Sad as it is, i must concede that perceptions can be torn and masses can be convinced that things are ok.
"A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it..." -- K , Men in Black (Here I am, quoting movies again, i promised myself i'd stop that).
However, my faith in mankind remains, after all, it is a historic trend that we don't allow atrocities to go unchecked... for more than a few hundred years at least...
Excelent article, i think it make a very valid point and without intervention, that is a plausible future for the Internet.
The way I see the argument pro-non-netrality is mainly that the big ISP's don't want to invest large amounts of money into new technologies unless they get a piece of the action (control, basically) over those developments. They see it as a way to get back their investments (and I believe that they would have a decent return without all this, just by gaining subscribers and by the simple fact that the internet is not free to the end user).
So they are asking for control in exchange for innovation, that's not a new concept, not even on the internet. (under different forms but with the same basic concept, networks like Netzero allowed access to the net for free, gaining a bit of control on your computer).
The difference is that we know how the internet is today, and I'm not sure the end user is going to stand for less than that, It's easy to switch a paradigm when you give people something better, suddenly they don't stand for what it was before, if you change it for something less good, people complain, and markets shift, if a given ISP chose to be more neutral than others, there's a chance they'll attract more customers.
Before all the replys come in, I don't like the idea of a non-neutral Internet, we see what happens in China and other countries that block traffic, we look upon them as something dirty and low, ISP's need to realize that they may be looked upon that way if they choose to go too far with their efforts to make extra money.
So he creates and android that looks exactly like him, looks upon his creation and does not realize that he needs a change of style?
I personally would have made myself taller, a little more athletic, and heat vision is a must.
This is a very personal POV.
When I play a Game, I want to be doing something else for a while, like, not working. I play games for the purpose of entertainment, but not to the extreme that the author proposes.
That said, I can easily see how many gamers out there could have a wet dream about a totally submersive game experience, and with the utmost respect I must decline on such a life.
My Life is a considerably full one and I enjoy a lot of it, but I honestly don't want to be in the middle of a meeting and "Level Up".
I guess what I'm trying to say is: It will be a dark day for humankind when the percentage of people living on a real life game overpasses the people just living a real life.
Besides... my favorite games are First Person Shooters, and that's just a bad idea to bring to the real world.
So A phone that sends email... my cable company gives me phone service, my phone company gives me TV and Internet, My Email portal sends sms alerts to my phone, which can take pictures, my digital camera records videos and my video camera takes pictures...
Makes me wonder what does my wife do when I'm not home...
>>Here is the website of the newspaper and pictures of the meteorite in the sky and the impact: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article134 6820.ece
Did anybody else notice the cutie on the bottom of the page?... I'm sorry but i found it "difficult" to concentrate on the pictures of some unsexy meteorite and ended up spending over half an hour looking at the "bilder" posts...
Well, i guess that's what slashdot is all about.
The breakthrough lies in the connection between the variables that allow a tumor to grow and the control that can be put over those variables, a lot of these were never considered before (such as barometric pressure inside the mass, and blood vessel proliferation).
This are easily controllable factors, so instead of treating the tumor by trying to kill the cells via radio or chemical therapy, they attack the factors that (in a mathematical model) determine the growth of the tumor, turning them into negative variables and therefore extinguishing the mass
Space exploration suffers from the lack of investment coming from major industries worldwide.
The times when a whole country like the US started a program to put a man on the moon are long since past, now, it's up to the corporations to take over, but they have nothing to gain from this except for the publicity and the somewhat useless benefits of zero-gravity research (don't get me wrong, i think z-g research is important, but the benefits are seldom).
What would happen if there was a legislation that allowed a company to claim a part of another planet, provided that (1) they can get there first and (2), they actively use it for a purpose (like mining, among many others). Such legislation would surely have to have many different conditions and establish a common ground for all corporations in the world, and i cannot see the entire universe of implications, but i can't stop thinking that this would push space exploration projects and would put us on other planets.
Now, whether we should be destroying other planets aside from "ours", that's an entirely different matter...
Now I'll be able to find the nearest starbucks no matter where I am.
Beats the method of calling my friends every half an hour when i'm on a trip and trying to describe the surrounding cities/streets/lamp posts in hope for some guidance to a hot cup of coffee.
Slashdot Mirror
Sad as it is, i must concede that perceptions can be torn and masses can be convinced that things are ok.
"A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it..." -- K , Men in Black (Here I am, quoting movies again, i promised myself i'd stop that).
However, my faith in mankind remains, after all, it is a historic trend that we don't allow atrocities to go unchecked... for more than a few hundred years at least...
Excelent article, i think it make a very valid point and without intervention, that is a plausible future for the Internet.
The way I see the argument pro-non-netrality is mainly that the big ISP's don't want to invest large amounts of money into new technologies unless they get a piece of the action (control, basically) over those developments. They see it as a way to get back their investments (and I believe that they would have a decent return without all this, just by gaining subscribers and by the simple fact that the internet is not free to the end user).
So they are asking for control in exchange for innovation, that's not a new concept, not even on the internet. (under different forms but with the same basic concept, networks like Netzero allowed access to the net for free, gaining a bit of control on your computer).
The difference is that we know how the internet is today, and I'm not sure the end user is going to stand for less than that, It's easy to switch a paradigm when you give people something better, suddenly they don't stand for what it was before, if you change it for something less good, people complain, and markets shift, if a given ISP chose to be more neutral than others, there's a chance they'll attract more customers.
Before all the replys come in, I don't like the idea of a non-neutral Internet, we see what happens in China and other countries that block traffic, we look upon them as something dirty and low, ISP's need to realize that they may be looked upon that way if they choose to go too far with their efforts to make extra money.
So he creates and android that looks exactly like him, looks upon his creation and does not realize that he needs a change of style?
I personally would have made myself taller, a little more athletic, and heat vision is a must.
This is a very personal POV.
When I play a Game, I want to be doing something else for a while, like, not working. I play games for the purpose of entertainment, but not to the extreme that the author proposes.
That said, I can easily see how many gamers out there could have a wet dream about a totally submersive game experience, and with the utmost respect I must decline on such a life.
My Life is a considerably full one and I enjoy a lot of it, but I honestly don't want to be in the middle of a meeting and "Level Up".
I guess what I'm trying to say is: It will be a dark day for humankind when the percentage of people living on a real life game overpasses the people just living a real life.
Besides... my favorite games are First Person Shooters, and that's just a bad idea to bring to the real world.
So A phone that sends email... my cable company gives me phone service, my phone company gives me TV and Internet, My Email portal sends sms alerts to my phone, which can take pictures, my digital camera records videos and my video camera takes pictures...
Makes me wonder what does my wife do when I'm not home...
>>Here is the website of the newspaper and pictures of the meteorite in the sky and the impact: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article134 6820.ece
Did anybody else notice the cutie on the bottom of the page?... I'm sorry but i found it "difficult" to concentrate on the pictures of some unsexy meteorite and ended up spending over half an hour looking at the "bilder" posts...
Well, i guess that's what slashdot is all about.
The breakthrough lies in the connection between the variables that allow a tumor to grow and the control that can be put over those variables, a lot of these were never considered before (such as barometric pressure inside the mass, and blood vessel proliferation).
This are easily controllable factors, so instead of treating the tumor by trying to kill the cells via radio or chemical therapy, they attack the factors that (in a mathematical model) determine the growth of the tumor, turning them into negative variables and therefore extinguishing the mass
Space exploration suffers from the lack of investment coming from major industries worldwide.
The times when a whole country like the US started a program to put a man on the moon are long since past, now, it's up to the corporations to take over, but they have nothing to gain from this except for the publicity and the somewhat useless benefits of zero-gravity research (don't get me wrong, i think z-g research is important, but the benefits are seldom).
What would happen if there was a legislation that allowed a company to claim a part of another planet, provided that (1) they can get there first and (2), they actively use it for a purpose (like mining, among many others). Such legislation would surely have to have many different conditions and establish a common ground for all corporations in the world, and i cannot see the entire universe of implications, but i can't stop thinking that this would push space exploration projects and would put us on other planets.
Now, whether we should be destroying other planets aside from "ours", that's an entirely different matter...
Now I'll be able to find the nearest starbucks no matter where I am.
Beats the method of calling my friends every half an hour when i'm on a trip and trying to describe the surrounding cities/streets/lamp posts in hope for some guidance to a hot cup of coffee.
--Beware of on the road browsing though