Waste doesn't have to be a good thing. It only needs to become irrelevant. Then it's not a bad thing, either; the fact is, problems only arise when waste is a bad thing. Your assertion of "never" is incorrect.
If there is more than enough power for our needs, and there is no penalty for using more or less power, then we are in an altogether good place.
It's a temporary problem anyway, born of our (again temporary) dependence upon power sources that are very expensive, and ultimately limited - petroleum, gas, etc. We will switch to practically unlimited sources of power - we have to - and as we do, the issue of vampire power will go away. Solar, with storage; nuclear; etc. Petroleum power is convenient because its easy, but given the other sources, it's also stupid, because petroleum is also a resource for things we can't replace.
No wires means no physical ports. Which means no holes in the case. Which means better environmental sealing, lower manufacturing cost, less things to tangle, trip over, remember, replace, get chewed up by the cat/dog/child, clutter up the desk/bedside, and, last but not least, carry.
We are *very* close to a no-wires solution right now, and I am really excited to see it happen. Bluetooth for audio; wifi for data; inductive coupling for power; satellite GPS for location; acceleration sensors for motion; compass and gyros for orientation; standard AM, FM and even shortwave for non-networked news sources; TV of various standards... all in our hands. And you can add various sensors from there. I grew up in the 1960s, and let me tell you, these ideas are fabulous. The fact that they aren't ideas, but are perfectly practical things we can actually make, that's... wild. And the fact that a lot of them are *already* in devices (like the iPod, for instance)... well, that's just outstanding.
We just need ultracaps in the power and size ranges that batteries cover right now, and we'll *really* have taken a step forward with our portable devices. Because batteries suck.:) But ultracaps are proving to be very, very hard.:(
California isn't exactly the ideal climate for growing sugar maples in.
California? Why would you plant anything there? It's all going to slide into the sea anyway... after the earthquakes fracture it into a zillion pieces... and the state goes broke because it can't manage its budget... You should plant in Hoboken, NJ. It's 100% stable, and will be there in 40 years, but so toxic, you don't have to care for the tree, as it'll make no difference anyway.
Only in Hollywood, after you've destroyed the actual storyline. The fact is, Soylent Green is actually algae. The original, high-quality storyline in this case is from Harry Harrison's "Make Room, Make Room", which was a *superb* SF novel for its time. As compared to "Soylent Green", which was, and remains, an SF movie so bad it makes Dr. Who look inspired.
Yes, truly religion is the root of all ignorance, and -- thanks to its staunch atheism -- Soviet Russia was a scientific paradise.
Oy. Not this again. Look. Theism consists of dogma, rules for behavior, and often enough, a strong and well solidified political agenda, for instance, as with Islam or the Christians that are constantly attempting to fiddle with the sayings on money, messing with the pledge of allegiance, praying in congress before making laws, seeing to it the rest of us can't buy beer on Sunday, etc. They do these things because they think this is the way to "bring" their religion, and its dogma and rules, to the rest of us. Speaking generally, theism is a belief in a god or gods, and it carries, in a very official and intentional manner, a great deal of imposed behavior and canned rules with it.
Atheism is the lack of such a belief. It embodies no dogma; no rules; no political agenda, no morals, no ethics. Atheism contains no guides in any particular direction as to science, politics, etc. No atheist will burn a scientist because atheism presents an alternate worldview, because atheism doesn't present worldviews at all. If an atheist has a particular worldview about a scientific issue, it is a 100% guarantee that the worldview did not arise from the atheism (although it is possible that the atheism came from the worldview.)
Your line "thanks to its staunch atheism" is completely wrong and misleading. The soviets were a highly corrupt -- meaning, far from core principle -- communist society and the things they did, they did in the name of active dogma, rules and outlooks that came from communism, socialism, and so forth. Not as any kind of consequence of atheism. Think about it: "I don't believe in god, therefore you can't go to a scientific conference"??? "I don't believe in god, therefore we'll build a ground-based laser"??? I mean, really... WTF?
The thing you theists need to get through your heads is that atheism is not the opposite of theism; it does not present or espouse mirror outlooks to theism. The 'a' up front doesn't mean "the devil's minions", it means "without." It is a lack of belief in religion's core idea, the existence of a god or gods. That's all it is. There is no atheistic mirror to religion's constant, dogmatic, intentional interference with society and law. And there is not one single thing in it that tells us what we should do WRT politics or science. When you see an atheist taking action in some area, you can be sure they are basing those actions upon something other than atheism.
I think, especially given the time frame (1966 and forward) that it's some of the best writing of its kind. The writing is a bit dated now, unsurprisingly I suppose, but I think its fair to say that it deserves a place in any serious reader's collection.
The judge ruled that courts have maintained that once people convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, they no longer have an expectation of privacy.
Judges are people. Therefore, any judge with an Internet connection no longer has any expectation of privacy. Got that, folks?
Clearly shows two things we already knew; history only tells a very small part of the story; and it represents the view of whoever is doing the writing, rather than any guarantee of the reality.
Just think how poor the quality is for history written long after the fact from indirect evidence. Boggles the mind.
It doesn't matter if they're providing an internet service. That is NOT what the phrase Internet Service Provider means.
Again, you're mired in a definition and it is causing you to fail to face the problem. Wake up and smell the repression. I'm done with you. By all means, have the last word.
/me bangs head on desk over and over.
RACKSPACE. IS. NOT. AN. I.S.P. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Because rackspace is providing Internet service - specifically, a place to put your site - just as critical, and just as integral, as the cable that goes from here to there or the final 25 feet to your DLS modem or whatever.
It does us absolutely no good to have freedom on some portion of the cables, if we don't have freedom on the other things the cables connect to.
What you are missing here in your pedantic "we only care about the cables" mode, is that the Internet is a conceptual thing made of everything from cables, routers, sites, rules both legal and consensual, modems, computers small and large, nameservers, etc.
If we only hold one section of it to a standard of freedom - for instance, routers - we're well and truly screwed. That's what you're trying to do here... only it isn't routers in your case, it's just the intermediate transfer infrastructure.
What I'm telling you is that it is inappropriate and wrong to try to limit the discussion that way. As far as I'm concerned, if you host websites, you should have no more say in what's on them than you do in what's on a customer's mind when they walk into your candy store. That is the state to seek.
So stop banging your head on the table and start thinking. Freedom of the system is the critical issue here. Not which part of the Internet you think the discussion should be limited to.
The Internet, by which we participate in this conversation, was created by people willing to think and plan and code not for personal monetary gain but for the betterment of society.
Yeah, actually, the Internet was created by the US military funding mechanism, as applied to the university system, with the intent of creating a redundant communications medium that would not completely fail in the case of losing large portions of the network. The initial network was paid for by taxes.
After that, it was enhanced by commercial interests, who sold connectivity to people and corporations alike.
Now, if you want to argue that trying to see to it that we had communications post nuclear holocaust by spending our tax money equates to "not for personal monetary gain but for the betterment of society", I might buy it, but that really has zip to do with copyright.
Finally, in the early days, when the Internet really didn't have a lot of attention by rights owners, a lot of obviously illegal activity went by the boards for no more reason than it was, essentially, sub-rosa; then, once that was discovered, when the self-entitlement crowd started screaming about losing their free music, that's when this whole "information wants to be free" meme got started. It's no more than self-serving nonsense, and it has never been more than self-serving nonsense.
And mods, by the way, thanks for the cowardly and self-serving "troll" mod. I always love a good "-1, disagree" from the inarticulate and clueless.
It's pretty obvious to anyone who actually *reads* the Qur'an that it is chock *full* of "hate speech" by any sane definition.
For that matter, so is the old testament. And as Jesus says in the new testament, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
Seems to me that all the ISP has accomplished is siding with one set of haters against another set of haters.
Better to not suppress speech at all. If you sell a platform to speak from (which is a good part of what an ISP does), then the best path is to let the speech flow.
If you suppress what you don't like, you won't know what those people are thinking or doing, which can definitely work against you. You create an underground; this is always true. Look at alcohol and drug prohibition. Complete failures, and not only that, failures that reek of unintended negative consequences.
Unfortunately, companies aren't looking to do the right thing. They're looking to do the profitable thing.
You were a kid in a different place, or with different people, than I was. In the early 1970s, "gay" was already being used to mean homosexual; there was a "gay community", that's how they often referred to themselves. This was in New York City; my sister was gay, and so I was well exposed to the chatter.
Slashdot Mirror
Waste doesn't have to be a good thing. It only needs to become irrelevant. Then it's not a bad thing, either; the fact is, problems only arise when waste is a bad thing. Your assertion of "never" is incorrect.
If there is more than enough power for our needs, and there is no penalty for using more or less power, then we are in an altogether good place.
Yeah, but those designs all stop working in 2012.
Oh, don't worry -- they're perfectly safe as long as you employ the standard tin-foil hat.
It's a temporary problem anyway, born of our (again temporary) dependence upon power sources that are very expensive, and ultimately limited - petroleum, gas, etc. We will switch to practically unlimited sources of power - we have to - and as we do, the issue of vampire power will go away. Solar, with storage; nuclear; etc. Petroleum power is convenient because its easy, but given the other sources, it's also stupid, because petroleum is also a resource for things we can't replace.
No wires means no physical ports. Which means no holes in the case. Which means better environmental sealing, lower manufacturing cost, less things to tangle, trip over, remember, replace, get chewed up by the cat/dog/child, clutter up the desk/bedside, and, last but not least, carry.
We are *very* close to a no-wires solution right now, and I am really excited to see it happen. Bluetooth for audio; wifi for data; inductive coupling for power; satellite GPS for location; acceleration sensors for motion; compass and gyros for orientation; standard AM, FM and even shortwave for non-networked news sources; TV of various standards... all in our hands. And you can add various sensors from there. I grew up in the 1960s, and let me tell you, these ideas are fabulous. The fact that they aren't ideas, but are perfectly practical things we can actually make, that's... wild. And the fact that a lot of them are *already* in devices (like the iPod, for instance)... well, that's just outstanding.
We just need ultracaps in the power and size ranges that batteries cover right now, and we'll *really* have taken a step forward with our portable devices. Because batteries suck. :) But ultracaps are proving to be very, very hard. :(
Wireless? You bet your ass. Bring it on.
California? Why would you plant anything there? It's all going to slide into the sea anyway... after the earthquakes fracture it into a zillion pieces... and the state goes broke because it can't manage its budget... You should plant in Hoboken, NJ. It's 100% stable, and will be there in 40 years, but so toxic, you don't have to care for the tree, as it'll make no difference anyway.
Nah, we should use theists... there's more of 'em, and they do a lot more damage. It'd be a public service.
Only in Hollywood, after you've destroyed the actual storyline. The fact is, Soylent Green is actually algae. The original, high-quality storyline in this case is from Harry Harrison's "Make Room, Make Room", which was a *superb* SF novel for its time. As compared to "Soylent Green", which was, and remains, an SF movie so bad it makes Dr. Who look inspired.
They're also great at eliminating your frog shit shortfall at the same time they boost your frog urine reserves. Bloody useful creatures, frogs.
Yeah, and congress would have to detach from the bottom and swim upwards quite a ways to encounter pond scum.
Oy. Not this again. Look. Theism consists of dogma, rules for behavior, and often enough, a strong and well solidified political agenda, for instance, as with Islam or the Christians that are constantly attempting to fiddle with the sayings on money, messing with the pledge of allegiance, praying in congress before making laws, seeing to it the rest of us can't buy beer on Sunday, etc. They do these things because they think this is the way to "bring" their religion, and its dogma and rules, to the rest of us. Speaking generally, theism is a belief in a god or gods, and it carries, in a very official and intentional manner, a great deal of imposed behavior and canned rules with it.
Atheism is the lack of such a belief. It embodies no dogma; no rules; no political agenda, no morals, no ethics. Atheism contains no guides in any particular direction as to science, politics, etc. No atheist will burn a scientist because atheism presents an alternate worldview, because atheism doesn't present worldviews at all. If an atheist has a particular worldview about a scientific issue, it is a 100% guarantee that the worldview did not arise from the atheism (although it is possible that the atheism came from the worldview.)
Your line "thanks to its staunch atheism" is completely wrong and misleading. The soviets were a highly corrupt -- meaning, far from core principle -- communist society and the things they did, they did in the name of active dogma, rules and outlooks that came from communism, socialism, and so forth. Not as any kind of consequence of atheism. Think about it: "I don't believe in god, therefore you can't go to a scientific conference"??? "I don't believe in god, therefore we'll build a ground-based laser"??? I mean, really... WTF?
The thing you theists need to get through your heads is that atheism is not the opposite of theism; it does not present or espouse mirror outlooks to theism. The 'a' up front doesn't mean "the devil's minions", it means "without." It is a lack of belief in religion's core idea, the existence of a god or gods. That's all it is. There is no atheistic mirror to religion's constant, dogmatic, intentional interference with society and law. And there is not one single thing in it that tells us what we should do WRT politics or science. When you see an atheist taking action in some area, you can be sure they are basing those actions upon something other than atheism.
"The" sequel? It's a trilogy... :)
I think, especially given the time frame (1966 and forward) that it's some of the best writing of its kind. The writing is a bit dated now, unsurprisingly I suppose, but I think its fair to say that it deserves a place in any serious reader's collection.
Author: D. F. Jones
Book 1: Colussus
Book 2: The Fall of Colossus
Book 3: Colossus and the Crab
Read the books. The movie, as usual, was but a pale imitation.
Ooooh.... ten SF points to you for the D.F. Jones reference.
Judges are people. Therefore, any judge with an Internet connection no longer has any expectation of privacy. Got that, folks?
Indeed. Or, perhaps in the case of Wikipedia, "History is written by the whiners."
Clearly shows two things we already knew; history only tells a very small part of the story; and it represents the view of whoever is doing the writing, rather than any guarantee of the reality.
Just think how poor the quality is for history written long after the fact from indirect evidence. Boggles the mind.
And in that light, I'd like to present: This tee design. :)
Again, you're mired in a definition and it is causing you to fail to face the problem. Wake up and smell the repression. I'm done with you. By all means, have the last word.
Because rackspace is providing Internet service - specifically, a place to put your site - just as critical, and just as integral, as the cable that goes from here to there or the final 25 feet to your DLS modem or whatever.
It does us absolutely no good to have freedom on some portion of the cables, if we don't have freedom on the other things the cables connect to.
What you are missing here in your pedantic "we only care about the cables" mode, is that the Internet is a conceptual thing made of everything from cables, routers, sites, rules both legal and consensual, modems, computers small and large, nameservers, etc.
If we only hold one section of it to a standard of freedom - for instance, routers - we're well and truly screwed. That's what you're trying to do here... only it isn't routers in your case, it's just the intermediate transfer infrastructure.
What I'm telling you is that it is inappropriate and wrong to try to limit the discussion that way. As far as I'm concerned, if you host websites, you should have no more say in what's on them than you do in what's on a customer's mind when they walk into your candy store. That is the state to seek.
So stop banging your head on the table and start thinking. Freedom of the system is the critical issue here. Not which part of the Internet you think the discussion should be limited to.
Yeah, actually, the Internet was created by the US military funding mechanism, as applied to the university system, with the intent of creating a redundant communications medium that would not completely fail in the case of losing large portions of the network. The initial network was paid for by taxes.
After that, it was enhanced by commercial interests, who sold connectivity to people and corporations alike.
Now, if you want to argue that trying to see to it that we had communications post nuclear holocaust by spending our tax money equates to "not for personal monetary gain but for the betterment of society", I might buy it, but that really has zip to do with copyright.
Finally, in the early days, when the Internet really didn't have a lot of attention by rights owners, a lot of obviously illegal activity went by the boards for no more reason than it was, essentially, sub-rosa; then, once that was discovered, when the self-entitlement crowd started screaming about losing their free music, that's when this whole "information wants to be free" meme got started. It's no more than self-serving nonsense, and it has never been more than self-serving nonsense.
And mods, by the way, thanks for the cowardly and self-serving "troll" mod. I always love a good "-1, disagree" from the inarticulate and clueless.
It's pretty obvious to anyone who actually *reads* the Qur'an that it is chock *full* of "hate speech" by any sane definition.
For that matter, so is the old testament. And as Jesus says in the new testament, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
Seems to me that all the ISP has accomplished is siding with one set of haters against another set of haters.
Better to not suppress speech at all. If you sell a platform to speak from (which is a good part of what an ISP does), then the best path is to let the speech flow.
If you suppress what you don't like, you won't know what those people are thinking or doing, which can definitely work against you. You create an underground; this is always true. Look at alcohol and drug prohibition. Complete failures, and not only that, failures that reek of unintended negative consequences.
Unfortunately, companies aren't looking to do the right thing. They're looking to do the profitable thing.
No, you're not confused. Your source just doesn't go far enough. There have been at least four separate meanings for it; oldest to most recent:
...and before that, it meant brightly colored, showy, brilliant. :)
You were a kid in a different place, or with different people, than I was. In the early 1970s, "gay" was already being used to mean homosexual; there was a "gay community", that's how they often referred to themselves. This was in New York City; my sister was gay, and so I was well exposed to the chatter.