Well, I can be a peer on the ed2k network, but not share any copyrighted files.:) I would simply sit online 24/7 and connect with peers on Kad. New users would connect to me and I would connect them to the network. What they do after that is of no concern to me.;) Currently ed2k servers keep lists of files shared by clients connected to them, so it can be said that they are contributing to infringement. However, if one neither shares, nor downloads anything, just helps people connect to Kad, he can be relatively safe from **AAs.
No, the Kad architecture of ed2k is quite safe. There are still issues - namely lack of 100% anonymity and privacy, as well as poorer ed2k performance for new releases (as opposed to BitTorrent and its flashcrowds), but the network itself is quite safe now.
You have a large list of known clients. You try to connect to them and when you connect to one who is online, he gives you enough up-to-date IP-addresses of other online users. It's very unlikely that all your IP-addresses become invalid (only if **AA manages to sue most P2P users into submission and scare away the rest). And even then, it would only require one IP address of a currently connected user (that you can get on a forum, on an IRC channel, etc.) to get back on Kad (where you would connect with more users and again collect more working IPs for the future).
I am not sure whether the eMule client comes with a built-in list of IPs, but you can try it - download eMule, install it, disable ed2k network protocol, enable Kad and see if it works without servers at all.
Double standards here are horrible. It seems normal and accepted to use a photoshopped photograph of a respected businessman and technological innovator turned into a killer cyborg for a Slashdot section (the Gates borg logo), but drawing a nice funny image based on somewhat wordplay when it concerns an open-source browser is taboo.
OK, all you fucking prudes (ToKsUri, detlev409, StarbuckZero, typedef and a few ACs), you can go back to fucking your mom, or jerking off in the basement, or reading bible or masturbating to photos of Linus, or whatever mindless crap you usually fill your lives with.
It's entirely possible to provide respectful criticism, as bersl2, chipster and phoxix did. It's also possible to just laugh, appreciate the (amateurish, but nice) artwork and go on. Even when you are not into furries.
And I don't think that Firefox is going to suffer much from low-res furry wallpapers about it. Just look at the amount of jokes about Windows. Didn't harm Microsoft much, did it?
That doesn't change the fact that BitTorrent is a shitty network for filesharing, as opposed to network to "aid standard http downloads". I understand perfectly well the logic of Bram Cohen, I read several FAQs and interviews about him, but this only means that filesharers, who are interested in unauthorised downloads of copyrighted materials made a risky choice.
True, but if you open a public web interface for searching for ed2k links, you may get exposed to legal problems (e.g. ShareReactor and ShareConnector).
Correct, but there are still many more ways to distribute the links than.torrents. The system is still not perfect, though.
Then there's the problem of peer discovery. How do you find the Kad network if the lawyers take down the public lists of popular ed2k servers? Via other nodes. Until the lawyers take down half a significant chunk of network at the same time, you will be able to connect to someone who is online, get your leg in the door, so to speak. After that you instantly learn about more nodes. Kademlia was designed specifically with redundancy and resiliency in mind, so (even though I don't have the math handy) I believe it can withstand the lawyers.
The study shows how vulnerable BitTorrent is to failures of Suprnova mirrors and trackers. Kill a large.torrent host and you effectively kill the network. Kill a large tracker and you severely cripple it. In comparision, ed2k network is much more resilient to attacks.
First, you don't need servers to distribute ed2k links. A short ASCII string effectively replaces a large.torrent file that needs to be hosted on a large server. You can send an ed2k link by e-mail, IM or post it on Slashdot. Furthermore, ed2k has excellent search capabilities - both via servers (very fast and very efficient) and via distributed Kad[emlia] system (fast and efficient). With the ability to check the filenames and comments for a certain file, you are relatively safe against fakes even when you can't use verified links. Of course, here I deliberately ignore the fact that both networks need "community portals" to inform users about released files, to provide forums for discussion, etc.
Second, the servers play only a secondary role, even if many servers would go down, that would have a small impact on the network because of source exchange. And using Kad it's even possible to operate entirely without servers.
I do not hate BitTorrent, really. Even though I am a long time eMule user and even though I am very annoyed by the apparent popularity of BitTorrent here on/. and elsewhere (as if other networks don't exist), I still don't hate BT. Actually, I tried it again recently and was very satisfied with the download speeds. I don't wish BitTorrent bad. But with the recent developments with police raids on torrent sites and ed2k link sites in Europe the networks will be tested and I am not sure BitTorrent is best prepared for it. Suprnova appears to be safe because of its geographic location, but it still remains a single point of possible failure. I don't think ShareReactor was as critical to the edonkey2000 network.
I was probably not very precise in expressing my point (being a non-native English speaker, or just not paying enough attention to communicating clearly). I meant that most of the language learning, even when done in some of the biggest name language schools, would seem to a computer as repetitive enough that it can handle it.
For example, the testing, various exercises, basically everything that is being done with the exercise books can be done with computers, often better. And, more importantly, the computers can replace a teacher for monitoring, motivating and providing feedback in such simple (to a computer) learning tasks.
Most desktop applications can use parallel processing just fine. Word processors, music players, image editors, etc. all can break the job into small independent chunks. But as much as I would appreciate faster processors, I'd enjoy faster storage devices even more. Even though my CPU is at most 10-15% active and only 40-50% of RAM is used, when enough applications want to access the disk simultaneously, the computer can slow to a crawl. I want better caching, more intelligent disk access prioritisation, faster HDDs or just solid state drives.
No, not a wall, but simply the fact that most of the problems Intel CPUs can be paralellized to a large extent. It doesn't make sense to waste resources on improving the sequental processing when you can do parallel processing and reap huge rewards.
If you believe that you got the spelling correct, you type the whole word - Google would offer a correction if you made a mistake. If you realise you don't remember the correct spelling, you use a wildcard. My point is that Google Suggest has few practical uses if any (for me). Of course, the grey mass of casual web surfers would disagree. If you are searching for what 50% of the web users search and if you are a slow typist, Google Suggest may be useful.
But I agree 100% that this project demonstrates technologies that can be quite useful in the future. Let's wait and see what comes out of it.
There is some truth in what you say, but don't confuse the cost of th building and the price of the apartments. It sells at a premium, because it's a "one of a kind" house. There is no other house like it in the whole world - people appreciate that, even if the extra feature costed 5% of the total costs. Consider the Turning Torso tower in Sweden. Don't you think that leaving in a landmark is worth that 50% extra, even if building that landmark costed only 10% more than a boring block of concrete?
Think of it - you can have all windows facing sun if you wish. You start the day with the sun shining light beams on your face, gently waking you up. Then you brush your teeth and take a bath, while the apartment rotates so that your kitchen now faces the sun. You eat your breakfast. Then you go to your study and the sun still shines in your window. You go to another room to exercise and the sun still shines. You get the point. That alone can be worth the extra price - ask any real estate dealer about the price difference between apartments with windows mostly to the south vs. to the north side of the building (in the Northern hemisphere).
Also, I don't think that this feature is that expensive. 1000$ / square meter is not that high. New apartments in Helsinki, Finland cost 1200-1400 euros (1500-1800 dollars). Apartments in Moscow, Russia cost 2000-3000 dollars. The same in UK and US is probably about 3000-4000. And that is without remotely controlled AC or cool extra features like rotating floors.
learning hiragana/katakana, and learning Japanese, are two very different problem sets I don't think this is important. Yes, the tasks are different, but I was talking about the teaching methodology, not the content. From my personal experience I can conclude that an automated computer teacher with an avatar of an attractive anime girl can be en effective mentor.
A computer is a very useful tool for drilling and repetitive tasks, such as practicing hiragana, or kanji. But it's not a good substitute for real, live, unpredictable conversation Drilling and repetitive tasks constitute most of the language learning. Not that I don't imply boredom and sheer memorization. No matter how interesting, engaging and creative the lessons (and homework) are, a good deal of them consists of simple repetitive tasks. I'd venture to say about half of them does. And while you would need a human mentor for the rest of the experience, a computer can be extremely effective at what it does. Furthermore, don't forget that many tasks which are currently best performed by a teacher can probably already be computerized quite well, often in the context of game/online experiences.
But what if someone writes software that tells you what to do without a teacher? What if it also includes online access to other students for collaboration? Wouldn't it work at least to some extent?
Good comment, but I think your experience betrays you somewhat. Learning a foreign language is not necessarily about learning to speak it. I I had to measure how much time I spend reading in, writing in, listening to and speaking in English, the proportion would probably be something like 50/25/15/10. Obviously, reading comprehension is much more important, and that's where computers are much more effective than in drilling the student to speak. That would mean that computers are already capable of teaching a good share of the curriculum.
BTW (not bragging, just questioning the observations you're talking about with another anecdote), my personal story is that I managed to learn English very well without going to England. I can't put an arbitrary date on which I became proficient in spoken English, but when I graduated from the institute (ending my English lessons) I already had great pronunciation and was routinely asked where did I learn such a great English (after people overcame the initial shock that I was not British). I am not saying this applies to everyone, but perhaps most people just don't get good enough education that they need to visit England?
Don't fool yourself. According to the 1998 report in Nature "among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever; almost total". In 1916 about 40% of scietntists believed in god. In 1997 only about 7% believed in a "personal god", while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief" and 20.8% "doubt or agnosticism".
Scientists generally no believe in god. If you do, you probably do something wrong.:) It's nice that you have enough of a rational mind to reject the more outrageous claims of religion, I can only hope that you can muster the strength to reject the rest of this bullshit.
I just happen to have quite some experience in both computers and education. And let me tell you, humans are generally pathetic teachers, but they suck even more in using computers to teach others. Most of the attempts to use technology to teach that I saw in my life were appalling.
It's not the computers that are to blame - people who don't know how to apply them are. You need a great educator who also understands computers very well to design an efficient learning experience. But the good thing is that once you do it, you can copy it at virtually no cost.
BTW, you haven't happened to read my post before replying, have you? In no way do I mean to question your experience in learning languages with computers, but I actually described one computer program that didn't suck. I don't know whether you tried two or three programs in total, but there are more than that. Supermemo is another example of an excellent program that can be used very well in learning a language. And there are countless more, but I don't feel like persuading a person, who has already made up his mind...
My company tried to teach through technology alone and it failed - the lesson learned was even eLearning needed to be a supplement - not the basis for learning.
How true. My company tried to build a heavier-than-air vehicle to fly and failed - the lesson learned was that you need to make it lighter-than-air - not heavier.
Seriously, if you failed, that most likely means that either a) you suck or b) the task is hard. Rarely the reason is that c) it's impossible.
I wrote elsewhere in this discussion with my experience learning Katakana - a computer could do it much better than any human teacher. And the marginal cost of using that software was zero.
You can teach with computers, you just need to be creative and not afraid of challenges. Of course, you also need to have excellent teachers. No, strike out "excellent", you need outstanding, totally breathtaking teachers, geniuses in their field. With just good you are bound to fail.
This simply isn't true. You are a shortsighted and uninformed person with latent luddite tendencies. Please stop spreading FUD about computers.
In fact, most of the Japanese I learned I learned using computers. Now, please don't misunderstand, I don't speak Japanese, but I learned a few phrases and learned Katakana.
The most effective language learning tool I ever saw or used was an online Flash application for learning Japanese alphabet. It used a very simple approach - it taught you something, then tested you and if you did ok, your digital female anime tutor removed an item of clothing. You made a mistake, she put something back on.
I just found the link, but it no longer works. Still, you can use Internet Archive to have a look, and may be you can trackback the site admins.
That site was remarkably effective. It was engaging, the learning was fun, and there was some very basic stimulation of the student. A well-programmer computer can easily replace a teacher. Especially, when teaching something as simple as language. Sure, a human teacher is still needed, but a computer can handle a lot of repetition, and repetition is the mother of learning.
I learned a lot of English using computers too, this time for real. Playing Civilization helped my vocabulary immensely. But ask an average non-native English speaker what a "granary" is and you're likely to get a blank stare in return.:)
Computers can help a lot. I can promise that there are many effective programs (and many crap ones), but you need to test them all yourself.
With all due respect, sir, you were brainwashed by believers into thinking that "science can't find all the answers". While technically true, in practice science can find almost all answers to questions that matter. And the ability to produce human clones is additional indirect evidence that there is no soul. There is already enough indirect evidence to make the majority of educated people (that is, scientists) not believe in god, souls, angels and other stupid tales for kids. Eventually there will be even more evidence. You can keep pretending that this is not so, but by doing so you're harming yourself (your intelligence), your society and all humanity. Please stop.
colonizing other planets is now the most important thing mankind can achieve
How about nanotechnology, mind uploading and fusion? With advanced nanotechnology and fusion power you don't need space all that much, since you would be able to survive on Earth even if all life dies out here. You would be able to survive on Earth even if Sun goes supernova. And you would get unlimited space flight as a bonus. Just think about long carbon nanotubes - they would allow us to build a space elevator and jump into space, while concentrating on "conventional" space exploration would not really help us that much.
I am not saying that the current situation (where white is considered to be default) is normal. However, it is the reality we live in and we should not pretend otherwise. If you want to blame filmmakers for this, fine, but don't concentrate all blame on those poor guys making the Earthsea. It's not their fault.
Those fuckers deserve to die, that's true. However, you need not to despair - there is hope. NetTransport and the like work greatly for streaming WMV, MOV, RM, etc. And even this FLV (Flash Video) abomination that Honda uses can be defeated. Download URL Helper (serial) to monitor what URLs are requested by the browser (AtGuard! firewall also works, other programs may have this functionality too). Open the flash in the browser. Check out the link to the flv file. Download it. Now download the FLV Local Player. Voila! You can download these Flash videos and you can play them locally. If you'd like to use them for anything, you only need to download any of the screen recorder programs, that are plentiful on the Net.
Consider how would everyone react if today's newspapers had "Osama's Plot to Stop the GPS" on front pages. And yet, when the administration wants to do essentially the same thing, everyone is happy.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I can be a peer on the ed2k network, but not share any copyrighted files. :) I would simply sit online 24/7 and connect with peers on Kad. New users would connect to me and I would connect them to the network. What they do after that is of no concern to me. ;) Currently ed2k servers keep lists of files shared by clients connected to them, so it can be said that they are contributing to infringement. However, if one neither shares, nor downloads anything, just helps people connect to Kad, he can be relatively safe from **AAs.
No, the Kad architecture of ed2k is quite safe. There are still issues - namely lack of 100% anonymity and privacy, as well as poorer ed2k performance for new releases (as opposed to BitTorrent and its flashcrowds), but the network itself is quite safe now.
You have a large list of known clients. You try to connect to them and when you connect to one who is online, he gives you enough up-to-date IP-addresses of other online users. It's very unlikely that all your IP-addresses become invalid (only if **AA manages to sue most P2P users into submission and scare away the rest). And even then, it would only require one IP address of a currently connected user (that you can get on a forum, on an IRC channel, etc.) to get back on Kad (where you would connect with more users and again collect more working IPs for the future).
I am not sure whether the eMule client comes with a built-in list of IPs, but you can try it - download eMule, install it, disable ed2k network protocol, enable Kad and see if it works without servers at all.
Double standards here are horrible. It seems normal and accepted to use a photoshopped photograph of a respected businessman and technological innovator turned into a killer cyborg for a Slashdot section (the Gates borg logo), but drawing a nice funny image based on somewhat wordplay when it concerns an open-source browser is taboo.
OK, all you fucking prudes (ToKsUri, detlev409, StarbuckZero, typedef and a few ACs), you can go back to fucking your mom, or jerking off in the basement, or reading bible or masturbating to photos of Linus, or whatever mindless crap you usually fill your lives with.
It's entirely possible to provide respectful criticism, as bersl2, chipster and phoxix did. It's also possible to just laugh, appreciate the (amateurish, but nice) artwork and go on. Even when you are not into furries.
And I don't think that Firefox is going to suffer much from low-res furry wallpapers about it. Just look at the amount of jokes about Windows. Didn't harm Microsoft much, did it?
SharpFang, thanks for the link.
That doesn't change the fact that BitTorrent is a shitty network for filesharing, as opposed to network to "aid standard http downloads". I understand perfectly well the logic of Bram Cohen, I read several FAQs and interviews about him, but this only means that filesharers, who are interested in unauthorised downloads of copyrighted materials made a risky choice.
True, but if you open a public web interface for searching for ed2k links, you may get exposed to legal problems (e.g. ShareReactor and ShareConnector).
.torrents. The system is still not perfect, though.
Correct, but there are still many more ways to distribute the links than
Then there's the problem of peer discovery. How do you find the Kad network if the lawyers take down the public lists of popular ed2k servers?
Via other nodes. Until the lawyers take down half a significant chunk of network at the same time, you will be able to connect to someone who is online, get your leg in the door, so to speak. After that you instantly learn about more nodes. Kademlia was designed specifically with redundancy and resiliency in mind, so (even though I don't have the math handy) I believe it can withstand the lawyers.
The study shows how vulnerable BitTorrent is to failures of Suprnova mirrors and trackers. Kill a large .torrent host and you effectively kill the network. Kill a large tracker and you severely cripple it. In comparision, ed2k network is much more resilient to attacks.
.torrent file that needs to be hosted on a large server. You can send an ed2k link by e-mail, IM or post it on Slashdot. Furthermore, ed2k has excellent search capabilities - both via servers (very fast and very efficient) and via distributed Kad[emlia] system (fast and efficient). With the ability to check the filenames and comments for a certain file, you are relatively safe against fakes even when you can't use verified links. Of course, here I deliberately ignore the fact that both networks need "community portals" to inform users about released files, to provide forums for discussion, etc.
/. and elsewhere (as if other networks don't exist), I still don't hate BT. Actually, I tried it again recently and was very satisfied with the download speeds. I don't wish BitTorrent bad. But with the recent developments with police raids on torrent sites and ed2k link sites in Europe the networks will be tested and I am not sure BitTorrent is best prepared for it. Suprnova appears to be safe because of its geographic location, but it still remains a single point of possible failure. I don't think ShareReactor was as critical to the edonkey2000 network.
First, you don't need servers to distribute ed2k links. A short ASCII string effectively replaces a large
Second, the servers play only a secondary role, even if many servers would go down, that would have a small impact on the network because of source exchange. And using Kad it's even possible to operate entirely without servers.
I do not hate BitTorrent, really. Even though I am a long time eMule user and even though I am very annoyed by the apparent popularity of BitTorrent here on
I was probably not very precise in expressing my point (being a non-native English speaker, or just not paying enough attention to communicating clearly). I meant that most of the language learning, even when done in some of the biggest name language schools, would seem to a computer as repetitive enough that it can handle it.
For example, the testing, various exercises, basically everything that is being done with the exercise books can be done with computers, often better. And, more importantly, the computers can replace a teacher for monitoring, motivating and providing feedback in such simple (to a computer) learning tasks.
Most desktop applications can use parallel processing just fine. Word processors, music players, image editors, etc. all can break the job into small independent chunks. But as much as I would appreciate faster processors, I'd enjoy faster storage devices even more. Even though my CPU is at most 10-15% active and only 40-50% of RAM is used, when enough applications want to access the disk simultaneously, the computer can slow to a crawl. I want better caching, more intelligent disk access prioritisation, faster HDDs or just solid state drives.
No, not a wall, but simply the fact that most of the problems Intel CPUs can be paralellized to a large extent. It doesn't make sense to waste resources on improving the sequental processing when you can do parallel processing and reap huge rewards.
If you believe that you got the spelling correct, you type the whole word - Google would offer a correction if you made a mistake. If you realise you don't remember the correct spelling, you use a wildcard. My point is that Google Suggest has few practical uses if any (for me). Of course, the grey mass of casual web surfers would disagree. If you are searching for what 50% of the web users search and if you are a slow typist, Google Suggest may be useful.
But I agree 100% that this project demonstrates technologies that can be quite useful in the future. Let's wait and see what comes out of it.
There is some truth in what you say, but don't confuse the cost of th building and the price of the apartments. It sells at a premium, because it's a "one of a kind" house. There is no other house like it in the whole world - people appreciate that, even if the extra feature costed 5% of the total costs. Consider the Turning Torso tower in Sweden. Don't you think that leaving in a landmark is worth that 50% extra, even if building that landmark costed only 10% more than a boring block of concrete?
Think of it - you can have all windows facing sun if you wish. You start the day with the sun shining light beams on your face, gently waking you up. Then you brush your teeth and take a bath, while the apartment rotates so that your kitchen now faces the sun. You eat your breakfast. Then you go to your study and the sun still shines in your window. You go to another room to exercise and the sun still shines. You get the point. That alone can be worth the extra price - ask any real estate dealer about the price difference between apartments with windows mostly to the south vs. to the north side of the building (in the Northern hemisphere).
Also, I don't think that this feature is that expensive. 1000$ / square meter is not that high. New apartments in Helsinki, Finland cost 1200-1400 euros (1500-1800 dollars). Apartments in Moscow, Russia cost 2000-3000 dollars. The same in UK and US is probably about 3000-4000. And that is without remotely controlled AC or cool extra features like rotating floors.
A decent search engine should support wildcards like pneumono*.
learning hiragana/katakana, and learning Japanese, are two very different problem sets
I don't think this is important. Yes, the tasks are different, but I was talking about the teaching methodology, not the content. From my personal experience I can conclude that an automated computer teacher with an avatar of an attractive anime girl can be en effective mentor.
A computer is a very useful tool for drilling and repetitive tasks, such as practicing hiragana, or kanji. But it's not a good substitute for real, live, unpredictable conversation
Drilling and repetitive tasks constitute most of the language learning. Not that I don't imply boredom and sheer memorization. No matter how interesting, engaging and creative the lessons (and homework) are, a good deal of them consists of simple repetitive tasks. I'd venture to say about half of them does. And while you would need a human mentor for the rest of the experience, a computer can be extremely effective at what it does. Furthermore, don't forget that many tasks which are currently best performed by a teacher can probably already be computerized quite well, often in the context of game/online experiences.
But what if someone writes software that tells you what to do without a teacher? What if it also includes online access to other students for collaboration? Wouldn't it work at least to some extent?
Good comment, but I think your experience betrays you somewhat. Learning a foreign language is not necessarily about learning to speak it. I I had to measure how much time I spend reading in, writing in, listening to and speaking in English, the proportion would probably be something like 50/25/15/10. Obviously, reading comprehension is much more important, and that's where computers are much more effective than in drilling the student to speak. That would mean that computers are already capable of teaching a good share of the curriculum.
BTW (not bragging, just questioning the observations you're talking about with another anecdote), my personal story is that I managed to learn English very well without going to England. I can't put an arbitrary date on which I became proficient in spoken English, but when I graduated from the institute (ending my English lessons) I already had great pronunciation and was routinely asked where did I learn such a great English (after people overcame the initial shock that I was not British). I am not saying this applies to everyone, but perhaps most people just don't get good enough education that they need to visit England?
Don't fool yourself. According to the 1998 report in Nature "among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever; almost total". In 1916 about 40% of scietntists believed in god. In 1997 only about 7% believed in a "personal god", while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief" and 20.8% "doubt or agnosticism".
:) It's nice that you have enough of a rational mind to reject the more outrageous claims of religion, I can only hope that you can muster the strength to reject the rest of this bullshit.
Scientists generally no believe in god. If you do, you probably do something wrong.
I just happen to have quite some experience in both computers and education. And let me tell you, humans are generally pathetic teachers, but they suck even more in using computers to teach others. Most of the attempts to use technology to teach that I saw in my life were appalling.
It's not the computers that are to blame - people who don't know how to apply them are. You need a great educator who also understands computers very well to design an efficient learning experience. But the good thing is that once you do it, you can copy it at virtually no cost.
BTW, you haven't happened to read my post before replying, have you? In no way do I mean to question your experience in learning languages with computers, but I actually described one computer program that didn't suck. I don't know whether you tried two or three programs in total, but there are more than that. Supermemo is another example of an excellent program that can be used very well in learning a language. And there are countless more, but I don't feel like persuading a person, who has already made up his mind...
My company tried to teach through technology alone and it failed - the lesson learned was even eLearning needed to be a supplement - not the basis for learning.
How true. My company tried to build a heavier-than-air vehicle to fly and failed - the lesson learned was that you need to make it lighter-than-air - not heavier.
Seriously, if you failed, that most likely means that either a) you suck or b) the task is hard. Rarely the reason is that c) it's impossible.
I wrote elsewhere in this discussion with my experience learning Katakana - a computer could do it much better than any human teacher. And the marginal cost of using that software was zero.
You can teach with computers, you just need to be creative and not afraid of challenges. Of course, you also need to have excellent teachers. No, strike out "excellent", you need outstanding, totally breathtaking teachers, geniuses in their field. With just good you are bound to fail.
This simply isn't true. You are a shortsighted and uninformed person with latent luddite tendencies. Please stop spreading FUD about computers.
:)
In fact, most of the Japanese I learned I learned using computers. Now, please don't misunderstand, I don't speak Japanese, but I learned a few phrases and learned Katakana.
The most effective language learning tool I ever saw or used was an online Flash application for learning Japanese alphabet. It used a very simple approach - it taught you something, then tested you and if you did ok, your digital female anime tutor removed an item of clothing. You made a mistake, she put something back on.
I just found the link, but it no longer works. Still, you can use Internet Archive to have a look, and may be you can trackback the site admins.
That site was remarkably effective. It was engaging, the learning was fun, and there was some very basic stimulation of the student. A well-programmer computer can easily replace a teacher. Especially, when teaching something as simple as language. Sure, a human teacher is still needed, but a computer can handle a lot of repetition, and repetition is the mother of learning.
I learned a lot of English using computers too, this time for real. Playing Civilization helped my vocabulary immensely. But ask an average non-native English speaker what a "granary" is and you're likely to get a blank stare in return.
Computers can help a lot. I can promise that there are many effective programs (and many crap ones), but you need to test them all yourself.
With all due respect, sir, you were brainwashed by believers into thinking that "science can't find all the answers". While technically true, in practice science can find almost all answers to questions that matter. And the ability to produce human clones is additional indirect evidence that there is no soul. There is already enough indirect evidence to make the majority of educated people (that is, scientists) not believe in god, souls, angels and other stupid tales for kids. Eventually there will be even more evidence. You can keep pretending that this is not so, but by doing so you're harming yourself (your intelligence), your society and all humanity. Please stop.
colonizing other planets is now the most important thing mankind can achieve
How about nanotechnology, mind uploading and fusion? With advanced nanotechnology and fusion power you don't need space all that much, since you would be able to survive on Earth even if all life dies out here. You would be able to survive on Earth even if Sun goes supernova. And you would get unlimited space flight as a bonus. Just think about long carbon nanotubes - they would allow us to build a space elevator and jump into space, while concentrating on "conventional" space exploration would not really help us that much.
I am not saying that the current situation (where white is considered to be default) is normal. However, it is the reality we live in and we should not pretend otherwise. If you want to blame filmmakers for this, fine, but don't concentrate all blame on those poor guys making the Earthsea. It's not their fault.
Those fuckers deserve to die, that's true. However, you need not to despair - there is hope. NetTransport and the like work greatly for streaming WMV, MOV, RM, etc. And even this FLV (Flash Video) abomination that Honda uses can be defeated. Download URL Helper (serial) to monitor what URLs are requested by the browser (AtGuard! firewall also works, other programs may have this functionality too). Open the flash in the browser. Check out the link to the flv file. Download it. Now download the FLV Local Player. Voila! You can download these Flash videos and you can play them locally. If you'd like to use them for anything, you only need to download any of the screen recorder programs, that are plentiful on the Net.
Hope this helps.
Consider how would everyone react if today's newspapers had "Osama's Plot to Stop the GPS" on front pages. And yet, when the administration wants to do essentially the same thing, everyone is happy. :)