And how exactly you have gotten to the idea that Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of the most powerful people in the world is beyond me.
Dude, California is bigger, richer and more influential than probably 80% of the countries in the world. What rubric are you using? I think you either need to do less drugs, or more drugs. Whichever works.:-)
Stop making it sound like all drug users think drugs are a magical gateway to superior life and intelligence. Most of us know better, and you're embarrassing us.
I don't think anybody has said that you gain 50 IQ points for each joint you smoke. Clearly, that's not the case. What pot (and other hallucinogens) give you is not mechanical ability -- they give you perspective; namely, a different one. Sometimes that's the most precious thing in the world. That's what anti-drug folks will never understand. Drugs can give you a chance to step outside your own shoes for awhile and think with different mental patterns. They aren't better, they aren't even worse -- they're just different. It's kind of like having two brains, and as they say, two heads are better than one. Many smart people use drugs to attack problems from different angles. The actual implementation of a solution may be left until they're sober, but the rumination while on cannabis can be quite beneficial.
Of course, if you just watch TV the whole time you're stoned it won't do a damn bit of good. It's all in how you use it. I prefer playing guitar and ruminating.
If that's not why you smoke -- and it would seem to be for legitimate medical reasons -- that's fine. But don't assume you know what it's like for everybody. It's time to get a little perspective.
Seriously, though, this sounds like a good read. Many people think of hippies and computer geeks as two distinct groups of people, but that's not necessarily true. There is a lot of overlap, trust me.:-)
I'm thinking that the 3rd world does need some neat technology like this, if only to keep up with the 1st world. Factory machines, hospital equipment and other major equipment is likely to run on a computer ("Please make sure you are running Windows 2000 or greater..."). Hell, we probably send them their statements ("You owe 23 billion dollars in interest to the World Bank. Please include some high class prostitutes with payment.") in an Excel file.
We need to give the 3rd world a chance to catch up by allowing them to leapfrog to decent equipment. That's why open source software is so important. It can really reduce the financial burden of the upgrade cycle. They're already trapped in the debt repayment cycle. Then, the gift of our time and effort will start working for us when they start making great software/hardware. I think it's in our own interests to make sure the 3rd world is as wealthy as we are, both financially & technologically.
I had a Phillips Superdrive (4x DVD burner / 12x CD burner) that refused to play commercially pressed CDs. It was the strangest thing, because it could still read burned CDs, burned DVDs and regular, commercial DVDs. But if you tried to play a pressed CD, it would spin and spin. Sometimes it would recognize it if I ejected & put it back in enough times. Gradually, it got worse and worse until it didn't read any non-burned CDs. It still burned both CDs and DVDs just fine. I guessed that the laser was out of alignment or something. I replaced it with a 8x Superdrive and that has been working perfectly.
To address your question, I think you may be on to something. Perhaps, though, few people notice that optical devices are flaky in general because we upgrade so often and so many other things go wrong with computers. All I know is that my work computer's CD burner is dying now. It reads CDs and DVDs fine, but it is starting to fail when burning CD burns. It's getting worse and now fails about 50% of the time. Are we getting screwed by shoddy manufacturers, or is there a fundamental problem with optical drives?
Good luck to all of the people who think they can censor blogs and the internet. I sincerely believe you'll be successful.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I must return to my quest to single-handedly gather all of the water in the world and store it in my basement.
I think that Symantec is merely responding to this little bit that slipped out (grabbed it from Macintouch):
David Coursey writes for eWeek about the lack of Mac OS X malware:
How do I know there are no Mac OS X viruses and malware out there?
Because the Mac product manager of one of the major security software companies told me so.
And when people tell me I don't need their product, I usually take them at their word.
I won't identify the person since he thought he was talking to me for a book project, but people at Apple were happy to confirm this to me.
They don't put it in their advertising for obvious reasons.
Um...yeah. Can you say "Oops"? Now they've responded with some vague fears, but that's just to stir up some sales, as everyone has already guessed.
Next anti-virus companies will start writing their own viruses in order to drive up sales. Sheesh.
Kids have to know they can break some rules and it's ok, and that people in power are not gods.
I agree totally, and I'm continually surprised by how many people disagree. Many people think it's never okay to break the rules. Can somebody who feels this way please explain why? I honestly want to know. I guess I've never trusted authority figures, especially when they turn around and break rules themselves. Is there somebody here to honestly tries to never break any rule? What's that like?
Finally, why would it be a bad thing (don't give me slippery slope crap - just any single reason it is a bad idea in and of itself)?
Why no slippery slope arguments? Is that because you can't defeat them? Look, the slippery slope argument is not a silver bullet, and lots of times it is misused, but this is a case where it's very relevant, especially since these things tend to spread virally. We have to decide how much freedom we're willing to give away. And when people attack freedom, they always start with the weakest elements of society: in this case, children & prisoners. Earlier today there was a story about tracking ex-cons and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. On slashdot. Well, that's one down, one to go. Pretty soon we'll all accept it, so in that instance you're correct. Just think, a few years ago it was absurd to have security cameras in school. Now they are ubiquitous. I still think the idea is horribly wrong, but then again, I have fundamental problems with our school system; I think it's rotten to the core, so I can hardly argue for "the way things used to be" since I didn't like it back then either.
As for practical reasons why this is a bad idea, here's a couple. It will ultimately be hugely expensive, with little to no return -- remember these cards only track kids inside school, and they only register when the child passes by a detector. Since they are just badges, kids will take them off and give them to other kids. They will mess with the machines, they will mess with the teachers' heads. They will also resent being tracked and numbered like cattle, but they won't be able to fully express their feelings of shame and resentment until they are much older. This will make many of them act out, and this in turn will cause the school officials to clamp down even harder, starting a vicious cycle. And all this time, the students who are there to LEARN will be sitting there learning more about society than we'd like them to learn.
This whole idea is just a big distraction. It's a shitty solution in search of a problem. All it really is is a greedy corporation teaming up with a control-freak superintendent. Not really a big deal, but it's symptomatic. There are many control-freaks out there, and many of them would love to control as many people as possible. You don't really think they're doing this for our benefit, do you?
I should be able to live in society without being threatened by physical violence.
Nice straw-man argument, but tracking technology doesn't solve this problem at all. This is a social problem, not easily solved by technology (not without violating our rights/freedom anyway).
As the article points out, this is mostly for attendance purposes. It doesn't notify the principal if you're getting beat up in the library. But guess what it does do! It makes children feel like criminals. Then, when they behave like criminals, we will all act very shocked. "I can't understand why children these days act like this!" we'll say. Well, we're the ones who are training them to act like that. The superintendent has already made it abundantly clear (implicitly) that he has ZERO trust in these kids. He thinks they should be tagged like animals and locked in classrooms like prisoners in a cell. If he had his druthers I'm sure he'd have the RFID chips implanted under their skin so they couldn't lose them.
So please, explain to me again how this helps children stay free of violence. Bear in mind that this was not optional. Nor was it even properly explained to the children or their parents.
They're not the same concept and they shouldn't be.
That wasn't my point. If you missed it, it's that they're natural allies. They spring forth from the same ideals - freedom and communication and openness. The openness of journalism, now that every body can do it, and critique each other, is the same openness of software code, allowing disparate people all over the world to critique and modify the code. Both create, communicate, analyze and refine. And they both depend on freedom to do that.
What Kos did is grass roots "activism" made possible in part by Open Source code but read mostly by people who use MICROSOFT WINDOWS and Internet Explorer.
What does it matter what browser they use? Just because you're a fanatic....
...Oh wait, I'm wasting my time - you're a fanatic.
....and yet everyone on/. seems to hate bloggers with a passion. Granted,/. is a community blog/bulletin board, with a different setup than your average political blog. But I see so many people (from the mainstream media down to the lowest slashdotter) assume that political blogs ARE blogs. Bullshit. They are NOT the totality of blogging. Blogging is much more than some right/left wing person ranting and investigating. Some of the best blogs are completely different in design and execution. And I think the majority of blogs are set up by 13-year old girls who talk about whatever they had for breakfast. And that's fine. I don't have to read those blogs! Why does the harmless self-expression of others threaten slashdotters so much?
Now, I won't disagree that "open source journalism" is just a buzzword that was created on a blog somewhere, but have a little patience; they're trying to describe something we don't have a word for yet. And the words we do have are weighted down with pos./neg. connotation. Really, what we're talking about here is non-corporate media, which can encompass anything from indymedia.org to powerlineblog.com to engadget.com.
I dunno about anybody else, but I'm tired of the negative, cynical, close-minded mindset that so envelopes slashdot about such issues. Open-source is an ideology, and it's an extremely important one. But let's not deride people whose interest lies outside of technological pursuits; people who (gasp!) use technology to do work rather than work on technology. Bloggers have different opinions and interests than you. Is that so wrong? Can they not be united in the struggle against the corrupt and fascist mainstream media/evil software companies? Do they not value their freedom, just as we do?
Furthermore, I've read many posts in this thread already, and even open-source advocates can't seem to agree on what open source is! Some say it's a way of working cooperatively. Some say it's simply not closed-source. Could I pry a few minds open here and suggest that it is both and much more? It is nothing less than the united struggle against tyrrany, the tyrrany that we all KNOW that those in power will impose if given the chance. Without our resistance ("our" including all who stand up for their rights), can you imagine the distopian hell we would live in? We only have to look into our recent history to find examples, and we only have to look to totalitarian states currently in existance to realize the importance of freedom.
Simply put, open-source is about freedom and openness (glasnost). Surely most of us here recognize the power of open-source, but we do not yet know it's full potential. Conversely, we do not yet know the power of blogging. Yes, "blog" is just a stupid word, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that blogging has the power to take down totalitarian governments. If, through the internet, people in a restrictive regime are enabled to communicate effectively the government no longer controls the flow of information. When that happens, a critical mass can be achieved and revolution is possible. Look at Ukraine's election for a recent example.
Blogging is not just ranting and boring shit (although that boring shit might actually serve as "cover" for the more explosive material), it's about communication, freedom and openness. Blogging and open source are going to change our world. Are they over-hyped? Well duh. Who do you think is doing the hyping? The mainstream media, because they don't know how to do anything else. And if you hate blogs because the media hypes them, well then I guess you're just buying what they're selling.
Just like on my blog, I don't expect anybody to care or read what I have written, but I feel a heck of a lot better for having written it. Mod me as you will.
It's pretty cool - I like it. But, you know, I'm not really allowed to talked about it. It's very hush-hush. Non-disclosure agreements, and all. I'm also not supposed to talk about my 10 GHz processor, but you know it's hard not to brag.
It's my birthday on the 24th as well. So, does being born on this day make us the miserable people on earth then? I can't claim it's the best time for a birthday - most people are still worn out from X-mas. They don't feel like celebrating shit. In fact, I rarely have a great birthday, it's usually just mediocre.
Shit, now I'm depressed. And I have to work on Monday! Aiighh!! God, what an awful day. Going outside, like Professor I-Hate-January suggests would result in immediate death since I live in Minnesota.
Man, I hope my girlfiend will console me. Wait a minute, I'm a slashdotter - I don't have a girlfriend!
I just want to say that this is the best post I've seen so far.
I also want to say that the moderation on this post is shameful. People shouldn't waste time and mod points modding down what others have modded up. How can you spend your time/points trying to suppress others? It's just (for lack of a better word) evil.
I can't pass judgment on slashdot, like so many try to do, because slashdot is like the universe - it encompasses every type of person you could imagine. And until you know them (and you're only reading their words!) who are you to say that they are fools? I can't go around saying my beliefs are better than everyone elses, or somehow more true. Sure, I believe they are - they're mine, after all - but how do I know?
In short, mod others as you would have them mod you.
The Slashborg Nerve Center is deriding this, but I think it could be a good thing. Currently, the two channels that artists and producers have to play with are completely maxed out. Most producers are using so much dynamic compression that their songs don't sound "real." (i.e. they sound over-produced) This is why top 40 radio sounds so crappy to most of us (amongst other reasons). I think having more channel "space" would be a good think artistically and auditorially (if that's a word).
Of course, since this is a patented product, they will start charging in about a year, according to TFA. Fuck that, when ogg already does this. Problem is, I don't know how to do it. Once ogg comes of age as a 5.1 channel codec it could really gain so momentum. I would certainly release my songs in multi-channel oggs for the.5% of the population who has surround sound and is into that sort of thing. Eventually, ogg could position itself as the go-to codec for multi-channel sound for both music and movies.
Whatever the Mark of the Beast was supposed to be, it was something that existed then, not now.
Wow, good thing you're here to tell us what Revelation (no "s") means. People have struggled with its meaning for centuries, but you're here to tell us that it has no meaning in this modern age. Well, that's a relief.
Dude, have you read Revelation? It can mean anything. The imagery is so insanely weird it can be interpreted pretty much however you want. Personally, I believe it is as relevant now as it was then, if not moreso.
One of the major portions relating to the mark of the beast is the fact that those who do not have it will be unable to buy or sell. That would imply that the antichrist would have complete mastery over the economic system of the time. If we were to store and access our bank accounts on an RFID / verichip hybrid, we'd be one step closer to a psuedo-capitalist, totalitarian economic system. That would suck.
Regardless, it's glad to know there's still a few bands out there who are in it for the love.
Actually, you can find tons of bands who do it for the love of music. Check out your local scene - you'll find a bunch of guys in their 30s and older who are not going to be on MTV anytime soon. But, if your scene is anything like Minneapolis scene, those guys are making some kickass music that hardly anybody has heard. It's a crime, I tell ya!
You're clearly a curmudgeon, but I agree with you. It is quite a bit like smoking - I feel that the noise and light pollution caused by TV is probably harmful to me in some way because I oftentimes feel physically ill when a gigantic TV is assaulting me with obnoxious commercials at ear-shattering volumes. It's feels like torture to me, and I get a nauseous feeling just above my stomach. I'm sure no one would ever commission a study on this (at least not in America - land of people who are addicted to the boob-tube like it was crack-cocaine), but I'd be willing to bet there are negative physiological and psychological side effects from even second-hand TV consumption (i.e. being in the same room with a functioning TV).
Of course, this device isn't perfect since the TV can be turned on again quite easily. I think a manufacturer called Smith & Wesson makes a more complete solution.
This brings up something I've been wondering about. How do write-ins work when you're e-voting? Personally, I'm planning on writing in Jon Stewart for president because I hate the 2 party system and I think those that desire power should never have it. As such, I prefer to vote for people who aren't running (I also write-in my friends when voting for judges - judges almost always run unopposed in my area). How does electronic voting account for write-in candidates? This seemes like it would be infinitely easier to do on a paper ballot (because of misspellings, name variations, etc.), but perhaps I'm uninformed.
I've heard about this site before (I work in PR), but in the context of how advertisers are trying to hook kids on their brands at a very young age. The logic goes that kids develop life-long brand associations, so the advertisers exploit that with these "free" games. Of course, you have to register, and the advertisers get a chance to get their hooks in you. I don't really consider online registration ever to be "free." It costs you something in terms of time, effort and privacy. That's fine for me - and most of us here - we know this stuff. But what about the kids who think they're getting something for nothing?
It is now possible to patent a lifeform. If you love software patents, then maybe this won't disturb you, but for the farmer this represents a very serious problem. For one thing, it gives companies like Monsanto enormous power. Farmers are forced to purchase the GM seeds from Monsanto, even if the previous year's crop produced plenty of tenable seeds. The farmers do not legally own those seeds - they are only "licensing" them.... not from God; from Monsanto.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, California is bigger, richer and more influential than probably 80% of the countries in the world. What rubric are you using? I think you either need to do less drugs, or more drugs. Whichever works. :-)
Stop making it sound like all drug users think drugs are a magical gateway to superior life and intelligence. Most of us know better, and you're embarrassing us.
I don't think anybody has said that you gain 50 IQ points for each joint you smoke. Clearly, that's not the case. What pot (and other hallucinogens) give you is not mechanical ability -- they give you perspective; namely, a different one. Sometimes that's the most precious thing in the world. That's what anti-drug folks will never understand. Drugs can give you a chance to step outside your own shoes for awhile and think with different mental patterns. They aren't better, they aren't even worse -- they're just different. It's kind of like having two brains, and as they say, two heads are better than one. Many smart people use drugs to attack problems from different angles. The actual implementation of a solution may be left until they're sober, but the rumination while on cannabis can be quite beneficial.
Of course, if you just watch TV the whole time you're stoned it won't do a damn bit of good. It's all in how you use it. I prefer playing guitar and ruminating. If that's not why you smoke -- and it would seem to be for legitimate medical reasons -- that's fine. But don't assume you know what it's like for everybody. It's time to get a little perspective.
Seriously, though, this sounds like a good read. Many people think of hippies and computer geeks as two distinct groups of people, but that's not necessarily true. There is a lot of overlap, trust me. :-)
"Whose trachea do you have to crush with your mind to get a little service around here?"
--20050422
Boy, I know how you feel, Darth! I find myself wondering that all the time.
Go ahead! Mod me down! Who wants a trachea-crushing?!
We need to give the 3rd world a chance to catch up by allowing them to leapfrog to decent equipment. That's why open source software is so important. It can really reduce the financial burden of the upgrade cycle. They're already trapped in the debt repayment cycle. Then, the gift of our time and effort will start working for us when they start making great software/hardware. I think it's in our own interests to make sure the 3rd world is as wealthy as we are, both financially & technologically.
To address your question, I think you may be on to something. Perhaps, though, few people notice that optical devices are flaky in general because we upgrade so often and so many other things go wrong with computers. All I know is that my work computer's CD burner is dying now. It reads CDs and DVDs fine, but it is starting to fail when burning CD burns. It's getting worse and now fails about 50% of the time. Are we getting screwed by shoddy manufacturers, or is there a fundamental problem with optical drives?
I predict an epidemic of cracks like this one.
Good luck to all of the people who think they can censor blogs and the internet. I sincerely believe you'll be successful. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must return to my quest to single-handedly gather all of the water in the world and store it in my basement.
Um...yeah. Can you say "Oops"? Now they've responded with some vague fears, but that's just to stir up some sales, as everyone has already guessed.
Next anti-virus companies will start writing their own viruses in order to drive up sales. Sheesh.
...but those GIMPS kick ass.
I agree totally, and I'm continually surprised by how many people disagree. Many people think it's never okay to break the rules. Can somebody who feels this way please explain why? I honestly want to know. I guess I've never trusted authority figures, especially when they turn around and break rules themselves. Is there somebody here to honestly tries to never break any rule? What's that like?
Why no slippery slope arguments? Is that because you can't defeat them? Look, the slippery slope argument is not a silver bullet, and lots of times it is misused, but this is a case where it's very relevant, especially since these things tend to spread virally. We have to decide how much freedom we're willing to give away. And when people attack freedom, they always start with the weakest elements of society: in this case, children & prisoners. Earlier today there was a story about tracking ex-cons and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. On slashdot. Well, that's one down, one to go. Pretty soon we'll all accept it, so in that instance you're correct. Just think, a few years ago it was absurd to have security cameras in school. Now they are ubiquitous. I still think the idea is horribly wrong, but then again, I have fundamental problems with our school system; I think it's rotten to the core, so I can hardly argue for "the way things used to be" since I didn't like it back then either.
As for practical reasons why this is a bad idea, here's a couple. It will ultimately be hugely expensive, with little to no return -- remember these cards only track kids inside school, and they only register when the child passes by a detector. Since they are just badges, kids will take them off and give them to other kids. They will mess with the machines, they will mess with the teachers' heads. They will also resent being tracked and numbered like cattle, but they won't be able to fully express their feelings of shame and resentment until they are much older. This will make many of them act out, and this in turn will cause the school officials to clamp down even harder, starting a vicious cycle. And all this time, the students who are there to LEARN will be sitting there learning more about society than we'd like them to learn.
This whole idea is just a big distraction. It's a shitty solution in search of a problem. All it really is is a greedy corporation teaming up with a control-freak superintendent. Not really a big deal, but it's symptomatic. There are many control-freaks out there, and many of them would love to control as many people as possible. You don't really think they're doing this for our benefit, do you?
Nice straw-man argument, but tracking technology doesn't solve this problem at all. This is a social problem, not easily solved by technology (not without violating our rights/freedom anyway).
As the article points out, this is mostly for attendance purposes. It doesn't notify the principal if you're getting beat up in the library. But guess what it does do! It makes children feel like criminals. Then, when they behave like criminals, we will all act very shocked. "I can't understand why children these days act like this!" we'll say. Well, we're the ones who are training them to act like that. The superintendent has already made it abundantly clear (implicitly) that he has ZERO trust in these kids. He thinks they should be tagged like animals and locked in classrooms like prisoners in a cell. If he had his druthers I'm sure he'd have the RFID chips implanted under their skin so they couldn't lose them.
So please, explain to me again how this helps children stay free of violence. Bear in mind that this was not optional. Nor was it even properly explained to the children or their parents.
That wasn't my point. If you missed it, it's that they're natural allies. They spring forth from the same ideals - freedom and communication and openness. The openness of journalism, now that every body can do it, and critique each other, is the same openness of software code, allowing disparate people all over the world to critique and modify the code. Both create, communicate, analyze and refine. And they both depend on freedom to do that.
What Kos did is grass roots "activism" made possible in part by Open Source code but read mostly by people who use MICROSOFT WINDOWS and Internet Explorer.
What does it matter what browser they use? Just because you're a fanatic....
Just like Kos.
Now, I won't disagree that "open source journalism" is just a buzzword that was created on a blog somewhere, but have a little patience; they're trying to describe something we don't have a word for yet. And the words we do have are weighted down with pos./neg. connotation. Really, what we're talking about here is non-corporate media, which can encompass anything from indymedia.org to powerlineblog.com to engadget.com.
I dunno about anybody else, but I'm tired of the negative, cynical, close-minded mindset that so envelopes slashdot about such issues. Open-source is an ideology, and it's an extremely important one. But let's not deride people whose interest lies outside of technological pursuits; people who (gasp!) use technology to do work rather than work on technology. Bloggers have different opinions and interests than you. Is that so wrong? Can they not be united in the struggle against the corrupt and fascist mainstream media/evil software companies? Do they not value their freedom, just as we do?
Furthermore, I've read many posts in this thread already, and even open-source advocates can't seem to agree on what open source is! Some say it's a way of working cooperatively. Some say it's simply not closed-source. Could I pry a few minds open here and suggest that it is both and much more? It is nothing less than the united struggle against tyrrany, the tyrrany that we all KNOW that those in power will impose if given the chance. Without our resistance ("our" including all who stand up for their rights), can you imagine the distopian hell we would live in? We only have to look into our recent history to find examples, and we only have to look to totalitarian states currently in existance to realize the importance of freedom.
Simply put, open-source is about freedom and openness (glasnost). Surely most of us here recognize the power of open-source, but we do not yet know it's full potential. Conversely, we do not yet know the power of blogging. Yes, "blog" is just a stupid word, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that blogging has the power to take down totalitarian governments. If, through the internet, people in a restrictive regime are enabled to communicate effectively the government no longer controls the flow of information. When that happens, a critical mass can be achieved and revolution is possible. Look at Ukraine's election for a recent example.
Blogging is not just ranting and boring shit (although that boring shit might actually serve as "cover" for the more explosive material), it's about communication, freedom and openness. Blogging and open source are going to change our world. Are they over-hyped? Well duh. Who do you think is doing the hyping? The mainstream media, because they don't know how to do anything else. And if you hate blogs because the media hypes them, well then I guess you're just buying what they're selling.
Just like on my blog, I don't expect anybody to care or read what I have written, but I feel a heck of a lot better for having written it. Mod me as you will.
It's pretty cool - I like it. But, you know, I'm not really allowed to talked about it. It's very hush-hush. Non-disclosure agreements, and all. I'm also not supposed to talk about my 10 GHz processor, but you know it's hard not to brag.
Shit, now I'm depressed. And I have to work on Monday! Aiighh!! God, what an awful day. Going outside, like Professor I-Hate-January suggests would result in immediate death since I live in Minnesota.
Man, I hope my girlfiend will console me. Wait a minute, I'm a slashdotter - I don't have a girlfriend!
Damn... now I'm really depressed.
Worst. Story. EVER.
Hi Lindsay!! I luv u!!!
I went to your site and "rocked out" to the intro, and then i saw nothing but PINK! My eyes actually screamed in pain. I heard them. I shit you not.
Please Lindsay. Redesign your site... for me?
And show me your knockers. :-)
I also want to say that the moderation on this post is shameful. People shouldn't waste time and mod points modding down what others have modded up. How can you spend your time/points trying to suppress others? It's just (for lack of a better word) evil.
I can't pass judgment on slashdot, like so many try to do, because slashdot is like the universe - it encompasses every type of person you could imagine. And until you know them (and you're only reading their words!) who are you to say that they are fools? I can't go around saying my beliefs are better than everyone elses, or somehow more true. Sure, I believe they are - they're mine, after all - but how do I know?
In short, mod others as you would have them mod you.
Of course, since this is a patented product, they will start charging in about a year, according to TFA. Fuck that, when ogg already does this. Problem is, I don't know how to do it. Once ogg comes of age as a 5.1 channel codec it could really gain so momentum. I would certainly release my songs in multi-channel oggs for the .5% of the population who has surround sound and is into that sort of thing. Eventually, ogg could position itself as the go-to codec for multi-channel sound for both music and movies.
Wow, good thing you're here to tell us what Revelation (no "s") means. People have struggled with its meaning for centuries, but you're here to tell us that it has no meaning in this modern age. Well, that's a relief.
Dude, have you read Revelation? It can mean anything. The imagery is so insanely weird it can be interpreted pretty much however you want. Personally, I believe it is as relevant now as it was then, if not moreso.
One of the major portions relating to the mark of the beast is the fact that those who do not have it will be unable to buy or sell. That would imply that the antichrist would have complete mastery over the economic system of the time. If we were to store and access our bank accounts on an RFID / verichip hybrid, we'd be one step closer to a psuedo-capitalist, totalitarian economic system. That would suck.
Actually, you can find tons of bands who do it for the love of music. Check out your local scene - you'll find a bunch of guys in their 30s and older who are not going to be on MTV anytime soon. But, if your scene is anything like Minneapolis scene, those guys are making some kickass music that hardly anybody has heard. It's a crime, I tell ya!
Of course, this device isn't perfect since the TV can be turned on again quite easily. I think a manufacturer called Smith & Wesson makes a more complete solution.
This brings up something I've been wondering about. How do write-ins work when you're e-voting? Personally, I'm planning on writing in Jon Stewart for president because I hate the 2 party system and I think those that desire power should never have it. As such, I prefer to vote for people who aren't running (I also write-in my friends when voting for judges - judges almost always run unopposed in my area). How does electronic voting account for write-in candidates? This seemes like it would be infinitely easier to do on a paper ballot (because of misspellings, name variations, etc.), but perhaps I'm uninformed.
I've heard about this site before (I work in PR), but in the context of how advertisers are trying to hook kids on their brands at a very young age. The logic goes that kids develop life-long brand associations, so the advertisers exploit that with these "free" games. Of course, you have to register, and the advertisers get a chance to get their hooks in you. I don't really consider online registration ever to be "free." It costs you something in terms of time, effort and privacy. That's fine for me - and most of us here - we know this stuff. But what about the kids who think they're getting something for nothing?
One word: Patents.
It is now possible to patent a lifeform. If you love software patents, then maybe this won't disturb you, but for the farmer this represents a very serious problem. For one thing, it gives companies like Monsanto enormous power. Farmers are forced to purchase the GM seeds from Monsanto, even if the previous year's crop produced plenty of tenable seeds. The farmers do not legally own those seeds - they are only "licensing" them.... not from God; from Monsanto.