I wish!
I mean, I wish they'd be proposing socialism, not about you voting for Bob Barr.
Democratic Socialism seems to be working pretty well in Europe, so I'm sure alot of people would prefer if people would stop using it as a epithet just because of some old propaganda.
Capitalism is about competition. That means some people come out of the competition with less, since a level playing field is unrealistic. Socialism, in it's purest sense, is about making sure there is a reasonable standard of living for those on the low end of the bell curve for whatever reason.
The only service the music industry provides reasonably is marketing and promotion. Technology has made distribution trivial. In effect, they use their monopoly on distribution to get people to pay for the service they provide to the musicians.
The guy who did the killing in the first example taught one of my Network Engineering classes. He wasn't actually much of a gamer, really. He did do a bit of RPG stuff, but it was a pretty minor hobby for him.
They don't mention that he was kicked out of the Marines for mental problems, but they mention that he was a gamer. Figures.
Yeah, but the poker industry doesn't care. If every player in their game is a bot, they still get thier money.
Not to mention the fact that if there was say one particular piece of bot software that was released and lots of people ran it, then it would start loosing money.
Only bots that can play better than the average number of players (wether they be human or another bot) will be able to make money, so if this article causes lots of slashdotters to create poker bots, they'll become much harder to make.
Sure, if you're the next Brittney Spears or The Beatles you can get a really good deal once you're famous. But honestly, what are the chances of any given group being really hugely famous?
Keep in mind that as an independant you won't have the massive marketing engine of the Labels, but once you've got something to sell you can make a much higher profit margin off of any given sale.
You can't stop people from sharing music they download from you, but people can share your music just as much if you sell CDs. CDs are cheap, downloads are cheaper. Set reasonable prices, get your material out there, and if it's good people will come and get it.
Ever played any of the civilization games, or for that matter any 4x game will a decent tech system?
Lets take for example aplha centauri, beause it is such a clearcut example. All the techs are in one of 4 types or a combination there of. Explore, Discover, Build, Destroy(I can't remember what the last one was actually called, but it's the military one.)
People like me stress the Discover ones, just as I go for writing as quickly as possible in Civilization games and generally always try for the most science related techs. On the other hand, one of my friends who used to play the game more than any living person should would always select technologies based on thier ability to help him wage war.
We had very different styles. I would build a peacefull, technologically advanced nation with a stanglehold on technologies so that the other nations must do my bidding or be killed by the ones who pleased me and got advanced technology. He on the other hand starts attacking his enemies from the beginning of the game, keeping them weak, and organized thier conquest at the first opportunity.
Now, what you have to ask ourselves is, what kind of techs is our nation choosing?
What you're assuming is that the most dangerous thing to us is a comet or asteroid, while the slashdot poll that you link to clearly shows that.Net is a much bigger threat than any of those. Colonization of other planets may delay the spread of.Net, but like any virus, so long as there is traffic between the planets,.Net and it's descendants will always manage to infect the populous.
This is the beauty of Mesh Networks with WiFi. Granted, a WiFi mesh is hardly going to provide anywhere-you-want-anytime-you-want connectivity right now, but if you start seeing cheap embeddable WiFi hardware, a mesh becomes feasible.
Not that it really matters anyway. Everyone know software defined radio is going to be where it's at.;)
I should have pointed out that I'm not including biotechnology as part of nanotechnology. Biotech is everything that nanotech is not: Self-Replicating, (for the most part) Easy to produce, and Extremly Dangerous. Don't get me wrong, I think we can achieve great things with Biotech and I think we should proceed with Biotech research as much as we have, if not much more. However, while Biotechnology and Nanotechnology are both suffieciently advanced technologies that deal with things primarily on a tiny scale, thier differences are enough for me to classify them as seperate things. It's arbitrary, but so am I.
As for resources neccesary to produce nanomachines, quite alot are needed to produce them without self-replication, which was my point. This may change sometime in the future due to scientific progress (and I sincerely hope so) but that is how it stands as of now.
While yes, we need to deal with the dangers of nanotechnology before they become actual issues, we must make sure to do so without hampering the advancement of nanotechnology as a whole. Many of the dangers which have been ascribed to nanotechnology should instead be ascribed to biotech, as well as some of the applications. Both require gentle care in the form of money and light restriction.
Has anyone noticed that most of the nanodangers people are worried about are far-future sort of scenarios. Though I'm no Nanotechnician, I've got enough of a passing interest in the subject to know that scientists are not so much saying that nanotechnology is impossible(like the author of this article seems to suggest) but that self replicating nanotechnology is impossible. Now, while I know if it is actually impossible, I strongly believe that self-replicating nanotechnology is beyond our mortal grasp, and without self-replicating nanomachines, most of the other really big nano-dangers ( and many of the nanodreams ) become nigh on impossible.
For Instance, take any sort of nanomachine that affects a human body. Nanomachines are very small and very hard to make. Our body is made of many, many cells. To kill, or change, or even repair a signifigant number of those cells, you need an obscene number of nanomachines. Without self-replicating nanos, you're going to be using alot more resources to make the nanos than it will take to achieve the same ends through other means.
Most of the current Nanotech seems to be centered around production methods of non-nano devices, sensors of different sorts, computing, and biotechnology. (Biotech being it's own can of worms and a very different matter from nanotech, indeed.)
This sort of a machine, while troublesome, does not seem to me to be too much of a problem. What is is, however, is a step in the wrong direction. A step for PCs towards game consoles, such as the X-Box. Think about it for a moment. I wasn't supprised when MS announced the XBox. It's a small, propreitary computer, the market for which generally accepts that they have to pay the maker of the computer to be able to create anything for it. I'd place bets that is what MS wants the PC to become.
While a little more debugging might slow down development times somewhat unavoidably, most of the extra man hours can be spent by hiring additional programmers. Last I checked, Microsoft had more than enough money to hire few additional people.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish! I mean, I wish they'd be proposing socialism, not about you voting for Bob Barr. Democratic Socialism seems to be working pretty well in Europe, so I'm sure alot of people would prefer if people would stop using it as a epithet just because of some old propaganda. Capitalism is about competition. That means some people come out of the competition with less, since a level playing field is unrealistic. Socialism, in it's purest sense, is about making sure there is a reasonable standard of living for those on the low end of the bell curve for whatever reason.
The only service the music industry provides reasonably is marketing and promotion. Technology has made distribution trivial. In effect, they use their monopoly on distribution to get people to pay for the service they provide to the musicians.
The guy who did the killing in the first example taught one of my Network Engineering classes. He wasn't actually much of a gamer, really. He did do a bit of RPG stuff, but it was a pretty minor hobby for him. They don't mention that he was kicked out of the Marines for mental problems, but they mention that he was a gamer. Figures.
Yeah, but the poker industry doesn't care. If every player in their game is a bot, they still get thier money. Not to mention the fact that if there was say one particular piece of bot software that was released and lots of people ran it, then it would start loosing money. Only bots that can play better than the average number of players (wether they be human or another bot) will be able to make money, so if this article causes lots of slashdotters to create poker bots, they'll become much harder to make.
Sure, if you're the next Brittney Spears or The Beatles you can get a really good deal once you're famous. But honestly, what are the chances of any given group being really hugely famous?
Keep in mind that as an independant you won't have the massive marketing engine of the Labels, but once you've got something to sell you can make a much higher profit margin off of any given sale.
You can't stop people from sharing music they download from you, but people can share your music just as much if you sell CDs. CDs are cheap, downloads are cheaper. Set reasonable prices, get your material out there, and if it's good people will come and get it.
Free?! I'd be more inclined to think they're looking for new markets to sell too.
Ever played any of the civilization games, or for that matter any 4x game will a decent tech system? Lets take for example aplha centauri, beause it is such a clearcut example. All the techs are in one of 4 types or a combination there of. Explore, Discover, Build, Destroy(I can't remember what the last one was actually called, but it's the military one.) People like me stress the Discover ones, just as I go for writing as quickly as possible in Civilization games and generally always try for the most science related techs. On the other hand, one of my friends who used to play the game more than any living person should would always select technologies based on thier ability to help him wage war. We had very different styles. I would build a peacefull, technologically advanced nation with a stanglehold on technologies so that the other nations must do my bidding or be killed by the ones who pleased me and got advanced technology. He on the other hand starts attacking his enemies from the beginning of the game, keeping them weak, and organized thier conquest at the first opportunity. Now, what you have to ask ourselves is, what kind of techs is our nation choosing?
What you're assuming is that the most dangerous thing to us is a comet or asteroid, while the slashdot poll that you link to clearly shows that .Net is a much bigger threat than any of those. Colonization of other planets may delay the spread of .Net, but like any virus, so long as there is traffic between the planets, .Net and it's descendants will always manage to infect the populous.
Just so long as this thing doesn't let the Jovians into my house...
Don't relegate WiFi completely to LAN Land.
;)
This is the beauty of Mesh Networks with WiFi. Granted, a WiFi mesh is hardly going to provide anywhere-you-want-anytime-you-want connectivity right now, but if you start seeing cheap embeddable WiFi hardware, a mesh becomes feasible.
Not that it really matters anyway. Everyone know software defined radio is going to be where it's at.
I should have pointed out that I'm not including biotechnology as part of nanotechnology. Biotech is everything that nanotech is not: Self-Replicating, (for the most part) Easy to produce, and Extremly Dangerous. Don't get me wrong, I think we can achieve great things with Biotech and I think we should proceed with Biotech research as much as we have, if not much more. However, while Biotechnology and Nanotechnology are both suffieciently advanced technologies that deal with things primarily on a tiny scale, thier differences are enough for me to classify them as seperate things. It's arbitrary, but so am I. As for resources neccesary to produce nanomachines, quite alot are needed to produce them without self-replication, which was my point. This may change sometime in the future due to scientific progress (and I sincerely hope so) but that is how it stands as of now. While yes, we need to deal with the dangers of nanotechnology before they become actual issues, we must make sure to do so without hampering the advancement of nanotechnology as a whole. Many of the dangers which have been ascribed to nanotechnology should instead be ascribed to biotech, as well as some of the applications. Both require gentle care in the form of money and light restriction.
For Instance, take any sort of nanomachine that affects a human body. Nanomachines are very small and very hard to make. Our body is made of many, many cells. To kill, or change, or even repair a signifigant number of those cells, you need an obscene number of nanomachines. Without self-replicating nanos, you're going to be using alot more resources to make the nanos than it will take to achieve the same ends through other means.
Most of the current Nanotech seems to be centered around production methods of non-nano devices, sensors of different sorts, computing, and biotechnology. (Biotech being it's own can of worms and a very different matter from nanotech, indeed.)
This sort of a machine, while troublesome, does not seem to me to be too much of a problem. What is is, however, is a step in the wrong direction. A step for PCs towards game consoles, such as the X-Box. Think about it for a moment. I wasn't supprised when MS announced the XBox. It's a small, propreitary computer, the market for which generally accepts that they have to pay the maker of the computer to be able to create anything for it. I'd place bets that is what MS wants the PC to become.
While a little more debugging might slow down development times somewhat unavoidably, most of the extra man hours can be spent by hiring additional programmers. Last I checked, Microsoft had more than enough money to hire few additional people.