1) Unless you introduce a toxin-producing gene into the organism, this is not very likely. And I guess someone might actually analyze it for toxins if humans will be eating it. 2) Every hour three species become extinct. More than 20,000 species become extinct every year. If two or three more will become extinct because of GM organisms, no big deal. 3) We have monocultures already. GM organisms might actually create more diversity if we can adapt the organisms to the local conditions in the place where they are used. 4) That's pure speculation. Some religious books forbid masturbation, homosexuality, etc. all right. But there are none that forbid genetic engineering. At least not to my knowledge. 5) Since 1-4 aren't really a problem, this one isn't as well.
Generally speaking, what is more dangerous, doing something randomely without any understanding whatsoever or doing something on purpose, controlling every stage, experimenting and testing throughout the whole process? GM organisms are safer in the long run, although there might be some risks today because of it being an emerging technology.
Natural world is "biodiverse", becuase the environment is diverse. If you remove diversity from the environment, living world will eventually lose some too. Trying to maintain artificial diversity won't work (in the medium- to long- term), so the only real solution would be to increase diversity in the world and these GM species aren't really a problem.
Their report is a great and entertaining reading. The name says it all - basically they found that people generally tend to overestimate their skills (in certain areas) if they are actually bad and also suggested several mechanisms for that.
How about creating some sort of "Darwin police" instead. Imagine some really tough and well-equipped force, a la Minority Report, that will drop from the sky in their cool futuristic gear every time anyone does something stupid and sterilizing him (her).:)
Drive on red - sterilized. Use hair-drier in a bathtub - sterilized. Jump from the roof in a Supermen suit - fixed in a hospital and then sterilized. et cetera.
This way we solve two problems - natural selection is enforced (artificially) and people don't die as often.
You see, if I take Coca-Cola and pour it from a can into a glass and sell it this way, it is still "Coca-Cola". If I mix it with vodka, I have the right to call it "Coca-Cola with vodka". Because it is.
In case with Spiderman skins, they do not represent a stolen character, they actually represent Spiderman from Marvel universe (films, comics, games, etc.). So the problem is not that Spiderman becomes generic term, no. The problem (in Marvel's opinion) is that people apparently can get the right to use Spiderman in their products without first asking permission. If someone can make a skin, then someone can make any product using Spiderman (toys, calculators, computer mice, etc.).
Of course, being so stupid as Marvel is is not a requirement. They can easily place a license on their website and say that you can use Spiderman to make skins, as long as you do not sell it and acknowlege that it is Marvel's character. Then they would be licensing the character and would be safe from losing it in the future.
I wonder if there any actual examples of companies loosing their trademarks because they have entered public domain (but not the examples when the word entered the language as a generic term - that's different).
Judging by the screenshots and movies, graphics are already outdated. May be because of long development time (they only updated the engine long ago), may be because of limited power of current consoles. It's nothing to be proud about in 2003. Of course, they abandoned the cube-based levels, but no other improvements in graphics can be seen. Lara's own model is as blocky as ever. I guess, that's on the official site Eidos only shows postage-stamp-sized screenshots (340x230).
Incidentally, some of these games have a plot many times better and more engaging than GTA. As for the demand on your side of the pond, here is demand for rape and here is demand for incest (Courtesy of Google). They don't look like Japanese sites to me.
Actually 1Gb of 320x480 DivX probably means at least 3 hours of video(high-quality encoding). If we ignore the possible need to reencode it for the Clie, it's not too bad. And if you can shell out enough money to buy several of these 1Gb sticks, it might actually work as a video player pretty well.
MobyGames tries to become for games what IMDB is for movies. They are not there yet, but overall it is probably the best source of factual information about games.
You forget that it will even allow professional audio- and video- editing (with appropriate peripherals and HDDs, of course), as well as 3D animation (come to think of it, it's only 3 times slower than 3.6GHz).
If they want to DOS your site, they can do it now. After all, it doesn't matter whether they download a 1Mb page 1 thousand times or download a 10Kb page 100 thousand times, doesn't it?
I can't find the Charlston population, but there are 200,000 people living in Kanawha County, so may be Charlston has about 50 thousands. Here is an example from Finland.
Lappeenranta, also 50 thousand people. 6 bus lines with buses every 15-30 minutes (they are always on time, are comfortable and there are no "poor losers" there). Maximum walking distance to bus station is 5 minutes. There are also frequent buses to nearby cities. And a train station. Add to that the fact that Finland is extremely bicycle friendly - you can basically get from any place in the country to any other place using dedicated bike roads. And if you really need a car, you can always get a taxi.
Could you reply with some information about PT in Charlston.
You can't fix the underlying problems, that's the catch. One of the problems is that life is boring for most people, that they are not rich, that they are stupid, that their wife is ugly, etc. Sure, I do exaggerate a bit, but anyway.;) And please don't start telling me that your life is interesting. First, because one anecdote doesn't disprove the general rule (and I said most, not all), and second, because it's probably not as interesting as you might like [us] to believe. So, because life is not as good as we would like it to be, there is an inclination for people to turn to TV. Another problem is that our day-to-day life is boring (even if life in general is interesting). That means that even if you are a Formula 1 driver, you might be motivated to replace the boredom of some evenings with artificial excitement of TV. Yet another problem is that sometimes you can be too tired to do anything worthwhile. You just want to lie down and do nothing... or watch TV.
All these problems are integral to our life today. You can't solve them without completely redesigning our societies, which is kind of difficult. And because of these problems, people tend to watch TV. And because TV temporarily solves these problems (that's why they watch it), they tend to become addicted. Of course, this doesn't work for everyone, some people are lucky to be safe, but not because they have some mythical willpower to resist the "evils of TV". No, if they need to actively resist TV, that means they are in danger and are likely to become addicted eventually. It's those who have a certain combination of various factors in their lives (certain job, certain interests, certain attitude to society, etc.) that are luckily safe from TV (but they are a minority).
Now a few words about the research that you was so critical about. First, when you turn your head, the world doesn't move - your brain compensates for the movements of your head and you perceive the world as stable. So the life (in the living room) is in fact a still picture. Just try to sit for a while facing a working TV and not paying attention to what is shown there. And stopping watching TV had nothing to do with doing it in the middle of the show. No, it was unpleasant no matter when you do that, because people watching TV enter a certain psychological state that they are uncomfortable breaking from. If you don't mind an unscientific term, they are in some kind of trance.:)
Finally, I am not suggesting that we (who are those "we" anyway?) ban food, sex, diets or TV (although I am unsure about TV). I am just saying that there are ways to minimize the negative effect. One of them is to print nutritional information on food packaging. Second is sexual education in schools. Third can be to force Mattle to bring Barbie's proportions in touch with reality... And there are hundreds of ways to minimize the negative effects of TV. Unfortunately, most countries really don't care (or they are happy that TV breeds passivity in the populace) and for those that do (namely for Bhutan) it might be too late.
It's not that I have a closed mind, it's that I enjoy being provocative and categorical.:)
I agree that there are good programs on TV. But... There are actually two "buts". First is that generally speaking, most of the content is crap. Even if you take Discovery, a large share of their programs are useless filler of varied quality. Second, even if you take a great program (or TV-show) and repeat it every week, the consumers (viewers) necessarily get a worse experience. Then there is actually the problem of pattern (as I originally stated). If you watch 6 hours of Discovery, you can't possibly process what you've seen. So you become addicted to the process itself, TV stops being means to your goals, but becomes an end.
Now I don't view TV as a technology as bad. I even agree that there are some good programs. But as it is, TV is very dangerous:) and it easily consumes many people without them realising it.
I disagree that one usually can process the information (to sufficient extent) just by watching it. There are some exceptional cases when it is true, but most often it's not. If that was so, education would be extremely simplified - just let students watch TV (selected material) for 6 hours straight every day.:) Learning is an active process. Of course, you don't necessarily need peer review - I just gave some examples. But some actions on your side are required.
I agree with you that Internet is more interactive, that's kind of obvious. I just said that it doesn't matter much and then added that TV also had some interactivity for a long time (although less than the Internet has). Slashdot discussions are in my opinion, less valuable and can't serve as a replacement for additional individual research, creative writing or discussing it in person with (as I suggested) a professor. Certain other discussions (like nuclear physics pre-print atchives, discussion lists and e-mail) on the Internet are, on the other hand, sufficient replacements.
The problem with Internet is that it is also easy (although not as easy as with TV) to use it in a passive way, as pioneer originally described.
Medium certainly has some effect on usage patterns. Some mediums are therefore better suited for learning than others. And while both Internet and TV can be (and are) used for good purposes, they also both have a certain negative impact on society. Which in case of TV is comparable with its positive impact and may even outweight it (for some societies and time periods, and if you make certain assumptions about criteria).
Addiction is real and it happens regardless of whether you want it or not. Having a TV in your living room and a remote in your hand makes it much much easier. Nobody ever became addicted to going to cinema.:)
TV forces viewers to watch it to view 6 hours in row. There have been some research done on this topic (sorry, I can't provide the reference) that examined phychological aspects of TV viewing. Among other things it found that (simply put) humans tend to pay more attention to moving picture. Place a working TV in a room and after some time people will concentrate on watching it (even if we ignore the effect of sound). Another very important finding was that while watching TV continuously stopped being pleasant after some time (I don't remember what time, but most probably less than 1 hour), stopping watching TV was a distinctly unpleasant experience.
So that TV can be addictive is a fact. That you (or I) are not addicted doesn't mean that nobody is.
Honestly, after reading about 50% of the article, I felt âoeemotionally sickâ too. I never actually threw up, but it was one of the most unsettling readings for the last few months.
It is extremely sad to see a unique culture being destroyed by TV. It is even more sad when it seems to be the only country on the planet where the rulers actually want to increase the happiness of the people. Yes, they may be naive, this may be propaganda to some extent, but how many other leaders even claim that?
You are wrong. It's not the programming that is at fault, it is the medium. The pattern of sitting for 6 hours in front of the screen (TV or PC) and passively consuming content.
Watching Animal Planet is only marginally better than watching MTV. It's the pattern that matters. If you use a particular TV channel once to watch one program about a specific subject you are interested in, that is a good thing, be it Discovery, Fox or BBC. If you watch the same programs for hours every day, you are not learning anything, you are just a TV (Internet) junkie, admit it.
And the little interactivity that is present on the Internet doesn't matter that much. You could call to TV studio for ages and tell your opinion, or vote on some poll, or ask a question... Whatever. If you wrote an essay after reading some site (or watching TV), discussed it with your professor (teacher, parents, etc.), went to the library and got some books on this topic, that would mean your are actively learning. If not, then you are still just an information junkie using your TV and PC in absolutely the same way.
The good thing about TV is that you can abandon it altogether and escape its "evils". That's what I did, I don't have it, I don't watch it => good thing. The problem is that I can't do the same thing with computer, but having Internet access it's too easy to fall prey to TV-like content.:(
It is said so often, it has become a cliche. But I am yet to see any conclusive proof that war is the main cause of technical innovation. Of course, if you spend shitloads of money on something, there are bound to be some useful results. But even with US militarism, the "defence" budget is still much less than 50%. Even in North Korea it is less than that. So it seems reasonable that the majority of inventions are made in the civilian sector. Add to that the well-known "efficiency" of military contractors and the role of war spendings is dimished even more. Finally, please note that a significant share of innovations produced for the military can only be used there and cannot be used for civilian purposes.
ICBMs might have been useful for space programs, but don't forget that first attempts to build rockets for space happened before first attempts to build rockets to deliver explosives.
I am in no way an authority in this field, but in my opinion, the role of military in the technological progress is mostly a myth (upheld by the militarists). Technological progress can be achieved much better (per $ spent) if you spend the resources on fundamental and applied science and civilian engineering. Something like that was the point of my original post. If US (and Germany, and USSR) spent the money not on developing (and using) nuclear weapons, but on civilian applications, we would probably have the nuclear spaceships (and probably thermonuclear energy as well).
Surprisingly, the answer may be very simple. Because of American militarism. If only they haven't dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, if only they haven't embraced the nuclear race, there might not be a testing ban. In that case we might have already had bases on Mars, first interstellar missions (in progress), etc.
We can only hope that civilians will get advanced new technologies before US military uses them. Imagine what would happen if US Army will unleash AI-powered nanobots on some terrorist state. Everyone is terrified, testing and development of these technologies is banned. The bright future of humanity is not so bright anymore...
I believe that (fortunately for users) there is a powerful "third force" in addition to Hollywood and Microsoft - the combined force of open source developers and pirates. We already know that a very large fraction of the population (the majority of broadband Internet users) are comfortable using P2P to get their MP3s.
Regardless of products offered by Microsoft, some people will be unhappy with them and that will cause the development of alternative technologies (codecs, distribution networks and players). It is practically a given that we will have a choice. The only thing uncertain is whether most of the users will be unhappy enough with MS solutitions to choose the alternative.
But as the example of Windows/Media Player/Internet Explorer shows, this doesn't matter. There is always a choice. The only successful Microsoft product where they managed to 100% control the user is the XBox, where they control both hardware, software (OS) and content (games). But this is extremely unlikely to happen anywhere else. And it's not like XBox is immensely popular either...
Their laughable attempts at pushing their Super-Duper Media PC will fail. The only way for them to succeed is to give up controlling the user.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Unless you introduce a toxin-producing gene into the organism, this is not very likely. And I guess someone might actually analyze it for toxins if humans will be eating it.
2) Every hour three species become extinct. More than 20,000 species become extinct every year. If two or three more will become extinct because of GM organisms, no big deal.
3) We have monocultures already. GM organisms might actually create more diversity if we can adapt the organisms to the local conditions in the place where they are used.
4) That's pure speculation. Some religious books forbid masturbation, homosexuality, etc. all right. But there are none that forbid genetic engineering. At least not to my knowledge.
5) Since 1-4 aren't really a problem, this one isn't as well.
Generally speaking, what is more dangerous, doing something randomely without any understanding whatsoever or doing something on purpose, controlling every stage, experimenting and testing throughout the whole process? GM organisms are safer in the long run, although there might be some risks today because of it being an emerging technology.
Natural world is "biodiverse", becuase the environment is diverse. If you remove diversity from the environment, living world will eventually lose some too. Trying to maintain artificial diversity won't work (in the medium- to long- term), so the only real solution would be to increase diversity in the world and these GM species aren't really a problem.
How about not feeding the birds before the "stunt"?
See Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find / They're blind to own failings, others' skills and another article here.
The original paper by David Dunning (Cornell University) and Justin Kreuger (University of Illinois), Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments, won an Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 (in Psychology).
Their report is a great and entertaining reading. The name says it all - basically they found that people generally tend to overestimate their skills (in certain areas) if they are actually bad and also suggested several mechanisms for that.
How about creating some sort of "Darwin police" instead. Imagine some really tough and well-equipped force, a la Minority Report, that will drop from the sky in their cool futuristic gear every time anyone does something stupid and sterilizing him (her). :)
Drive on red - sterilized.
Use hair-drier in a bathtub - sterilized.
Jump from the roof in a Supermen suit - fixed in a hospital and then sterilized.
et cetera.
This way we solve two problems - natural selection is enforced (artificially) and people don't die as often.
You see, if I take Coca-Cola and pour it from a can into a glass and sell it this way, it is still "Coca-Cola". If I mix it with vodka, I have the right to call it "Coca-Cola with vodka". Because it is.
In case with Spiderman skins, they do not represent a stolen character, they actually represent Spiderman from Marvel universe (films, comics, games, etc.). So the problem is not that Spiderman becomes generic term, no. The problem (in Marvel's opinion) is that people apparently can get the right to use Spiderman in their products without first asking permission. If someone can make a skin, then someone can make any product using Spiderman (toys, calculators, computer mice, etc.).
Of course, being so stupid as Marvel is is not a requirement. They can easily place a license on their website and say that you can use Spiderman to make skins, as long as you do not sell it and acknowlege that it is Marvel's character. Then they would be licensing the character and would be safe from losing it in the future.
I wonder if there any actual examples of companies loosing their trademarks because they have entered public domain (but not the examples when the word entered the language as a generic term - that's different).
Judging by the screenshots and movies, graphics are already outdated. May be because of long development time (they only updated the engine long ago), may be because of limited power of current consoles. It's nothing to be proud about in 2003. Of course, they abandoned the cube-based levels, but no other improvements in graphics can be seen. Lara's own model is as blocky as ever. I guess, that's on the official site Eidos only shows postage-stamp-sized screenshots (340x230).
Incidentally, some of these games have a plot many times better and more engaging than GTA. As for the demand on your side of the pond, here is demand for rape and here is demand for incest (Courtesy of Google). They don't look like Japanese sites to me.
:)
And according to GoogleFight, incest porn is more popular than GTA.
Actually 1Gb of 320x480 DivX probably means at least 3 hours of video(high-quality encoding). If we ignore the possible need to reencode it for the Clie, it's not too bad. And if you can shell out enough money to buy several of these 1Gb sticks, it might actually work as a video player pretty well.
MobyGames tries to become for games what IMDB is for movies. They are not there yet, but overall it is probably the best source of factual information about games.
You forget that it will even allow professional audio- and video- editing (with appropriate peripherals and HDDs, of course), as well as 3D animation (come to think of it, it's only 3 times slower than 3.6GHz).
Surely SCO have bought at least one copy of AIX. How about just bombing their HQ as per their request? :)
If they want to DOS your site, they can do it now. After all, it doesn't matter whether they download a 1Mb page 1 thousand times or download a 10Kb page 100 thousand times, doesn't it?
I can't find the Charlston population, but there are 200,000 people living in Kanawha County, so may be Charlston has about 50 thousands. Here is an example from Finland.
Lappeenranta, also 50 thousand people. 6 bus lines with buses every 15-30 minutes (they are always on time, are comfortable and there are no "poor losers" there). Maximum walking distance to bus station is 5 minutes. There are also frequent buses to nearby cities. And a train station. Add to that the fact that Finland is extremely bicycle friendly - you can basically get from any place in the country to any other place using dedicated bike roads. And if you really need a car, you can always get a taxi.
Could you reply with some information about PT in Charlston.
You can't fix the underlying problems, that's the catch. One of the problems is that life is boring for most people, that they are not rich, that they are stupid, that their wife is ugly, etc. Sure, I do exaggerate a bit, but anyway. ;) And please don't start telling me that your life is interesting. First, because one anecdote doesn't disprove the general rule (and I said most, not all), and second, because it's probably not as interesting as you might like [us] to believe. So, because life is not as good as we would like it to be, there is an inclination for people to turn to TV. Another problem is that our day-to-day life is boring (even if life in general is interesting). That means that even if you are a Formula 1 driver, you might be motivated to replace the boredom of some evenings with artificial excitement of TV. Yet another problem is that sometimes you can be too tired to do anything worthwhile. You just want to lie down and do nothing... or watch TV.
:)
All these problems are integral to our life today. You can't solve them without completely redesigning our societies, which is kind of difficult. And because of these problems, people tend to watch TV. And because TV temporarily solves these problems (that's why they watch it), they tend to become addicted. Of course, this doesn't work for everyone, some people are lucky to be safe, but not because they have some mythical willpower to resist the "evils of TV". No, if they need to actively resist TV, that means they are in danger and are likely to become addicted eventually. It's those who have a certain combination of various factors in their lives (certain job, certain interests, certain attitude to society, etc.) that are luckily safe from TV (but they are a minority).
Now a few words about the research that you was so critical about. First, when you turn your head, the world doesn't move - your brain compensates for the movements of your head and you perceive the world as stable. So the life (in the living room) is in fact a still picture. Just try to sit for a while facing a working TV and not paying attention to what is shown there. And stopping watching TV had nothing to do with doing it in the middle of the show. No, it was unpleasant no matter when you do that, because people watching TV enter a certain psychological state that they are uncomfortable breaking from. If you don't mind an unscientific term, they are in some kind of trance.
Finally, I am not suggesting that we (who are those "we" anyway?) ban food, sex, diets or TV (although I am unsure about TV). I am just saying that there are ways to minimize the negative effect. One of them is to print nutritional information on food packaging. Second is sexual education in schools. Third can be to force Mattle to bring Barbie's proportions in touch with reality... And there are hundreds of ways to minimize the negative effects of TV. Unfortunately, most countries really don't care (or they are happy that TV breeds passivity in the populace) and for those that do (namely for Bhutan) it might be too late.
It's not that I have a closed mind, it's that I enjoy being provocative and categorical. :)
:) and it easily consumes many people without them realising it.
:) Learning is an active process. Of course, you don't necessarily need peer review - I just gave some examples. But some actions on your side are required.
I agree that there are good programs on TV. But... There are actually two "buts". First is that generally speaking, most of the content is crap. Even if you take Discovery, a large share of their programs are useless filler of varied quality. Second, even if you take a great program (or TV-show) and repeat it every week, the consumers (viewers) necessarily get a worse experience. Then there is actually the problem of pattern (as I originally stated). If you watch 6 hours of Discovery, you can't possibly process what you've seen. So you become addicted to the process itself, TV stops being means to your goals, but becomes an end.
Now I don't view TV as a technology as bad. I even agree that there are some good programs. But as it is, TV is very dangerous
I disagree that one usually can process the information (to sufficient extent) just by watching it. There are some exceptional cases when it is true, but most often it's not. If that was so, education would be extremely simplified - just let students watch TV (selected material) for 6 hours straight every day.
I agree with you that Internet is more interactive, that's kind of obvious. I just said that it doesn't matter much and then added that TV also had some interactivity for a long time (although less than the Internet has). Slashdot discussions are in my opinion, less valuable and can't serve as a replacement for additional individual research, creative writing or discussing it in person with (as I suggested) a professor. Certain other discussions (like nuclear physics pre-print atchives, discussion lists and e-mail) on the Internet are, on the other hand, sufficient replacements.
The problem with Internet is that it is also easy (although not as easy as with TV) to use it in a passive way, as pioneer originally described.
Medium certainly has some effect on usage patterns. Some mediums are therefore better suited for learning than others. And while both Internet and TV can be (and are) used for good purposes, they also both have a certain negative impact on society. Which in case of TV is comparable with its positive impact and may even outweight it (for some societies and time periods, and if you make certain assumptions about criteria).
Addiction is real and it happens regardless of whether you want it or not. Having a TV in your living room and a remote in your hand makes it much much easier. Nobody ever became addicted to going to cinema. :)
TV forces viewers to watch it to view 6 hours in row. There have been some research done on this topic (sorry, I can't provide the reference) that examined phychological aspects of TV viewing. Among other things it found that (simply put) humans tend to pay more attention to moving picture. Place a working TV in a room and after some time people will concentrate on watching it (even if we ignore the effect of sound). Another very important finding was that while watching TV continuously stopped being pleasant after some time (I don't remember what time, but most probably less than 1 hour), stopping watching TV was a distinctly unpleasant experience.
So that TV can be addictive is a fact. That you (or I) are not addicted doesn't mean that nobody is.
Honestly, after reading about 50% of the article, I felt âoeemotionally sickâ too. I never actually threw up, but it was one of the most unsettling readings for the last few months.
:(
It is extremely sad to see a unique culture being destroyed by TV. It is even more sad when it seems to be the only country on the planet where the rulers actually want to increase the happiness of the people. Yes, they may be naive, this may be propaganda to some extent, but how many other leaders even claim that?
Very sad story.
You are wrong. It's not the programming that is at fault, it is the medium. The pattern of sitting for 6 hours in front of the screen (TV or PC) and passively consuming content.
:(
Watching Animal Planet is only marginally better than watching MTV. It's the pattern that matters. If you use a particular TV channel once to watch one program about a specific subject you are interested in, that is a good thing, be it Discovery, Fox or BBC. If you watch the same programs for hours every day, you are not learning anything, you are just a TV (Internet) junkie, admit it.
And the little interactivity that is present on the Internet doesn't matter that much. You could call to TV studio for ages and tell your opinion, or vote on some poll, or ask a question... Whatever. If you wrote an essay after reading some site (or watching TV), discussed it with your professor (teacher, parents, etc.), went to the library and got some books on this topic, that would mean your are actively learning. If not, then you are still just an information junkie using your TV and PC in absolutely the same way.
The good thing about TV is that you can abandon it altogether and escape its "evils". That's what I did, I don't have it, I don't watch it => good thing. The problem is that I can't do the same thing with computer, but having Internet access it's too easy to fall prey to TV-like content.
It is said so often, it has become a cliche. But I am yet to see any conclusive proof that war is the main cause of technical innovation. Of course, if you spend shitloads of money on something, there are bound to be some useful results. But even with US militarism, the "defence" budget is still much less than 50%. Even in North Korea it is less than that. So it seems reasonable that the majority of inventions are made in the civilian sector. Add to that the well-known "efficiency" of military contractors and the role of war spendings is dimished even more. Finally, please note that a significant share of innovations produced for the military can only be used there and cannot be used for civilian purposes.
ICBMs might have been useful for space programs, but don't forget that first attempts to build rockets for space happened before first attempts to build rockets to deliver explosives.
I am in no way an authority in this field, but in my opinion, the role of military in the technological progress is mostly a myth (upheld by the militarists). Technological progress can be achieved much better (per $ spent) if you spend the resources on fundamental and applied science and civilian engineering. Something like that was the point of my original post. If US (and Germany, and USSR) spent the money not on developing (and using) nuclear weapons, but on civilian applications, we would probably have the nuclear spaceships (and probably thermonuclear energy as well).
Surprisingly, the answer may be very simple. Because of American militarism. If only they haven't dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, if only they haven't embraced the nuclear race, there might not be a testing ban. In that case we might have already had bases on Mars, first interstellar missions (in progress), etc.
We can only hope that civilians will get advanced new technologies before US military uses them. Imagine what would happen if US Army will unleash AI-powered nanobots on some terrorist state. Everyone is terrified, testing and development of these technologies is banned. The bright future of humanity is not so bright anymore...
You might be surprised that Treebeard actually has most words in the movie. Who would expect that with his slow speech?
I believe that (fortunately for users) there is a powerful "third force" in addition to Hollywood and Microsoft - the combined force of open source developers and pirates. We already know that a very large fraction of the population (the majority of broadband Internet users) are comfortable using P2P to get their MP3s.
Regardless of products offered by Microsoft, some people will be unhappy with them and that will cause the development of alternative technologies (codecs, distribution networks and players). It is practically a given that we will have a choice. The only thing uncertain is whether most of the users will be unhappy enough with MS solutitions to choose the alternative.
But as the example of Windows/Media Player/Internet Explorer shows, this doesn't matter. There is always a choice. The only successful Microsoft product where they managed to 100% control the user is the XBox, where they control both hardware, software (OS) and content (games). But this is extremely unlikely to happen anywhere else. And it's not like XBox is immensely popular either...
Their laughable attempts at pushing their Super-Duper Media PC will fail. The only way for them to succeed is to give up controlling the user.
As was suggested here, may be the Purist Edit can help ease your pain.