It makes nothing but sense from a monetary perspective (read: GREED) to sell "faster" bandwidth at a premium. It seems rather innocent and easy to understand. But then we come around to the realization that such practices will DEFINATELY limit small business, and in the end we'll end up with a very few, LARGE companies dominating everything, rather than vast amounts of small companies competing to offer better services to the customers.
The end result is that a small group of people get nearly limitless power, money, control and the rest of the world gets poorer service, fewer choices, and a homogenized internet that is skewed to the perspectives and agendas of the group in power.
We're seeing the same thing in the real world as McDonald's pop up on every corner in every country on every continent. Unless the people of the world unite against this rampant corporatism we'll be nothing but drones in their growing hives within a few generations.
Imagine a world where you're born in Sonyland, raised in Sony schools in order to get yourself a Sony apartment & Sony Job, so that you can purchase your Sony products at the Sony Store.
(anybody ever played Shadowrun? Read a William Gibson novel? Didja think that stuff was just for fun?) -The Reverend
Art is about art, not money. Ask the great painters and composers and sculptors who died poor and alone.
So unless an artist is willing to suffer a completely miserable and lonely existance, his art has no merit? I suppose Pablo Picasso wasn't an incredibly talented artist? The Beatles didn't contribute anything worthwhile to culture?
I am an artist and a musician. I spend MY MONEY to pay for the website that I use to advertise my band. I don't earn money, I don't allow others to advertise on my site with banner ads or affiliate programs or anything. I'm supporting all this stuff by going to a job I dislike and working all day for a company that will never acknowledge my contribution, or care about what happens to me.
I have to spend my free time (the time other people spend chasing women, or playing sports, or drinking beer) pursuing my art, which is the only really important thing IN my life. I would much prefer it if I could get to the point where my art was able to support me.
As far as my personal beliefs are concerned, I think that people trading my mp3s around is a good thing. If I could get a million people to download my mp3s for free, I could probably get 50,000 - 100,000 to make a purchase... and I could sustain myself quite well off of such a fanbase. So I don't necessarily agree with Metallica's stance or their tactics, but I really hate to hear that artists OWE the world their art, and that if they don't feel like doing it for free, they ought to just quit. We don't expect doctors to cure us for free out of their love for healing. We don't expect movie actors to work day jobs and act only in their spare time (and if we did, the quality of their medical care & their movies would be negatively impacted)
Let's face it. The WHOLE WORLD would be better off if there was no such thing as money, no such thing as power, no such thing as a rich or a poor man. If everybody worked for free and everyone recieved the same benefits and treatment, the world would be a wonderful place.
But as long as our world ISN'T that beautiful dream, as long as people are required to work and earn and contribute just to get by.... why SHOULDN'T artists be compensated just like anyone else? I don't think that anyone would argue that a world without music or art or literature or movies would be a very dull place to live. Why do you expect artists to fulfill your preconcieved notions (poor, lonely, crazy)? Isn't it enough that they enrich your lives and give you choices as to what you can see and hear and feel? Isn't it fair that they be allowed to earn a living if they are capable of doing it? Should they be punished because their "wares" are easy to steal?
No matter how much we argue about it though, a computer program is not a living creature. I can make it simulate one pretty well. I can make it behaive like one, but in the end, it is just a set of algorithms, producing a set of output, the same as a video game or a text filter!
In that case, are humans alive? We act according to our pre-programmed instructions (aka instincts) and we process these directives through our RAM (our memory of previous experiences) to determine the most likely/profitable course. We believe we are thinking, therefore we are. Likewise, if a machine can be made to be self-conscious (aware of noticing that it is "thinking" -- even if it was programmed to have this awareness) it will be alive. Life is not the domain of biped primates.
Perhaps the citizens of the US should start giving some thoughts as to whether their own political and judical systems are still up to standards that allow them to preach to the entire world how things ought to be done...
By and large, the ones doing the preaching are the ones who are CAUSING the problems within the US in the first place. I can assure you that not all americans are corporate wageslave clones. Most, perhaps, but not all.
It's basically the same story we've had for most of civilization's history: small portions of the population making decisions that affect (in a mostly negative way) the lives & environment of the majority. We used to have Kings & their courts of ministers, admirers & hangers on. Now we have multinational CEOs and boardrooms. In the end, the people working in the factories are little better than well kept slaves.
Think about this: We buy a house that is ridiculously overpriced. (Ever look at the price of lumber compared to the price of the finished house?) We spend 30-40 years (all of our "useful" years) struggling to maintain the home and pay the bank (and pay taxes on the property that the bank owns!!!) until we retire -- tired, stressed out and useless -- to live on a fixed income until we either die or lose our sanity.
We buy cars which do little more than get us to work and back, and they constantly break down. (Can anyone tell me why mufflers aren't made out of rust-proof metals?) The average new car is upwards of $10,000, and you better expect to pay at least $15,000 if you want a/c. And just think, in only 5-6 years - that large chunk of money will be rusting in a junk yard somewhere. And let's not forget the mandatory insurance payments.
We're APES, people! We were designed to hang out in trees eating fruit and playing. Not for sitting in cubicles for 8-9 hours at a stretch, staring at screens and processing data.
For every one person who achieves the "American Dream" there are thousands who struggle through their entire lives just to survive. That's not much of a return on the investment. (Did you know that Bill Gates -- alone -- earns more than the lowest 40% of Americans COMBINED?)
No I think that this kind of thing is both dangerous and immoral. God has created a world which we perceive through our own five senses, and for us to tamper with our perception of reality in this way can only lead to a disaster for the human race. Remember, how can you trust the system supplying you with information
Jesus turned ordinary water into the "best vintage of wine" as his FIRST miracle. He didn't apparently share your feeling about tampering with god-given perceptions. Do you allow doctors to use their "strange technology" to cure you when you're ill? How can you be sure that God DOESN'T want you to die from pnuemonia?
That being said, I agree with you about not trusting information sources. In an "open sourced" world it will be much harder for any individual or government to get their views over on anyone willing to LOOK FOR THEMSELVES. Those who choose to bury their heads in the sand do it already without the need of a portable, thought-activated "wetware" computer. They do just fine with their tv at home.
please forgive me for not having read every single comment of every single story ever posted on slashdot. I'll try harder to live up to your standards in the future. (asshole)
Then this anonymous guy said: no, cocksucker, you seem to misunderstand. there was an entire article about this. you truly are a redundant piece of shit.
To which I reply:
Jeez, man. Try to understand the context within which something is being said, and then try to relate that context with the MEANING behind it... perhaps I should've illustrated my point in big blinking red letters so that you could understand:
POINT: There are many, many articles posted on/. that I haven't read.
POINT: I don't research or spend time looking through archived articles to make sure that a point I'm about to make hasn't already been made by someone, somewhere else, at some other time. That would be a waste of my time. (As if appealing to your ability to reason wasn't.)
POINT: Even if someone HAD posted this story before, there is a chance (a very good chance, I would say, since I myself missed the first posting) that others might not have read it, and that they might find the information relevant to the current discussion, perhaps even USEFUL.
POINT: You're not an asshole because you clued me in to the fact that it had been posted before. You're an asshole for assuming that I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. Some of us do other things with our time besides troll anonymously for first posts on slashdot.
I will not waste any more of my time or anyone else's by replying to any further responses from anonymous cowards on this subject. -The Reverend
please forgive me for not having read every single comment of every single story ever posted on slashdot. I'll try harder to live up to your standards in the future. (asshole)
Here is a link to another story describing how Chuck D (PUBLIC ENEMY) has taken the side of Napster in this whole debacle. You may also remember that PE dumped their record label a few years ago and was one of the first (if not THE first) major recording artist to release an album using ONLY electronic distribution.
Nice to see Chuck is still FIGHTING THE POWERS THAT BE!
you know, the first time i read this post, i went back and forth with myself.. I even thought that on a certain level, it was a pretty damned amusing little piece of flamebait. But at this point (where i've seen it in 3 different threads, multiple times) i'm just plain annoyed. Goddamn boy, you had a good thing going, and you just had to over do it, didn't you?
With every re-posting of it, my belief that it was a half-way decent bit of parody gets dimmer. I'm starting to lean toward the idea that maybe all of those spelling mistakes WEREN'T intentional.
(Yes, responding to it will only cause it to continue or even escalate.. but damn, i had to say something at SOME point.)
Yes, the world is changing. The world has been changing since the world has been a world, and it isn't going to stop. Change is the one "constant" that can be counted on. The largest problems all people face is when they get secure in the current ways, and decide that the current way is the best POSSIBLE (rather than best current) way to do things. When this happens, people get old. The world moves on around and without them and you end up hearing things like "In my day, such and such was.."
So it really should come as no surprise that much of our society is all freaked about the impending changes. Most of our (US) citizens are in their "declining" years and (to quote S. King) the "world has moved on" since their youth. The trick to remaining young (and therefore flexible) is to embrace the changes that are coming, because they ARE coming.
Churches will always be one of the first to start shouting about the huge cataclysmic dangers of any new movement in society. After all, their whole stock & trade is in the current (old) way of thinking, breathing, interacting. All of their interests are wrapped up in the old way, and change would effectively remove them from their coveted places of power.
Some people are into packing fudge. Some people are into collecting and shooting assault rifles.
Hmm. Gay sex being compared with firing off assault rifles. I guess I can see the connection in that statement... men together alone, firing off their big guns... -The Reverend
Ridiculous. I can't say I'm surprised though. A bunch of suits sitting around a board room discussing their moneymaker and saying "Hmm. we need a way to keep the game fair. I know, let's require anybody who wants to play to give us total access to their computers. They ought to go for that."
The game has YET to be invented that will make me want to trade in my privacy in order that I might keep some other guy from getting some extra HP or resources by cheating.
Not to mention that if you have to cheat at a game just to be competative -- how much fun can it possibly be?
... kinda like the problem with playing Quake online... The levels are completely unimaginative, and it comes down to ping speed & hardware to decide the winner. Adding things like LIMITED weapons, ammo & powerups would require people to conserve their ammo and to play strategically, rather than switching over to rocket launcher, putting it on autorun and holding down their fire button.
But it's all just games anyway, right? Relax, people. Have fun. Stop nosing around on my PC.
I question the current attitude of militant atheism amongst scientists, and "knowledge workers" in general. Without a firm belief in the gentle hand of God how can these people work in order to better the human race? I think more emphasis should be placed on the values of Christianity at the educational level, lest the next generation grow up without His guiding love. As long as we remember this, and stop researching dangerous subjects such as these, the manifest destiny of the human race is assured.
With an omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) God up there looking out for us, what need is there for us to stop (or start) researching anything? God knows what's going on, he can stop it if he wishes, and if he chooses not to -- well, then, isn't that all a part of his grand (and unfathomable by human minds) scheme? If the thought of others tinkering with the very fabric of "reality" (I use the term subjectively) keeps you awake at night, maybe you just don't have enough "faith." (another subjective term) If God and eternity and heaven and hell are a reality, why are you so concerned about the quality of life on earth? It's merely a stopping point on the road to eternity. None of us will be here that long, anyway. Just sit back and enjoy the ride and bask in the eternal glory of god. The only sin is to believe yourself to be a sinner. www.nothinghead.com
I see a lot of comments alluding to Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, and I see 0 comments relating IBM's new "innovation" to William Gibson's Virtual Light. In fact, I'm rather disappointed by that. What I would like to see in a portable computer is fusing of miniturized camera technology *AND* miniturized computer technology. Put a pair of very small digital cameras on the goggles and the interior of the goggles can have a screen for each eye. The camera can broadcast the view of the room around you as the background, and overlay your text, graphics, favorite tv channels, etc) onto the image you're recieving from your environment.
As far as input devices, how about a glove with sensors in the fingertips? When you push a button on the back of the glove, a "virtual keyboard" could pop up in your vision and you could "type" on it just like a real keyboard. Maybe even with little pressure pads in the tips of the gloves' fingers, so that when you make "contact" with a key, the pad presses lightly back against you.
Having a computer effectively attached to your retina would make for super-keen LSD trips, too!
Is your money ours too? Is my money yours? Is there any money that belongs to an individual, rather than the nation, and if not, why not just have the government confiscate everyone's stuff and split it 250 million ways?
Hey. I'm all for it. Let's do it your way! Divide everything up right down the middle. Total equality for everyone! =)
Why yes, what a novel idea! Let's take money from someone else, which we didn't earn! I'm making XYZ dollars a year, but Joe Shmoe is making more. He doesn't deserve it. Gimme gimme gimme. At what point is a person rich? When they make 100+ grand a year? 200+? At what point has that person become "selfish" for working hard, investing wisely, taking intelligent risks, and not giving up?
I would propose that 10 million a year be a MAXIMUM earning amount. Those who earn more than 10 million per year would pay a 100% tax on all incomes (including residual) earned ABOVE 10 million. As to when a person becomes "selfish" for working hard, investing wisely, etc. that point, in my mind, is when they take more than they can use. If there were an unlimited amount of wealth, I would see no need for the 10 million cap. But since wealth is a FINITE resource, individuals should not be able to take HUGE pieces of that pie for themselves, whether they are smart enough, frugal enough, etc. I defy you to prove that someone (bill gates is the easiest example) DESERVES to earn billions of dollars per year when 50% of the world is starving.
Well, since you can right now afford a computer, and read slashdot, I assume you aren't surviving on bread and water. Therefore, I think we should take away any extra money that we deem that you don't need. Of course, what harm could ever come from someone else regulating how you spend your money?
I'm reading slashdot from work. My one car (a '92 hyundai) recently died, and I've been getting rides to and from work from friends because there is not adequate public transportation in the st. louis area. I'm far from a fat cat, and I'm sure you are too. I didn't say I wasn't willing to work. I work very very hard. I merely suggested that the notion that just because someone *CAN* figure out a way to take everything from you doesn't mean that it's *OK* to do so. I know that's one of the principles that Americans believe the world revolves around, but then, the world and the people in it have existed largely as playthings of society's highest 1% since the very beginning of society itself!
Lets see, he served his country well, killing some socialist commie bastards along the way, was held as a prisoner of War....
In any country, the people fighting the war typically have very little affiliation with the political body they are fighting for. Wars are fought by the poor to the benefit of the rich. He wasn't killing socialist commie bastards, he was out killing another nation's poor. And both of them did it for their respective countries, regardless of the nominal political ethic that that nation espoused.
All people like you want is a free ride. Get real, and get to work!
Yup. You've got me all figured out, big guy! I think you spent too much time PAYING ATTENTION in your high school civics class. The propoganda is seeping out your ears and dripping onto your keyboard.
Instead of bickering over the feasibility of imposing internet sales tax, why don't we turn to that one great remaining source of monetary inflow? Let's cut all the loopholes for the rich and tax THEM. Yeah, you can call me a commie now, but I don't see why the average citizens and the poor should be footing the bills for everything. Wealth is not a right. Wealth is the privilege of holding a large share of the NATION'S money. It is not their money. It's ours. But we pay taxes, and they pay accountants to avoid taxes. It's not as if Bill Gates or any of the other biggies would have to start accepting donations for upkeep on their fabulous lifestyles if they were suddenly forced to pay their fair shares.
"As someone who saw them first time round on television in the UK, I can assure you that they lost it after the first series."
As someone who's first introduction to MP was "The Holy Grail" at the age of 14 or so, I'm curious as to whether you're saying that the upcoming/new series isn't as good as the old material, or whether you are saying that there was a pre-flying circus version of monty python that was better. either way, all of the MP movies I've seen have been hilarious on the first watch, and most of them survived multiple watchings. I've also seen most of the flying circuses,and I'd say that about 1/2 to 2/3s of the sketches are good, 1/2 to 1/3 are shitty, and some precious few are downright awful.
SO.... to sum up:
tv sucks. monty python only sucks occassionally. go monty. go monty.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes nothing but sense from a monetary perspective (read: GREED) to sell "faster" bandwidth at a premium. It seems rather innocent and easy to understand. But then we come around to the realization that such practices will DEFINATELY limit small business, and in the end we'll end up with a very few, LARGE companies dominating everything, rather than vast amounts of small companies competing to offer better services to the customers.
The end result is that a small group of people get nearly limitless power, money, control and the rest of the world gets poorer service, fewer choices, and a homogenized internet that is skewed to the perspectives and agendas of the group in power.
We're seeing the same thing in the real world as McDonald's pop up on every corner in every country on every continent. Unless the people of the world unite against this rampant corporatism we'll be nothing but drones in their growing hives within a few generations.
Imagine a world where you're born in Sonyland, raised in Sony schools in order to get yourself a Sony apartment & Sony Job, so that you can purchase your Sony products at the Sony Store.
(anybody ever played Shadowrun? Read a William Gibson novel? Didja think that stuff was just for fun?)
-The Reverend
Don't buy magazines with photos of Britney Spears.
NOOOOO! Whatever will I do without my pinup pictures of Britney Spears in a crop top? How will I survive the day? (Oh, wait. PORN. Nevermind.)
-The Reverend
Art is about art, not money. Ask the great painters and composers and sculptors who died poor and alone.
So unless an artist is willing to suffer a completely miserable and lonely existance, his art has no merit? I suppose Pablo Picasso wasn't an incredibly talented artist? The Beatles didn't contribute anything worthwhile to culture?
I am an artist and a musician. I spend MY MONEY to pay for the website that I use to advertise my band. I don't earn money, I don't allow others to advertise on my site with banner ads or affiliate programs or anything. I'm supporting all this stuff by going to a job I dislike and working all day for a company that will never acknowledge my contribution, or care about what happens to me.
I have to spend my free time (the time other people spend chasing women, or playing sports, or drinking beer) pursuing my art, which is the only really important thing IN my life. I would much prefer it if I could get to the point where my art was able to support me.
As far as my personal beliefs are concerned, I think that people trading my mp3s around is a good thing. If I could get a million people to download my mp3s for free, I could probably get 50,000 - 100,000 to make a purchase... and I could sustain myself quite well off of such a fanbase. So I don't necessarily agree with Metallica's stance or their tactics, but I really hate to hear that artists OWE the world their art, and that if they don't feel like doing it for free, they ought to just quit. We don't expect doctors to cure us for free out of their love for healing. We don't expect movie actors to work day jobs and act only in their spare time (and if we did, the quality of their medical care & their movies would be negatively impacted)
Let's face it. The WHOLE WORLD would be better off if there was no such thing as money, no such thing as power, no such thing as a rich or a poor man. If everybody worked for free and everyone recieved the same benefits and treatment, the world would be a wonderful place.
But as long as our world ISN'T that beautiful dream, as long as people are required to work and earn and contribute just to get by.... why SHOULDN'T artists be compensated just like anyone else? I don't think that anyone would argue that a world without music or art or literature or movies would be a very dull place to live. Why do you expect artists to fulfill your preconcieved notions (poor, lonely, crazy)? Isn't it enough that they enrich your lives and give you choices as to what you can see and hear and feel? Isn't it fair that they be allowed to earn a living if they are capable of doing it? Should they be punished because their "wares" are easy to steal?
I think not.
-The Reverend
No matter how much we argue about it though, a computer program is not a living creature. I can make it simulate one pretty well. I can make it behaive like one, but in the end, it is just a set of algorithms, producing a set of output, the same as a video game or a text filter!
In that case, are humans alive? We act according to our pre-programmed instructions (aka instincts) and we process these directives through our RAM (our memory of previous experiences) to determine the most likely/profitable course. We believe we are thinking, therefore we are. Likewise, if a machine can be made to be self-conscious (aware of noticing that it is "thinking" -- even if it was programmed to have this awareness) it will be alive. Life is not the domain of biped primates.
-The Reverend
Perhaps the citizens of the US should start giving some thoughts as to whether their own political and judical systems are still up to standards that allow them to preach to the entire world how things ought to be done...
By and large, the ones doing the preaching are the ones who are CAUSING the problems within the US in the first place. I can assure you that not all americans are corporate wageslave clones. Most, perhaps, but not all.
-The Reverend
It's basically the same story we've had for most of civilization's history: small portions of the population making decisions that affect (in a mostly negative way) the lives & environment of the majority. We used to have Kings & their courts of ministers, admirers & hangers on. Now we have multinational CEOs and boardrooms. In the end, the people working in the factories are little better than well kept slaves.
Think about this: We buy a house that is ridiculously overpriced. (Ever look at the price of lumber compared to the price of the finished house?) We spend 30-40 years (all of our "useful" years) struggling to maintain the home and pay the bank (and pay taxes on the property that the bank owns!!!) until we retire -- tired, stressed out and useless -- to live on a fixed income until we either die or lose our sanity.
We buy cars which do little more than get us to work and back, and they constantly break down. (Can anyone tell me why mufflers aren't made out of rust-proof metals?) The average new car is upwards of $10,000, and you better expect to pay at least $15,000 if you want a/c. And just think, in only 5-6 years - that large chunk of money will be rusting in a junk yard somewhere. And let's not forget the mandatory insurance payments.
We're APES, people! We were designed to hang out in trees eating fruit and playing. Not for sitting in cubicles for 8-9 hours at a stretch, staring at screens and processing data.
For every one person who achieves the "American Dream" there are thousands who struggle through their entire lives just to survive. That's not much of a return on the investment. (Did you know that Bill Gates -- alone -- earns more than the lowest 40% of Americans COMBINED?)
-The Reverend
No I think that this kind of thing is both dangerous and immoral. God has created a world which we perceive through our own five senses, and for us to tamper with our perception of reality in this way can only lead to a disaster for the human race. Remember, how can you trust the system supplying you with information
Jesus turned ordinary water into the "best vintage of wine" as his FIRST miracle. He didn't apparently share your feeling about tampering with god-given perceptions. Do you allow doctors to use their "strange technology" to cure you when you're ill? How can you be sure that God DOESN'T want you to die from pnuemonia?
That being said, I agree with you about not trusting information sources. In an "open sourced" world it will be much harder for any individual or government to get their views over on anyone willing to LOOK FOR THEMSELVES. Those who choose to bury their heads in the sand do it already without the need of a portable, thought-activated "wetware" computer. They do just fine with their tv at home.
-The Reverend
I said....
/. that I haven't read.
please forgive me for not having read every single comment of every single story ever posted on slashdot. I'll try harder to live up to your standards in the future. (asshole)
Then this anonymous guy said:
no, cocksucker, you seem to misunderstand. there was an entire article about this. you truly are a redundant piece of shit.
To which I reply:
Jeez, man. Try to understand the context within which something is being said, and then try to relate that context with the MEANING behind it... perhaps I should've illustrated my point in big blinking red letters so that you could understand:
POINT: There are many, many articles posted on
POINT: I don't research or spend time looking through archived articles to make sure that a point I'm about to make hasn't already been made by someone, somewhere else, at some other time. That would be a waste of my time. (As if appealing to your ability to reason wasn't.)
POINT: Even if someone HAD posted this story before, there is a chance (a very good chance, I would say, since I myself missed the first posting) that others might not have read it, and that they might find the information relevant to the current discussion, perhaps even USEFUL.
POINT: You're not an asshole because you clued me in to the fact that it had been posted before. You're an asshole for assuming that I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. Some of us do other things with our time besides troll anonymously for first posts on slashdot.
I will not waste any more of my time or anyone else's by replying to any further responses from anonymous cowards on this subject.
-The Reverend
hey coward,
please forgive me for not having read every single comment of every single story ever posted on slashdot. I'll try harder to live up to your standards in the future. (asshole)
-The Reverend
Here is a link to another story describing how Chuck D (PUBLIC ENEMY) has taken the side of Napster in this whole debacle. You may also remember that PE dumped their record label a few years ago and was one of the first (if not THE first) major recording artist to release an album using ONLY electronic distribution.
Nice to see Chuck is still FIGHTING THE POWERS THAT BE!
-The Reverend
you know, the first time i read this post, i went back and forth with myself.. I even thought that on a certain level, it was a pretty damned amusing little piece of flamebait. But at this point (where i've seen it in 3 different threads, multiple times) i'm just plain annoyed. Goddamn boy, you had a good thing going, and you just had to over do it, didn't you?
With every re-posting of it, my belief that it was a half-way decent bit of parody gets dimmer. I'm starting to lean toward the idea that maybe all of those spelling mistakes WEREN'T intentional.
(Yes, responding to it will only cause it to continue or even escalate.. but damn, i had to say something at SOME point.)
-The Reverend
Yes, the world is changing. The world has been changing since the world has been a world, and it isn't going to stop. Change is the one "constant" that can be counted on. The largest problems all people face is when they get secure in the current ways, and decide that the current way is the best POSSIBLE (rather than best current) way to do things. When this happens, people get old. The world moves on around and without them and you end up hearing things like "In my day, such and such was.."
So it really should come as no surprise that much of our society is all freaked about the impending changes. Most of our (US) citizens are in their "declining" years and (to quote S. King) the "world has moved on" since their youth. The trick to remaining young (and therefore flexible) is to embrace the changes that are coming, because they ARE coming.
Churches will always be one of the first to start shouting about the huge cataclysmic dangers of any new movement in society. After all, their whole stock & trade is in the current (old) way of thinking, breathing, interacting. All of their interests are wrapped up in the old way, and change would effectively remove them from their coveted places of power.
-The Reverend
I have seen some pretty bloody wars over MUDS or BBS games (Ahhh, Trade Wars!).
KAL DURACK LIVES!
-The Reverend
Some people are into packing fudge. Some people are into collecting and shooting assault rifles.
Hmm. Gay sex being compared with firing off assault rifles. I guess I can see the connection in that statement... men together alone, firing off their big guns...
-The Reverend
Ridiculous. I can't say I'm surprised though. A bunch of suits sitting around a board room discussing their moneymaker and saying "Hmm. we need a way to keep the game fair. I know, let's require anybody who wants to play to give us total access to their computers. They ought to go for that."
The game has YET to be invented that will make me want to trade in my privacy in order that I might keep some other guy from getting some extra HP or resources by cheating.
Not to mention that if you have to cheat at a game just to be competative -- how much fun can it possibly be?
... kinda like the problem with playing Quake online... The levels are completely unimaginative, and it comes down to ping speed & hardware to decide the winner. Adding things like LIMITED weapons, ammo & powerups would require people to conserve their ammo and to play strategically, rather than switching over to rocket launcher, putting it on autorun and holding down their fire button.
But it's all just games anyway, right? Relax, people. Have fun. Stop nosing around on my PC.
-The Reverend
I question the current attitude of militant atheism amongst scientists, and "knowledge workers" in general. Without a firm belief in the gentle hand of God how can these people work in order to better the human race? I think more emphasis should be placed on the values of Christianity at the educational level, lest the next generation grow up without His guiding love. As long as we remember this, and stop researching dangerous subjects such as these, the manifest destiny of the human race is assured.
With an omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) God up there looking out for us, what need is there for us to stop (or start) researching anything? God knows what's going on, he can stop it if he wishes, and if he chooses not to -- well, then, isn't that all a part of his grand (and unfathomable by human minds) scheme? If the thought of others tinkering with the very fabric of "reality" (I use the term subjectively) keeps you awake at night, maybe you just don't have enough "faith." (another subjective term) If God and eternity and heaven and hell are a reality, why are you so concerned about the quality of life on earth? It's merely a stopping point on the road to eternity. None of us will be here that long, anyway. Just sit back and enjoy the ride and bask in the eternal glory of god. The only sin is to believe yourself to be a sinner. www.nothinghead.com
I see a lot of comments alluding to Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, and I see 0 comments relating IBM's new "innovation" to William Gibson's Virtual Light. In fact, I'm rather disappointed by that. What I would like to see in a portable computer is fusing of miniturized camera technology *AND* miniturized computer technology. Put a pair of very small digital cameras on the goggles and the interior of the goggles can have a screen for each eye. The camera can broadcast the view of the room around you as the background, and overlay your text, graphics, favorite tv channels, etc) onto the image you're recieving from your environment.
As far as input devices, how about a glove with sensors in the fingertips? When you push a button on the back of the glove, a "virtual keyboard" could pop up in your vision and you could "type" on it just like a real keyboard. Maybe even with little pressure pads in the tips of the gloves' fingers, so that when you make "contact" with a key, the pad presses lightly back against you.
Having a computer effectively attached to your retina would make for super-keen LSD trips, too!
Hey. I'm all for it. Let's do it your way! Divide everything up right down the middle. Total equality for everyone!
=)
Why yes, what a novel idea! Let's take money from someone else, which we didn't earn! I'm making XYZ dollars a year, but Joe Shmoe is making more. He doesn't deserve it. Gimme gimme gimme.
At what point is a person rich? When they make 100+ grand a year? 200+? At what point has that person become "selfish" for working hard, investing wisely, taking intelligent risks, and not giving up?
I would propose that 10 million a year be a MAXIMUM earning amount. Those who earn more than 10 million per year would pay a 100% tax on all incomes (including residual) earned ABOVE 10 million. As to when a person becomes "selfish" for working hard, investing wisely, etc. that point, in my mind, is when they take more than they can use. If there were an unlimited amount of wealth, I would see no need for the 10 million cap. But since wealth is a FINITE resource, individuals should not be able to take HUGE pieces of that pie for themselves, whether they are smart enough, frugal enough, etc. I defy you to prove that someone (bill gates is the easiest example) DESERVES to earn billions of dollars per year when 50% of the world is starving.
Well, since you can right now afford a computer, and read slashdot, I assume you aren't surviving on bread and water. Therefore, I think we should take away any extra money that we deem that you don't need. Of course, what harm could ever come from someone else regulating how you spend your money?
I'm reading slashdot from work. My one car (a '92 hyundai) recently died, and I've been getting rides to and from work from friends because there is not adequate public transportation in the st. louis area. I'm far from a fat cat, and I'm sure you are too. I didn't say I wasn't willing to work. I work very very hard. I merely suggested that the notion that just because someone *CAN* figure out a way to take everything from you doesn't mean that it's *OK* to do so. I know that's one of the principles that Americans believe the world revolves around, but then, the world and the people in it have existed largely as playthings of society's highest 1% since the very beginning of society itself!
In any country, the people fighting the war typically have very little affiliation with the political body they are fighting for. Wars are fought by the poor to the benefit of the rich. He wasn't killing socialist commie bastards, he was out killing another nation's poor. And both of them did it for their respective countries, regardless of the nominal political ethic that that nation espoused.
Yup. You've got me all figured out, big guy! I think you spent too much time PAYING ATTENTION in your high school civics class. The propoganda is seeping out your ears and dripping onto your keyboard.
Here's a novel idea:
Instead of bickering over the feasibility of imposing internet sales tax, why don't we turn to that one great remaining source of monetary inflow? Let's cut all the loopholes for the rich and tax THEM. Yeah, you can call me a commie now, but I don't see why the average citizens and the poor should be footing the bills for everything. Wealth is not a right. Wealth is the privilege of holding a large share of the NATION'S money. It is not their money. It's ours. But we pay taxes, and they pay accountants to avoid taxes. It's not as if Bill Gates or any of the other biggies would have to start accepting donations for upkeep on their fabulous lifestyles if they were suddenly forced to pay their fair shares.
greed + shortage of supply = needless suffering
some guy said:
"As someone who saw them first time round on television in the UK, I can assure you that they lost it after the first series."
As someone who's first introduction to MP was "The Holy Grail" at the age of 14 or so, I'm curious as to whether you're saying that the upcoming/new series isn't as good as the old material, or whether you are saying that there was a pre-flying circus version of monty python that was better. either way, all of the MP movies I've seen have been hilarious on the first watch, and most of them survived multiple watchings. I've also seen most of the flying circuses,and I'd say that about 1/2 to 2/3s of the sketches are good, 1/2 to 1/3 are shitty, and some precious few are downright awful.
SO....
to sum up:
tv sucks.
monty python only sucks occassionally.
go monty. go monty.