Because any society willing and able to wake someone up from that would pretty much, by default, have to be pretty spiffy.
All the old sci-fi saws of "They'd use you for spare parts!" or "They'd turn you into slave labor!" are pretty dumb - I mean, if they can repair a brain damaged by freezing, I'd imagine they'd have to be able to do something trivial like repair an ailing heart. If they can RAISE THE DEAD, I'd have to think they'd have enough technology to do other labor-type tasks without needing to get all elaborate.
I would get frozen upon death (or shortly before, if I knew it was coming) simply because, if it works, yay me, I get to see the future. If it doesn't work, well, I'm dead anyway. I'd rather spend a shit-pot of my estate on something that *might* let me come back, than spend $50,000 on a funeral.
I may be misremembering, but aren't there some species that simply don't seem to go into biological senescence? Like, certain species of turtles tend to live indefinitely, being taken out by injury or sickness, but they don't seem to degrade simply due to aging.
I would think it isn't so much that aging is inevitable, just that, as long as something can live long and healthily enough to breed, there's no advantage to it. The only disadvantage to living forever and continuing to breed that I can think of would be that species capable of doing so would need to be culled by other means (predators etc) or they'd rapidly overpopulate their habitat and consume all resources.
In the case of humanity or other species capable of forseeing the risks of overpopulation, it would be possible to limit breeding - but somehow, I don't see turtles deciding to do that. Good thing they have predators like cars running them over, or idiot kids flipping 'em on their backs to watch 'em die. I, for one, would not like to welcome our turtle overlords.
Self-preservation? Keeping a cool head so you don't get yourself killed?
Heroic is the endeavor of sitting on top of a big-ass bomb and getting blasted up into space in order to help the rest of humanity learn something new. Heroic - risking your ass to help others.
When I was 9, my brother and I were in an accident while hiking in the woods. He broke his left leg and right ankle, I broke my collar-bone and right arm, and was impaled through my right oblique. I walked 4 miles to a campground to get help, and send them to my brother. Everyone back at the camp told me I was a hero. Was I? Fuck no - I was someone who didn't want to die in the woods, and getting back to get help was my only option. Why did I go, instead of my 13 year old brother? Because he had broken his leg and ankle and I could walk.
A hero puts their life and limb at risk WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO for the betterment of others. Astronauts are heroes, but not because they take risks to save their own lives when they're up there - they're heroes for being up there in the first place.
I wrote a bunch of things for games like Star Wars: Galaxies (scripts that would play pretty much all the professions for me so that I could grind out and sell a bunch of Jedi, way back when) and stuff for City of Heroes (more or less to street sweep etc. to powerlevel). Also stuff for World of Warcraft that'll automate play.
For Galaxies, I did it purely for the profit - sorry, but people paying $1000 and up for Jedi characters was too good to pass up at the time. I spent maybe 100 hours on the automation process in my free time and sold a bunch of Jedi-enabled accounts once I'd gotten the botting down cold. I regret doing that now - not because I think I wrecked the game or something like that, but more because, however small a part I played in it, I did cheapen the experience for people (though SOE cheapened it a hell of a lot more)
In CoH and WoW, I'd played a few characters to the cap through normal means, and wanted to test out other classes/other builds, but didn't feel like spending the time to actually play them up to max level. For WoW, I will just say that it seems like the Warden program only catches people who use publically available tools - the account I used to bot up a bunch of 60's with was going strong until I quit the game 3 months ago, no warnings or other GM interventions. Also, I suspect that since I simply simulated keyboard and mouse input rather than tried to change the memory (like the teleport and speed hacks do) that it simply wasn't detected. I tried to leave as economically small a footprint as I could with these characters - I only botted in areas that were generally completely abandoned, never sold anything on the AH, never bought anything on the AH, etc.
Would I ever give these tools to someone else? Fuck no - the last thing I'd want to see are a bunch of braindead people using something I made to wreck other people's play. I do this stuff to explore other aspects of the game, and because I enjoy the challenge of figuring out how to automate varied tasks, deal with random occurrences, etc. I do NOT do it because I want to make tools that'll let me beat other people - if anything, my experience in trying to automate "good" play has given me a lot more respect for the efforts of legitimate players.
If google were fucking up at their core business - advertising - then yeah, I'd think that would be a valid criticism. But they aren't fucking up. Their advertising business is still going very well, and so I'd say that "lost focus" is not the case.
"Lost focus" is a term one would use if Google were stumbling. They're not, so clearly they haven't lost focus, and are simply expanding their periphery.
A great example of a company that "lost focus" would be Apple in the early to mid 90's. They were a company that focused on making things easier to use/"just work" but they had how many different models for users to choose from, with (to their target market) too many not-different differences etc. They lost focus, and they stumbled and staggered.
If Google were to do stuff like make their advertisements intrusive and irrelevant to the searches done and lose a lot of revenue over it, THEN one could say they lost focus.
Yep, I wouldn't care. If an actual human detective were following me, I'd even make a game of it. "How many sex-toy shops can I drag this poor fucker to today?" or "It's a male detective following me, I'll go to gay dance clubs and tell people he's just painfully shy." Heck, if he were tailing me long enough we might even become friends - maybe he's in his line of work because he's lonely:p
If it's cameras, again, I don't really care. My default assumption is that whatever I do outside of my house - be it peeing or using a changing room - is public knowledge. My other assumption is that NOBODY CARES. I can't possibly imagine anyone finding anything I do interesting enough for them to inflict their knowledge of what I do when out and about on me. "Oooooh, she bought veggies and a pork-roast and a bottle of wine - must be cooking dinner for a date!" or "Yikes, she REALLY doesn't need to buy ANOTHER pair of boots" - I could give a shit.
It is NONE of my business what other people THINK, it's only my business when they DO something that impacts me. I don't care if some cop gets his jollies off watching me bum around with friends, or wants to speculate about my bedroom activities based on my purchases - I would only care if their speculation somehow interfered with my life.
As it is, I buy stuff on credit cards (and even some GASP! "personal" items from time to time) and I just really don't give a shit. I suppose there could be someone over at AmEx or Visa putting my purchase history together and saying "Tsk! She really should find a man, that's the second time she's bought D-cells in the last month, and good christ, look at what she spent at Tulip!" but I really don't give a shit.
As it is, I do stuff online, and I take reasonable precautions never to give out too much information in emails or on blogs, etc - but I assume that if someone REALLY REALLY wanted to, they could tie it all back to me, and I don't particularly care.
As it is, I live in Chicago, and am probably caught on camera quite a bit. And, to be honest, I never think about it. I don't think about it because nothing has ever come of it. Oh, wait - actually, something DID come of it. One time I forgot my ATM card at the machine, just left it in the machine, and someone was able to use it (oops!) But, thanks to the cameras in the lobby of the bank, when I called to complain about an extra $200 going missing from my account, they were able to verify that it wasn't me, credit my account, and even got a nice picture of the asshole who tried to rip 'em off (and it turns out he then used his ATM card, giving them his info). And, if I'm being really honest, while I don't know that the cameras will prevent crime, I suppose if I am raped or murdered or mugged, I'd like the cops to have a good picture of the guy.
Note: I am NOT saying "I don't do anything wrong, so what do I have to fear?" I am saying "I just don't give a shit."
P.S. I think it's a salient point that the example used in the article is a man being shouted at to not ride his bicycle - not a mugging, not a rape, not a murder - a bicycle.
While I do think it's kind of silly to use that as an example, I will say that people riding their bikes in inappropriate places (on the sidewalk would be a biggie) is actually quite dangerous. I live in Chicago, and there are multiple fatalities caused each year by cyclists plowing into people on the sidewalks or rounding corners and just slamming into people who're on foot. The number of non-fatal injuries is pretty high, too. So, chiding someone for biking on a walkway is not THAT bad a use for the technology and could do some good.
I don't understand why people are so bothered by cameras OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC. People say they're losing their privacy, but... uh... What privacy is there to lose when you're OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC?
The only time I expect to have privacy is when I'm in my home. Other than that, even when I'm in a restroom or changing room, I make the assumption that anything I do could potentially be recorded because... I AM OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC.
If people are really so concerned about their privacy, then they should stay inside, and not go OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC.
As for the speakers, as long as they don't spew propaganda or bullshit messages and stay limited to stuff like "Hey, asshole, we see you spraypainting that wall" or whatever, I don't really care. Heck, I'd probably have some fun with friends, pretending to choke one of them or something under the camera's gaze.
God damn, but you're so right! I cannot WAIT for the Web 2.0 empowered physicians of tomorrow! I don't want some dumbass who was so unintelligent he had to spend almost a DECADE in these silly schools - I want a guy who learned to operate by using resources on the web, a guy who's not afraid to use CUTTING EDGE technology!
And forget all the breadth that these so-called "institutions of higher learning" force people to have - that's just facism, man! Who cares if I never get exposed to anything outside of my tiny little area of interests? Hey, if I wanted to be exposed to entirely new things outside of my experience that I might not know existed except that I had to take a class on them... Well, that's MY choice!
And now for the serious bit:
If you're going to school just to get a degree, you shouldn't bother going to school. If you're too disinterested in your education to MAKE things that are otherwise boring interesting (by going outside the narrow scope of many classes, going beyond the minimum requirements), you probably shouldn't bother with school. If you just want to make money or something, and don't really have passion for whatever it is you're studying - just go into sales or something, there's plenty of money there and generally you won't need anything beyond a BS or BA.
I'm right now taking 5 required classes that are trivially simple (mainly because of a combination of personal experience in my field and previous class exposure). If I looked at the class assignments as the limit of what I'm supposed to do, then yeah - I'd be bored to tears. Instead, I got together with my professors outside of class and set up regular discussions with them about the more advanced materials that are available. I'm loving it because I am learning a LOT of stuff that is really quite interesting AND I'm getting to explore it with people who REALLY know the field. Further, I'm only an undergraduate and I've already been offered 3 assistantships without applying for them and I have a bunch of letters of recommendation for graduate school (several of them unsolicited by me). The professors are happy because they have an incredibly motivated student and get to feel like they really are having an impact on someone's life. Everybody wins.
Rather than viewing a university as a boring box where you've got to put up with The Man in order to get a pat on the back, I look at it as one giant playground where I can get access to incredible resources. I feel sorry for people who get bored and can't have any fun in such a place.
Really? Why? You have movies that are 100% effects (see: anything by Pixar), movies that are live-action but where every scene has at least one effect (see: Star Wars prequels) and movies with just insane sets + effects (see: LOTR) - the budgets were certainly not tiny but they were by no means absurd. I don't see why Ringworld would be more expensive than any of those (in fact, I think it would be less expensive, since many of the challenges it would present would have been solved by the previously mentioned films.)
Generally, unless I have specifically typed in a URL I know is safe, I will at the very least check the address bar of my browser before signing in to something. That means that any time there's a link to something - even from a source that I trust - I will check to make sure I am where I think I am. Of course, I'm slightly paranoid, and I would expect that the average user doesn't do this kind of thing. It's kind of like the "secure" commerce sites - how many people actually check for the little lock/key thingy? Probably most on/., but in the real world it seems like a shiny website with stuff mainly spelled correctly is good enough for most.
And speaking of laziness.... Why is it that the only "editorial" behavior/. editors do is the "full-disclosure" thing with stories that are somehow associated with/. or their masters?
It's like "Oh, we won't bother ensuring that something's not a dupe, and we won't bother to spell, grammar or fact check submissions - but hey, we can sure look all editorly if we just do that disclosure thingy! LOOKIT ME!!! I CAINT SPEL EDITIR, BUT I ARE WON!!!!"
Even if you find another Zune owner, what are the chances he also shares you musical interests?
Who cares if they share it? One of the kickass things about being exposed to stuff that's not your usual thing is that you might find something *new* that you like. Personally, I like the idea that some random stranger might be able to send me some track I've never heard before - but that's me, I like being exposed to new stuff.
As to your other complaint - the lack of people who use them - I don't think anyone is going to buy one just for the wi-fi. However, if enough people buy them because of the other features (or the price), there will be, if the iPod is any guide, plenty of them out there. At least, that's what MS is banking on with this.
For me, there would have to be several things that go into a buying decision:
1) Usability - I've had 2 mp3 players. An archos and an iPod. The archos took WAY too long to get to the music I wanted, and was just annoying as hell to use. The iPod is MUCH easier to work with - I can get to any song in my library (12,000 and counting...) very quickly.
2) Battery life - it's got to be at least as good as my iPod. Bonus if I can replace the battery easily myself.
3) Features - a bigger screen than my iPod would be nice (I have an hour commute by bus in the morning and evening so I do a bit of tv watching on this thing), and definitely radio capability are big for me. The wi-fi bit would be cute, but honestly I'd probably leave it off most of the time to conserve juice. Also, obviously, non-drm'd music would have to be playable.
4) Construction - usually MS hardware products are pretty decent (as long as you don't lay them on carpet:p) - so at least as sturdy as my iPod, preferably with a less scratch-prone screen.
5) Price - hopefully cheaper than an iPod, but if not, if it was as good as an iPod on the things I mention, I'd consider one as a replacement.
I would get a blonde-woodgrain and metal iPod in a heartbeat. I don't have any reason to upgrade my current one (60gig video) but I would if I could get that.
I don't think he is doing anything wrong with this. Sure, he could do this out of the goodness of his own heart, but there would be students who would then blow off the lecture since they could listen to it later. Statistically, this will result in a lower grade for them, so an educator should try to minimize the number of students who skip class. A small fee seems to provide a good balance between convenience and assisting the students.
What's interesting is that charging a fee for the lecture recording might actually increase absenteeism. There was a day care center that had a problem with parents picking their kids up late. So, the center made a new policy - if you're late, you pay $10 for being late as a fine. Turns out, parents felt "Hey, $10 for being late... Not a bad price!" and MORE people picked their kids up late. They felt that the $10 cost excused their behavior.
When I miss a class, I *hate* it - but I could see waking up late, feeling a little sick and saying "Hm, well, I can pay $2.50 and it's like I didn't miss class at all..."
Personally, I think the idea is a fine one - the professor is providing his students what they contracted for (if they show up for class) AND giving ones that missed it (or just want better "notes") what they need. But, beware of unintended consequences....
The problem with the broadband vs. dialup to HDTV vs. SDTV is this:
Broadband gives you more time. Higher speed means less time spent waiting. Always on means less time spent getting connected. When I first switched over to DSL lo these many years ago, I thought "Oh, it'll just be nice to not wait as long for stuff to load on the web." NO - it changed the way I use the Internet on a fundamental level. I used to look stuff in the yellowpages or call information - now I use the 'net. I used to have to go get a newspaper or call the theater (requiring a seperate use of the yellowpages or information) to get a show-time - now I get the showtimes and tickets online. I used to not try nearly as many new tools for development and design (tooooooo slow to download 'em) - now I've usually got a whole bunch of stuff downloading while I'm doing other stuff. Used to watch television for news - now I use the net and get 50 different views on things instead of just 1 or 2. Used to watch television for entertainment - even with cable's 200+ channels, lots of the kinds of stuff I find interesting simply doesn't get put on (and I can't really watch whatever, whenever I want.) Research - in the olden times, I'd go to a library and look stuff up (usually involving huge amounts of photocopying) or, when I would look on the 'net for stuff, I'd agonize over the length of some of the downloads. Now? Well, today I just downloaded 7 textbooks for my classes - took maybe 5 minutes to get them - and they are digital, meaning I can do all kinds of nifty-keen searches through them that I couldn't do with the dead-tree editions. In short, broadband isn't just faster - it is transformative, and it enabled a LOT of really great stuff. Really, there isn't any aspect of my life that hasn't been impacted by the widespread adoption of broadband and the ensuing services.
But HD-DVD? Blu-Ray? Okay, so now instead of an hour of (usually) poorly made "bonus" material, I can get shovel-loads of extra stuff that I probably wasn't going to watch anyway. Instead of a picture that really is good enough for me (I tend to get so engrossed in what I'm watching that I can't notice any visual glitches or artifacts unless they're REALLY glaring, or I try REALLY hard), I get one that's... Well, maybe clearer? Sharper? Enh - it's sharp enough for my tastes now. What new stuff is it going to enable? Seriously - look at the difference between DVD and VHS (which I think is a bigger leap than SDTV->HDTV) and what's REALLY different? Look at the difference between floppies and CD-ROM. More capacity is nice and all, but it's just not that sexy. About the only net impact these changes have had on my life is that I no longer have to "Be kind, rewind" and I don't have to deal with "Insert disc #297 of 350" anymore.
I'll be better at doing my job than any 4 year idiot with a CS degree.
Well, of course you will - your job will be something that requires you to "de-gunk" things and ask people if they'd like a larger size for only a nickle more. I don't imagine many people with a 4-year CS degree would be very happy doing that kind of work, and thus the quality would suffer.
Just remember to do a little more than the bare minimum. You don't want to be someone who does the minimum, do you?
Why did you ignore the part of my comment where I said "non-essential"? Is it because nuance is too difficult for you to grasp.
Except for all the consumers who could each have saved hundreds of dollars each plus shipping time/charges, had they been able to buy it retail. Instead, they must pay the ebay scalpers that rushed in and bought the units 20 at a time.
Pardon me, but where is the *harm* that is done? People voluntarily paying a lot more for a video game console because they simply *will not* wait does NOT seem like harm to me. It seems like people who're on the ball taking advantage of other people's sloth and willingness to spend.
Why are they scum? Because they see an opportunity to make a legal profit on a non-essential item and are taking it?
It's a video-game console. If someone's so desperate to be the first on their block to own one, why shouldn't someone make a buck (or $1000) off of that? Nobody gets hurt.
I say that any candidate should be allowed to examine the personal finances of the C*O executives at the company she's applying for - you know, just to make sure something like an ENRON doesn't pop up. And hey - a good C*O should have no problem with it, right? Nothing to hide and all that.
Read the article. The library does not have books. It's all "digital".
Really? For me, digital textbooks are a huge deal - I love them!
It annoys the hell out of me that, when I'm plowing through a history text and a date/name/place tickles something in my memory that I can't quite tease out that I can't just do a text search through the book to draw out other instances. Indexes are craptacular in 99% of the texbooks and sources I've ever used.
For novels and such, sure - it's nice to curl up in a comfy chair and read from a solid book - but when I'm doing research the LAST thing I want is a text made of atoms instead of bits.
About the rest of your points - all I can say is that the educational system in this country clearly needs to change. I can't say what WILL work, but I can say that trying new things MIGHT work. I'm pretty neutral on the capabilities of MS (I mean, obviously, they're doing SOMETHING very well - whatever it is) but I am very positive about trying new things.
$63 million is peanuts - and if it works, the return on it will be absurdly high. If it doesn't, well, it probably won't lead to anything worse than what we've got now.
Not only is what you're saying not a fact, it's a complete misapplication of Metcalfe's idea.
People who had a landline were already connected to the network - getting a cell gives no value from the viewpoint of giving access to the network.
The primary reason cell use has spread so much - specifically in "emerging" nations - is because it is MUCH cheaper to set up a cellular system and spread access than it is to do with landlines.
Another big reason would be the mix of convenience and quality of service. In my case, I ditched my landline 2 years ago because it was pointless. I like having a phone with me all the time. If I want to be unavailable, I can put it on silent mode. A phone that sits at home - a place where I spend maybe 4 waking hours a day - just seemed pointless. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks that way.
My hope is that since cells are now virtually everywhere, people who used to feel the need to talk at the top of their lungs to let everyone know they had one will now see it as a sign of class to speak softly on them. I am doing my best to encourage people to do just that - when I am on the bus or train and someone is having a LOUD conversation on their phone, I will look at them raptly, and, if they ever fall silent, I will say "Oooh, what's he saying now?" When they inevitably say something along the lines of "this is a private conversation" I explain that, at the volume they were speaking, it was anything but. Of course, I say it with a great deal of charm, so I have yet to be bopped in the nose.
Slashdot Mirror
Because any society willing and able to wake someone up from that would pretty much, by default, have to be pretty spiffy.
All the old sci-fi saws of "They'd use you for spare parts!" or "They'd turn you into slave labor!" are pretty dumb - I mean, if they can repair a brain damaged by freezing, I'd imagine they'd have to be able to do something trivial like repair an ailing heart. If they can RAISE THE DEAD, I'd have to think they'd have enough technology to do other labor-type tasks without needing to get all elaborate.
I would get frozen upon death (or shortly before, if I knew it was coming) simply because, if it works, yay me, I get to see the future. If it doesn't work, well, I'm dead anyway. I'd rather spend a shit-pot of my estate on something that *might* let me come back, than spend $50,000 on a funeral.
I may be misremembering, but aren't there some species that simply don't seem to go into biological senescence? Like, certain species of turtles tend to live indefinitely, being taken out by injury or sickness, but they don't seem to degrade simply due to aging.
I would think it isn't so much that aging is inevitable, just that, as long as something can live long and healthily enough to breed, there's no advantage to it. The only disadvantage to living forever and continuing to breed that I can think of would be that species capable of doing so would need to be culled by other means (predators etc) or they'd rapidly overpopulate their habitat and consume all resources.
In the case of humanity or other species capable of forseeing the risks of overpopulation, it would be possible to limit breeding - but somehow, I don't see turtles deciding to do that. Good thing they have predators like cars running them over, or idiot kids flipping 'em on their backs to watch 'em die. I, for one, would not like to welcome our turtle overlords.
if this is not heroism, what is?
Self-preservation? Keeping a cool head so you don't get yourself killed?
Heroic is the endeavor of sitting on top of a big-ass bomb and getting blasted up into space in order to help the rest of humanity learn something new. Heroic - risking your ass to help others.
When I was 9, my brother and I were in an accident while hiking in the woods. He broke his left leg and right ankle, I broke my collar-bone and right arm, and was impaled through my right oblique. I walked 4 miles to a campground to get help, and send them to my brother. Everyone back at the camp told me I was a hero. Was I? Fuck no - I was someone who didn't want to die in the woods, and getting back to get help was my only option. Why did I go, instead of my 13 year old brother? Because he had broken his leg and ankle and I could walk.
A hero puts their life and limb at risk WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO for the betterment of others. Astronauts are heroes, but not because they take risks to save their own lives when they're up there - they're heroes for being up there in the first place.
I wrote a bunch of things for games like Star Wars: Galaxies (scripts that would play pretty much all the professions for me so that I could grind out and sell a bunch of Jedi, way back when) and stuff for City of Heroes (more or less to street sweep etc. to powerlevel). Also stuff for World of Warcraft that'll automate play.
For Galaxies, I did it purely for the profit - sorry, but people paying $1000 and up for Jedi characters was too good to pass up at the time. I spent maybe 100 hours on the automation process in my free time and sold a bunch of Jedi-enabled accounts once I'd gotten the botting down cold. I regret doing that now - not because I think I wrecked the game or something like that, but more because, however small a part I played in it, I did cheapen the experience for people (though SOE cheapened it a hell of a lot more)
In CoH and WoW, I'd played a few characters to the cap through normal means, and wanted to test out other classes/other builds, but didn't feel like spending the time to actually play them up to max level. For WoW, I will just say that it seems like the Warden program only catches people who use publically available tools - the account I used to bot up a bunch of 60's with was going strong until I quit the game 3 months ago, no warnings or other GM interventions. Also, I suspect that since I simply simulated keyboard and mouse input rather than tried to change the memory (like the teleport and speed hacks do) that it simply wasn't detected. I tried to leave as economically small a footprint as I could with these characters - I only botted in areas that were generally completely abandoned, never sold anything on the AH, never bought anything on the AH, etc.
Would I ever give these tools to someone else? Fuck no - the last thing I'd want to see are a bunch of braindead people using something I made to wreck other people's play. I do this stuff to explore other aspects of the game, and because I enjoy the challenge of figuring out how to automate varied tasks, deal with random occurrences, etc. I do NOT do it because I want to make tools that'll let me beat other people - if anything, my experience in trying to automate "good" play has given me a lot more respect for the efforts of legitimate players.
If google were fucking up at their core business - advertising - then yeah, I'd think that would be a valid criticism. But they aren't fucking up. Their advertising business is still going very well, and so I'd say that "lost focus" is not the case.
"Lost focus" is a term one would use if Google were stumbling. They're not, so clearly they haven't lost focus, and are simply expanding their periphery.
A great example of a company that "lost focus" would be Apple in the early to mid 90's. They were a company that focused on making things easier to use/"just work" but they had how many different models for users to choose from, with (to their target market) too many not-different differences etc. They lost focus, and they stumbled and staggered.
If Google were to do stuff like make their advertisements intrusive and irrelevant to the searches done and lose a lot of revenue over it, THEN one could say they lost focus.
Yep, I wouldn't care. If an actual human detective were following me, I'd even make a game of it. "How many sex-toy shops can I drag this poor fucker to today?" or "It's a male detective following me, I'll go to gay dance clubs and tell people he's just painfully shy." Heck, if he were tailing me long enough we might even become friends - maybe he's in his line of work because he's lonely :p
If it's cameras, again, I don't really care. My default assumption is that whatever I do outside of my house - be it peeing or using a changing room - is public knowledge. My other assumption is that NOBODY CARES. I can't possibly imagine anyone finding anything I do interesting enough for them to inflict their knowledge of what I do when out and about on me. "Oooooh, she bought veggies and a pork-roast and a bottle of wine - must be cooking dinner for a date!" or "Yikes, she REALLY doesn't need to buy ANOTHER pair of boots" - I could give a shit.
It is NONE of my business what other people THINK, it's only my business when they DO something that impacts me. I don't care if some cop gets his jollies off watching me bum around with friends, or wants to speculate about my bedroom activities based on my purchases - I would only care if their speculation somehow interfered with my life.
As it is, I buy stuff on credit cards (and even some GASP! "personal" items from time to time) and I just really don't give a shit. I suppose there could be someone over at AmEx or Visa putting my purchase history together and saying "Tsk! She really should find a man, that's the second time she's bought D-cells in the last month, and good christ, look at what she spent at Tulip!" but I really don't give a shit.
As it is, I do stuff online, and I take reasonable precautions never to give out too much information in emails or on blogs, etc - but I assume that if someone REALLY REALLY wanted to, they could tie it all back to me, and I don't particularly care.
As it is, I live in Chicago, and am probably caught on camera quite a bit. And, to be honest, I never think about it. I don't think about it because nothing has ever come of it. Oh, wait - actually, something DID come of it. One time I forgot my ATM card at the machine, just left it in the machine, and someone was able to use it (oops!) But, thanks to the cameras in the lobby of the bank, when I called to complain about an extra $200 going missing from my account, they were able to verify that it wasn't me, credit my account, and even got a nice picture of the asshole who tried to rip 'em off (and it turns out he then used his ATM card, giving them his info). And, if I'm being really honest, while I don't know that the cameras will prevent crime, I suppose if I am raped or murdered or mugged, I'd like the cops to have a good picture of the guy.
Note: I am NOT saying "I don't do anything wrong, so what do I have to fear?" I am saying "I just don't give a shit."
P.S. I think it's a salient point that the example used in the article is a man being shouted at to not ride his bicycle - not a mugging, not a rape, not a murder - a bicycle.
While I do think it's kind of silly to use that as an example, I will say that people riding their bikes in inappropriate places (on the sidewalk would be a biggie) is actually quite dangerous. I live in Chicago, and there are multiple fatalities caused each year by cyclists plowing into people on the sidewalks or rounding corners and just slamming into people who're on foot. The number of non-fatal injuries is pretty high, too. So, chiding someone for biking on a walkway is not THAT bad a use for the technology and could do some good.
I don't understand why people are so bothered by cameras OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC. People say they're losing their privacy, but... uh... What privacy is there to lose when you're OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC?
The only time I expect to have privacy is when I'm in my home. Other than that, even when I'm in a restroom or changing room, I make the assumption that anything I do could potentially be recorded because... I AM OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC.
If people are really so concerned about their privacy, then they should stay inside, and not go OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC.
As for the speakers, as long as they don't spew propaganda or bullshit messages and stay limited to stuff like "Hey, asshole, we see you spraypainting that wall" or whatever, I don't really care. Heck, I'd probably have some fun with friends, pretending to choke one of them or something under the camera's gaze.
Probably because the people who the cameras are supposed to catch would simply blow them up.
In the UK, I imagine it isn't quite at the point of open warfare in the streets, where nobody's got anything left to lose.
God damn, but you're so right! I cannot WAIT for the Web 2.0 empowered physicians of tomorrow! I don't want some dumbass who was so unintelligent he had to spend almost a DECADE in these silly schools - I want a guy who learned to operate by using resources on the web, a guy who's not afraid to use CUTTING EDGE technology!
And forget all the breadth that these so-called "institutions of higher learning" force people to have - that's just facism, man! Who cares if I never get exposed to anything outside of my tiny little area of interests? Hey, if I wanted to be exposed to entirely new things outside of my experience that I might not know existed except that I had to take a class on them... Well, that's MY choice!
And now for the serious bit:
If you're going to school just to get a degree, you shouldn't bother going to school. If you're too disinterested in your education to MAKE things that are otherwise boring interesting (by going outside the narrow scope of many classes, going beyond the minimum requirements), you probably shouldn't bother with school. If you just want to make money or something, and don't really have passion for whatever it is you're studying - just go into sales or something, there's plenty of money there and generally you won't need anything beyond a BS or BA.
I'm right now taking 5 required classes that are trivially simple (mainly because of a combination of personal experience in my field and previous class exposure). If I looked at the class assignments as the limit of what I'm supposed to do, then yeah - I'd be bored to tears. Instead, I got together with my professors outside of class and set up regular discussions with them about the more advanced materials that are available. I'm loving it because I am learning a LOT of stuff that is really quite interesting AND I'm getting to explore it with people who REALLY know the field. Further, I'm only an undergraduate and I've already been offered 3 assistantships without applying for them and I have a bunch of letters of recommendation for graduate school (several of them unsolicited by me). The professors are happy because they have an incredibly motivated student and get to feel like they really are having an impact on someone's life. Everybody wins.
Rather than viewing a university as a boring box where you've got to put up with The Man in order to get a pat on the back, I look at it as one giant playground where I can get access to incredible resources. I feel sorry for people who get bored and can't have any fun in such a place.
I _hate_ physical libraries. Using the web for research lets me speed things up by a ridiculous factor.
When reading for entertainment, sure - books are fantastic. But for getting things done? Give me bits over atoms any day.
Really? Why? You have movies that are 100% effects (see: anything by Pixar), movies that are live-action but where every scene has at least one effect (see: Star Wars prequels) and movies with just insane sets + effects (see: LOTR) - the budgets were certainly not tiny but they were by no means absurd. I don't see why Ringworld would be more expensive than any of those (in fact, I think it would be less expensive, since many of the challenges it would present would have been solved by the previously mentioned films.)
Generally, unless I have specifically typed in a URL I know is safe, I will at the very least check the address bar of my browser before signing in to something. That means that any time there's a link to something - even from a source that I trust - I will check to make sure I am where I think I am. Of course, I'm slightly paranoid, and I would expect that the average user doesn't do this kind of thing. It's kind of like the "secure" commerce sites - how many people actually check for the little lock/key thingy? Probably most on /., but in the real world it seems like a shiny website with stuff mainly spelled correctly is good enough for most.
/. editors do is the "full-disclosure" thing with stories that are somehow associated with /. or their masters?
And speaking of laziness.... Why is it that the only "editorial" behavior
It's like "Oh, we won't bother ensuring that something's not a dupe, and we won't bother to spell, grammar or fact check submissions - but hey, we can sure look all editorly if we just do that disclosure thingy! LOOKIT ME!!! I CAINT SPEL EDITIR, BUT I ARE WON!!!!"
Sorry. (And good-bye, karma!)
Yeah, they need to lay off - it's not very humerus.
Even if you find another Zune owner, what are the chances he also shares you musical interests?
:p) - so at least as sturdy as my iPod, preferably with a less scratch-prone screen.
Who cares if they share it? One of the kickass things about being exposed to stuff that's not your usual thing is that you might find something *new* that you like. Personally, I like the idea that some random stranger might be able to send me some track I've never heard before - but that's me, I like being exposed to new stuff.
As to your other complaint - the lack of people who use them - I don't think anyone is going to buy one just for the wi-fi. However, if enough people buy them because of the other features (or the price), there will be, if the iPod is any guide, plenty of them out there. At least, that's what MS is banking on with this.
For me, there would have to be several things that go into a buying decision:
1) Usability - I've had 2 mp3 players. An archos and an iPod. The archos took WAY too long to get to the music I wanted, and was just annoying as hell to use. The iPod is MUCH easier to work with - I can get to any song in my library (12,000 and counting...) very quickly.
2) Battery life - it's got to be at least as good as my iPod. Bonus if I can replace the battery easily myself.
3) Features - a bigger screen than my iPod would be nice (I have an hour commute by bus in the morning and evening so I do a bit of tv watching on this thing), and definitely radio capability are big for me. The wi-fi bit would be cute, but honestly I'd probably leave it off most of the time to conserve juice. Also, obviously, non-drm'd music would have to be playable.
4) Construction - usually MS hardware products are pretty decent (as long as you don't lay them on carpet
5) Price - hopefully cheaper than an iPod, but if not, if it was as good as an iPod on the things I mention, I'd consider one as a replacement.
I would get a blonde-woodgrain and metal iPod in a heartbeat. I don't have any reason to upgrade my current one (60gig video) but I would if I could get that.
I don't think he is doing anything wrong with this. Sure, he could do this out of the goodness of his own heart, but there would be students who would then blow off the lecture since they could listen to it later. Statistically, this will result in a lower grade for them, so an educator should try to minimize the number of students who skip class. A small fee seems to provide a good balance between convenience and assisting the students.
What's interesting is that charging a fee for the lecture recording might actually increase absenteeism. There was a day care center that had a problem with parents picking their kids up late. So, the center made a new policy - if you're late, you pay $10 for being late as a fine. Turns out, parents felt "Hey, $10 for being late... Not a bad price!" and MORE people picked their kids up late. They felt that the $10 cost excused their behavior.
When I miss a class, I *hate* it - but I could see waking up late, feeling a little sick and saying "Hm, well, I can pay $2.50 and it's like I didn't miss class at all..."
Personally, I think the idea is a fine one - the professor is providing his students what they contracted for (if they show up for class) AND giving ones that missed it (or just want better "notes") what they need. But, beware of unintended consequences....
The problem with the broadband vs. dialup to HDTV vs. SDTV is this:
Broadband gives you more time. Higher speed means less time spent waiting. Always on means less time spent getting connected. When I first switched over to DSL lo these many years ago, I thought "Oh, it'll just be nice to not wait as long for stuff to load on the web." NO - it changed the way I use the Internet on a fundamental level. I used to look stuff in the yellowpages or call information - now I use the 'net. I used to have to go get a newspaper or call the theater (requiring a seperate use of the yellowpages or information) to get a show-time - now I get the showtimes and tickets online. I used to not try nearly as many new tools for development and design (tooooooo slow to download 'em) - now I've usually got a whole bunch of stuff downloading while I'm doing other stuff. Used to watch television for news - now I use the net and get 50 different views on things instead of just 1 or 2. Used to watch television for entertainment - even with cable's 200+ channels, lots of the kinds of stuff I find interesting simply doesn't get put on (and I can't really watch whatever, whenever I want.) Research - in the olden times, I'd go to a library and look stuff up (usually involving huge amounts of photocopying) or, when I would look on the 'net for stuff, I'd agonize over the length of some of the downloads. Now? Well, today I just downloaded 7 textbooks for my classes - took maybe 5 minutes to get them - and they are digital, meaning I can do all kinds of nifty-keen searches through them that I couldn't do with the dead-tree editions. In short, broadband isn't just faster - it is transformative, and it enabled a LOT of really great stuff. Really, there isn't any aspect of my life that hasn't been impacted by the widespread adoption of broadband and the ensuing services.
But HD-DVD? Blu-Ray? Okay, so now instead of an hour of (usually) poorly made "bonus" material, I can get shovel-loads of extra stuff that I probably wasn't going to watch anyway. Instead of a picture that really is good enough for me (I tend to get so engrossed in what I'm watching that I can't notice any visual glitches or artifacts unless they're REALLY glaring, or I try REALLY hard), I get one that's... Well, maybe clearer? Sharper? Enh - it's sharp enough for my tastes now. What new stuff is it going to enable? Seriously - look at the difference between DVD and VHS (which I think is a bigger leap than SDTV->HDTV) and what's REALLY different? Look at the difference between floppies and CD-ROM. More capacity is nice and all, but it's just not that sexy. About the only net impact these changes have had on my life is that I no longer have to "Be kind, rewind" and I don't have to deal with "Insert disc #297 of 350" anymore.
I'll be better at doing my job than any 4 year idiot with a CS degree.
Well, of course you will - your job will be something that requires you to "de-gunk" things and ask people if they'd like a larger size for only a nickle more. I don't imagine many people with a 4-year CS degree would be very happy doing that kind of work, and thus the quality would suffer.
Just remember to do a little more than the bare minimum. You don't want to be someone who does the minimum, do you?
Do you approve of gasoline price gouging too?
Why did you ignore the part of my comment where I said "non-essential"? Is it because nuance is too difficult for you to grasp.
Except for all the consumers who could each have saved hundreds of dollars each plus shipping time/charges, had they been able to buy it retail. Instead, they must pay the ebay scalpers that rushed in and bought the units 20 at a time.
Pardon me, but where is the *harm* that is done? People voluntarily paying a lot more for a video game console because they simply *will not* wait does NOT seem like harm to me. It seems like people who're on the ball taking advantage of other people's sloth and willingness to spend.
Why are they scum? Because they see an opportunity to make a legal profit on a non-essential item and are taking it?
It's a video-game console. If someone's so desperate to be the first on their block to own one, why shouldn't someone make a buck (or $1000) off of that? Nobody gets hurt.
It's kind of obvious that his whole resume etc. is a joke.
My guess is the whole identity is a sham too.
I say that any candidate should be allowed to examine the personal finances of the C*O executives at the company she's applying for - you know, just to make sure something like an ENRON doesn't pop up. And hey - a good C*O should have no problem with it, right? Nothing to hide and all that.
Read the article. The library does not have books. It's all "digital".
Really? For me, digital textbooks are a huge deal - I love them!
It annoys the hell out of me that, when I'm plowing through a history text and a date/name/place tickles something in my memory that I can't quite tease out that I can't just do a text search through the book to draw out other instances. Indexes are craptacular in 99% of the texbooks and sources I've ever used.
For novels and such, sure - it's nice to curl up in a comfy chair and read from a solid book - but when I'm doing research the LAST thing I want is a text made of atoms instead of bits.
About the rest of your points - all I can say is that the educational system in this country clearly needs to change. I can't say what WILL work, but I can say that trying new things MIGHT work. I'm pretty neutral on the capabilities of MS (I mean, obviously, they're doing SOMETHING very well - whatever it is) but I am very positive about trying new things.
$63 million is peanuts - and if it works, the return on it will be absurdly high. If it doesn't, well, it probably won't lead to anything worse than what we've got now.
Not only is what you're saying not a fact, it's a complete misapplication of Metcalfe's idea.
People who had a landline were already connected to the network - getting a cell gives no value from the viewpoint of giving access to the network.
The primary reason cell use has spread so much - specifically in "emerging" nations - is because it is MUCH cheaper to set up a cellular system and spread access than it is to do with landlines.
Another big reason would be the mix of convenience and quality of service. In my case, I ditched my landline 2 years ago because it was pointless. I like having a phone with me all the time. If I want to be unavailable, I can put it on silent mode. A phone that sits at home - a place where I spend maybe 4 waking hours a day - just seemed pointless. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks that way.
My hope is that since cells are now virtually everywhere, people who used to feel the need to talk at the top of their lungs to let everyone know they had one will now see it as a sign of class to speak softly on them. I am doing my best to encourage people to do just that - when I am on the bus or train and someone is having a LOUD conversation on their phone, I will look at them raptly, and, if they ever fall silent, I will say "Oooh, what's he saying now?" When they inevitably say something along the lines of "this is a private conversation" I explain that, at the volume they were speaking, it was anything but. Of course, I say it with a great deal of charm, so I have yet to be bopped in the nose.