i think that shows how skewed our culture's value system is.
it's considered worse for a teenage computer geek to hack into a business network our of curiosity, unintentionally impeding commerce for a few days (which the company analysts will claim has cost tends of millions of dollars in damages), than it is for someone to rape or murder another person. the legal punishment for non-malicious curiosity-motivated computer crimes are far worse than the sentences given to violent offenders.
this seems completely unbalanced to me. do most people really think non-malicious computer crimes (i'm not talking about spamming, spreading viruses, DDoS, etc.) are worse than things like rape/murder/assault/etc? it also seems like the courts treat financial damages to the corporate sector far more severely than murder & rape, the victims of which are usually the poor. what do other think about the relative severity of these different types of crimes?
The boy was kicked and beaten and threatened with a knife while forced to log into Runescape and giving his assets to the two perpetrators.
so the kid was physically assaulted with a deadly weapon, but the court decided to charge the perpetrators for stealing the victim's Runescape items? is it just me or are the court's priorities just a little screwed up?
i'd much rather lose some virtual money/items than get stabbed or beat up. christ, the company that runs Runescape can just restore the the items back to the kid who was robbed. heck, they could just create new items to give to him. it's not like it costs them anything to make those items.
heh, Taiwan probably has more convenient stores per square mile than any other country in the world--about one on each block. it honestly seems like there's a 7-11 or Circle-K at every street corner. sometimes there'll even be convenient stores on all four corners of an intersection--and Americans think Starbucks is bad.
they're kinda like WalMarts there. they have all kinds snacks & junk food (Taiwan has the best potato chips =P), fast-food like steamed buns, Zonzi, Tea-leaf egg, hotdogs, sandwiches, ramen--the instant noodle kind (Taiwanese ramen puts American ramen to shame), assorted Asian soft drinks, toys/model kits, music CDs, DVD movies, computer games, books, and then all the normal stuff you find in American 7-11's like hygiene products, condoms, magazines, liquor, cigarettes, etc.
that sounds like like a great system. do they apply bandwidth throttling or traffic shaping in any way? (ie. does you connection slow down or halt if you start up a bittorrent download?)
i usually have to restart my client (uTorrent) every few hours so that it resets to a random port or my torrent downloads will all cut out, though i'll still be able to access web pages just fine.
i live in California btw, and i pay about $40/month (though i think they may have recently lowered it to $30) for 3Mps DSL access.
if you have a business connection then you might have access to uncapped internet access in the U.S., but otherwise most residential broadband services are capped--even if the ISP doesn't tell you.
when it's standard practice to oversell to the point that your total network capacity is only enough for 1% of your customers, then of course bandwidth caps are going to be put in place. there's no way that Verizon, Comcast, or any other major U.S. ISP can handle even a quarter of their subscribers using their service plan's full advertised transfer rate 24/7.
with bandwidth throttling & packet shaping, i'm only getting about 50~60 GB total downstream throughput per month (if there are no major outages). and we're charged about 1000% the bandwidth costs (per Mbps) of countries like Sweden, Japan, Korea, etc.
that's a common misconception. they're actually killed by sudden intense bursts of high-energy gamma rays, which are invisible to the naked eye. the sparks are secondary effects added artificially by the ship's computer system to make the crewmen's deaths look more festive.
this feature was deemed necessary to save doomed crew members from the shame of dying unceremoniously by innocuous-looking console malfunctions. in fact, before the pyrotechnic sparks and digital sound effects were added, many console operators' deaths would go unnoticed for hours, and sometimes even days. often Starfleet captains would unknowingly complete entire missions with a bridge full of dead crewmen sitting at their consoles--this is also why officers are now required to stand at the tactical station.
i know you were joking, but we actually had that when i was a kid.
back when i was in 1st~3nd grade my parents and i lived in a rural part of Taipei (Taiwan) in my Grandma's house along with my uncles and their families. it was a traditional clan home, so my parents and i shared a single large bedroom, as did each of my uncles' families. each bedroom was sorta like a single-room apartment, so most of my uncles had TVs in their rooms, and one of them even had a home theater setup complete with a professional grade sound system.
we'd just moved back to Taiwan so aside from the bed, all we had was an old 386 (ok, it wasn't really "old" at the time) running DOS. consequently, our bedroom was pretty spartan (read: ghetto) compared to the rest of the house. and since our bedroom was in the interior of the house, we didn't have any outside windows for direct sunlight. so my dad decided to have a "sunroof" installed right above our bed, which provided natural lighting during the day, and so that at night we could look up and see the stars.
my cousins and i stayed up many nights sitting under that sunroof with a bunch of snacks bought from the local 7-11 just enjoying the night sky.
there's nothing wrong with getting your info from Wikipedia if you understand the nature of your media source. there are several different approaches to Wikipedia info, but they primarily fall into 3 groups:
the most common type are the casual internet surfer. they take everything at face value and make no distinction between a blog post and an edited news article. to them truth is whatever they read (first).
then there are the Wikipedia skeptics. if it's not written by a traditional paid publication, they don't trust it. in reality they're not much more discerning than the casual user; they just accept what the Mainstream Media says/prints at face value. to them truth is what the Washington Post/Britannica/CNN/Newsweek says it is.
lastly, there are the media omnivores. they get their information from a wide variety of sources--professional/personal blogs, independent media, social news aggregators(Slashdot, digg, del.ico.us, etc.), Reuters/BBC/The New Yorker/etc., science journals, academic publications, and anything else that comes along (e.g. ArsTechnica, New Scientist, Answers.com/Wikipedia/Britannica, etc.). they will generally get their information from a wide variety of media sources to account for the inherent biases of each source. they also understand how Wikipedia works and follow the citation links to verify the info they read. being more astute media consumers, they actually try to make an effort to dig deeper rather than taking what they read at face value--regardless of whether it's Britannica, Wikipedia, or Joe Schmoe's blog.
if you're not a discerning person, it doesn't matter whether you get your info from Britannica or Wikipedia, both have about the same level of accuracy, though Wikipedia generally has fewer errors by volume. despite the air of superiority they put on, group #2 is simply deluding themselves by attributing a false sense of accuracy to commercial publications while dismissing collaborative editing off-hand. group #3 is at least objective enough to recognize that all media sources have errors and biases because their authors are all human. by accessing a diverse range of media sources and verifying published information, they have an easier time obtaining accurate info and are less susceptible to misinformation.
i can't help but think that all these cars keep reinventing the wheel over and over again. how many four-wheeled gas-powered automobiles do we really need? how many cars with driving wheels or airbags or cupholders have been developed? is one of them more compelling than the other?
not everyone programs in the same style. not every toolkit is suited to the same programming style. it's good that web developers have a variety of toolkits to choose from. are all the different CMS packages out there reinventing the wheel? what about all the programming languages? all the operating systems? there isn't just a single approach to every problem. the toolkits that are useful will gain a large following and continue to be developed. the ones that aren't will fall into disuse and die. there's no sense in complaining about choice.
you'd first have to address the problem of (sub)urban sprawl. public transportation is incredibly efficient with good urban planning. but since the 1950's urban sprawl caused a shift away from transit-oriented development. people began relying more and more on personal transportation. with the advent of the superhighway, introduced by Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, people began commuting 50-60 miles to work and population density began to thin out.
but now that private vehicle ownership is considered the social norm, with public transportation out of vogue, the public highway system is being stretched to its limit. traffic congestion has become a major problem in most urban areas. and with skyrocketing gas prices, many people are finally starting to realize the stupidity of dreaming of living in sprawling suburbs and bedroom communities far and removed from job opportunities.
the rise of car-dependent communities basically makes it impossible to walk anywhere. and everything is too spread out due to leapfrog development and single-use zoning for public transportation to be practical. add on top of this the incompetent management of commercial transit systems in many areas, and you end up with completely unusable public transportation. in my area it takes me 2 hours to get to a medical clinic by bus when it only takes me 10-15 minutes driving my car.
the PBS is still partially tax-funded despite their corporate sponsors and constant donation-drives.
and luckily many Brits show a more progressive attitude than you do, otherwise we wouldn't have amazing programs like BBC's awe-inspiring Planet Earth series, James Burke's wittily narrated & innovative Connections series, all of the pioneering wildlife documentaries presented by broadcasting legends like David Attenborough, and the sharp unapologetic social & political commentary by intellectual firebrands like Richard Dawkins.
these days the BBC seems like the lone beacon of light in the unilluminated sea of ignorance that is the mainstream media. but of course most Americans would gladly see all public services/resources/infrastructure dismantled if they could pay a few bucks less in taxes.
i propose building an 80km high wall partitioning the Earth in two, each with its own atmosphere and ecosystem. let the environmentally conscious move to one hemisphere where there would be environmental regulations to keep man-made pollution to a minimum, and let the anti-environmentalist/climate-change-denialists live in the other hemisphere where there's no environmental regulation and industrial pollution can run amuck.
right now rearguard reactions to environmental reforms are seriously impeding any attempts at mitigating environmental destruction. the only way the culturally backward population is going to end their denial is if the ecosystem <i>is</i> destroyed and irreversible harm has occurred. that is a no-win proposition.
if we could save the environment without convincing the reactionaries that global warming is a serious problem, then things would be fine. it wouldn't matter if anti-environmentalists continued to believe that global warming was just a big hoax made up by a global conspiracy of atmospheric scientists. but right now the ignorant population is stonewalling the environmental movement, and their inconsiderate/irresponsible actions are ruining it for everyone else who's trying to be green.
ideally, we could just move to a different planet and leave the reactionaries behind, so that they can live with the results of their environmental irresponsibility, and the rest of us can lead sustainable environmentally-friendly lifestyles. but seeing as that's not going to happen, there needs to be a way to show side-by-side the contrasting futures that these two diverging paths lead towards. unfortunately, the only way to do that is to partition the environment into two independent ecosystems/biospheres so that hummer-driving assholes can't negate the effects of environmental reforms.
which is why we shouldn't be giving the largely consolidated TV & radio networks control of so much of the radio spectrum. if we used those spectrum blocks to roll out municipal WiFi/WiMax, we could have a nationwide wireless broadband infrastructure in place by 2012 (just in time for the world to end =P).
but seriously, why dedicate so much bandwidth potential to closed proprietary communications networks controlled by a handful of media corporations. the internet is a generalized open communication network; it can be used to broadcast video stream, audio/voice streams, text, and any other form of data. best of all, it's open so that anyone can publish their own content. this democratization of media distribution changes the cultural hegemons of our society from corporate media (our current gatekeepers of information) to the individual.
this lets the public choose what they watch/listen to/read rather than being force-fed by FOX/CNN/NBC/Clear Channel/etc.
NOVA ScienceNOW is alright. they're aimed at younger audiences to stimulate interest in the sciences in kids. i think that's a worthwhile goal. but i agree that PBS is pretty bad. i once even saw a KPBS documentary program denouncing the Separation of Church and State as "unconstitutional."
however, the BBC, CBC, and the National Geographic Channel still provide decent quality programming. though i'm a little afraid that NGC is becoming more like the Discovery/History Channel. but so far they haven't tried to pass any Big Foot "researchers" off as sound scientific authorities. and even though they cover crazy theories and urban legends (even inviting the loonies to speak on the programs), they usually do a good job of debunking the fallacies behind such beliefs.
PBS actually has some decent programs, like NOVA Now (and other NOVA shows). but the BBC is a much better example of public broadcasting done right. they produce, arguably, the best documentary and news programs of any network.
personally, i lost all respect for American public broadcasting when KPBS (they're the San Diego member station of PBS run by UCSD) aired a program arguing that Separation of Church and State is wrong, and that the establishment clause was actually trying to give theists free reign to do whatever they want.
thinking that a TV program has to either be incredibly stupid or incredibly boring is a false dichotomy. the National Geographic Channel regularly airs entertaining shows that are intelligent and educational. the rest of mainstream media is just dumbing down our society creating a race to the bottom scenario. networks that have journalistic standards like BBS, NGC, CBC, and NOVA are still popular in other countries that don't have a reactionary anti-intellectual culture.
right, like having ufologists, ghost hunters/paranormal investigators, cryptozoologists, and other assorted loonies on as "experts." no wonder America is getting dumber by the minute...
compare the History Channel to real educational TV networks like the National Geographic Channel and the BBC, and you'll see what a complete joke History/Discovery channel are. they produce intentionally sensationalized programs on topics like Big Foot or the Chupacabra, which only have "believers" speaking on the show about their half-baked theories, shamelessly neglecting any skeptical perspectives. i can't even bare to watch History Channel programs anymore because they are usually so full of factual or logical errors.
frankly, the History Channel's programs are insulting to one's intelligence (they even mix corporate PR with historic documentaries). if you want to watch interesting educational programs with some semblance of journalistic integrity, try National Geographic's Is it Real series. after watching IIR cover topics like UFO abduction, the Bermuda Triangle, the lost city of Atlantis, etc. you will see how bunk and scientifically sloppy/lazy the History Channel is. NGC actually makes an effort to report the truth and debunk false claims, whereas History Channel simply perpetuates misconceptions and fallacious arguments.
the only way i can imagine History Channel being entertaining is if you personally enjoy being deluded and are ignorant of logical fallacies. i can't see anyone of even moderate intelligence actually enjoying the kind of junkfood-media that is aired on the History Channel or Discovery Channel (Mythbusters is the one exception).
VoIP is definitely the way to go. we really shouldn't need to purchase/install another device just to have automated control over our phone line. seems like with an open VoIP standard and an open source VoIP handset, you could just program such behavior directly into the phone. there's really no need for special hardware.
the other thing to do is regulate cold-calling (whether commercial or political/non-profit). force all automated cold-callers to be registered in an online database. when you receive a cold call, the caller will send you its number/ID that your VoIP phone will automatically look up on the online database and handle the call appropriately (e.g. hang-up/block all commercial calls, or take a message if it's a non-profit caller and save the voice message to a special inbox).
VoIP systems can also be easily extended. for instance, you can require anonymous callers to enter a password that you'd only give out to friends. that way if a friend needs to reach you from an anonymous line they can still get by your call filter. you just can't do this type of thing with traditional cellular or landlines because they're on proprietary networks.
i don't play PC games so i can't tell you which ones are any good, but the point is, there are a ton of sci-fi MMOs to choose from on the PC (Windows at least).
there are already plenty of sci-fi MMOs for the PC. its consoles that need some decent sci-fi MMOs.
Sony already said they're going to focus their future MMO efforts on consoles. perhaps other developers will follow suit.
personally, i'd like to see some decent sci-fi MMOs for the PSP. there are currently only 2 sci-fi RPGs for the platform: Alien Syndrome and Bounty Hounds. and Alien Syndrome sucks balls.
i don't know what the situation is with other consoles, but i think it'd make more sense for MMO developers to release their games on platforms that currently have a dearth of MMOs rather than try to compete in an already-saturated market. it's not like the ps3/360/psp/ds can't support MMOs.
However, the internet audience is extremely insular, rude, and just as selfish and greedy as the MPAA/RIAA (and member companies) when it comes to these things.
and how did you arrive at this conclusion? did you do any research, or did you just assume that all internet users are rude/selfish/greedy/etc.?
actual studies have shown that P2P file-sharing boosts CD sales. so P2P users actually spend more on music purchases than non-P2P users.
your post is a classic example of the reactionary mentality preventing the RIAA/Big Four/major labels from adapting to the new market climate. this attitude of antagonizing & alienating your best consumers is the reason why many RIAA labels are losing money and fans while the industry as a whole continues to experience a net growth.
sure, CD sales (particularly CD singles) are plummeting, but internet download purchases have more than made up for those losses. so it's internet users who are keeping the music industry alive, and even helping it to prosper. but i suppose exploring music online is rather "insular" and "rude." how dare consumers discover music for themselves instead of letting the radio tell them what to purchase.
or maybe the RIAA are just pissed off that their Payola scheme is losing effectiveness.
i haven't had that problem with my new hard drive, but on my old IDE drive i regularly encountered skipping when watching hi-def videos. i mean, i have a 2.79 GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM running Windows XP. so i don't think it's my processor. i even tried turning off all other applications in case they were sucking up the IDE bus.
eventually i just got fed up with the hard drive and had it replaced. by then data was becoming corrupted and the drive became less and less reliable. the thing is, it was only about 3-4 years old. which to me, is way too early for a drive to start failing.
but even with my new SATA drive it takes a while to seek on hi-def videos, and if i move the tracking cursor (whatever it's called) too much the player will freeze up or the audio will get out of sync. i guess when you fast-forward or rewind the player needs to read much faster than the video's normal bitrate rate, but it still shouldn't have that much of a problem.
no, that's what's referred to as DXM (what teenagers take to "robotrip"). the GP is probably referring to dexedrine (d-amphetamine/dextroamphetamine). it's the dextrorotary isomer of the amphetamine molecule.
drugs like Adderall (amphetamine) are racemic mixtures of both the right-handed and left-handed stereoisomers of the amphetamine molecule--d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine, respectively. but enantiomer d-amphetamine is prescribed by itself sometimes because of its relatively higher potency. i believe d-amphetamine also causes less peripheral stimulation relative to CNS stimulation than l-amphetamine. that means it retains more of the positive effects (greater focus/concentration, more alertness, faster synaptic firing/reaction time) while causing fewer(or milder) negative side-effects (hypertension, hyperthermia, tachypnea, tremors, and general dysphoria). its potency is somewhere between l-amphetamine and methamphetamine.
but like all stimulants, it can be addictive and causes more harm than good when abused. consuming mild amounts of coffee/amphetamines can make your brain function more efficiently and increase your productivity, but above a certain threshold productivity begins to drop off with increased stimulation.
it really depends on each person and how they take the drug. Paul Erdos used benzedrine (a d/l racemic mixture of amphetamine) to be one of the most prolific mathematicians who ever lived. but he took amphetamines to stay up late writing math proofs not to get high.
speed definitely matters. i don't like watching a 2 GB HD video and having it skip constantly.
but the other thing that's important and less often discussed in reviews (or benchmarked) is reliability. with these large 750 GB+ drives, how many full disk re-writes can the drive go through before it starts crapping out (data becoming corrupted, or simply dying)?
are these high-density platters just as reliable as those of lower-capacity hard drives? for reliability/longevity, is a single 1 TB drive preferable to 2x 500 GB drives or 4x 250 GB drives?
both systems should be replaced with wireless broadband as part of basic public infrastructure. then you'd have truly carrier-neutral handsets.
right now handset makers need to get permission from the carriers to use their proprietary networks. they have to cripple their phones and let the carriers lock down their software. no new technologies or applications can be developed without the carrier's approval--that's why there's been very little growth in cellular technology compared to the progress made on the public internet.
with cellphone towers replaced with municipal WiFi/WiMax, we could just use VoIP handsets. anyone could develop their own wireless handset. and handset makers would be free to develop and implement new applications/technologies (VVoIP video calls, cellphone-to-cellphone file sharing, etc.). there'd also be no extortionate data plans, text message fees, roaming, and other artificial service charges. there'd be no $10,000 cellphone bill because you upload a few vacation photos. companies like Skype would route the calls, but you would choose whichever network was cheapest, fastest, or least busy--no service contracts or activation fees.
Slashdot Mirror
i think that shows how skewed our culture's value system is.
it's considered worse for a teenage computer geek to hack into a business network our of curiosity, unintentionally impeding commerce for a few days (which the company analysts will claim has cost tends of millions of dollars in damages), than it is for someone to rape or murder another person. the legal punishment for non-malicious curiosity-motivated computer crimes are far worse than the sentences given to violent offenders.
this seems completely unbalanced to me. do most people really think non-malicious computer crimes (i'm not talking about spamming, spreading viruses, DDoS, etc.) are worse than things like rape/murder/assault/etc? it also seems like the courts treat financial damages to the corporate sector far more severely than murder & rape, the victims of which are usually the poor. what do other think about the relative severity of these different types of crimes?
so the kid was physically assaulted with a deadly weapon, but the court decided to charge the perpetrators for stealing the victim's Runescape items? is it just me or are the court's priorities just a little screwed up?
i'd much rather lose some virtual money/items than get stabbed or beat up. christ, the company that runs Runescape can just restore the the items back to the kid who was robbed. heck, they could just create new items to give to him. it's not like it costs them anything to make those items.
heh, Taiwan probably has more convenient stores per square mile than any other country in the world--about one on each block. it honestly seems like there's a 7-11 or Circle-K at every street corner. sometimes there'll even be convenient stores on all four corners of an intersection--and Americans think Starbucks is bad.
they're kinda like WalMarts there. they have all kinds snacks & junk food (Taiwan has the best potato chips =P), fast-food like steamed buns, Zonzi, Tea-leaf egg, hotdogs, sandwiches, ramen--the instant noodle kind (Taiwanese ramen puts American ramen to shame), assorted Asian soft drinks, toys/model kits, music CDs, DVD movies, computer games, books, and then all the normal stuff you find in American 7-11's like hygiene products, condoms, magazines, liquor, cigarettes, etc.
that sounds like like a great system. do they apply bandwidth throttling or traffic shaping in any way? (ie. does you connection slow down or halt if you start up a bittorrent download?)
i usually have to restart my client (uTorrent) every few hours so that it resets to a random port or my torrent downloads will all cut out, though i'll still be able to access web pages just fine.
i live in California btw, and i pay about $40/month (though i think they may have recently lowered it to $30) for 3Mps DSL access.
if you have a business connection then you might have access to uncapped internet access in the U.S., but otherwise most residential broadband services are capped--even if the ISP doesn't tell you.
when it's standard practice to oversell to the point that your total network capacity is only enough for 1% of your customers, then of course bandwidth caps are going to be put in place. there's no way that Verizon, Comcast, or any other major U.S. ISP can handle even a quarter of their subscribers using their service plan's full advertised transfer rate 24/7.
with bandwidth throttling & packet shaping, i'm only getting about 50~60 GB total downstream throughput per month (if there are no major outages). and we're charged about 1000% the bandwidth costs (per Mbps) of countries like Sweden, Japan, Korea, etc.
that's a common misconception. they're actually killed by sudden intense bursts of high-energy gamma rays, which are invisible to the naked eye. the sparks are secondary effects added artificially by the ship's computer system to make the crewmen's deaths look more festive.
this feature was deemed necessary to save doomed crew members from the shame of dying unceremoniously by innocuous-looking console malfunctions. in fact, before the pyrotechnic sparks and digital sound effects were added, many console operators' deaths would go unnoticed for hours, and sometimes even days. often Starfleet captains would unknowingly complete entire missions with a bridge full of dead crewmen sitting at their consoles--this is also why officers are now required to stand at the tactical station.
i know you were joking, but we actually had that when i was a kid.
back when i was in 1st~3nd grade my parents and i lived in a rural part of Taipei (Taiwan) in my Grandma's house along with my uncles and their families. it was a traditional clan home, so my parents and i shared a single large bedroom, as did each of my uncles' families. each bedroom was sorta like a single-room apartment, so most of my uncles had TVs in their rooms, and one of them even had a home theater setup complete with a professional grade sound system.
we'd just moved back to Taiwan so aside from the bed, all we had was an old 386 (ok, it wasn't really "old" at the time) running DOS. consequently, our bedroom was pretty spartan (read: ghetto) compared to the rest of the house. and since our bedroom was in the interior of the house, we didn't have any outside windows for direct sunlight. so my dad decided to have a "sunroof" installed right above our bed, which provided natural lighting during the day, and so that at night we could look up and see the stars.
my cousins and i stayed up many nights sitting under that sunroof with a bunch of snacks bought from the local 7-11 just enjoying the night sky.
i dunno, seems like a modest proposal to me.
you seem a little confused.
there's nothing wrong with getting your info from Wikipedia if you understand the nature of your media source. there are several different approaches to Wikipedia info, but they primarily fall into 3 groups:
if you're not a discerning person, it doesn't matter whether you get your info from Britannica or Wikipedia, both have about the same level of accuracy, though Wikipedia generally has fewer errors by volume. despite the air of superiority they put on, group #2 is simply deluding themselves by attributing a false sense of accuracy to commercial publications while dismissing collaborative editing off-hand. group #3 is at least objective enough to recognize that all media sources have errors and biases because their authors are all human. by accessing a diverse range of media sources and verifying published information, they have an easier time obtaining accurate info and are less susceptible to misinformation.
i can't help but think that all these cars keep reinventing the wheel over and over again. how many four-wheeled gas-powered automobiles do we really need? how many cars with driving wheels or airbags or cupholders have been developed? is one of them more compelling than the other?
not everyone programs in the same style. not every toolkit is suited to the same programming style. it's good that web developers have a variety of toolkits to choose from. are all the different CMS packages out there reinventing the wheel? what about all the programming languages? all the operating systems? there isn't just a single approach to every problem. the toolkits that are useful will gain a large following and continue to be developed. the ones that aren't will fall into disuse and die. there's no sense in complaining about choice.
you'd first have to address the problem of (sub)urban sprawl. public transportation is incredibly efficient with good urban planning. but since the 1950's urban sprawl caused a shift away from transit-oriented development. people began relying more and more on personal transportation. with the advent of the superhighway, introduced by Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, people began commuting 50-60 miles to work and population density began to thin out.
but now that private vehicle ownership is considered the social norm, with public transportation out of vogue, the public highway system is being stretched to its limit. traffic congestion has become a major problem in most urban areas. and with skyrocketing gas prices, many people are finally starting to realize the stupidity of dreaming of living in sprawling suburbs and bedroom communities far and removed from job opportunities.
the rise of car-dependent communities basically makes it impossible to walk anywhere. and everything is too spread out due to leapfrog development and single-use zoning for public transportation to be practical. add on top of this the incompetent management of commercial transit systems in many areas, and you end up with completely unusable public transportation. in my area it takes me 2 hours to get to a medical clinic by bus when it only takes me 10-15 minutes driving my car.
the PBS is still partially tax-funded despite their corporate sponsors and constant donation-drives.
and luckily many Brits show a more progressive attitude than you do, otherwise we wouldn't have amazing programs like BBC's awe-inspiring Planet Earth series, James Burke's wittily narrated & innovative Connections series, all of the pioneering wildlife documentaries presented by broadcasting legends like David Attenborough, and the sharp unapologetic social & political commentary by intellectual firebrands like Richard Dawkins.
these days the BBC seems like the lone beacon of light in the unilluminated sea of ignorance that is the mainstream media. but of course most Americans would gladly see all public services/resources/infrastructure dismantled if they could pay a few bucks less in taxes.
i propose building an 80km high wall partitioning the Earth in two, each with its own atmosphere and ecosystem. let the environmentally conscious move to one hemisphere where there would be environmental regulations to keep man-made pollution to a minimum, and let the anti-environmentalist/climate-change-denialists live in the other hemisphere where there's no environmental regulation and industrial pollution can run amuck.
right now rearguard reactions to environmental reforms are seriously impeding any attempts at mitigating environmental destruction. the only way the culturally backward population is going to end their denial is if the ecosystem <i>is</i> destroyed and irreversible harm has occurred. that is a no-win proposition.
if we could save the environment without convincing the reactionaries that global warming is a serious problem, then things would be fine. it wouldn't matter if anti-environmentalists continued to believe that global warming was just a big hoax made up by a global conspiracy of atmospheric scientists. but right now the ignorant population is stonewalling the environmental movement, and their inconsiderate/irresponsible actions are ruining it for everyone else who's trying to be green.
ideally, we could just move to a different planet and leave the reactionaries behind, so that they can live with the results of their environmental irresponsibility, and the rest of us can lead sustainable environmentally-friendly lifestyles. but seeing as that's not going to happen, there needs to be a way to show side-by-side the contrasting futures that these two diverging paths lead towards. unfortunately, the only way to do that is to partition the environment into two independent ecosystems/biospheres so that hummer-driving assholes can't negate the effects of environmental reforms.
which is why we shouldn't be giving the largely consolidated TV & radio networks control of so much of the radio spectrum. if we used those spectrum blocks to roll out municipal WiFi/WiMax, we could have a nationwide wireless broadband infrastructure in place by 2012 (just in time for the world to end =P).
but seriously, why dedicate so much bandwidth potential to closed proprietary communications networks controlled by a handful of media corporations. the internet is a generalized open communication network; it can be used to broadcast video stream, audio/voice streams, text, and any other form of data. best of all, it's open so that anyone can publish their own content. this democratization of media distribution changes the cultural hegemons of our society from corporate media (our current gatekeepers of information) to the individual.
this lets the public choose what they watch/listen to/read rather than being force-fed by FOX/CNN/NBC/Clear Channel/etc.
NOVA ScienceNOW is alright. they're aimed at younger audiences to stimulate interest in the sciences in kids. i think that's a worthwhile goal. but i agree that PBS is pretty bad. i once even saw a KPBS documentary program denouncing the Separation of Church and State as "unconstitutional."
however, the BBC, CBC, and the National Geographic Channel still provide decent quality programming. though i'm a little afraid that NGC is becoming more like the Discovery/History Channel. but so far they haven't tried to pass any Big Foot "researchers" off as sound scientific authorities. and even though they cover crazy theories and urban legends (even inviting the loonies to speak on the programs), they usually do a good job of debunking the fallacies behind such beliefs.
PBS actually has some decent programs, like NOVA Now (and other NOVA shows). but the BBC is a much better example of public broadcasting done right. they produce, arguably, the best documentary and news programs of any network.
personally, i lost all respect for American public broadcasting when KPBS (they're the San Diego member station of PBS run by UCSD) aired a program arguing that Separation of Church and State is wrong, and that the establishment clause was actually trying to give theists free reign to do whatever they want.
thinking that a TV program has to either be incredibly stupid or incredibly boring is a false dichotomy. the National Geographic Channel regularly airs entertaining shows that are intelligent and educational. the rest of mainstream media is just dumbing down our society creating a race to the bottom scenario. networks that have journalistic standards like BBS, NGC, CBC, and NOVA are still popular in other countries that don't have a reactionary anti-intellectual culture.
right, like having ufologists, ghost hunters/paranormal investigators, cryptozoologists, and other assorted loonies on as "experts." no wonder America is getting dumber by the minute...
compare the History Channel to real educational TV networks like the National Geographic Channel and the BBC, and you'll see what a complete joke History/Discovery channel are. they produce intentionally sensationalized programs on topics like Big Foot or the Chupacabra, which only have "believers" speaking on the show about their half-baked theories, shamelessly neglecting any skeptical perspectives. i can't even bare to watch History Channel programs anymore because they are usually so full of factual or logical errors.
frankly, the History Channel's programs are insulting to one's intelligence (they even mix corporate PR with historic documentaries). if you want to watch interesting educational programs with some semblance of journalistic integrity, try National Geographic's Is it Real series. after watching IIR cover topics like UFO abduction, the Bermuda Triangle, the lost city of Atlantis, etc. you will see how bunk and scientifically sloppy/lazy the History Channel is. NGC actually makes an effort to report the truth and debunk false claims, whereas History Channel simply perpetuates misconceptions and fallacious arguments.
the only way i can imagine History Channel being entertaining is if you personally enjoy being deluded and are ignorant of logical fallacies. i can't see anyone of even moderate intelligence actually enjoying the kind of junkfood-media that is aired on the History Channel or Discovery Channel (Mythbusters is the one exception).
VoIP is definitely the way to go. we really shouldn't need to purchase/install another device just to have automated control over our phone line. seems like with an open VoIP standard and an open source VoIP handset, you could just program such behavior directly into the phone. there's really no need for special hardware.
the other thing to do is regulate cold-calling (whether commercial or political/non-profit). force all automated cold-callers to be registered in an online database. when you receive a cold call, the caller will send you its number/ID that your VoIP phone will automatically look up on the online database and handle the call appropriately (e.g. hang-up/block all commercial calls, or take a message if it's a non-profit caller and save the voice message to a special inbox).
VoIP systems can also be easily extended. for instance, you can require anonymous callers to enter a password that you'd only give out to friends. that way if a friend needs to reach you from an anonymous line they can still get by your call filter. you just can't do this type of thing with traditional cellular or landlines because they're on proprietary networks.
if you do a google search for "sci-fi mmo" you'll see that nearly every title you come across is for PC:
i don't play PC games so i can't tell you which ones are any good, but the point is, there are a ton of sci-fi MMOs to choose from on the PC (Windows at least).
there are already plenty of sci-fi MMOs for the PC. its consoles that need some decent sci-fi MMOs.
Sony already said they're going to focus their future MMO efforts on consoles. perhaps other developers will follow suit.
personally, i'd like to see some decent sci-fi MMOs for the PSP. there are currently only 2 sci-fi RPGs for the platform: Alien Syndrome and Bounty Hounds. and Alien Syndrome sucks balls.
i don't know what the situation is with other consoles, but i think it'd make more sense for MMO developers to release their games on platforms that currently have a dearth of MMOs rather than try to compete in an already-saturated market. it's not like the ps3/360/psp/ds can't support MMOs.
and how did you arrive at this conclusion? did you do any research, or did you just assume that all internet users are rude/selfish/greedy/etc.?
actual studies have shown that P2P file-sharing boosts CD sales. so P2P users actually spend more on music purchases than non-P2P users.
your post is a classic example of the reactionary mentality preventing the RIAA/Big Four/major labels from adapting to the new market climate. this attitude of antagonizing & alienating your best consumers is the reason why many RIAA labels are losing money and fans while the industry as a whole continues to experience a net growth.
sure, CD sales (particularly CD singles) are plummeting, but internet download purchases have more than made up for those losses. so it's internet users who are keeping the music industry alive, and even helping it to prosper. but i suppose exploring music online is rather "insular" and "rude." how dare consumers discover music for themselves instead of letting the radio tell them what to purchase.
or maybe the RIAA are just pissed off that their Payola scheme is losing effectiveness.
come to think of it, you're absolutely right.
i haven't had that problem with my new hard drive, but on my old IDE drive i regularly encountered skipping when watching hi-def videos. i mean, i have a 2.79 GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM running Windows XP. so i don't think it's my processor. i even tried turning off all other applications in case they were sucking up the IDE bus.
eventually i just got fed up with the hard drive and had it replaced. by then data was becoming corrupted and the drive became less and less reliable. the thing is, it was only about 3-4 years old. which to me, is way too early for a drive to start failing.
but even with my new SATA drive it takes a while to seek on hi-def videos, and if i move the tracking cursor (whatever it's called) too much the player will freeze up or the audio will get out of sync. i guess when you fast-forward or rewind the player needs to read much faster than the video's normal bitrate rate, but it still shouldn't have that much of a problem.
no, that's what's referred to as DXM (what teenagers take to "robotrip"). the GP is probably referring to dexedrine (d-amphetamine/dextroamphetamine). it's the dextrorotary isomer of the amphetamine molecule.
drugs like Adderall (amphetamine) are racemic mixtures of both the right-handed and left-handed stereoisomers of the amphetamine molecule--d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine, respectively. but enantiomer d-amphetamine is prescribed by itself sometimes because of its relatively higher potency. i believe d-amphetamine also causes less peripheral stimulation relative to CNS stimulation than l-amphetamine. that means it retains more of the positive effects (greater focus/concentration, more alertness, faster synaptic firing/reaction time) while causing fewer(or milder) negative side-effects (hypertension, hyperthermia, tachypnea, tremors, and general dysphoria). its potency is somewhere between l-amphetamine and methamphetamine.
but like all stimulants, it can be addictive and causes more harm than good when abused. consuming mild amounts of coffee/amphetamines can make your brain function more efficiently and increase your productivity, but above a certain threshold productivity begins to drop off with increased stimulation.
it really depends on each person and how they take the drug. Paul Erdos used benzedrine (a d/l racemic mixture of amphetamine) to be one of the most prolific mathematicians who ever lived. but he took amphetamines to stay up late writing math proofs not to get high.
speed definitely matters. i don't like watching a 2 GB HD video and having it skip constantly.
but the other thing that's important and less often discussed in reviews (or benchmarked) is reliability. with these large 750 GB+ drives, how many full disk re-writes can the drive go through before it starts crapping out (data becoming corrupted, or simply dying)?
are these high-density platters just as reliable as those of lower-capacity hard drives? for reliability/longevity, is a single 1 TB drive preferable to 2x 500 GB drives or 4x 250 GB drives?
both systems should be replaced with wireless broadband as part of basic public infrastructure. then you'd have truly carrier-neutral handsets.
right now handset makers need to get permission from the carriers to use their proprietary networks. they have to cripple their phones and let the carriers lock down their software. no new technologies or applications can be developed without the carrier's approval--that's why there's been very little growth in cellular technology compared to the progress made on the public internet.
with cellphone towers replaced with municipal WiFi/WiMax, we could just use VoIP handsets. anyone could develop their own wireless handset. and handset makers would be free to develop and implement new applications/technologies (VVoIP video calls, cellphone-to-cellphone file sharing, etc.). there'd also be no extortionate data plans, text message fees, roaming, and other artificial service charges. there'd be no $10,000 cellphone bill because you upload a few vacation photos. companies like Skype would route the calls, but you would choose whichever network was cheapest, fastest, or least busy--no service contracts or activation fees.