Nicely put, clifgriffin. After reading 12 replies to your comment, let me voice a different opinion. First, your program was not a malicious troyan, but AVP is correct classifying your program as a troyan. For anti-virus users your program is a troyan.
As for your motives, I am glad to hear that you "aren't raging against internet piracy or p2p". If that is true, your actions are vindicated, as far as I am concerned. Let's not try turning the Internet (or the world as a whole) into a sandpit. Some actions may be irresponsible, but that doesn't make them "evil", "unpatriotic" or "terrorist".
Remember, the tools are neutral, it's the application that matters. For example, a program based on open source file-sharing application WASTE is now used to create armies of zombie PCs and launch DDOS attacks (according to one of the recent Slashdot stories). These two programs really are a cool social experiment, nothing more, nothing less. If it had happened that RIAA/BSA used the database to sue everyone on the list, I would be the first to call you an irresponsible moron and ask for a lynching.:) But no harm, no foul.
So keep experimenting and eventually you might stumble upon something cool and useful.:) We will all praise you then.
It is quite rare for the trademark to become generic. There are a few tens known examples, may be even less. And in this case there is simply no point in protecting the trademark from becoming generic (i.e. any modified version of Mozilla/Firefox browser can be called so). As it is, everyone can distribute the original version with the logo and the name for free or for money and everyone can modify the browser to any extent and sell/give away it under another name.
Some customers might be interested in extra features, for them Mozilla-based will be more than enough. Others would be motivated by the brand awareness, but they are unlikely to care about extra features then. And anyone can distribute plugins and even source or binary patches to Mozilla to add those features as well.
So, first, the value of the Mozilla trademark is extremely questionable, and second, it is unlikely to become generic and cause Mozilla guys any harm.
But the EFF has come to adapt a pro file-sharing-even-when-it's-copyrighted schtick, and that's when they got off track. May be it's because they got on FastTrack. Seriously, the freedom to copy information trumps the freedom to make money. There are few things that should not be freely distributed, very few... What few examples I can think of are really far-fetched.
Yes, freedom of information can harm businesses. Like in the case of Enron wistle-blowers. Or in the case of people downloading the latest Brittney's album for free. But in both cases the right to freely disseminate information (even when this information is a trade secret, commercial secret or copyrighted work) should prevail.
What is fair? Is change fair? Is status quo fair? We can't get the answer, perhaps because we are asking the wrong questions.
Think about equilibrium. Not the movie (although it has a nice hidden anti-RIAA message as well), but the market equilibrium. Today we have the situation where a few large producers make a billion CDs per year from, let's say 10000 artists. The consumers pay $10 bn for the CDs and download a certain amount of music for free. The situation is value-neutral, that's just how things are. Some people are employed in the industry, but that alone says nothing about fairness of the situation.
Now imagine another world, the world where there are no labels, where there are 3000 artists making music and all that music is available for free, because copyright laws explicitly allow filesharing. Customers pay $1bn for performances, T-shirts, dinners with the artists, some CDs, inflatable love pillows and other stuff.:) Again, some people are employed in the industry, although, probably, less of them.
Is the new situation fair? Again, by itself it is neither fair, nor unfair, it just is (or would be).
What about the change? Yes, it is difficult and it hurts, as change always does, but that's life. It's not unfair that we have to adapt to chaning environment, because that's the way things were on this planet for the last 4 billion years or so. Adapt or die was the rule. Adapt or get the welfare is the rule now.
If we compare the two situations, they are equal in terms of fairness from the market point of view. Both are the equilibriums, both have supply and demand matching each other. If you want to live in the free market society, there is no authority to argue which equilibrium is better. And the interesting thing is that the second alternative might actually be better for a whole lot of folks. Consider that - if the music is free, most people will listen to more artists, more albums, more songs and more music in general than he can do today. Of course, some variety will be lost, but on average every listener will gain!
Isn't it fair to promote the progress of useful arts and enrich the public domain? I believe it is and allowing free distribution of digital music might do exactly that.
Market is not perfect. Most people living in capitalist countries usually suck it with the milk of their mother that markets are perfect, but that's a big lie. Markets are good at one thing - achieving equilibrium between supply and demand. All other efficiencies can only be proved if you postulate the market equilibrium is the most efficient solution.
Now back to the issue at hand. Not everything lends itself to 'spectacle', but not everything lends itself to a CD or radio performance as well. Market develops a framework, inside which people and businesses need to operate. If that framework changes, that may harm a few players, but that's a fact of life. They have to deal with it. Many things are not practical today, in the current environment. Clever hard sci-fi movies are one example, there are simply none of them made. One or two small budget productions per decade at most. That's just one example, there are thousands more examples of things markets do not provide, but we do not miss them, because we don't have them.
The alternative, of course, is a shift to a more planned economy (at least in the field of music). There is nothing wrong with state support, as witnessed by the European filmmakers and art in the Soviet Union (not kidding). And a nice side effect is that artists suddenly find that they can live on $50000-200000 just fine.:)
Your example is too unrealistic. Messing with the brain is unlikely to have harmful side effects for anyone but the kids in question. And we have plenty of kids to experiement on.:) So I recommend for fooling with the brain until we actually know what we're doing. When we know what we are doing, it will be time to stop messing with it and start doing exactly what we want.
That's a first post I saw on Slashdot advocating assassination of the Bush and his cronies that was moderated up to 5. Let me predict that if Bush is reelected, we will see more of that (Slashdot will then be censored by the state, of course). Eventually, someone will have to actually do it...
Don't vote for Bush, guys... We have our elections today, but nobody other than the current president even stands a chance.:( Sucks...
The question is - would American public support the attack on Iraq/Afganistan if they knew it would lead to draft in 2005? The question is, of course, rhetorical.
It's strange that so many vehicles spend so much time trying to get out of the difficult situation. One would think the programmers would make the vehicles try something radically new after 10 minutes or so. If you don't see the route, why not just move around randomly but carefully for a while?
If Intel thought it could keep bumping the clock rate up, they wouldn't move to something like AMD's performance rating. I hope I do not sound extremely naive, but I like to think that Intel is not led by marketing people. And Intel's engineers do not directly care about selling more chips, they care (I hope so) about making ever faster (for actual applications, all of them) processors. Thus if they decide to concentrate on other things than upping the frequency for a while, this is probably a sound technical decision. The best Intel's marketing can do is reflect this good decision in a better performance metric.
Intel could have increased the GHz, but if they decided another approach is better, I tend to believe them.
Don't despair. Very soon we'll see AMD 65000++, then Intel 800000 Ultra, then AMD 3000000 Extreme, then Intel 80000000 Mega, then AMD 777000000 Super, then Intel 5000000000, at which point we can just remove the trailing zeros and call it an Intel 5GHz:)
Why everyone keeps repeating the same boring shit about "games lacking AI/plot/gameplay" and "concentrate less on graphics"? This is so blatantly false, I suspect neither of you played any games in the last 5 or so years. Is that so?
First, modern games do not lack AI. Just play the UT2004 demo. The bots play almost like humans. The teamwork is still not the same as with real people (I am not saying it's better, but I miss human stupidity, when playing with bots). Then play GTA or Max Payne. Do you think they lack plot? And these are pretty straightforward mainstream action titles. Gameplay? Well, there are tons of modern game with extremely addictive gameplay. Compared to them old school titles like Duke3D or Doom would not stand a chance, if not for the nostalgy feelings.
Game designers are not stupid. They understand perfectly well what needs to be done in a game and if you check out a recent article here on Slashdot (search here sucks, can't find it), you will find out that modern game design includes a lot of different areas, each of them receiving more attention than ever (AI, story, sound, physics, etc., etc.).
As for the graphics, there is still huge potential. According to a few J. Carmack's comments (which agree with other forecasts), around 2010 we may get photorealistic virtual worlds (but not interactively physically realistic). Until that is done, the improvements will not stop. And for a while after it is done, the game companies will still continue to tweak their engines. Eventually, of course, they will have to shift their attention to design, interactivity, complex simulations, general AI, etc. But that still won't mean games are dead, it will only mean that some things are now taken for granted. Just like with movies, where high-quality computer effects are becoming extremely commonplace and quite cheap as well.
Thanks for the extra information. Since you apparently have an extensive background in this field, I just thought you might comment on another question. Are there any [semi]successful attempts to build an expert system for technical support. BTW, I realise that many call centres use scripts, but IMO this is far from effective and does not allow easy updates of the database. What I have in mind is a simple AI-based expert system with some reasoning and problem solving skills (such as exist in medicine and other specialised areas). It seems that most problems and their issues can be easily classified using a few variables (and therefore simple rules). You give the examples yourself and they can [relatively] easily be converted into 'if HDD.BRAND=="Presario" and HDD.MODEL=="992" and PROBLEM.AREA=="HDD" then replace(HDD)'
I believe that if such a system is implemented, it can be quite good at diagnosing existing problems (it can easily formulate the questions for the consumer and it will not forger a single possible problems) by using a few "yes"/"no" questions (even taking into account the relative difficulty in obtaining the answers to different questions). It can also be used in many departments and even companies simultaneously, allowing real-time updates to the knowledge base. To me it sounds like a quite simple and powerful idea. Do you know if anything like this was ever attempted on a large scale and what was the result?
Releasing the information might do some good, but I would probably get sued, and it was not worth the effort to me. Oh, yes. You're a little afraid of the execs playing the "ostrich strategy" (may be a perverted variant of "security by obscurity" as well). I can understand that.:) Not only are exploits caused by patches, but not talking about power supply problems just might prevent HDD failures... Good reasoning.
We are at the point in gaming however that the graphics are excellent and the computing power can and should be put toward more gameplay things like AI, advanced plot devices etc. This is not insightful. At any point in gaming history computing power should be (and is) put toward everything at once, according to the marginal utility vs. marginal costs for every direction.
And if you think that AI and plot devices were ignored recently, I suggest you play some new games. AI has come a long way since early 90s when it became a separate part of the engine. Compare the UT2004 bots with Doom monsters. Compare AI in C&C: Generals (or any newer strategy) and Dune 2. Compare AI in sport sims or driving sims. There is a HUGE difference, as big as in the graphics. Same with the plot. Heck, even FPS/TPS/RTS games come with a decent plot now. Just think of Max Payne, but other games are often just as good.
Saying that tripe about "we need better AI, not flashy graphics" became banal and boring years ago. Please stop now.
Blah-blah-blah. All modern games suck. Blah-blah-blah. The future lies in blah-blah-blah.
There was tremendous innovation recently in every genre you can think about. There is ongoing tremendous innovation with game developers pushing the envelope in every direction simultaneously, as fast as they can. People like to play games, that's a fact. Thus there will always be a thriving industry serving them. All the doomsayers can go to hell.
When humans evolved, there were no right angles. Thus your affinity towards living in boxes is either acquired or concocted (I tend to think it's the latter). Once it becomes possible to easily design and build non-rectangular buildings, you can expect them to become much more prevalent. I am not sure what kind of room I want for my self, though... After decades of living in boxes it's hard to imagine anything different.:) But I don't lose hope.
As for the P2P architecture, you are correct. In a few years cheap individual customised manufacturing will finally become reality. Buildings, appliances, gadgets, soon it will be possible to make them if you have a CAD file and the access to a manufacturing robot. Eventually they will become cheap. Then it will become possible to build a robot using other robots. A few years later nanobots will appear and the same will happen with them... Better start writing the P2P design collaboration and sharing software right now.
Seems that getting there was the easy bit, achieving something meaningful has been a bit harder. Like having Janet Jackson show a breast or what? The definition of "meaningful" that general public (and mass media) uses differs a lot from what intelligent people consider meaningful. Most people are idiots and sheeps, that's a fact of life. They want big explosions, deaths and sex. If NASA manages to crash their next spaceship into Paris, destroying the Eiffel Tower, I guarantee it will be a hot topic longer than anything related to the twin rovers. If a senior NASA officer (female) poses for Hustler, this will drive more traffic to nasa.gov than any photo they can shoot on Mars. That's a sad reality, but to stand on the position of the public and claim that rover missions were not really meaningful is totally wrong.
No, supply and demand says there can't be a never-ending supply of sex, because your average man is _way_ hornier than your average woman, and we're less likely to be turned off the course once we've decided we'd like a root. It's a genetic thing, which doesn't really need explaining here. To (over) simplify, the women control the supply of sex, and it's a seller's market. Homosexuality is your friend.:)
It's 3D, but not stereo. Stereo porn was done ages ago. Literally ages - one can easily find anamorphic (red/blue) vintage (19th century) porn online. And it doesn't look like a winner, honestly. Obviously, customers are not interested.
But there is another kind of 3D porn, namely interactive 3D porn, which is well on its way to becoming the next big thing. The quality of what you call "silly rendered crap" continues to increase too, but interactivity is the key. Japanese hentai games market proves that there is a huge potential demand for interactive porn games/stories, the only thing that remains is finding the right approach for American/European/global markets (anime hentai porn can only have a niche appeal).
Just look at the latest games/demos, such as nVidia Dawn demo. It is already possible to render very nice-looking T & A and to do it in real-time. Clearly, the capability is rare and porn merchants are not the inventors. But wait a few more years and once the technologies and tools are out, our porn overlords will master them and be welcumed all over the world.
They are not the military of the Internet, because military just wastes public money (15% of the federal budget) with relatively small positive side effects (compared with spending directly on what you want). Porn folks are simply the free market businessmen of the Internet. Take any other industry, remove the barriers to entry, remove barriers to switch and remove any limitations/protections/other interventions. Very soon you will have an extremely efficient mechanism, meeting the customer demands in the best and most efficient possible way, including by using the most advanced technology, where appropriate.
I couldn't imagine Robocop teaching children how to fight crime. I may be wrong, but I think that was part of the plot in one of the films... Robocop was disabled from actually fighting the crime and limited to some propaganda/education role. The details escape me, since I saw the movies more than a decade ago.
There was a short sci-fi story about such an idea implemented. It started with astronomers noticing some stars moving a bit too fast, then faster and then stopping, forming an ad for some soap. Eventually the battery in the device run out and the sky was restored. Sadly, I don't remember the name of the story or the author.:(
Slashdot Mirror
Nicely put, clifgriffin. After reading 12 replies to your comment, let me voice a different opinion. First, your program was not a malicious troyan, but AVP is correct classifying your program as a troyan. For anti-virus users your program is a troyan.
:) But no harm, no foul.
:) We will all praise you then.
As for your motives, I am glad to hear that you "aren't raging against internet piracy or p2p". If that is true, your actions are vindicated, as far as I am concerned. Let's not try turning the Internet (or the world as a whole) into a sandpit. Some actions may be irresponsible, but that doesn't make them "evil", "unpatriotic" or "terrorist".
Remember, the tools are neutral, it's the application that matters. For example, a program based on open source file-sharing application WASTE is now used to create armies of zombie PCs and launch DDOS attacks (according to one of the recent Slashdot stories). These two programs really are a cool social experiment, nothing more, nothing less. If it had happened that RIAA/BSA used the database to sue everyone on the list, I would be the first to call you an irresponsible moron and ask for a lynching.
So keep experimenting and eventually you might stumble upon something cool and useful.
How on Earth does forcing people to use a different name for software which is 99.99% the same eliminates consumer confusion?
It is quite rare for the trademark to become generic. There are a few tens known examples, may be even less. And in this case there is simply no point in protecting the trademark from becoming generic (i.e. any modified version of Mozilla/Firefox browser can be called so). As it is, everyone can distribute the original version with the logo and the name for free or for money and everyone can modify the browser to any extent and sell/give away it under another name.
Some customers might be interested in extra features, for them Mozilla-based will be more than enough. Others would be motivated by the brand awareness, but they are unlikely to care about extra features then. And anyone can distribute plugins and even source or binary patches to Mozilla to add those features as well.
So, first, the value of the Mozilla trademark is extremely questionable, and second, it is unlikely to become generic and cause Mozilla guys any harm.
But the EFF has come to adapt a pro file-sharing-even-when-it's-copyrighted schtick, and that's when they got off track.
May be it's because they got on FastTrack. Seriously, the freedom to copy information trumps the freedom to make money. There are few things that should not be freely distributed, very few... What few examples I can think of are really far-fetched.
Yes, freedom of information can harm businesses. Like in the case of Enron wistle-blowers. Or in the case of people downloading the latest Brittney's album for free. But in both cases the right to freely disseminate information (even when this information is a trade secret, commercial secret or copyrighted work) should prevail.
What is fair? Is change fair? Is status quo fair? We can't get the answer, perhaps because we are asking the wrong questions.
:) Again, some people are employed in the industry, although, probably, less of them.
Think about equilibrium. Not the movie (although it has a nice hidden anti-RIAA message as well), but the market equilibrium. Today we have the situation where a few large producers make a billion CDs per year from, let's say 10000 artists. The consumers pay $10 bn for the CDs and download a certain amount of music for free. The situation is value-neutral, that's just how things are. Some people are employed in the industry, but that alone says nothing about fairness of the situation.
Now imagine another world, the world where there are no labels, where there are 3000 artists making music and all that music is available for free, because copyright laws explicitly allow filesharing. Customers pay $1bn for performances, T-shirts, dinners with the artists, some CDs, inflatable love pillows and other stuff.
Is the new situation fair? Again, by itself it is neither fair, nor unfair, it just is (or would be).
What about the change? Yes, it is difficult and it hurts, as change always does, but that's life. It's not unfair that we have to adapt to chaning environment, because that's the way things were on this planet for the last 4 billion years or so. Adapt or die was the rule. Adapt or get the welfare is the rule now.
If we compare the two situations, they are equal in terms of fairness from the market point of view. Both are the equilibriums, both have supply and demand matching each other. If you want to live in the free market society, there is no authority to argue which equilibrium is better. And the interesting thing is that the second alternative might actually be better for a whole lot of folks. Consider that - if the music is free, most people will listen to more artists, more albums, more songs and more music in general than he can do today. Of course, some variety will be lost, but on average every listener will gain!
Isn't it fair to promote the progress of useful arts and enrich the public domain? I believe it is and allowing free distribution of digital music might do exactly that.
Market is not perfect. Most people living in capitalist countries usually suck it with the milk of their mother that markets are perfect, but that's a big lie. Markets are good at one thing - achieving equilibrium between supply and demand. All other efficiencies can only be proved if you postulate the market equilibrium is the most efficient solution.
:)
Now back to the issue at hand. Not everything lends itself to 'spectacle', but not everything lends itself to a CD or radio performance as well. Market develops a framework, inside which people and businesses need to operate. If that framework changes, that may harm a few players, but that's a fact of life. They have to deal with it. Many things are not practical today, in the current environment. Clever hard sci-fi movies are one example, there are simply none of them made. One or two small budget productions per decade at most. That's just one example, there are thousands more examples of things markets do not provide, but we do not miss them, because we don't have them.
The alternative, of course, is a shift to a more planned economy (at least in the field of music). There is nothing wrong with state support, as witnessed by the European filmmakers and art in the Soviet Union (not kidding). And a nice side effect is that artists suddenly find that they can live on $50000-200000 just fine.
Your example is too unrealistic. Messing with the brain is unlikely to have harmful side effects for anyone but the kids in question. And we have plenty of kids to experiement on. :) So I recommend for fooling with the brain until we actually know what we're doing. When we know what we are doing, it will be time to stop messing with it and start doing exactly what we want.
That's a first post I saw on Slashdot advocating assassination of the Bush and his cronies that was moderated up to 5. Let me predict that if Bush is reelected, we will see more of that (Slashdot will then be censored by the state, of course). Eventually, someone will have to actually do it...
:( Sucks...
Don't vote for Bush, guys... We have our elections today, but nobody other than the current president even stands a chance.
The question is - would American public support the attack on Iraq/Afganistan if they knew it would lead to draft in 2005? The question is, of course, rhetorical.
It's strange that so many vehicles spend so much time trying to get out of the difficult situation. One would think the programmers would make the vehicles try something radically new after 10 minutes or so. If you don't see the route, why not just move around randomly but carefully for a while?
If Intel thought it could keep bumping the clock rate up, they wouldn't move to something like AMD's performance rating.
I hope I do not sound extremely naive, but I like to think that Intel is not led by marketing people. And Intel's engineers do not directly care about selling more chips, they care (I hope so) about making ever faster (for actual applications, all of them) processors. Thus if they decide to concentrate on other things than upping the frequency for a while, this is probably a sound technical decision. The best Intel's marketing can do is reflect this good decision in a better performance metric.
Intel could have increased the GHz, but if they decided another approach is better, I tend to believe them.
Don't despair. Very soon we'll see AMD 65000++, then Intel 800000 Ultra, then AMD 3000000 Extreme, then Intel 80000000 Mega, then AMD 777000000 Super, then Intel 5000000000, at which point we can just remove the trailing zeros and call it an Intel 5GHz :)
Why everyone keeps repeating the same boring shit about "games lacking AI/plot/gameplay" and "concentrate less on graphics"? This is so blatantly false, I suspect neither of you played any games in the last 5 or so years. Is that so?
First, modern games do not lack AI. Just play the UT2004 demo. The bots play almost like humans. The teamwork is still not the same as with real people (I am not saying it's better, but I miss human stupidity, when playing with bots). Then play GTA or Max Payne. Do you think they lack plot? And these are pretty straightforward mainstream action titles. Gameplay? Well, there are tons of modern game with extremely addictive gameplay. Compared to them old school titles like Duke3D or Doom would not stand a chance, if not for the nostalgy feelings.
Game designers are not stupid. They understand perfectly well what needs to be done in a game and if you check out a recent article here on Slashdot (search here sucks, can't find it), you will find out that modern game design includes a lot of different areas, each of them receiving more attention than ever (AI, story, sound, physics, etc., etc.).
As for the graphics, there is still huge potential. According to a few J. Carmack's comments (which agree with other forecasts), around 2010 we may get photorealistic virtual worlds (but not interactively physically realistic). Until that is done, the improvements will not stop. And for a while after it is done, the game companies will still continue to tweak their engines. Eventually, of course, they will have to shift their attention to design, interactivity, complex simulations, general AI, etc. But that still won't mean games are dead, it will only mean that some things are now taken for granted. Just like with movies, where high-quality computer effects are becoming extremely commonplace and quite cheap as well.
Thanks for the extra information. Since you apparently have an extensive background in this field, I just thought you might comment on another question. Are there any [semi]successful attempts to build an expert system for technical support. BTW, I realise that many call centres use scripts, but IMO this is far from effective and does not allow easy updates of the database. What I have in mind is a simple AI-based expert system with some reasoning and problem solving skills (such as exist in medicine and other specialised areas). It seems that most problems and their issues can be easily classified using a few variables (and therefore simple rules). You give the examples yourself and they can [relatively] easily be converted into
:) Not only are exploits caused by patches, but not talking about power supply problems just might prevent HDD failures... Good reasoning.
'if HDD.BRAND=="Presario" and HDD.MODEL=="992" and PROBLEM.AREA=="HDD" then replace(HDD)'
I believe that if such a system is implemented, it can be quite good at diagnosing existing problems (it can easily formulate the questions for the consumer and it will not forger a single possible problems) by using a few "yes"/"no" questions (even taking into account the relative difficulty in obtaining the answers to different questions). It can also be used in many departments and even companies simultaneously, allowing real-time updates to the knowledge base. To me it sounds like a quite simple and powerful idea. Do you know if anything like this was ever attempted on a large scale and what was the result?
Releasing the information might do some good, but I would probably get sued, and it was not worth the effort to me.
Oh, yes. You're a little afraid of the execs playing the "ostrich strategy" (may be a perverted variant of "security by obscurity" as well). I can understand that.
We are at the point in gaming however that the graphics are excellent and the computing power can and should be put toward more gameplay things like AI, advanced plot devices etc.
This is not insightful. At any point in gaming history computing power should be (and is) put toward everything at once, according to the marginal utility vs. marginal costs for every direction.
And if you think that AI and plot devices were ignored recently, I suggest you play some new games. AI has come a long way since early 90s when it became a separate part of the engine. Compare the UT2004 bots with Doom monsters. Compare AI in C&C: Generals (or any newer strategy) and Dune 2. Compare AI in sport sims or driving sims. There is a HUGE difference, as big as in the graphics. Same with the plot. Heck, even FPS/TPS/RTS games come with a decent plot now. Just think of Max Payne, but other games are often just as good.
Saying that tripe about "we need better AI, not flashy graphics" became banal and boring years ago. Please stop now.
Blah-blah-blah. All modern games suck. Blah-blah-blah. The future lies in blah-blah-blah.
There was tremendous innovation recently in every genre you can think about. There is ongoing tremendous innovation with game developers pushing the envelope in every direction simultaneously, as fast as they can. People like to play games, that's a fact. Thus there will always be a thriving industry serving them. All the doomsayers can go to hell.
Serves you well for using Free and Open Source software. Why don't you use perfectly good Internet Explorer and MSN Messenger? :)
When humans evolved, there were no right angles. Thus your affinity towards living in boxes is either acquired or concocted (I tend to think it's the latter). Once it becomes possible to easily design and build non-rectangular buildings, you can expect them to become much more prevalent. I am not sure what kind of room I want for my self, though... After decades of living in boxes it's hard to imagine anything different. :) But I don't lose hope.
As for the P2P architecture, you are correct. In a few years cheap individual customised manufacturing will finally become reality. Buildings, appliances, gadgets, soon it will be possible to make them if you have a CAD file and the access to a manufacturing robot. Eventually they will become cheap. Then it will become possible to build a robot using other robots. A few years later nanobots will appear and the same will happen with them... Better start writing the P2P design collaboration and sharing software right now.
Nice that you provided the links, so that we can all read the actual guides and articles, even if we can't verify that you are the original author.
Seems that getting there was the easy bit, achieving something meaningful has been a bit harder.
Like having Janet Jackson show a breast or what? The definition of "meaningful" that general public (and mass media) uses differs a lot from what intelligent people consider meaningful. Most people are idiots and sheeps, that's a fact of life. They want big explosions, deaths and sex. If NASA manages to crash their next spaceship into Paris, destroying the Eiffel Tower, I guarantee it will be a hot topic longer than anything related to the twin rovers. If a senior NASA officer (female) poses for Hustler, this will drive more traffic to nasa.gov than any photo they can shoot on Mars. That's a sad reality, but to stand on the position of the public and claim that rover missions were not really meaningful is totally wrong.
No, supply and demand says there can't be a never-ending supply of sex, because your average man is _way_ hornier than your average woman, and we're less likely to be turned off the course once we've decided we'd like a root. It's a genetic thing, which doesn't really need explaining here. To (over) simplify, the women control the supply of sex, and it's a seller's market. :)
Homosexuality is your friend.
It's 3D, but not stereo. Stereo porn was done ages ago. Literally ages - one can easily find anamorphic (red/blue) vintage (19th century) porn online. And it doesn't look like a winner, honestly. Obviously, customers are not interested.
But there is another kind of 3D porn, namely interactive 3D porn, which is well on its way to becoming the next big thing. The quality of what you call "silly rendered crap" continues to increase too, but interactivity is the key. Japanese hentai games market proves that there is a huge potential demand for interactive porn games/stories, the only thing that remains is finding the right approach for American/European/global markets (anime hentai porn can only have a niche appeal).
Just look at the latest games/demos, such as nVidia Dawn demo. It is already possible to render very nice-looking T & A and to do it in real-time. Clearly, the capability is rare and porn merchants are not the inventors. But wait a few more years and once the technologies and tools are out, our porn overlords will master them and be welcumed all over the world.
They are not the military of the Internet, because military just wastes public money (15% of the federal budget) with relatively small positive side effects (compared with spending directly on what you want). Porn folks are simply the free market businessmen of the Internet. Take any other industry, remove the barriers to entry, remove barriers to switch and remove any limitations/protections/other interventions. Very soon you will have an extremely efficient mechanism, meeting the customer demands in the best and most efficient possible way, including by using the most advanced technology, where appropriate.
I couldn't imagine Robocop teaching children how to fight crime.
I may be wrong, but I think that was part of the plot in one of the films... Robocop was disabled from actually fighting the crime and limited to some propaganda/education role. The details escape me, since I saw the movies more than a decade ago.
There was a short sci-fi story about such an idea implemented. It started with astronomers noticing some stars moving a bit too fast, then faster and then stopping, forming an ad for some soap. Eventually the battery in the device run out and the sky was restored. Sadly, I don't remember the name of the story or the author. :(