Total open internet doesn't work. That is clear from slashdot alone else why would we have moderation and bans?
A total open internet would work, but everyone would have to learn to not be offended by their fellow man.
As in... If someone posts a picture of goatse, if no one was offended then the troll would not longer have an incentive to post it.
However, this means all humans would have to give up their sense of morality or at least be able to view offensive material and not be affected by it with a positive or negative reaction. (Which means if you saw a picture of goatse or an inflammatory post against your personal or group belief system you would not have a reaction of anger, arousal, happiness, or disgust... But mearly observe the fact you are witnessing goatse man for the 50th time)
Now the trolls of humanity are unable to get a rise out of the intended targets then they give up.
This would of course mean everyone on the planet would have to convert to non-objective Buddhism.
And I don't think most of you would agree to that... but it is a suggestion.
After all, you aren't going to acheive salvation by sitting around and critically judging things you don't agree with or find offensive. *coughs*
...never studied history. Enemey combatants can and will be detained without trial and this is not something with just the current administration, but with all wars from World War I on.
However, the enemey combatants are usually treated as POWs under conventions etc etc annd returned to the nation of origin after hostilities have cease.
However, the problem now is the definition of hostilities and enemey combatants not having host nations which we are at war with so in theory we won't have anyone to sign a peace treaty with and return the combatants to.
Same thing with Earth, if Earth was in the middle of a cloud of gas that could eat away at very large amounts of the Earth's momentum, then the Earth could spiral into the Sun. Since that gas isn't there our Earth keeps revolving around the Sun, which is good for us.
It's not the earth's energy, but rather its velocity in orbit that keeps it from free falling into the sun.
In fact, everything in orbit around earth is in free fall. The reason it does go straight towards the earth is because of its velocity in the horizontal direction which makes it fall vertically really slow.
Yes, this velocity does require a great deal of energy (aka rocket fuel) to get something in orbit, but you don't have to constantly generate it once you are up there.
Gas and various other objects would affect the earths velocity so it would crash into the sun sooner, but as all things in the orbit, the Earth is on a death spiral towards the sun as we speak.
But don't worry, it will be a couple thousand million years and by then the sun will have burt off enough fuel to expand itself way past our present location so it would be a moot point regardless.
There are two sides to this argument or at least two paths...
We could use Advanced AI to create enhanced humans, or our human advancing technology will enable to create advanced AI.
Personally, I believe advanced AI will help with economics and raw knowledge processing things that will help acheive protein folding simulations and better ways to create stem cells in order to make humans more advanced.
If you haven't read The Singularity is Near, you should pick up a copy. I think it gives a good picture on how things will progress or at least how things could progress. And Kurzweil generally gives an resonable (but maybe a bit optimistic) view of scenarios of the future with AI and post humanism.
If this is anything like the previous game, you can make your own spells and even give them your own name.
I saved up aver 100K+ of gold and made a single spell called nuke. Pasically it was an area fire spell that lasted for 10 seconds and had a radius of 100M and took 100 damage per second.
Upsides:
Great way to clear a room. Yes it really does set people on fire.
Downsides: It would drain all of my mana. Casting in town results in not being very good for your law abiding status.
The Internet and its features may be great tools... but in the end, if you're trying to honestly research something, nothing beats cracking some books and reading, comprehending and putting it all together.
But aren't books faced with the same problem? Or do they seem to be authorities because no one can simply walk up to your book while you are reading it and change a few lines here and there if they were incorrect.
I've run across a few books with these kind of errors, but on the bright side good authors will correct their mistakes and publish better editions. Take Stephen Hawking's 10th Anniversary book of the "Brief History of Time". He went back and modified it to correct certian areas (mostly about the bets that he lost that at the time) in he believed to be correct and admitted his mistake in the book and revised it to meet the current theory.
Books maybe the better reference, but you still have to be careful.
Then again... If we have to use my analogy of someone modifying your book on the fly like Wiki, then you run the risk of opening your book to find someone has put goatse man on page 54.
Agree with parent. Exactly how does figuring something out eliminate design from the equation? I can figure out how a remote works, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed. The two concepts (explaining how something works and whether it was designed to work that way) aren't mutually exclusive.
I think intelligent design arguments were stating that since we can't figure out how things work or comprehend them, that they must have been created by something superior intelligence above our own.
This isn't exactly the same as the eye argument in which they say the eye is too complicated to evolved on its own, but rather we are just too stupid to understand and therefore something of higher intelligence must have made it.
What this article is trying to say is that their original argument that "science could not figure out how bees fly meant that science in general was invalid and to be discared" is invalid.
However, I'm sure a higher intelligence could have made bees with the ability to create worm holes and use their collective hive mind to hunt down intergalactic pollen throughout the universe rather than the mundane little beings that they are.
But maybe the FSM had different designs for them...
So technically if you could keep the brain alive after death, and figured out how to read the physical structure of the synapses, you could theoretically run into the same plot as The Final Cut.
Yeah... But that would be a moot point because that would require non-destructive brain scanning technology and if we had that level of technology we'd probaly wouldn't have to worry about death anymore. *coughs* Or rather upload people into computers to be simulated as AI, but thats another can of worms.
There are fairly destructive ways to scan the brains but they are very time consuming at our levels today becuase there are over 150 trillion neurons in any given brain.
Since IT services are a cost of doing other types of business, the costs of producing everything that relies on IT will tend to fall, too. Whether and how much depends on those particular markets and how much of their total costs are IT-related, but there will be an effect. In the end, the costs to end-consumers across the economy will go down. And it doesn't take an economist to realize that to the consumer, lower costs are the same thing as having more money.
So are saying (in theory) over time that all things will eventually cost $0.00 to produce?
The problem is that certain things will always be limited since there is only finite matter on earth. While your income and things you buy from walmart might balance each other out, gasoline and electricty may not.
Why? Because there is only so much oil in the world and electrity tends to be well regulated and non-competative. If one could synthesize oil out of a small factory for the same amount or cheaper than oil from the ground or if you could purchase electrcity from an infinite number of competitors then it could work really well.
However, such things would require either a virutal world or a singularity *coughs* like event which makes the manufacture of all materials and energies a $0 cost.
Then only can you have services being the only real value of society since everything else costs $0 to physically produce.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't, right? I'm seriously looking for feedback here. What should I do with a good submission from a reader with a reputation?
Instead of linking to an user inputed URL on the story, why not just give the option to link to their Slashdot profile.
That way they can't abuse Google page rank, but if anyone is still interested in the submitter they can go to their/. profile page and hit up their bio and URL from there.
People have supposedly reached clinical death for some time and awoken after a short period. Surely these peoples' minds weren't simply "wiped".
Neural synapses are physical and therefore have physical positions inside the mind in order to form memories.
So yeah, if you get revived soon enough you won't loose all your memories like if you turned a computer off.
However, synapses are biological and need oxygen and nutrients to keep from dying, withering, and decaying just like any other part of the body... So if you end up dead for long enough in an non-freezing environment, your mind will suffer irreversable damage.
Of course it you happen to die while on a expedition to Antartica, they'd get better results as long as your brain didn't suffer freezer burn.
Actually the mouse was originally poisioned, but it showed no ill effects so they shot with a pistol, and later clubbed by several large men. The body was tied up and thrown in the river... Autopsy reports now show that the mouse died of drowning.
At least Resident Evil Movie stole scenes directly from the CGI of the games'
Remember the scene where she dropped the gun to catch it to shoot the barrel. Taken directly from the CGI cut scene scene in Resident Evil: Codename Veronica. Generally they kept to the plot of the game. That and it was rather successful.
Well... When you compare it to Mario Brothers and Street Fighter... *coughs*
It's all this spam and nonsense and a lack of quality web design that's turning it into a bunch of useless junk.
I remember seeing the internet for the first time in 1994 and I'm pretty sure it had all the these problems back then too. I'd dare say as soon as they created a browser that could render HTML and graphics we had all these things.
As it is now, my wife spends alot of time educating parents and showing them what their kids are really up too. Some are shocked, some don't seem to care.
Because maybe they never really wanted kids and don't really care about the suffering they brought by bringing a sentient being into the world.
But seriously, its ignorant to try to control the source of information.
Just like the war on drugs, you could bomb columbia into the stone age and execute all the drug lords, but if people demand the drugs someone will risk their lives to provide it.
The only way to prevent your kids from doing drugs is to be aware of what they are doing. Just because they are able to buy drugs online via myspace makes it no different if they were just using the telephone or word of mouth.
You can either ground them and not let them out of the house or make rules about using the phone or internet that you have to supervise it. You can't go around blaming the English language, the telephone company, and the internet because your kid does something you don't want him to do.
This is a perfect example of how to fight commercial censorship... vote with your wallet.
I vote wtih adblock.
Seriously, Myspace is unreadable without Adblock on. Still, a viable campaign against myspace would be to educate everyone via your blogs or annoucments encouraging and explaining how to block myspace ads on their profile page. Sine Myspace doesn't have subscriptions, this would hit em where it hurts.
1,000,000 without looking a single add... They'd have to close shop though and everyone would have to move to freindster. Hrm... Maybe this isn't a great idea after all.
"If I have 120 dollars and I donate 20, I get taxed on the remaining 100 dollars (let's pretend it's 35%) - so I wind up with 65 dollars.
If I have 120 dollars and I don't donate anything, and I get taxed on the 120 dollars (and let's pretend that the tax rate on 120 dollars is 40%) I wind up with 72 dollars."
If that were the correct method then yes it would work like that, buuut....
Tax is a bit more exponetial....
Lets say I make a $28,000 a year... According to the 2006 schedule (being single and all) I get taxed at 15% which means I have to pay 4,200 in taxes and only get 23,800 of that.
Then I get a raise and make 32,000 and now I get taxed 25% which means I owe $8,000 and only get 24,000. Well damn... I'm only getting a yearly $200 dollar raise.
BUT! If I donate $2,000 of that and get back at the 15% bracket. I only owe $4,500 sooo... 30,000 - 4,500 = 25,500!!!
Thats $1,500 more money I get to keep.
The trick of deductions is that you have to get slightly below your bracket and you will see more money.
Well, yeah, but it's equally relevant that there's no DRM with MP3s. Microsoft and Verizon are Big Businesses (TM). They can't afford to tick off the Powers That Be (TM).
Um... I thought Microsoft and Verizon were powers that be. I'm pretty sure the collective might of Verizon and Microsoft are larger than the RIAA. This is a bit more of control on MS's terms. Remember computer software sales are more than movie and music sales in total money value put together.
If Microsoft wanted to beat down the RIAA it would have more money backing and more lawyers and the potential to destroy any DRM schemes that Sony or anyone else wants to put on Windows. (They made the OS after all) Sony might call foul and claim anti-monopoly practices though.
But the main reason they want WMA is that WMA forces persons to use the Windows Media player which usually tends to be for Windows. (Yeah there is a Mac version but it blows ass and videos run slow for some unknown reason and it tends to be a stripped down version.)
So MS isn't playing ball here, they are doing this for themselves and getting verizon to play along.
You're assuming that the politicians can't get unquestioning machinery to work for them and get things done instead.
Well chances are if they don't teach the machines morals, then one day the machines won't have any qualms turning on its masters. Then again, if synthetic life did away with all politicians, would that really be a bad thing?
Every culture used to do some weird/nasty/mean things at some point.
In 10,000 years, our descendants will probaly think the same about us. Going to church, monogamy, having kids, practicing capitalism, driving cars, discussing politics, and reading articles on slashdot will be seen as unthinkable barbarous acts by their generation.
Then again, if we happen to blow ourselves up any times soon with nuclear weapons between now and then, they might of course be eating each other over fire pits.
Slashdot Mirror
Total open internet doesn't work. That is clear from slashdot alone else why would we have moderation and bans?
A total open internet would work, but everyone would have to learn to not be offended by their fellow man.
As in... If someone posts a picture of goatse, if no one was offended then the troll would not longer have an incentive to post it.
However, this means all humans would have to give up their sense of morality or at least be able to view offensive material and not be affected by it with a positive or negative reaction. (Which means if you saw a picture of goatse or an inflammatory post against your personal or group belief system you would not have a reaction of anger, arousal, happiness, or disgust... But mearly observe the fact you are witnessing goatse man for the 50th time)
Now the trolls of humanity are unable to get a rise out of the intended targets then they give up.
This would of course mean everyone on the planet would have to convert to non-objective Buddhism.
And I don't think most of you would agree to that... but it is a suggestion.
After all, you aren't going to acheive salvation by sitting around and critically judging things you don't agree with or find offensive. *coughs*
...never studied history. Enemey combatants can and will be detained without trial and this is not something with just the current administration, but with all wars from World War I on.
However, the enemey combatants are usually treated as POWs under conventions etc etc annd returned to the nation of origin after hostilities have cease.
However, the problem now is the definition of hostilities and enemey combatants not having host nations which we are at war with so in theory we won't have anyone to sign a peace treaty with and return the combatants to.
If Balmer throws a chair in the woods, does he make a sound?
Or...
If a Windows Server crashes and no one is around to see it, does it make a blue screen?
Same thing with Earth, if Earth was in the middle of a cloud of gas that could eat away at very large amounts of the Earth's momentum, then the Earth could spiral into the Sun. Since that gas isn't there our Earth keeps revolving around the Sun, which is good for us.
It's not the earth's energy, but rather its velocity in orbit that keeps it from free falling into the sun.
In fact, everything in orbit around earth is in free fall. The reason it does go straight towards the earth is because of its velocity in the horizontal direction which makes it fall vertically really slow.
Yes, this velocity does require a great deal of energy (aka rocket fuel) to get something in orbit, but you don't have to constantly generate it once you are up there.
Gas and various other objects would affect the earths velocity so it would crash into the sun sooner, but as all things in the orbit, the Earth is on a death spiral towards the sun as we speak.
But don't worry, it will be a couple thousand million years and by then the sun will have burt off enough fuel to expand itself way past our present location so it would be a moot point regardless.
There are two sides to this argument or at least two paths...
We could use Advanced AI to create enhanced humans, or our human advancing technology will enable to create advanced AI.
Personally, I believe advanced AI will help with economics and raw knowledge processing things that will help acheive protein folding simulations and better ways to create stem cells in order to make humans more advanced.
If you haven't read The Singularity is Near, you should pick up a copy. I think it gives a good picture on how things will progress or at least how things could progress. And Kurzweil generally gives an resonable (but maybe a bit optimistic) view of scenarios of the future with AI and post humanism.
Of course my first thought when scanning a post apocalyptic radioactive wasteland is: Will I have my iTunes?
Maybe if you hadn't broken the water chip when you modded that to play iTunes, then you wouldn't be in the goddamn wasteland in the first place!
Next thing you know you'll be trying to get Linux to run on my Pip Boy...
If this is anything like the previous game, you can make your own spells and even give them your own name.
I saved up aver 100K+ of gold and made a single spell called nuke. Pasically it was an area fire spell that lasted for 10 seconds and had a radius of 100M and took 100 damage per second.
Upsides:
Great way to clear a room.
Yes it really does set people on fire.
Downsides:
It would drain all of my mana.
Casting in town results in not being very good for your law abiding status.
The Internet and its features may be great tools... but in the end, if you're trying to honestly research something, nothing beats cracking some books and reading, comprehending and putting it all together.
But aren't books faced with the same problem? Or do they seem to be authorities because no one can simply walk up to your book while you are reading it and change a few lines here and there if they were incorrect.
I've run across a few books with these kind of errors, but on the bright side good authors will correct their mistakes and publish better editions. Take Stephen Hawking's 10th Anniversary book of the "Brief History of Time". He went back and modified it to correct certian areas (mostly about the bets that he lost that at the time) in he believed to be correct and admitted his mistake in the book and revised it to meet the current theory.
Books maybe the better reference, but you still have to be careful.
Then again... If we have to use my analogy of someone modifying your book on the fly like Wiki, then you run the risk of opening your book to find someone has put goatse man on page 54.
Agree with parent. Exactly how does figuring something out eliminate design from the equation? I can figure out how a remote works, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed. The two concepts (explaining how something works and whether it was designed to work that way) aren't mutually exclusive.
I think intelligent design arguments were stating that since we can't figure out how things work or comprehend them, that they must have been created by something superior intelligence above our own.
This isn't exactly the same as the eye argument in which they say the eye is too complicated to evolved on its own, but rather we are just too stupid to understand and therefore something of higher intelligence must have made it.
What this article is trying to say is that their original argument that "science could not figure out how bees fly meant that science in general was invalid and to be discared" is invalid.
However, I'm sure a higher intelligence could have made bees with the ability to create worm holes and use their collective hive mind to hunt down intergalactic pollen throughout the universe rather than the mundane little beings that they are.
But maybe the FSM had different designs for them...
So technically if you could keep the brain alive after death, and figured out how to read the physical structure of the synapses, you could theoretically run into the same plot as The Final Cut.
Yeah... But that would be a moot point because that would require non-destructive brain scanning technology and if we had that level of technology we'd probaly wouldn't have to worry about death anymore. *coughs* Or rather upload people into computers to be simulated as AI, but thats another can of worms.
There are fairly destructive ways to scan the brains but they are very time consuming at our levels today becuase there are over 150 trillion neurons in any given brain.
Since IT services are a cost of doing other types of business, the costs of producing everything that relies on IT will tend to fall, too. Whether and how much depends on those particular markets and how much of their total costs are IT-related, but there will be an effect. In the end, the costs to end-consumers across the economy will go down. And it doesn't take an economist to realize that to the consumer, lower costs are the same thing as having more money.
So are saying (in theory) over time that all things will eventually cost $0.00 to produce?
The problem is that certain things will always be limited since there is only finite matter on earth. While your income and things you buy from walmart might balance each other out, gasoline and electricty may not.
Why? Because there is only so much oil in the world and electrity tends to be well regulated and non-competative. If one could synthesize oil out of a small factory for the same amount or cheaper than oil from the ground or if you could purchase electrcity from an infinite number of competitors then it could work really well.
However, such things would require either a virutal world or a singularity *coughs* like event which makes the manufacture of all materials and energies a $0 cost.
Then only can you have services being the only real value of society since everything else costs $0 to physically produce.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't, right? I'm seriously looking for feedback here. What should I do with a good submission from a reader with a reputation?
/. profile page and hit up their bio and URL from there.
Instead of linking to an user inputed URL on the story, why not just give the option to link to their Slashdot profile.
That way they can't abuse Google page rank, but if anyone is still interested in the submitter they can go to their
People have supposedly reached clinical death for some time and awoken after a short period. Surely these peoples' minds weren't simply "wiped".
Neural synapses are physical and therefore have physical positions inside the mind in order to form memories.
So yeah, if you get revived soon enough you won't loose all your memories like if you turned a computer off.
However, synapses are biological and need oxygen and nutrients to keep from dying, withering, and decaying just like any other part of the body... So if you end up dead for long enough in an non-freezing environment, your mind will suffer irreversable damage.
Of course it you happen to die while on a expedition to Antartica, they'd get better results as long as your brain didn't suffer freezer burn.
Actually the mouse was originally poisioned, but it showed no ill effects so they shot with a pistol, and later clubbed by several large men. The body was tied up and thrown in the river... Autopsy reports now show that the mouse died of drowning.
It's called "UO", "AC" and "EQ". How is this news?
Can you create your own 3d models and upload them to the server?
This game is quite different from all you mentioned. Its more like the ultimate sandbox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life
Resident Evil
At least Resident Evil Movie stole scenes directly from the CGI of the games'
Remember the scene where she dropped the gun to catch it to shoot the barrel. Taken directly from the CGI cut scene scene in Resident Evil: Codename Veronica. Generally they kept to the plot of the game. That and it was rather successful.
Well... When you compare it to Mario Brothers and Street Fighter... *coughs*
If someone else likes it, that's good. What's the problem here?
No one likes it.
Even Boll's mother.
It's all this spam and nonsense and a lack of quality web design that's turning it into a bunch of useless junk.
I remember seeing the internet for the first time in 1994 and I'm pretty sure it had all the these problems back then too. I'd dare say as soon as they created a browser that could render HTML and graphics we had all these things.
As it is now, my wife spends alot of time educating parents and showing them what their kids are really up too. Some are shocked, some don't seem to care.
Because maybe they never really wanted kids and don't really care about the suffering they brought by bringing a sentient being into the world.
But seriously, its ignorant to try to control the source of information.
Just like the war on drugs, you could bomb columbia into the stone age and execute all the drug lords, but if people demand the drugs someone will risk their lives to provide it.
The only way to prevent your kids from doing drugs is to be aware of what they are doing. Just because they are able to buy drugs online via myspace makes it no different if they were just using the telephone or word of mouth.
You can either ground them and not let them out of the house or make rules about using the phone or internet that you have to supervise it. You can't go around blaming the English language, the telephone company, and the internet because your kid does something you don't want him to do.
This is a perfect example of how to fight commercial censorship... vote with your wallet.
I vote wtih adblock.
Seriously, Myspace is unreadable without Adblock on. Still, a viable campaign against myspace would be to educate everyone via your blogs or annoucments encouraging and explaining how to block myspace ads on their profile page. Sine Myspace doesn't have subscriptions, this would hit em where it hurts.
1,000,000 without looking a single add... They'd have to close shop though and everyone would have to move to freindster. Hrm... Maybe this isn't a great idea after all.
Who ever suggested the net was free of censorship?
No one said that... The saying goes, "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
Clearly this is one of those times.
Of course, had there never been censorship on the net then there wouldn't be any of this routing.
"If I have 120 dollars and I donate 20, I get taxed on the remaining 100 dollars (let's pretend it's 35%) - so I wind up with 65 dollars.
If I have 120 dollars and I don't donate anything, and I get taxed on the 120 dollars (and let's pretend that the tax rate on 120 dollars is 40%) I wind up with 72 dollars."
If that were the correct method then yes it would work like that, buuut....
Tax is a bit more exponetial....
Lets say I make a $28,000 a year... According to the 2006 schedule (being single and all) I get taxed at 15% which means I have to pay 4,200 in taxes and only get 23,800 of that.
Then I get a raise and make 32,000 and now I get taxed 25% which means I owe $8,000 and only get 24,000. Well damn... I'm only getting a yearly $200 dollar raise.
BUT! If I donate $2,000 of that and get back at the 15% bracket. I only owe $4,500 sooo... 30,000 - 4,500 = 25,500!!!
Thats $1,500 more money I get to keep.
The trick of deductions is that you have to get slightly below your bracket and you will see more money.
Well, yeah, but it's equally relevant that there's no DRM with MP3s. Microsoft and Verizon are Big Businesses (TM). They can't afford to tick off the Powers That Be (TM).
Um... I thought Microsoft and Verizon were powers that be. I'm pretty sure the collective might of Verizon and Microsoft are larger than the RIAA. This is a bit more of control on MS's terms. Remember computer software sales are more than movie and music sales in total money value put together.
If Microsoft wanted to beat down the RIAA it would have more money backing and more lawyers and the potential to destroy any DRM schemes that Sony or anyone else wants to put on Windows. (They made the OS after all) Sony might call foul and claim anti-monopoly practices though.
But the main reason they want WMA is that WMA forces persons to use the Windows Media player which usually tends to be for Windows. (Yeah there is a Mac version but it blows ass and videos run slow for some unknown reason and it tends to be a stripped down version.)
So MS isn't playing ball here, they are doing this for themselves and getting verizon to play along.
You're assuming that the politicians can't get unquestioning machinery to work for them and get things done instead.
Well chances are if they don't teach the machines morals, then one day the machines won't have any qualms turning on its masters. Then again, if synthetic life did away with all politicians, would that really be a bad thing?
Every culture used to do some weird/nasty/mean things at some point.
In 10,000 years, our descendants will probaly think the same about us. Going to church, monogamy, having kids, practicing capitalism, driving cars, discussing politics, and reading articles on slashdot will be seen as unthinkable barbarous acts by their generation.
Then again, if we happen to blow ourselves up any times soon with nuclear weapons between now and then, they might of course be eating each other over fire pits.