not only retrofitting commercial aircraft, but also changing the way the cellular tower network is constructed, and possibly even the way the whole system works. That just isn't going to happen. Can't we just agree that even if you *could* use your phone without screwing up the plane, it would still be a very bad idea given our current cellular tower/network design, so it doesn't really matter?
So an aircraft designed and built today, should be safe against a product that won't be invented for another 20 years? That uses previously unassigned freq range. That does things not conceived when the aircraft was built.
:)
If the airplane is designed to be used for 20 years, then *yes it should.* Otherwise, it should not be specced for a 20 year life span. The fact is that the rate of change is only speeding up. If you aren't going to think about possible problems which haven't been invented yet and how to mitigate them, you shouldn't be designing your product to last 20 years. I mean, it's not like the engineers designing commercial airplanes had NO IDEA what interference was. The military was shielding its cables back then, and I'd expect Boeing knew about it. You don't have to know the *device* that's going to cause interference to know that it is possible and design around it. It seems hard to believe that cellular phones would be approved by the FCC for general use if they produced ridiculous amounts of em interference. If planes are *that* sensitive, then my irrational fear of flying seems a bit more rational.
Thanks! I will look it up. I'd like to see if I can dig deeper, maybe look into whether the schools built by contractors who build other 'institutions' have a higher rate of depression/dropout/failure.... Of course maybe I should apply for federal funding for the study because to do it properly would take more time than I currently have to give. I just think that we *should* be looking into why public schools are failing, not just throwing blame at the sacrificial goat of the day.
Yes well, 'same feel' 'same look' 'same kinda building materials' doesn't = same contractor. I want actual examples so that I can point out in an repeatable fashion the differences/similarities. I would like to know if the same people that build the schools really *do* build the jails. All I want is some hard data on the subject. Of course, I don't want it bad enough to expend much effort searching for it, then verifying it, then re-verifying it (after all, I have work to do, or at least that's my story)....so if you guys don't either, I won't blame you :)
Morality: "Thou shalt not worship a graven image". Next time you go to church, take a look at the back - you'll see a figurine of a blocke nailed to a dod of wood. In other words - a graven image. Doh!
:)
Ask yourself how many people are praying to the *object*, believing that *it* will answer their prayers? There's a *huge* difference between a reminder or devotional aid and worshipping a graven image. One could also argue that you worship what you are totally devoted to. If you're totally devoted to that figure, to the exclusion of what it represents, you're worshipping it. If money comes before everything else to you, you are worshipping it. Same thing with yourself. If you put yourself before everything and everyone else, you are worshipping yourself. Just having something around, even important symbols, does not equal worship. Now, if instead of the cross, you had an image of the pope in every church, and people bowed or knelt to that image, and prayed to that image, and believed that the image had some sort of special powers....well then you might have a point. Personally, I prefer to worship at home, with people who believe what I do. (since I don't really like organized anything) However, that doesn't mean that I suddenly believe churchgoers everywhere are idolaters, and neither should you
I was trying to explain why the speeding most people currently do isn't a problem or morally wrong, while the illegal copying many people do is; there is no way to adjust the music listening public to copying just the right amount of music illegally, because the right amount is zero. You can control the speed at which people drive, by designing roads and putting up road signs accordingly. Everybody knows that a lot of people will speed, and a slightly intelligent person will know that the speed will to a great degree depend upon the speed limit. People speeding on the best highways in Norway (speed limit 90km/h) drive a lot slower than people speeding at comparable highways in continental Europe (speed limit 120km/h).
Wow. So basically you're saying that since breaking the speed limit is *expected* and can be *planned for*, that speeding is not a crime, or just that it is not morally wrong?
I don't think you'll be able to explain how speeding is 'not a problem and not morally wrong' when speeders have killed many people, but trading files (which hasn't killed anyone to date) *is*.
By your definition, shoplifting isn't a crime since stores know about how much they will lose to shoplifters and raise prices accordingly. Just because a law has expectations of being broken does not mean that it is either morally correct or morally incorrect. (Although I personally believe that a law which cannot be enforced or which is selectively enforced should be removed, it has nothing to do with morality, merely logic.)
Also, for the record, I do believe that theft is wrong. However, if I can 'take' a copy of something, and leave you with the exact same thing you had before, I don't see how that's been 'stolen.' Now, if someone prevented the music industry from using their own artists' music...I just don't see how it's piracy when the original is untouched.
There are almost as many P2P users as there are people with no healthcare coverage in that fine land of America!
The world is really impressed!
Man...not only does the world post as AC on slashdot, but the world talks like Bob Dole.
I'm really impressed!
(also, flamebait or no, you should know that healthcare coverage != treatment here. coverage is for people who can afford it, treatment is for everyone.)
(also also, healthcare coverage wouldn't be so damned expensive here if people didn't file so many freaking frivolous medical lawsuits)
(also also wik...llamas!)
Since when did capitalism decide the concept of right and wrong?
First of all, 'capitalism' *can not* determine right and wrong. It is not a religion, (which people look to to determine right and wrong) instead it is an economic system.
Secondly, when the government is forced to make many many laws helping large corporations and hurting smaller ones, that is not true capitalism. When government makes *any* laws having *anything* to do with commerce, it's no longer true capitalism. We can no longer have pure capitalism in this country, because it is (and is supposed to be) amoral and doesn't worry about anything but supply and demand, profit and loss. You are supposed to have your moral system determined outside of your economic model. If you have no morals, you will not conduct your business morally, whether it is a 'capitalist' system or not. Capitalism isn't to blame for this, it's just an economic model, not an entity deserving of blame for society's problems. Get off capitalism's nuts and start looking for the *problems* behind the symptoms, then try to fix those.
Residents of Texas, please tell me: Are you better off today than you were before Dubya?
Yes, but it has nothing to do with Mr. Bush nor any other politician. I'm simply better off because I have worked to improve my situation. As governor, Mr. Bush pissed off a vocal minority in TX but most people that I know wouldn't be able to tell you a single thing that he did as governor, good or bad. The fact of the matter is that for most people, who is in office has much less to do with their quality of life than local factors do. Leaders come and leaders go but the average person usually doesn't care enough to be able to tell the difference.
If in the next election we all voted for the liberterians or the greens, do you really think they would hand over power?
I think your a wee bit to drunk on the ideals they drugged you with in "history" class.
Yes, I do think they'd hand over power. The real question is, do you think anything would really change? The harsh fact about power is that those who would not abuse it do not want it, and those that seek it tend to abuse it. You can see this in small ways all around you. The policeman that parks in a fire lane, the grocer that makes his employees work unpaid overtime, the PHB that pushes problems on you but takes credit for your work, even something as basic as the bigger child taking the smaller's lunch money...'power corrupts' does not only refer to absoulte power. Most people who do well in politics are attracted to power and influence, not dedicated to serving their country. When statesman stopped being statesmen and started becoming 'politicians', this country started to die. We don't need an 'elite' class of career compromisers telling us how to live our lives. I do not now and will never accept that some shmuck in D.C. knows better than I do how to spend my money or live my life. Also, it really bugs me that while Congress has no problem making laws that affect the entire country, Congress is itself protected from those laws. I always thought no one was above the law...then I turned 5 and saw how it really works. If we want to save this country, we need to take 'politician' and 'lawyer' and 'tax accountant' and make them obsolete. *Why* are our laws so complicated that it takes 8 years to learn how to interpret them? Why is it SO HARD to ask your constituents how they want you to vote and then VOTE THAT WAY? Why does my tax accountant make more money than I do?
Have you noticed that the same contractors who build the prisons also build the schools?
Yes, I've heard this before. However, I would be really interested in knowing *which* contractors, or at least which prisons and schools...it would be interesting to contrast their designs.
If anyone could provide links, maybe we could all learn something from it.