I'm always surprised at the number of people who think that long lived isotopes are more dangerous than short lived ones.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I lack a lot of knowledge on the science of these issues. Generally speaking, the only time I hear Uranium is in association with man-made nuclear projects. Rarely do I hear Uranium in association with micro-nutrients and naturally occurring sea particles. Until this article appeared, I had never read that there was so much of it in the planet's waters than could be mined on land.
With that in mind, the idea that Uranium was slipping into the ocean would be understandably disturbing, even given the size of the planet's water bodies and the relatively small amounts of Uranium. A few months ago when I read that the Japanese government was pumping sea water into the reactors to cool them, I was really worried that the sea water would become heavily irradiated, make it's way back into the waters surrounding Japan, and then back into the food chain reaching the Japanese people themselves. Basically, I thought Japan was in the process of becoming a radioactive set of islands.
If the science doesn't support that, then OK. The problem is getting that information out to the general public in an effective way. I remember articles claiming that California was going to basically become toxic due to radioactive particles coming across the air streams from Japan. I already knew California receives pollution from China, so I was a little concerned. I went to a colleague who explained that there was no problem. The average person can't always do that. Hence the fear of Uranium in the world's water supply.
You're a long way off from being interesting to them. Actions like these are mostly about low hanging fruit. They know the smart and dangerous types are using other channels. This tool will be mostly used to monitor trends, map out where people will gather en mass, and somewhat occasionally track specific individuals. There's just too many people to watch all at once, even with today's technology. You have to do something to pop up on their radar. Until then, your lack of social network visibility will sufficiently mask your presence.
I remember when the Fukushima event was still making headlines people were freaking out because radiation was making it's way to the U.S. I was a little worried myself, but since I work for an air purification company one of the data-crunchers there was able to explain now negligible the impact actually was.
If it's the same for this seawater issue, then no big deal, I guess. Still, I can't help but be a little disturbed at the idea of radioactive particles from a power plant being spread into the ocean. I wonder how nuclear subs handle this sort of thing.
We deal with exactly this type of boss where I work. He often flies into a rage when we update him on progress on the website. He seems to think that everything we do can be done in a few days no matter how complicated or how many times he changes his mind on something. It got to the point where the webmaster/programmer started saying "Show me how. I'm willing to learn." The boss didn't have an answer for that and now the webmaster doesn't get invited to meetings on the website anymore.
Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? The entire point to a technical solution to a social problem is that you can sidestep those persnickety legal issues.
Well, yes, you're right. My overall point was that it probably wasn't a possible thing to do. Once an alternative becomes viable in a mainstream sense, there will be legislation to put it under control.
Assuming a working alternate network was able to run under the radar of the powers that be, it would probably be so small and with such little viable content that it would be little more than a niche medium. Kind of like Gopher today.
How long has it been since you were a student, exactly?
Over ten years. I grant that students now are different than students then, but I think my point still holds. It's really all about content and convenience. Why do research on this alt-net when you have Wikipedia and Google on the regular Internet? Chat rooms? Message boards? Videos? Games? Porn? The regular Internet already has that and more. The only interest I can see from students is as some kind of academic research project.
You can't just make a product and say "Use this product!". It doesn't work that way. You have to think of the convenience of the consumers of that product. You've got to be able to offer something that the user base wants within an acceptable threshold of effort. And that acceptable threshold is defined by whatever other product is out there that fulfills the same need. In this case, the Internet. Which is ubiquitous. That's why I don't think students of today would be attracted to it.
This isn't to say that I don't think it would be an interesting effort. I just don't think the momentum would be sustainable. It would almost have to be made with the idea that it would be dropped for something else.
I don't know about this. Yes, a lot of slashdotters could build a wifi mesh for given area, but they are also the minority in a given area as well. The initial mesh would be primitive. It would get more robust and attractive with growth, but the average Internet user won't want to access it unless it was so easy as to be accidentally done.
What about content? Quality would be up, but amount would be small. The general public won't come in initially because there's nothing there to consume. The tech crowd might find it a haven since the initial content would be tech-centric, but there still wouldn't be a huge amount of movement initially.
SOPA would have jurisdiction no matter what. If it doesn't, laws can get passed that would grant it. A strict rule of etiquette would have to be in place with the idea that all content is public domain, and that copyright-infringing content will be removed on discovery.
If the meshes got big enough, companies would be interested in coming in. A strict rule would have to be in place to reject this. Governments would be interested as well. If a government doesn't get access to something, it can become regulated or outlawed. Given that wifi uses radio signals regulated by the FCC, some regulation is inevitable.
I supposed you could start by getting colleges involved. Students wouldn't be interested because there wouldn't be much content to study off it. This would have to be pitched as some kind of research project. Maybe local community groups could get involved, if they're upset enough about government interference or unfair laws, or something to that effect. There wouldn't be many nodes to start with, and the meshes would not be able to connect to each other without using the regular Internet, putting them directly under SOPA's jurisdiction.
Really, it comes down to what you want out of the Internet. If you want to share content, you can (basically) already do that without worrying about SOPA. If you want to connect to others from far away, you can already do that without SOPA (assuming a reasonably non-restrictive country). If you want an Internet without corporate interference, without government inspection (almost impossible), and complete freedom of sharing and communication no matter what, then yes, you could build this mesh.
Over time, however, it would need to be replaced by something else. Like anything, it would be subject to change and eventually steer away from it's initial vision. It would either get subsumed by the regular Internet or just close down. Maybe it could continue on, but this would take a lot of work over a long period of time. A lot of people have been bringing up this idea for a while, so that may already speak to it's general viability.
So what happens if or when we mine enough Uranium from the Earth? Would the drop in radioactive heat allow the core to cool significantly faster, or is it just a redundant heat source? I'm working on the assumption that, even if we did mine out all the Uranium, the core wouldn't cool down fast enough to matter to anyone with an average human life span, but all the same I'm curious just how much of a cooling impact there would be.
The point being, I spend most of my disposable income on media of various sorts, but that doesn't mean I can afford everything I want - and if I can have it, why not? No one would be getting my money if I didn't 'steal' it, so the only person losing out would be me. The whole argument has been rendered redundant in my case by me not having a huge pile of cash to hand over in the first place. The RIAA/MPAA/whoever can take me to court for however many millions of dollars if they want - they'll get a lower percentage of my income awarded to them than I hand over voluntarily.
From a practical, pragmatic standpoint your argument makes sense. The ultimate issue, however is moral and ethical one. The argument here is that although you can pirate the media, you shouldn't because you don't have a claim to it as agreed upon by yourself and the other party (the RIAA, MPAA, artist or equivalent in this case).
The fact that the RIAA/MPAA/etc engage in abusive tactics is irrelevant in this argument, although many try to make it seem that way. It's essentially "two wrongs don't make a right". The actual idea is that you could pirate, but you shouldn't (or don't) because you have a certain moral or ethical standard about how to behave with regards to society as a whole. Assuming others follow your lead, then you will have culture where it's considered appropriate to deny one's immediate personal desires to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to benefit over the long term. The opposite of this would more or less be to engage in satisfying one's immediate desires regardless of the ultimate effect that this has on society in general. Assuming others follow your lead, then you will have a culture that is not interested in a stable whole so long as one's individual desires are accounted for.
Note that I haven't stated that one way is better or worse than the other. Society goes where it wants, and I think it's useless to apply such values as good or bad. You have to acknowledge the change that's taking place and either figure out how to turn it to your benefit, slow it down, or stop it. It's important to note, however, that this is the real crux of the "pirate/don't pirate" debate. At least, as far as I can tell. From a practical standpoint, there's really no useful argument against piracy. People have surprising moral flexibility, and if you can live with it and get away with it, then you will do it. And, since people (especially on Slashdot) will always find a way to get away with it, the question is, should you be able to live with it? If you believe in the "benefit society" argument, the answer is no, and if you believe in the "benefit myself" argument, the answer is yes. That's all. Any debate beyond that is justification and useless proselytizing. It really comes down to what you think is the most appropriate way to behave as outlined above.
I'm sure there are more nuances to consider here, but I think that's the crux of it.
So, why doesn't someone try following their lead in the music industry?
Probably because it's hard, especially if you're an artist trying to work on the business side of things. Image Comics was explosive when it first came out, but it was founded and controlled by artists with little direct business experience. The company became plagued with missed deadlines. Rob Liefeld, one of the founding members left before the others had a chance to kick him out. Jim Lee has since come under the wing of DC (some years ago. Don't know about now). WildCATS and Savage Dragon had cartoons made out of them, but there wasn't enough creative control and the shows became terrible (WildCATS was out-of-the-box terrible). Whilce Fortacio (sp?) started out strong with Wetworks, but a personal crisis made him drop out and become the forgotten member of the group. Out of all of them Todd MacFarlane was the only one to really expand on what he was doing and build a thriving, multifaceted business.
In terms of the music industry, a poster below mentioned Tune Core and CDBaby. In addition, you can still find music shops that were essentially started up so that the people running them could finance and distribute their own band (in my experience this is more common with the punk stuff. Don't know about other genres). The underlying problem is the wearing of multiple hats. If you're an artist trying to be a businessperson, or a businessperson trying to make art, you're going to run into real conflict. I used to know one of the musicians in the band called PseudoCypher. He and his wife got tired of trying to "make it" in the industry by touring and hoping to get picked up by a company, so the wife went to school to find out about starting up their own label. Did it work? I don't know. Last I heard, they were still touring and waiting to get picked up. It's not easy to balance the needs of both positions, and it gets worse when you have multiple people involved. A bunch of people get together and they all want their say. Coordination becomes tough, and things start to fall apart. It becomes easier to find someone and say "Here. You do this, and I'll work on the other stuff.". Before you know it you're signing contracts and hoping you didn't make a mistake.
I work in a department that uses mostly Macs (the rest of the company using PCs, as would be expected). Since we mostly use Macs, and since our IT people have explicitly stated they don't service Macs, we were a little confused when an email went around saying not to update our systems until IT had a chance to clear it. Obviously it was never meant for my department, but given the breadth of fixes, I'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.
Has anyone had anything break from this update, or has it been smooth sailing?
I know you're joking, but we actually have something close to that. I work for a company that makes room and whole-house air purifiers. The president of our company was so sure of our products that he took one of our room air purifiers and sealed himself in a room filled with tear gas. He had goggles on to protect his eyes, but no gas mask. He basically just kept his nose by the vents of the air purifier and waited until the tear gas had dissipated.
When I first started with the company, I thought people were pulling my leg when they told me about it, but then I finally saw the video. I have to say, that was pretty neat.
I don't know if this is where you got the figure, but the 10,000 hours estimate comes up in the book This Is Your Brain On Music. There's a chapter somewhere in the middle on what it takes to be a great musician. The author states that, as a general average, it takes about 10,000 hours to become an expert at anything. I think he also stressed that this is more or less a ballpark figure. Some people take longer, some fewer.
Could flash-mob news work in real life if mixed with traditional reporting methodologies? That is to say some combination between CNN and/. or Reddit et al? Something that included free phone votes for stories seen on the small screen etc.
Can any news agency decouple from the parent company that now owns it?
These two questions come to the same point, so I combined my responses to them. Basically, the current crop of reporters, news agencies, et al, are already set in their ways. You can't change them, and there's not enough money or time in the world to compete against them. You're definitely on the right track with the flash mob idea, but it needs to be taken a little further.
As you've hit on, the forces controlling news today rely primarily on centralized control. Because of this, they are ill-equipped to deal with a decentralized distribution channel like the Internet. CNN has just proven this. It should also be pointed out that decentralized organizations like Anonymous and Wikipedia have shown that they can operate effectively without a centralized control structure. What is required is a willingness to work together and perseverence. So, just off the top of my head, here's how I think it could work:
Four groups of people: 1) Organizers 2) Journalists 3) Software developers 4)"Contacts" Methods of Distribution: blogs, RSS, mailing lists, message boards, Bittorent, and if necessary Tor or its equivalent.
The Organizers basically make sure that the other groups operate smoothly with each other. Note I didn't write anything about leaders. That would imply a centralizing element. Everything should be very democratic.
Journalists may well have to be college students naive enough to try and "fight the Establishment". Hardened journalists would probably want to see this work before they join in
Software developers are necessary because various forces have been very good about adjusting the signal-to-noise ratio in their favor (RIAA with dummy downloads, spammers with their offers, etc). The Internet is a technology-based medium, so someone needs to work to ensure that people know when they're getting information from an authentic source (probably through https, hash keys, or whatever is necessary).
"Contacts" are people who feed submissions to the journalists. Normal folks who think there's a story to be told and want someone to investigate. This is how the Journalists get information and avoid being blocked by authorities, political maneuvering, and so forth
How it works: Contacts (publicly or anonymously) submit leads through channels developed by the software developers. Journalists get together and decide which are bogus and which are worth looking into (possibly communicating through message boards or IM/IRC to see if anyone can back up the claims made). Once a story is written up, it gets distributed to the blogs, rss, mailing lists, etc. Multiple stories can be zipped and put up on Bittorent. If anonymity is required, something like Tor can be used). Organizers make sure that there is proper communication between all groups so that misinformation or misgivings don't become rampant. Software developers need to make sure security, potential anonymity, and authenticity can be proven. If a story was taken off the newswire, Contacts could be consulted (via messageboards, IM, whatever) to see if the story was a sham or worth reporting.
I don't know how payment would work. Contacts probably wouldn't get paid. They're normal people who want the truth to be told. That's essentially their payment. NPR's system might work. Totally subscriber supported. There could be fund drives, or something similar. The finances would then be distributed among the various agents.
Aside from the Contacts, each group would have to initially start with a core group, with new members being sponsored in based on journalist
It would seem that only money talks these days. The real question is: Is it the advertisers dollars that talk loudest, or the politically generated dollars that talk loudest? Who really are the MSM's dollar dealers?
The advertisers. Television, radio, and magazines are all advertiser-driven media. Way back in the day, one advertiser would fund a whole show, so you'd have "The Coca-Cola Variety Hour", or something like that. As the costs of production increased, sponsors started sharing the costs, leading to the modern commercial.
The only way that I could see to get what you want is to somehow decouple news organizations from this system in such a way that they don't need advertisers or to be part of a larger corporate entity. At the same time, enough income needs to be made to allow their reporters to make a decent living. Even then, you'd have to deal with the fact that such organizations would probably not have the same access to information as everyone else, as they wouldn't feel the need to respond to those who want to quash or spin a story.
Re:Time distortion is a hypnotic phenomena
on
Can Time Slow Down?
·
· Score: 1
Any good book on hypnotic phenomena should cover time distortion too...
Actually, there's a book at books.google.com that discusses this very subject. Here's the link. It can be bought through the usual venues, but Google's version is a nice way to preview before you buy.
Not particularly. It's another country with its own standards of how to deal with a given situation. And I can believe that some, many, or most of the population would follow Putin's ideas wherever it takes them. That stated, however, if everyone agreed with Putin there would not be critical reporters or aspiring political opponents. Further, as I mentioned, I've known people who have traveled to Russia over an extended period of time, who note feelings among the population that run counter to Putin's ideas. Putin, however, is running fairly unchecked throughout political circles, so it was a natural question to ask what happened to those who philosophically or politically oppose the man. Or, failing that, at least disagree with him.
Putin could fast-fry his people and eat them, for all I care. The fact remains, though, that any action he appears to take or be a part of is going to cause scrutiny outside Russia's borders. This happens for politicians in general as well. People are curious about what the leaders of the world are doing.
Well, in defense of America, no one has really had to face the government Soviet Russia had. I've heard people say that President Bush has turned America into a totalitarian fiefdom, but that's nowhere near the truth compared to other places in existence today.
Here's the thing I'm concerned about:
About three years ago, I was talking to a real estate agent. He did a lot of traveling to Russia, and really liked going there. That is to say, he liked living in America, but he had an interest in Russian culture, art, etc. He didn't want to live there.
In his view, there were two ideologies at work in Russia. The first was the ideology that going back to the Soviet days was a good idea. Putin is an example of this. Safety, stability, control. That's what he wants. The other ideology was that the Soviet days were the worst in Russian history and that everything possible should be done to prevent going back to them.
So if that's true, where is the counter force to Putin? I don't mean dissident reporters or presidential hopefuls. There must be someone (or a group of people) of political influence somewhere who can stand or slow him down. Has Putin really been so effective at removing these people or cowing them to his will? And where is the "man on the street" on this? Does the average citizen just go with it, or are there growing rumblings of civil unrest?
I hadn't, so I looked it up. The Wikipedia article is here. It's an unfortunate story. It makes me recall an NPR segment where a reporter was mentioning that the journalistic freedoms and protections we have in the larger, more powerful countries don't exist in elsewhere. Because of this, journalists have a reasonable expectation of protection from harm, but elsewhere there is no real journalism because everyone gets killed. It's too bad Russia is going down that route.
If it was culturally encouraged they might. Service people and street performers get tips even when it's not legally required, after all. If society develops around the free exchange of the arts, it may simply be the done thing to pay for what you like.
That would be nice. The problem is the sentence "If it was culturally encouraged they might." What seems currently culturally encouraged, however, is the "gimme, gimme" mentality.
Case in point: I was with a group of friends the other night when I made some mention of a song I wanted to buy from the iTunes store. One of my friends looks at me and says "You actually pay for music?". I said "Sure", whereupon he shook his head and said "Man, I don't know you!". Now, he does go to concerts, so I suppose you could say that ticket purchase is a way of giving back, but essentially what's currently culturally encouraged is the idea of "because I can, why not?".
What's more, in the music industry, this mindset seems to have been prevalent for a while. I saw the movie Festival Express a few nights ago, which basically recounted the story of a train carrying the big acts of the '70s across Canada. The problem was, whenever they stopped to play a concert, they encountered people who thought concerts should be free, and would show up without money to pay entry fees. The whole project eventually shut down due to lack of funds.
I think the main issue is that everything seems geared towards an acquisition mentality. Emphasis is placed on how much you pay for what you get, and cheaper is better. So, if people have the option of getting something without compensating for it, they'll generally head in that direction. I'm not sure how a change in attitude could be developed. I suspect it would take a long time and more or less have to develop on its own. (Of course, I'm no sociologist, so I could be totally off here.)
You reminded me of an interesting theory I read some years ago. The idea goes that the aliens wanted to make contact, but knew they had to operate in a non-threatening manner. So, instead of coming down and saying "we come in peace" (or whatever), they put some dead bodies (maybe cloned or what-have-you) into a ship and deliberately crash it on Earth. Humans then come along, take the remains of the bodies and the ship, and study them.
Knowing the humans are now aware of extraterrestrial life, and knowing they will eventually learn to use whatever technology they've salvaged, the aliens wait until mankind reaches a point where contact can be made safely and with predictable results.
Of course, this depends on understanding human psychology. And economics. I don't think trashing a spaceship would be cheap. And what does it say about a race that throws expired members of its own species at other civilizations?
Doesn't seem like much of a mismatch to me - it's not like the original series was known for it's great storytelling.
Well, yes, you're right it didn't win any awards, but the truth is that the writing was better than you think. I remember an episode where an Autobot found a forested area surrounding a lake with some kind of gold material in it. The Autobot was only interested in learning about the flora and fauna, but the Decepticons learned the material in the lake acted as some kind of super armor against weaponry. Soon the Autobots and Decepticons were fighting each other for control of the lake. At the end of the story, the first Autobot is just sitting there, looking despondent. The camera zooms out and we see the entire place has been destroyed.
First of all, that was a pretty sophisticated morality tale for a cartoon show. I don't think that kind of writing shows up any more on non-cable TV channels (for cartoons, anyway). And the fact that I still remember that episode after all these years can only mean that it was a well-written story. The only stories people tend to remember are the really good ones or the hilariously bad ones.
I used to be a huge Transformers fan (the original series before the movie, and the movie. I wasn't too into everything that came after). It's sort of left me split on how to feel about this movie. On the one hand, it's clearly got action, great visuals, and I like that they're keeping that sound the Transformers make when they change form (it's a small point, I know).
On the other hand, this is a Michael Bay film. I heard he got his start as a director of music videos, so that might serve him well in a film like this. The problem is he goes for big explosions and fancy camera shots over good storytelling. And the purist in me kinda wishes they stayed with the original designs.
That said, it's pretty much a given that I'm going to go see it.
I have to agree with this. I remember playing with Logo in elementary school. It was fun to make the turtle move around, but I don't ever recall getting an understanding of the programming process. Later on in jr. high I was in a class where we actually had to do some kind of programming project. Students were grouped into threes and had to come up with some kind of program by the end of class. I don't really remember learning any programming concepts at that time either, but at least there was some critical thinking involved.
I'd have to do some digging through the Slashdot archives, but I remember something similar mentioned a year or two ago. The story at the time was that artificial blood was being created with the idea of replacing blood in a patient undergoing emergency surgery. The real blood would be stored while the fake blood would provide oxygen and nutrients to keep the patient alive while being operated upon. Once everything is finished, the real blood is re-introduced to the body. I don't know how injuries causing grievous blood loss would be handled, though.
If they're good, that's one thing - but Terminator without Cameron is like, say... The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen without Allen Moore. Or Watchmen if it were written by Rob Liefeld.
Are you kidding? Having Watchmen re-made by Rob Liefeld would be AWESOME!
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for anyone else, but I lack a lot of knowledge on the science of these issues. Generally speaking, the only time I hear Uranium is in association with man-made nuclear projects. Rarely do I hear Uranium in association with micro-nutrients and naturally occurring sea particles. Until this article appeared, I had never read that there was so much of it in the planet's waters than could be mined on land.
With that in mind, the idea that Uranium was slipping into the ocean would be understandably disturbing, even given the size of the planet's water bodies and the relatively small amounts of Uranium. A few months ago when I read that the Japanese government was pumping sea water into the reactors to cool them, I was really worried that the sea water would become heavily irradiated, make it's way back into the waters surrounding Japan, and then back into the food chain reaching the Japanese people themselves. Basically, I thought Japan was in the process of becoming a radioactive set of islands.
If the science doesn't support that, then OK. The problem is getting that information out to the general public in an effective way. I remember articles claiming that California was going to basically become toxic due to radioactive particles coming across the air streams from Japan. I already knew California receives pollution from China, so I was a little concerned. I went to a colleague who explained that there was no problem. The average person can't always do that. Hence the fear of Uranium in the world's water supply.
You're a long way off from being interesting to them. Actions like these are mostly about low hanging fruit. They know the smart and dangerous types are using other channels. This tool will be mostly used to monitor trends, map out where people will gather en mass, and somewhat occasionally track specific individuals. There's just too many people to watch all at once, even with today's technology. You have to do something to pop up on their radar. Until then, your lack of social network visibility will sufficiently mask your presence.
Well, I hope so, anyway.
I remember when the Fukushima event was still making headlines people were freaking out because radiation was making it's way to the U.S. I was a little worried myself, but since I work for an air purification company one of the data-crunchers there was able to explain now negligible the impact actually was.
If it's the same for this seawater issue, then no big deal, I guess. Still, I can't help but be a little disturbed at the idea of radioactive particles from a power plant being spread into the ocean. I wonder how nuclear subs handle this sort of thing.
We deal with exactly this type of boss where I work. He often flies into a rage when we update him on progress on the website. He seems to think that everything we do can be done in a few days no matter how complicated or how many times he changes his mind on something. It got to the point where the webmaster/programmer started saying "Show me how. I'm willing to learn." The boss didn't have an answer for that and now the webmaster doesn't get invited to meetings on the website anymore.
Well, yes, you're right. My overall point was that it probably wasn't a possible thing to do. Once an alternative becomes viable in a mainstream sense, there will be legislation to put it under control.
Assuming a working alternate network was able to run under the radar of the powers that be, it would probably be so small and with such little viable content that it would be little more than a niche medium. Kind of like Gopher today.
Over ten years. I grant that students now are different than students then, but I think my point still holds. It's really all about content and convenience. Why do research on this alt-net when you have Wikipedia and Google on the regular Internet? Chat rooms? Message boards? Videos? Games? Porn? The regular Internet already has that and more. The only interest I can see from students is as some kind of academic research project.
You can't just make a product and say "Use this product!". It doesn't work that way. You have to think of the convenience of the consumers of that product. You've got to be able to offer something that the user base wants within an acceptable threshold of effort. And that acceptable threshold is defined by whatever other product is out there that fulfills the same need. In this case, the Internet. Which is ubiquitous. That's why I don't think students of today would be attracted to it.
This isn't to say that I don't think it would be an interesting effort. I just don't think the momentum would be sustainable. It would almost have to be made with the idea that it would be dropped for something else.
I don't know about this. Yes, a lot of slashdotters could build a wifi mesh for given area, but they are also the minority in a given area as well. The initial mesh would be primitive. It would get more robust and attractive with growth, but the average Internet user won't want to access it unless it was so easy as to be accidentally done.
What about content? Quality would be up, but amount would be small. The general public won't come in initially because there's nothing there to consume. The tech crowd might find it a haven since the initial content would be tech-centric, but there still wouldn't be a huge amount of movement initially.
SOPA would have jurisdiction no matter what. If it doesn't, laws can get passed that would grant it. A strict rule of etiquette would have to be in place with the idea that all content is public domain, and that copyright-infringing content will be removed on discovery.
If the meshes got big enough, companies would be interested in coming in. A strict rule would have to be in place to reject this. Governments would be interested as well. If a government doesn't get access to something, it can become regulated or outlawed. Given that wifi uses radio signals regulated by the FCC, some regulation is inevitable.
I supposed you could start by getting colleges involved. Students wouldn't be interested because there wouldn't be much content to study off it. This would have to be pitched as some kind of research project. Maybe local community groups could get involved, if they're upset enough about government interference or unfair laws, or something to that effect. There wouldn't be many nodes to start with, and the meshes would not be able to connect to each other without using the regular Internet, putting them directly under SOPA's jurisdiction.
Really, it comes down to what you want out of the Internet. If you want to share content, you can (basically) already do that without worrying about SOPA. If you want to connect to others from far away, you can already do that without SOPA (assuming a reasonably non-restrictive country). If you want an Internet without corporate interference, without government inspection (almost impossible), and complete freedom of sharing and communication no matter what, then yes, you could build this mesh.
Over time, however, it would need to be replaced by something else. Like anything, it would be subject to change and eventually steer away from it's initial vision. It would either get subsumed by the regular Internet or just close down. Maybe it could continue on, but this would take a lot of work over a long period of time. A lot of people have been bringing up this idea for a while, so that may already speak to it's general viability.
So what happens if or when we mine enough Uranium from the Earth? Would the drop in radioactive heat allow the core to cool significantly faster, or is it just a redundant heat source? I'm working on the assumption that, even if we did mine out all the Uranium, the core wouldn't cool down fast enough to matter to anyone with an average human life span, but all the same I'm curious just how much of a cooling impact there would be.
The point being, I spend most of my disposable income on media of various sorts, but that doesn't mean I can afford everything I want - and if I can have it, why not? No one would be getting my money if I didn't 'steal' it, so the only person losing out would be me. The whole argument has been rendered redundant in my case by me not having a huge pile of cash to hand over in the first place. The RIAA/MPAA/whoever can take me to court for however many millions of dollars if they want - they'll get a lower percentage of my income awarded to them than I hand over voluntarily.
From a practical, pragmatic standpoint your argument makes sense. The ultimate issue, however is moral and ethical one. The argument here is that although you can pirate the media, you shouldn't because you don't have a claim to it as agreed upon by yourself and the other party (the RIAA, MPAA, artist or equivalent in this case).
The fact that the RIAA/MPAA/etc engage in abusive tactics is irrelevant in this argument, although many try to make it seem that way. It's essentially "two wrongs don't make a right". The actual idea is that you could pirate, but you shouldn't (or don't) because you have a certain moral or ethical standard about how to behave with regards to society as a whole. Assuming others follow your lead, then you will have culture where it's considered appropriate to deny one's immediate personal desires to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to benefit over the long term. The opposite of this would more or less be to engage in satisfying one's immediate desires regardless of the ultimate effect that this has on society in general. Assuming others follow your lead, then you will have a culture that is not interested in a stable whole so long as one's individual desires are accounted for.
Note that I haven't stated that one way is better or worse than the other. Society goes where it wants, and I think it's useless to apply such values as good or bad. You have to acknowledge the change that's taking place and either figure out how to turn it to your benefit, slow it down, or stop it. It's important to note, however, that this is the real crux of the "pirate/don't pirate" debate. At least, as far as I can tell. From a practical standpoint, there's really no useful argument against piracy. People have surprising moral flexibility, and if you can live with it and get away with it, then you will do it. And, since people (especially on Slashdot) will always find a way to get away with it, the question is, should you be able to live with it? If you believe in the "benefit society" argument, the answer is no, and if you believe in the "benefit myself" argument, the answer is yes. That's all. Any debate beyond that is justification and useless proselytizing. It really comes down to what you think is the most appropriate way to behave as outlined above.
I'm sure there are more nuances to consider here, but I think that's the crux of it.
So, why doesn't someone try following their lead in the music industry?
Probably because it's hard, especially if you're an artist trying to work on the business side of things. Image Comics was explosive when it first came out, but it was founded and controlled by artists with little direct business experience. The company became plagued with missed deadlines. Rob Liefeld, one of the founding members left before the others had a chance to kick him out. Jim Lee has since come under the wing of DC (some years ago. Don't know about now). WildCATS and Savage Dragon had cartoons made out of them, but there wasn't enough creative control and the shows became terrible (WildCATS was out-of-the-box terrible). Whilce Fortacio (sp?) started out strong with Wetworks, but a personal crisis made him drop out and become the forgotten member of the group. Out of all of them Todd MacFarlane was the only one to really expand on what he was doing and build a thriving, multifaceted business.
In terms of the music industry, a poster below mentioned Tune Core and CDBaby. In addition, you can still find music shops that were essentially started up so that the people running them could finance and distribute their own band (in my experience this is more common with the punk stuff. Don't know about other genres). The underlying problem is the wearing of multiple hats. If you're an artist trying to be a businessperson, or a businessperson trying to make art, you're going to run into real conflict. I used to know one of the musicians in the band called PseudoCypher. He and his wife got tired of trying to "make it" in the industry by touring and hoping to get picked up by a company, so the wife went to school to find out about starting up their own label. Did it work? I don't know. Last I heard, they were still touring and waiting to get picked up. It's not easy to balance the needs of both positions, and it gets worse when you have multiple people involved. A bunch of people get together and they all want their say. Coordination becomes tough, and things start to fall apart. It becomes easier to find someone and say "Here. You do this, and I'll work on the other stuff.". Before you know it you're signing contracts and hoping you didn't make a mistake.
I work in a department that uses mostly Macs (the rest of the company using PCs, as would be expected). Since we mostly use Macs, and since our IT people have explicitly stated they don't service Macs, we were a little confused when an email went around saying not to update our systems until IT had a chance to clear it. Obviously it was never meant for my department, but given the breadth of fixes, I'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.
Has anyone had anything break from this update, or has it been smooth sailing?
I know you're joking, but we actually have something close to that. I work for a company that makes room and whole-house air purifiers. The president of our company was so sure of our products that he took one of our room air purifiers and sealed himself in a room filled with tear gas. He had goggles on to protect his eyes, but no gas mask. He basically just kept his nose by the vents of the air purifier and waited until the tear gas had dissipated.
When I first started with the company, I thought people were pulling my leg when they told me about it, but then I finally saw the video. I have to say, that was pretty neat.
I don't know if this is where you got the figure, but the 10,000 hours estimate comes up in the book This Is Your Brain On Music. There's a chapter somewhere in the middle on what it takes to be a great musician. The author states that, as a general average, it takes about 10,000 hours to become an expert at anything. I think he also stressed that this is more or less a ballpark figure. Some people take longer, some fewer.
Could flash-mob news work in real life if mixed with traditional reporting methodologies? That is to say some combination between CNN and /. or Reddit et al? Something that included free phone votes for stories seen on the small screen etc.
Can any news agency decouple from the parent company that now owns it?
These two questions come to the same point, so I combined my responses to them. Basically, the current crop of reporters, news agencies, et al, are already set in their ways. You can't change them, and there's not enough money or time in the world to compete against them. You're definitely on the right track with the flash mob idea, but it needs to be taken a little further.
As you've hit on, the forces controlling news today rely primarily on centralized control. Because of this, they are ill-equipped to deal with a decentralized distribution channel like the Internet. CNN has just proven this. It should also be pointed out that decentralized organizations like Anonymous and Wikipedia have shown that they can operate effectively without a centralized control structure. What is required is a willingness to work together and perseverence. So, just off the top of my head, here's how I think it could work:
Four groups of people: 1) Organizers 2) Journalists 3) Software developers 4)"Contacts"
Methods of Distribution: blogs, RSS, mailing lists, message boards, Bittorent, and if necessary Tor or its equivalent.
How it works: Contacts (publicly or anonymously) submit leads through channels developed by the software developers. Journalists get together and decide which are bogus and which are worth looking into (possibly communicating through message boards or IM/IRC to see if anyone can back up the claims made). Once a story is written up, it gets distributed to the blogs, rss, mailing lists, etc. Multiple stories can be zipped and put up on Bittorent. If anonymity is required, something like Tor can be used). Organizers make sure that there is proper communication between all groups so that misinformation or misgivings don't become rampant. Software developers need to make sure security, potential anonymity, and authenticity can be proven. If a story was taken off the newswire, Contacts could be consulted (via messageboards, IM, whatever) to see if the story was a sham or worth reporting.
I don't know how payment would work. Contacts probably wouldn't get paid. They're normal people who want the truth to be told. That's essentially their payment. NPR's system might work. Totally subscriber supported. There could be fund drives, or something similar. The finances would then be distributed among the various agents.
Aside from the Contacts, each group would have to initially start with a core group, with new members being sponsored in based on journalist
The advertisers. Television, radio, and magazines are all advertiser-driven media. Way back in the day, one advertiser would fund a whole show, so you'd have "The Coca-Cola Variety Hour", or something like that. As the costs of production increased, sponsors started sharing the costs, leading to the modern commercial.
The only way that I could see to get what you want is to somehow decouple news organizations from this system in such a way that they don't need advertisers or to be part of a larger corporate entity. At the same time, enough income needs to be made to allow their reporters to make a decent living. Even then, you'd have to deal with the fact that such organizations would probably not have the same access to information as everyone else, as they wouldn't feel the need to respond to those who want to quash or spin a story.
Any good book on hypnotic phenomena should cover time distortion too...
Actually, there's a book at books.google.com that discusses this very subject. Here's the link. It can be bought through the usual venues, but Google's version is a nice way to preview before you buy.
That really bothers you a lot, doesn't it?
Not particularly. It's another country with its own standards of how to deal with a given situation. And I can believe that some, many, or most of the population would follow Putin's ideas wherever it takes them. That stated, however, if everyone agreed with Putin there would not be critical reporters or aspiring political opponents. Further, as I mentioned, I've known people who have traveled to Russia over an extended period of time, who note feelings among the population that run counter to Putin's ideas. Putin, however, is running fairly unchecked throughout political circles, so it was a natural question to ask what happened to those who philosophically or politically oppose the man. Or, failing that, at least disagree with him.
Putin could fast-fry his people and eat them, for all I care. The fact remains, though, that any action he appears to take or be a part of is going to cause scrutiny outside Russia's borders. This happens for politicians in general as well. People are curious about what the leaders of the world are doing.
Well, in defense of America, no one has really had to face the government Soviet Russia had. I've heard people say that President Bush has turned America into a totalitarian fiefdom, but that's nowhere near the truth compared to other places in existence today.
Here's the thing I'm concerned about:
About three years ago, I was talking to a real estate agent. He did a lot of traveling to Russia, and really liked going there. That is to say, he liked living in America, but he had an interest in Russian culture, art, etc. He didn't want to live there.
In his view, there were two ideologies at work in Russia. The first was the ideology that going back to the Soviet days was a good idea. Putin is an example of this. Safety, stability, control. That's what he wants. The other ideology was that the Soviet days were the worst in Russian history and that everything possible should be done to prevent going back to them.
So if that's true, where is the counter force to Putin? I don't mean dissident reporters or presidential hopefuls. There must be someone (or a group of people) of political influence somewhere who can stand or slow him down. Has Putin really been so effective at removing these people or cowing them to his will? And where is the "man on the street" on this? Does the average citizen just go with it, or are there growing rumblings of civil unrest?
Ever heard of Anna Politkovskaya?
I hadn't, so I looked it up. The Wikipedia article is here. It's an unfortunate story. It makes me recall an NPR segment where a reporter was mentioning that the journalistic freedoms and protections we have in the larger, more powerful countries don't exist in elsewhere. Because of this, journalists have a reasonable expectation of protection from harm, but elsewhere there is no real journalism because everyone gets killed. It's too bad Russia is going down that route.
That would be nice. The problem is the sentence "If it was culturally encouraged they might." What seems currently culturally encouraged, however, is the "gimme, gimme" mentality.
Case in point: I was with a group of friends the other night when I made some mention of a song I wanted to buy from the iTunes store. One of my friends looks at me and says "You actually pay for music?". I said "Sure", whereupon he shook his head and said "Man, I don't know you!". Now, he does go to concerts, so I suppose you could say that ticket purchase is a way of giving back, but essentially what's currently culturally encouraged is the idea of "because I can, why not?".
What's more, in the music industry, this mindset seems to have been prevalent for a while. I saw the movie Festival Express a few nights ago, which basically recounted the story of a train carrying the big acts of the '70s across Canada. The problem was, whenever they stopped to play a concert, they encountered people who thought concerts should be free, and would show up without money to pay entry fees. The whole project eventually shut down due to lack of funds.
I think the main issue is that everything seems geared towards an acquisition mentality. Emphasis is placed on how much you pay for what you get, and cheaper is better. So, if people have the option of getting something without compensating for it, they'll generally head in that direction. I'm not sure how a change in attitude could be developed. I suspect it would take a long time and more or less have to develop on its own. (Of course, I'm no sociologist, so I could be totally off here.)
You reminded me of an interesting theory I read some years ago. The idea goes that the aliens wanted to make contact, but knew they had to operate in a non-threatening manner. So, instead of coming down and saying "we come in peace" (or whatever), they put some dead bodies (maybe cloned or what-have-you) into a ship and deliberately crash it on Earth. Humans then come along, take the remains of the bodies and the ship, and study them.
Knowing the humans are now aware of extraterrestrial life, and knowing they will eventually learn to use whatever technology they've salvaged, the aliens wait until mankind reaches a point where contact can be made safely and with predictable results.
Of course, this depends on understanding human psychology. And economics. I don't think trashing a spaceship would be cheap. And what does it say about a race that throws expired members of its own species at other civilizations?
Well...at least we get a tourist trap out of it.
Doesn't seem like much of a mismatch to me - it's not like the original series was known for it's great storytelling.
Well, yes, you're right it didn't win any awards, but the truth is that the writing was better than you think. I remember an episode where an Autobot found a forested area surrounding a lake with some kind of gold material in it. The Autobot was only interested in learning about the flora and fauna, but the Decepticons learned the material in the lake acted as some kind of super armor against weaponry. Soon the Autobots and Decepticons were fighting each other for control of the lake. At the end of the story, the first Autobot is just sitting there, looking despondent. The camera zooms out and we see the entire place has been destroyed.
First of all, that was a pretty sophisticated morality tale for a cartoon show. I don't think that kind of writing shows up any more on non-cable TV channels (for cartoons, anyway). And the fact that I still remember that episode after all these years can only mean that it was a well-written story. The only stories people tend to remember are the really good ones or the hilariously bad ones.
I used to be a huge Transformers fan (the original series before the movie, and the movie. I wasn't too into everything that came after). It's sort of left me split on how to feel about this movie. On the one hand, it's clearly got action, great visuals, and I like that they're keeping that sound the Transformers make when they change form (it's a small point, I know).
On the other hand, this is a Michael Bay film. I heard he got his start as a director of music videos, so that might serve him well in a film like this. The problem is he goes for big explosions and fancy camera shots over good storytelling. And the purist in me kinda wishes they stayed with the original designs.
That said, it's pretty much a given that I'm going to go see it.
I have to agree with this. I remember playing with Logo in elementary school. It was fun to make the turtle move around, but I don't ever recall getting an understanding of the programming process. Later on in jr. high I was in a class where we actually had to do some kind of programming project. Students were grouped into threes and had to come up with some kind of program by the end of class. I don't really remember learning any programming concepts at that time either, but at least there was some critical thinking involved.
I'd have to do some digging through the Slashdot archives, but I remember something similar mentioned a year or two ago. The story at the time was that artificial blood was being created with the idea of replacing blood in a patient undergoing emergency surgery. The real blood would be stored while the fake blood would provide oxygen and nutrients to keep the patient alive while being operated upon. Once everything is finished, the real blood is re-introduced to the body. I don't know how injuries causing grievous blood loss would be handled, though.
If they're good, that's one thing - but Terminator without Cameron is like, say... The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen without Allen Moore. Or Watchmen if it were written by Rob Liefeld.
Are you kidding? Having Watchmen re-made by Rob Liefeld would be AWESOME!
No, no, I'm just kidding. Please don't kill me.