No, you also need a public that would be willing to pay more for it This isn't a problem - cost is not an important factor as most people aren't interested in cheap alarm clocks, they care about coolness, design, style and functionality (and ease of use, of course).
It makes it obvious that our author is ignorant of the marketting side - something all of his other "gadgets" scream as well. Yep. But I am willing to forgive him this for the effort of writing a coherent article with a 10-year forecast.
Robots don't follow Moore's law. It's not Moore's law I am talking about, it's the scale economy.
And modern robots are very subject to Hofstadter's Law as well. Hofstadter's Law is not valid for technological progress. Heinlein understood it better when he commented that people tended to overestimate short term progress and underestimate long term progress.
The only time machines with millions of parts become cheap is when those parts can all be etched easily out of a single substrate; having to place and interconnect parts made of different materials simply costs a lot of money, and there's not much that can be done about it. Good point, but humanoid robots are actually rather simple. This is just a wild guess, but there is no reason why we can't have a humanoid robot in 2014 that cost 10-20 thousand.
Electrodes. Not a readout, and not the sensor itself. Readout implies displays, and displays don't follow Moore's law. Sensors don't follow Moore's law either. You really need to stop applying Moore's law where it doesn't go. I half expect you to start applying it to cars, and stating that cars will get 15000 miles per gallon in 2014. Note that I only spoke about processors (and chips in general). And readout doesn't imply display, there isn't a screen in your mouse and there certainly doesn't need to be one in a humanoid robot. Your mouse makes millions of pictures, but the only thing that goes out is X and Y, the images are discarded. Same for everything else - your robot will collect gigabytes of data, but it will discard most of it, leaving distilled information that will turn into minor actions. And Moore's law is relevant here, because it means we can place plenty of transistors per gram of matter. These transistors will not substantially increase the costs, but will provide things like tactile, temperature, movement and other sensors that will help the robot operate in the physical world. Image recognition is a separate complex problem, but more CPU power will also help.
More abstraction. Stop designing dialogs. Just write an XML description of all objects (some radio buttons, a progress bar, a custom widget, etc.) and let someone else tweak the actual appearance. One thing this would allow is better global skinning. Second, automatic generation of user-friendly and consistent dialogs throughout the OS. Third, it would allow effortless porting of applications to completely new environments, like voice-controlled OSes, mobile devices, 3D desktop environments, etc.
It should be particularly easy for OSS to separate functionality and GUI, because OSS developers don't have the motivation to prevent others from benefiting from using your application (like MS and others do).
Cuba is not totalitarian, because the government there doesn't "exercise absolute and centralized control over citizens". There is actually less control than in most other countries including the US. Political opposition is not allowed on Cuba, unless you do it within the confines of the existing system and those who break the rule are imprisoned or sometimes executed, but that doesn't make the country totalitarian.
I don't know who told you about near-omnipotent Cuban government, but that is total bullshit. Unfortunately, that taints all your other arguments. There is, BTW, no evidence that he used torture against political opponents and no evidence that he owns 10% of the economy - just American propaganda, sometimes supported by Cuban refugees, who have no idea themselves and just repeat it to gain better status in the US. And he wasn't reckless, he just didn't like the fact that the USSR refused to attack the US with nukes IF US had successfully conquered Cuba. Nothing strange about that, I think...
The Godwin Law should have been involved a few posts ago, because you just keep claiming that Castro is a totalitarian dictator just like Hitler, even though there is absolutely no evidence presented. But then again, every time I hear an American argue like this, they just show which country is actually the most successful in controlling the thoughts of its citiznes.
I suggest you read something about Cuba and Castro not written by Americans. Listen to or read his speeches. He is the opposite of the bugaboo dictator painted by American propaganda, he is intelligent and a "no-nonsense" man.
You are right about Hitler, of course, but: 1) This has nothing to do with Castro whatsoever, because there is no similarity between them (other than both being heads of states). Heck, Bush is more like Hitler than Castro is. 2) You didn't explain how one can promote totalitarian ideology without it looking like one big joke. 3) Moscow Olympics are not a red herring, they actually are a pretty good model of the 2012 that could have happened in Havana, a much better model than the 1936 ones.
So in effect you just try to use a scarecrow of Hitler and completely groundless speculations of "promoting totalitarism" (ironically, in the discussion about how 2004 games impose totalitarian control on athlets and, in another story, visitors), while in reality Olympics in Cuba might have been a good thing.
There wasn't a dictatorship in Afganistan. It's irrelevant though. I just said that I suspect 1980 games weren't shown in the US (correct me if I am wrong) and so most Americans have no way on knowing how good or bad the games were in reality (as opposed to their anti-communist nightmares).
In reality there was no promotion of totalitarian ideology - how do you even imagine this nonsense - Big Brother posters around the city or what? Of course, this was used to showcase the success of the Soviet Union, but that's normal, understandable and didn't affect the games in a negative way. So the correct choice is between advertising Nike and Coke and advertising nothing at all (except that Moscow is a nice place). If you have any references for the USSR advertising totalitarianism at the 1980 games, please share them.
E.g., Germans toward the end of WW2 were much more likely to surrender to US and UK forces than they were to the Soviets.
This illustrates another point much better - you are much more likely to be treated humanly when captured if you don't burn villages, rape women and enslave people. If you do that, you aren't really safe among your captors. Nazis understood it really well - the Americans don't seem to.
Yep, just a few bad apples, that's it. No failure of the system, none at all. And of course noone knew about it, or they'd be punished immediately.
Wrong. According to the facts, the commanders knew about it and basically sanctioned it (to the very top, though it's not proven that Bush knew). We also know that those who blew the wistle received more punishment than those who commited the atrocities. And a lot of other things that contradict what you say. You probably work in the Civilian Relations department (PR) of the Security Forces, don't you? Or you were briefed really well on the correct version of the truth.
It's amazing how much you can achieve with some creative use of language. The "limited lethality" phrase doesn't actually sound like "it kills several innocent people, including children and doctors, as opposed to killing hundreds of them". It sounds really like "lots of sweet hugs" or something, doesn't it?
Nope. Hitler was a Nazi dictator and wanted to prove that his "Arian race" was da best. If you want a valid example, look no further than Moscow 1980. Of course, since it probably wasn't shown on TV in the US, it didn't actually happen. Yeah, didn't happen, that's right. No games in 1980, just 1976 followed with good ol' all-American games in 1984. Oh, did I just say "1984"? Ungood boy!
Anyway, there wasn't any crap like this in Moscow, just extremely friendly Russians welcoming friends from all other the world, a good infrastructure and the soul, the spirit. It may sound crazy, but it appeared the USSR cared more about hosting good games than about getting the most medals (though they obviously did both).
These professors, programmers and athletes get a small share of the value they create. Most of the value goes to those who have cleverly extended the "container" and claim the individual's achievement in the name of the container.
Exactly as it happened in the early 20th century - the proletariat was getting a very small fraction of added value - most was going to capitalists. That didn't work out so well for the capitalists at that time, they need another lesson. Economics rules the world - the conflict will become open and it will resolve (though we don't know when). And of course, the only possible resolution is that the "oppressed" will get back the value and their freedom. Let's hope it happens sooner than later.
Speaking of communists, I suspect that if IOC tried to pull the same shit off 24 years ago in Moscow, they would be told what to do in very clear and precise language.
P.S. The Olympic bear was much better than the crap that passes for the olympic symbol today. And the parting song, the tear and the flying bear were damn beautiful. If you want Olympic games with soul, you don't need to look 2 millenia ago, 1980 will do. Sadly, I am afraid that there was little to no coverage of it in the USA, since your government boycotted the games for political reasons.:(
It's bad enough I cant watch the superior coverage of the olympics legaly here in the USA due to similar contracts.
Here is a free prediction. By 2008 wireless broadband Internet will become even more widespread. Phones will get decent video cameras. Cameras will get excellent video cameras. People at the games will actually create a lot of footage and some will immediately release it online. The IOC will attempt to ban this (will they try to confiscate all phones and cameras? May be), but even for those totalitarian fascists it will be difficult to fight 5 million people watching the games at the same time. So expect to see free and original online coverage in 2008.
How about you working? Seriously, communication (including communication with fans) is a) part of your job description b) something you do in your free time for the fun of it So yes, athlets should be blogging, especially considering that they only actually compete a small fraction of the time (otherwise the games will end in one day and would require 20 times the infrastructure).
I just love doublethinking a bit every now and then.
1. Olympic games are about participation, not winning. They are about fairness, so doping is evil. 2. News about your national medal tally are the most important thing on TV during the games. The teams and the sportsmen should do everything in order to win. 3. Atlanta games were bad because the organisers cared only about profits - national government should support the games for the reason of national prestige. 4. Every last cent must be squised from the ad and broadcast rights.
OK, first I would happily take the bet (though the logistics of keeping track of each other might be complicated, if I win at least I will have brain wave detectors, retinal display and AI-based search engines to help me find you).
Second, I believe EEG clock is not tech-dependant, but marketing-dependant. It should be possible to make it now, we just need an entrepreneur and a VC to do it. I would happily buy it even though it's not a silver bullet solution to getting a good sleep. The robotic kitchen sounds unrealistic, but I will say more on that below.
Third, the wrist is not the key. We can put the stuff on our necks, in our pockets, that doesn't change the essence.
Fourth, now for something interesting, robotics. They (even humanoid robots) will become cheaper as robots become better. The hardware will drop in price as you mass produce those babies and the mass production will follow as soon as the robots are useful.
Finally, the most important thing. Moore's law helps us put processors where it was impossible to have them before. We can have a camera and an image processor in a cheap mouse - something that would sound ridiculous 10 years ago. In 2014 it will be feasible to place a sensor and a processor in every product, in every package, in every piece of plastic or metal that our factories make. It will make no sense NOT to put sensors in the toilets. It will make no sense NOT to put smart chips in the asphalt you use or in the wheels of your vehicle. Cheap computer hardware is the thing that will make many things described in the article possible, but you don't notice them, because like those IBM execs you fail to notice that computers will once again change form (or rather expand). There once "was" a market for may be five computers. We should not repeat the mistake by saying there will be only 6 billion personal computers - there are already more devices outside our PCs and as the processing power gets cheaper they will become more prolific.
Isn't it sad to be such a loser? You wasted 20 years of your life and want everyone to feel pity? Fuck off - MY life has changed in the past 10 years. It changed in the past 5 years. It changes everyday and not the least because of the technology. But don't despair - if not in 2014, in 2034 they will be able to treat stupidity and you may finally get your chance.
So what? Different people have different needs. Different countries have different cultures. And different economies have different capabilities. Right now more than half of US Internet users have broadband. Almost everywhere in the world the figure is less than 10%. And to think of it, almost half of Americans don't have any Internet access at all. So, does that mean that there is no Internet today? Does that mean that someone who in 1994 predicted that today Americans will have 100Kbit/s Internet access was a moron? I don't think so.
In a similar vein, it doesn't matter that you will not have a robot at home. May be Robert Sawyer will. And if you only want to read those future forecasts that apply to the majority of the population, you must be a pretty boring guy. Heck, only 10% of the people in the world have cars and computers - does that mean we still live in the Middle Age?
This sort of stuff is just plain dumb, and at best 2-5% of what he says will happen Of course! Everyone know that the future will always be exactly as the present. Because the present is exactly as the past, nothing has ever changed over the last few millenia and nothing ever will. Bzzt! Wrong!
The timeframe for most of the things he describes is realistic. Some things, IMHO, are unlikely to appear that soon, but overall a good scenario.
If you are unable to understand what 10 years means, you are not alone. Most people fail to remember the laptops in 1994 and don't realise the progress made between then and today's tablet PCs. Naturally, you don't see how much will probably happen between now and 2014 either.
"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than any government included in the secret amendment to this regulation."
What a load of crap. When you buy something, it's yours forever. The labels did not license Mr. Hatch after all. So I am sure that the money went to other senators, to maintain the fairness of this great country.
You did. The article mentioned that AoE2 offended the Saudis for implying that Arabs convert christian churches to mosques. Pandion questioned the sincerity of the Arab reaction by reminding about the Hagia Sophia church (that was converted to a mosque). MKalus said that these events happened a long time ago and are not relevant. Darthmalt asked an unclear question (probably something about Kashmir case), then you replied that Hagia Sophia was about 500 years ago. Now my point is that even though (as MKalus said) nowdays Arabs don't take over churches, they still have no right to be offended, because events in the AoE2 obviously take place during the time when Arabs did, in fact, take over christian churches.
Hope now my point is clear (not that there was much of a point, mind you).
I think the solution can be found in RTS games. The Kashmir part of the Time Zones map should be covered in "fog of war". An attempt to click there should bring up a dialog with a request "Please enter the desired time in this zone".
Slashdot Mirror
No, you also need a public that would be willing to pay more for it
This isn't a problem - cost is not an important factor as most people aren't interested in cheap alarm clocks, they care about coolness, design, style and functionality (and ease of use, of course).
It makes it obvious that our author is ignorant of the marketting side - something all of his other "gadgets" scream as well.
Yep. But I am willing to forgive him this for the effort of writing a coherent article with a 10-year forecast.
Robots don't follow Moore's law.
It's not Moore's law I am talking about, it's the scale economy.
And modern robots are very subject to Hofstadter's Law as well.
Hofstadter's Law is not valid for technological progress. Heinlein understood it better when he commented that people tended to overestimate short term progress and underestimate long term progress.
The only time machines with millions of parts become cheap is when those parts can all be etched easily out of a single substrate; having to place and interconnect parts made of different materials simply costs a lot of money, and there's not much that can be done about it.
Good point, but humanoid robots are actually rather simple. This is just a wild guess, but there is no reason why we can't have a humanoid robot in 2014 that cost 10-20 thousand.
Electrodes. Not a readout, and not the sensor itself. Readout implies displays, and displays don't follow Moore's law. Sensors don't follow Moore's law either. You really need to stop applying Moore's law where it doesn't go. I half expect you to start applying it to cars, and stating that cars will get 15000 miles per gallon in 2014.
Note that I only spoke about processors (and chips in general). And readout doesn't imply display, there isn't a screen in your mouse and there certainly doesn't need to be one in a humanoid robot. Your mouse makes millions of pictures, but the only thing that goes out is X and Y, the images are discarded. Same for everything else - your robot will collect gigabytes of data, but it will discard most of it, leaving distilled information that will turn into minor actions. And Moore's law is relevant here, because it means we can place plenty of transistors per gram of matter. These transistors will not substantially increase the costs, but will provide things like tactile, temperature, movement and other sensors that will help the robot operate in the physical world. Image recognition is a separate complex problem, but more CPU power will also help.
More abstraction. Stop designing dialogs. Just write an XML description of all objects (some radio buttons, a progress bar, a custom widget, etc.) and let someone else tweak the actual appearance. One thing this would allow is better global skinning. Second, automatic generation of user-friendly and consistent dialogs throughout the OS. Third, it would allow effortless porting of applications to completely new environments, like voice-controlled OSes, mobile devices, 3D desktop environments, etc.
It should be particularly easy for OSS to separate functionality and GUI, because OSS developers don't have the motivation to prevent others from benefiting from using your application (like MS and others do).
Cuba is not totalitarian, because the government there doesn't "exercise absolute and centralized control over citizens". There is actually less control than in most other countries including the US. Political opposition is not allowed on Cuba, unless you do it within the confines of the existing system and those who break the rule are imprisoned or sometimes executed, but that doesn't make the country totalitarian.
I don't know who told you about near-omnipotent Cuban government, but that is total bullshit. Unfortunately, that taints all your other arguments. There is, BTW, no evidence that he used torture against political opponents and no evidence that he owns 10% of the economy - just American propaganda, sometimes supported by Cuban refugees, who have no idea themselves and just repeat it to gain better status in the US. And he wasn't reckless, he just didn't like the fact that the USSR refused to attack the US with nukes IF US had successfully conquered Cuba. Nothing strange about that, I think...
The Godwin Law should have been involved a few posts ago, because you just keep claiming that Castro is a totalitarian dictator just like Hitler, even though there is absolutely no evidence presented. But then again, every time I hear an American argue like this, they just show which country is actually the most successful in controlling the thoughts of its citiznes.
I suggest you read something about Cuba and Castro not written by Americans. Listen to or read his speeches. He is the opposite of the bugaboo dictator painted by American propaganda, he is intelligent and a "no-nonsense" man.
You are right about Hitler, of course, but:
1) This has nothing to do with Castro whatsoever, because there is no similarity between them (other than both being heads of states). Heck, Bush is more like Hitler than Castro is.
2) You didn't explain how one can promote totalitarian ideology without it looking like one big joke.
3) Moscow Olympics are not a red herring, they actually are a pretty good model of the 2012 that could have happened in Havana, a much better model than the 1936 ones.
So in effect you just try to use a scarecrow of Hitler and completely groundless speculations of "promoting totalitarism" (ironically, in the discussion about how 2004 games impose totalitarian control on athlets and, in another story, visitors), while in reality Olympics in Cuba might have been a good thing.
There wasn't a dictatorship in Afganistan. It's irrelevant though. I just said that I suspect 1980 games weren't shown in the US (correct me if I am wrong) and so most Americans have no way on knowing how good or bad the games were in reality (as opposed to their anti-communist nightmares).
In reality there was no promotion of totalitarian ideology - how do you even imagine this nonsense - Big Brother posters around the city or what? Of course, this was used to showcase the success of the Soviet Union, but that's normal, understandable and didn't affect the games in a negative way. So the correct choice is between advertising Nike and Coke and advertising nothing at all (except that Moscow is a nice place). If you have any references for the USSR advertising totalitarianism at the 1980 games, please share them.
the soldier is still milliseconds behind in the actual action on site, and the equipment is milliseconds behind the soldier's reaction time.
Bah! Can't they use movement prediction like in Quake?
E.g., Germans toward the end of WW2 were much more likely to surrender to US and UK forces than they were to the Soviets.
This illustrates another point much better - you are much more likely to be treated humanly when captured if you don't burn villages, rape women and enslave people. If you do that, you aren't really safe among your captors. Nazis understood it really well - the Americans don't seem to.
Yep, just a few bad apples, that's it. No failure of the system, none at all. And of course noone knew about it, or they'd be punished immediately.
Wrong. According to the facts, the commanders knew about it and basically sanctioned it (to the very top, though it's not proven that Bush knew). We also know that those who blew the wistle received more punishment than those who commited the atrocities. And a lot of other things that contradict what you say. You probably work in the Civilian Relations department (PR) of the Security Forces, don't you? Or you were briefed really well on the correct version of the truth.
It's amazing how much you can achieve with some creative use of language. The "limited lethality" phrase doesn't actually sound like "it kills several innocent people, including children and doctors, as opposed to killing hundreds of them". It sounds really like "lots of sweet hugs" or something, doesn't it?
Nope. Hitler was a Nazi dictator and wanted to prove that his "Arian race" was da best. If you want a valid example, look no further than Moscow 1980. Of course, since it probably wasn't shown on TV in the US, it didn't actually happen. Yeah, didn't happen, that's right. No games in 1980, just 1976 followed with good ol' all-American games in 1984. Oh, did I just say "1984"? Ungood boy!
Anyway, there wasn't any crap like this in Moscow, just extremely friendly Russians welcoming friends from all other the world, a good infrastructure and the soul, the spirit. It may sound crazy, but it appeared the USSR cared more about hosting good games than about getting the most medals (though they obviously did both).
These professors, programmers and athletes get a small share of the value they create. Most of the value goes to those who have cleverly extended the "container" and claim the individual's achievement in the name of the container.
Exactly as it happened in the early 20th century - the proletariat was getting a very small fraction of added value - most was going to capitalists. That didn't work out so well for the capitalists at that time, they need another lesson. Economics rules the world - the conflict will become open and it will resolve (though we don't know when). And of course, the only possible resolution is that the "oppressed" will get back the value and their freedom. Let's hope it happens sooner than later.
Speaking of communists, I suspect that if IOC tried to pull the same shit off 24 years ago in Moscow, they would be told what to do in very clear and precise language.
:(
P.S. The Olympic bear was much better than the crap that passes for the olympic symbol today. And the parting song, the tear and the flying bear were damn beautiful. If you want Olympic games with soul, you don't need to look 2 millenia ago, 1980 will do. Sadly, I am afraid that there was little to no coverage of it in the USA, since your government boycotted the games for political reasons.
It's bad enough I cant watch the superior coverage of the olympics legaly here in the USA due to similar contracts.
Here is a free prediction. By 2008 wireless broadband Internet will become even more widespread. Phones will get decent video cameras. Cameras will get excellent video cameras. People at the games will actually create a lot of footage and some will immediately release it online. The IOC will attempt to ban this (will they try to confiscate all phones and cameras? May be), but even for those totalitarian fascists it will be difficult to fight 5 million people watching the games at the same time. So expect to see free and original online coverage in 2008.
How about you working? Seriously, communication (including communication with fans) is
a) part of your job description
b) something you do in your free time for the fun of it
So yes, athlets should be blogging, especially considering that they only actually compete a small fraction of the time (otherwise the games will end in one day and would require 20 times the infrastructure).
This insanity needs to be stopped.
The entire Olympic games have become a commercialized farce, and needs to be disbanded.
Yep. I say we nuke the site from orbit. That's the only way to be sure.
I just love doublethinking a bit every now and then.
1. Olympic games are about participation, not winning. They are about fairness, so doping is evil.
2. News about your national medal tally are the most important thing on TV during the games. The teams and the sportsmen should do everything in order to win.
3. Atlanta games were bad because the organisers cared only about profits - national government should support the games for the reason of national prestige.
4. Every last cent must be squised from the ad and broadcast rights.
Oh, was it quadruplethinking? Sorry.
OK, first I would happily take the bet (though the logistics of keeping track of each other might be complicated, if I win at least I will have brain wave detectors, retinal display and AI-based search engines to help me find you).
Second, I believe EEG clock is not tech-dependant, but marketing-dependant. It should be possible to make it now, we just need an entrepreneur and a VC to do it. I would happily buy it even though it's not a silver bullet solution to getting a good sleep. The robotic kitchen sounds unrealistic, but I will say more on that below.
Third, the wrist is not the key. We can put the stuff on our necks, in our pockets, that doesn't change the essence.
Fourth, now for something interesting, robotics. They (even humanoid robots) will become cheaper as robots become better. The hardware will drop in price as you mass produce those babies and the mass production will follow as soon as the robots are useful.
Finally, the most important thing. Moore's law helps us put processors where it was impossible to have them before. We can have a camera and an image processor in a cheap mouse - something that would sound ridiculous 10 years ago. In 2014 it will be feasible to place a sensor and a processor in every product, in every package, in every piece of plastic or metal that our factories make. It will make no sense NOT to put sensors in the toilets. It will make no sense NOT to put smart chips in the asphalt you use or in the wheels of your vehicle. Cheap computer hardware is the thing that will make many things described in the article possible, but you don't notice them, because like those IBM execs you fail to notice that computers will once again change form (or rather expand). There once "was" a market for may be five computers. We should not repeat the mistake by saying there will be only 6 billion personal computers - there are already more devices outside our PCs and as the processing power gets cheaper they will become more prolific.
Isn't it sad to be such a loser? You wasted 20 years of your life and want everyone to feel pity? Fuck off - MY life has changed in the past 10 years. It changed in the past 5 years. It changes everyday and not the least because of the technology. But don't despair - if not in 2014, in 2034 they will be able to treat stupidity and you may finally get your chance.
So what? Different people have different needs. Different countries have different cultures. And different economies have different capabilities. Right now more than half of US Internet users have broadband. Almost everywhere in the world the figure is less than 10%. And to think of it, almost half of Americans don't have any Internet access at all. So, does that mean that there is no Internet today? Does that mean that someone who in 1994 predicted that today Americans will have 100Kbit/s Internet access was a moron? I don't think so.
In a similar vein, it doesn't matter that you will not have a robot at home. May be Robert Sawyer will. And if you only want to read those future forecasts that apply to the majority of the population, you must be a pretty boring guy. Heck, only 10% of the people in the world have cars and computers - does that mean we still live in the Middle Age?
This sort of stuff is just plain dumb, and at best 2-5% of what he says will happen
Of course! Everyone know that the future will always be exactly as the present. Because the present is exactly as the past, nothing has ever changed over the last few millenia and nothing ever will. Bzzt! Wrong!
The timeframe for most of the things he describes is realistic. Some things, IMHO, are unlikely to appear that soon, but overall a good scenario.
If you are unable to understand what 10 years means, you are not alone. Most people fail to remember the laptops in 1994 and don't realise the progress made between then and today's tablet PCs. Naturally, you don't see how much will probably happen between now and 2014 either.
Nope. The correct wording is now:
"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than any government included in the secret amendment to this regulation."
What a load of crap. When you buy something, it's yours forever. The labels did not license Mr. Hatch after all. So I am sure that the money went to other senators, to maintain the fairness of this great country.
You did. The article mentioned that AoE2 offended the Saudis for implying that Arabs convert christian churches to mosques. Pandion questioned the sincerity of the Arab reaction by reminding about the Hagia Sophia church (that was converted to a mosque). MKalus said that these events happened a long time ago and are not relevant. Darthmalt asked an unclear question (probably something about Kashmir case), then you replied that Hagia Sophia was about 500 years ago. Now my point is that even though (as MKalus said) nowdays Arabs don't take over churches, they still have no right to be offended, because events in the AoE2 obviously take place during the time when Arabs did, in fact, take over christian churches.
Hope now my point is clear (not that there was much of a point, mind you).
I think the solution can be found in RTS games. The Kashmir part of the Time Zones map should be covered in "fog of war". An attempt to click there should bring up a dialog with a request "Please enter the desired time in this zone".
In some countries where traffic is expensive, broadband can mean 64Kbit/s ADSL or cable.