The internet will reduce the value of a good long-term memory significantly, because you can always look things up, and it will increase the value of being a quick study dramatically.
In the future, a person's memories will be nothing more than a neural link to wikipedia articles and their decision making process will be based off how the construct their google search.
Oddly, only the monotheism you take a whack at has truly embraced free will and self-determination.
Well... Wrong. There is Buddhism. But of course that depends on which version of Buddhism you follow... But Buddism in general looks at overcoming human impulse so that you can truly determine your fate rather than just letting your psycological impulses and desires take.
And strictly speaking... Many forms of old school Christianity believe in pre-determination that since God is all powerful and all knowing that he knows what you are already going to do so therefore it is already determined.
By definition socialism implies government involvment. There is no such thing as 'corporate socialism'.
Without Government there would be no such thing as a "corporation". Corporations are sanctioned and recognized by the government without which they could not exist. There is some legaleese if you to study about the 1890's about corporations being recognized as persons if you want and that we should fall for it.
DRM lets content creators decide how their ip gets used.
You mean make people pay twice for something they already own. Secondly and sadly, most creators don't actually have any say in how their creations are used once they sign it away to companies.
No such thing. Censorship ONLY applies to government limits on free speech.
What? I didn't say that. Besides, ever hear of self-censorship? The church censorships all the time through history. Go hit dictionary.com or something. Anyone can do it, but the only person who legally bound to not censor your freedom of speech is the government. I didn't say it was illegal... I said it was censorship via proxy. But just because it is legal doesn't make it moral and just.
Me kicking you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying is NOT censorship.
Oh and what did I say about analogies!!! That doesn't work because I wouldn't be in your house trying to talk with you with some device. But if you want one it's like if you went to the store and all the phones bleeped out words of something you were trying to say even though they were non-offensive words.
Last I checked, Linus Torvalds still holds the final say of the GPL version Linux kernel will be using in the future. It's up to him to decide if the kernel is going to use GPL v3 or not.
First off, I'm sure filmakers and musicians will be oh so happy to "socialize" their media. Not.
DRM is socialism too. Its just run by the corporations rather than the government. The down side is that corporations aren't restricted by a constitution to what they are willing to censor.
Think about it... If all computers systems are using "Trusted Computing" and you can only run "DRM'ed Media" then what happens to the media that corporations do not allowed to be DRM'ed? Obviously this can be used to stamp out competition or quash views that hurt the companies giving out DRM keys.
What about Indy musicians and film directors whose material is too controversial to purchase a WMA license or get iTunes to publish? If they can't sell their media in any other format because no one can play it... That's censorship by proxy.
We aren't talking about piracy here. We are talking about large mainstream organizations destroying anything that a committee deems non-acceptable for public consumption.
It was made clear long ago that lasers are hopeless for this purpose.
If they can aquire 500 million dollars, then they obviously know something you don't.
Of course, the "something" they know could be how to make convincing powerpoint presentations to ignorant venture capitalists or bored unsupervised government grant writers.
The humans declared they patented fire and the spear as that they also held a copyright to verbal communication phrase "uggg!". The neanderthals, unable to afford a lawyer, had to settle out of court with all their winter supplies and starved to death.
Not only do I want the DS to be a controller, but also be an interface to games. Take an RTS or RPG that not only could you look at the action on the screen, but you could also get tactical info from the DS screens.
I know that is information overload......but I'm geek like that.
BTW from what I have seen so far, DS touch pad with a pen is a good substitute for a mouse (although not perfect, but it's really close).
When you pulled up on the doorhandle it checked your ID and unlocked. Automatically locked when you got more than 20 feet away, and only had a push-button for a starter.
What?! And put all those horror and thriller movie directors out of a job because they can't make movies about people franticaly fumbling with their keys as the monster or killer slowly closes in on them.
Jeez... Cell phones were hard enough on the industry...
How does an artist's decision to publish via a DRMed medium force you to compensate them for their work, if you don't want to buy it?
If I can't buy a mother board without trusted computing then I have no choice but to buy artists that only use DRM.
This means that I could not play any media of artists that refuse to use DRM or sell non-DRM media.
Don't you understand. DRM is not about stopping piracy. It's about controlling content. What happens when the organizations that control DRM don't like your art and refuse to let you DRM it? Its censorship by proxy.
If all tvs, computer, and portable audio can only play DRM then only content that will be allowed to play is those which are liscensed for DRM and if those giving out the DRM codes don't like what you have to say may not let you DRM it.
Would you trust these corporations with your freedom of speach?
Look. I don't mind DRM on DVD's and WMA files becuase I'll buy them... But when I have no choice to what other media I play especially if it's media content that non-corporate artist plays on my computer then I'm hostile toward the idea.
It's called civilization. Do you pump and process your own drinking water? Produce your own electricity? Make the hardware you're using to read this comment right now? Spend a few million to produce a really good film so you can watch it once?
No it's not. That's all technology. You can theoretically live in anarcy and still have electricity and pump your own water. (Though you need to be very technically inclined and have access to tools that don't break)
The Chinese and Romans had civilization thousands of years before any real technology took hold (although they were both had quite a few nifty technologies at the time, it wasn't required for them to create and administer codes of law).
What you should have said is: "It's called capitalism."
People need to be credited for their creations and should be allowed to sell their creations for a profit, but this does not entail you crippling others rights to their own ideas just because you think you deserve to be paid by society regardless of if they even wanted to ignore your creation all together.
Or the pressure to give food and resources to offspring, over attempting immortality.
Well first there is the vasectomy. Then there is the prosthetic cyber brain and robotic body transfer... I haven't been able to figure out how to do the second part and it still hurts down there.
Why do people need to defend consumer products so vigorously?
Oh geez. Didn't you watch the indoctrination video when you became an American consumer? You know clause #2: It is your duty as a consumer to pick a brand and defend your choice and support this one brand of product to the death! Failure to do so will mark you as a socialist commie bastard who doesn't support capitalist competition...
Anyhoos....
I could explain this phenomenon as something called consumer loyalty. Many consumers will take offense when told they didn't pick the brand that had the best options which implicates that they were just ignorant people for failing to buy a superior product. I think many people often feel attached or relate to their physical possesions as an extension of their persona. If you insult their car or home or favorite brand of beer they feel personally offended.
I think some of this has to do with corporate advertising and consumer mentality of america.
Personally, I'd like to own them all if I could... Oh wait a minute...
Why on earth should lots of machines be able to send email from inside a corporation?
Most large corporations use Exchange, Groupwise, or Notes Servers. The network admins most likley don't even think of bothering to block port 25 because they don't use SMTP.
It's never been simply about "OS xyz has feature abc while the competition doesn't".
I don't know if you can label "Spyware and Viruses" as a feature.;)
But seriously most non-tech people don't really care about how much ram, hard drive space, or ghz a computer runs at beyond what the sales person tells them they need at the store.
Most of their experience is how bad the computer treats them after they buy it... As you are well aware of many of these same people will not even bother to try to fix it and then just buy a new one.
If you don't believe it, you still have to respect others for believing what they do. Insulting those who have a faith is just plain disrespectful.
But my faith as a Militant Zen Buddhist requires me to disrespect all forms of sentient life and mock people who do not conform to my beliefs!
But seriously, if your faith or personal beliefs conflict with others you can't really avoid disrepecting them on forums because your ideas in themselves are offensive to their thinking or way of life.
This applies to both sides of the issue right and left.
In other words, if God created the universe, who created God?
Natural selection of supreme beings.
But seriously, God is a concept that man has labeled something he does not understand and may not be able to understand with the limits of spoken language and brain power. I usually think God is just another term for physics and that it doesn't exist like we think it does.
I figure God will come into physical form sometime in the future as some sort of machine like construct, but it will be something that man builds (or perhaps something that man builds that goes on to build other machines) and that machine understands reality and has the ability to control all atoms in the universe and time and space itself.
However if man is still around to see this, they will be sorely disapointed in their god since it will most likely not fit their description of what they think god should be.
Or we will figure out God is just another John Carmack and life is just a MMOG simulation and we are all alient lifeforms addicted to EarthCrack.
You think all the owners who buy sports cars, whether it's a base-model ford mustang or a top-end ferrari, are going to be satisfied "turning over all control" of their car and just reading the newspaper or watching a movie on the way to work?
You sir, have never had to drive to work on I-76 in Philadelphia during morning traffic. I might as well be reading a newspaper on the way to work and heck... I've got a manual trasmision.
Slashdot Mirror
The internet will reduce the value of a good long-term memory significantly, because you can always look things up, and it will increase the value of being a quick study dramatically.
In the future, a person's memories will be nothing more than a neural link to wikipedia articles and their decision making process will be based off how the construct their google search.
Wait... I think I already do that.
How about kids these days get away from computers and start playing outside.
You've never been to New Jersey or Deleware, have you?
Oddly, only the monotheism you take a whack at has truly embraced free will and self-determination.
Well... Wrong. There is Buddhism. But of course that depends on which version of Buddhism you follow... But Buddism in general looks at overcoming human impulse so that you can truly determine your fate rather than just letting your psycological impulses and desires take.
And strictly speaking... Many forms of old school Christianity believe in pre-determination that since God is all powerful and all knowing that he knows what you are already going to do so therefore it is already determined.
They will argue all sides of an issue if it suits their political agenda, but they have no credibility.
I'll take someone who will argue both sides of an issue than one that does not.
By definition socialism implies government involvment. There is no such thing as 'corporate socialism'.
Without Government there would be no such thing as a "corporation". Corporations are sanctioned and recognized by the government without which they could not exist. There is some legaleese if you to study about the 1890's about corporations being recognized as persons if you want and that we should fall for it.
DRM lets content creators decide how their ip gets used.
You mean make people pay twice for something they already own. Secondly and sadly, most creators don't actually have any say in how their creations are used once they sign it away to companies.
No such thing. Censorship ONLY applies to government limits on free speech.
What? I didn't say that. Besides, ever hear of self-censorship? The church censorships all the time through history. Go hit dictionary.com or something. Anyone can do it, but the only person who legally bound to not censor your freedom of speech is the government. I didn't say it was illegal... I said it was censorship via proxy. But just because it is legal doesn't make it moral and just.
Me kicking you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying is NOT censorship.
Oh and what did I say about analogies!!! That doesn't work because I wouldn't be in your house trying to talk with you with some device. But if you want one it's like if you went to the store and all the phones bleeped out words of something you were trying to say even though they were non-offensive words.
No.
Yes.
How can you really think that it will mean NO MEDIA can be played that isn't DRM?
Um... Wasn't that the point of "trusted computing"? Please correct me if I am wrong and I'd rather be wrong in this situation.
Last I checked, Linus Torvalds still holds the final say of the GPL version Linux kernel will be using in the future. It's up to him to decide if the kernel is going to use GPL v3 or not.
First off, I'm sure filmakers and musicians will be oh so happy to "socialize" their media. Not.
DRM is socialism too. Its just run by the corporations rather than the government. The down side is that corporations aren't restricted by a constitution to what they are willing to censor.
Think about it... If all computers systems are using "Trusted Computing" and you can only run "DRM'ed Media" then what happens to the media that corporations do not allowed to be DRM'ed? Obviously this can be used to stamp out competition or quash views that hurt the companies giving out DRM keys.
What about Indy musicians and film directors whose material is too controversial to purchase a WMA license or get iTunes to publish? If they can't sell their media in any other format because no one can play it... That's censorship by proxy.
We aren't talking about piracy here. We are talking about large mainstream organizations destroying anything that a committee deems non-acceptable for public consumption.
That's as close socialism gets.
Personally, I don't like the media tax either.
If this method is made public, would it not mean that many (once accuring the necessary equipment), be able to easily whip up Hydrogen Bombs?
Only if they build an airplane big enough to drop the entire fusion reactor.
It was made clear long ago that lasers are hopeless for this purpose.
If they can aquire 500 million dollars, then they obviously know something you don't.
Of course, the "something" they know could be how to make convincing powerpoint presentations to ignorant venture capitalists or bored unsupervised government grant writers.
I'll believe in AI when a robot can tie shoelaces.
And put my servants out a job!?
No thank you. I'll take a human to tie my shoes any day of the week over a heartless machine. The nerve!
because they didn't stand up to the RIAA.
The humans declared they patented fire and the spear as that they also held a copyright to verbal communication phrase "uggg!". The neanderthals, unable to afford a lawyer, had to settle out of court with all their winter supplies and starved to death.
Not only do I want the DS to be a controller, but also be an interface to games. Take an RTS or RPG that not only could you look at the action on the screen, but you could also get tactical info from the DS screens.
...but I'm geek like that.
I know that is information overload...
BTW from what I have seen so far, DS touch pad with a pen is a good substitute for a mouse (although not perfect, but it's really close).
When you pulled up on the doorhandle it checked your ID and unlocked. Automatically locked when you got more than 20 feet away, and only had a push-button for a starter.
What?! And put all those horror and thriller movie directors out of a job because they can't make movies about people franticaly fumbling with their keys as the monster or killer slowly closes in on them.
Jeez... Cell phones were hard enough on the industry...
How does an artist's decision to publish via a DRMed medium force you to compensate them for their work, if you don't want to buy it?
If I can't buy a mother board without trusted computing then I have no choice but to buy artists that only use DRM.
This means that I could not play any media of artists that refuse to use DRM or sell non-DRM media.
Don't you understand. DRM is not about stopping piracy. It's about controlling content. What happens when the organizations that control DRM don't like your art and refuse to let you DRM it? Its censorship by proxy.
If all tvs, computer, and portable audio can only play DRM then only content that will be allowed to play is those which are liscensed for DRM and if those giving out the DRM codes don't like what you have to say may not let you DRM it.
Would you trust these corporations with your freedom of speach?
Look. I don't mind DRM on DVD's and WMA files becuase I'll buy them... But when I have no choice to what other media I play especially if it's media content that non-corporate artist plays on my computer then I'm hostile toward the idea.
I don't know about who owns the viruses, but my the iPod earbuds that i own might be growing a nasty bacteria culture.
It's called civilization. Do you pump and process your own drinking water? Produce your own electricity? Make the hardware you're using to read this comment right now? Spend a few million to produce a really good film so you can watch it once?
No it's not. That's all technology. You can theoretically live in anarcy and still have electricity and pump your own water. (Though you need to be very technically inclined and have access to tools that don't break)
The Chinese and Romans had civilization thousands of years before any real technology took hold (although they were both had quite a few nifty technologies at the time, it wasn't required for them to create and administer codes of law).
What you should have said is: "It's called capitalism."
People need to be credited for their creations and should be allowed to sell their creations for a profit, but this does not entail you crippling others rights to their own ideas just because you think you deserve to be paid by society regardless of if they even wanted to ignore your creation all together.
You know what this is?
It's called socialist fascism.
"I'm seriously waiting for the day when a corporation will inseminate a woman for you because it's "easier"."
I could do this for you today if you pay for the bus fare.
Or the pressure to give food and resources to offspring, over attempting immortality.
Well first there is the vasectomy. Then there is the prosthetic cyber brain and robotic body transfer... I haven't been able to figure out how to do the second part and it still hurts down there.
Why do people need to defend consumer products so vigorously?
Oh geez. Didn't you watch the indoctrination video when you became an American consumer? You know clause #2: It is your duty as a consumer to pick a brand and defend your choice and support this one brand of product to the death! Failure to do so will mark you as a socialist commie bastard who doesn't support capitalist competition...
Anyhoos....
I could explain this phenomenon as something called consumer loyalty. Many consumers will take offense when told they didn't pick the brand that had the best options which implicates that they were just ignorant people for failing to buy a superior product. I think many people often feel attached or relate to their physical possesions as an extension of their persona. If you insult their car or home or favorite brand of beer they feel personally offended.
I think some of this has to do with corporate advertising and consumer mentality of america.
Personally, I'd like to own them all if I could... Oh wait a minute...
Why on earth should lots of machines be able to send email from inside a corporation?
Most large corporations use Exchange, Groupwise, or Notes Servers. The network admins most likley don't even think of bothering to block port 25 because they don't use SMTP.
Out of sight. Out of mind.
It's never been simply about "OS xyz has feature abc while the competition doesn't".
;)
I don't know if you can label "Spyware and Viruses" as a feature.
But seriously most non-tech people don't really care about how much ram, hard drive space, or ghz a computer runs at beyond what the sales person tells them they need at the store.
Most of their experience is how bad the computer treats them after they buy it... As you are well aware of many of these same people will not even bother to try to fix it and then just buy a new one.
If you don't believe it, you still have to respect others for believing what they do. Insulting those who have a faith is just plain disrespectful.
But my faith as a Militant Zen Buddhist requires me to disrespect all forms of sentient life and mock people who do not conform to my beliefs!
But seriously, if your faith or personal beliefs conflict with others you can't really avoid disrepecting them on forums because your ideas in themselves are offensive to their thinking or way of life.
This applies to both sides of the issue right and left.
And yes... I like to think I am a Buddhist.
In other words, if God created the universe, who created God?
Natural selection of supreme beings.
But seriously, God is a concept that man has labeled something he does not understand and may not be able to understand with the limits of spoken language and brain power. I usually think God is just another term for physics and that it doesn't exist like we think it does.
I figure God will come into physical form sometime in the future as some sort of machine like construct, but it will be something that man builds (or perhaps something that man builds that goes on to build other machines) and that machine understands reality and has the ability to control all atoms in the universe and time and space itself.
However if man is still around to see this, they will be sorely disapointed in their god since it will most likely not fit their description of what they think god should be.
Or we will figure out God is just another John Carmack and life is just a MMOG simulation and we are all alient lifeforms addicted to EarthCrack.
You think all the owners who buy sports cars, whether it's a base-model ford mustang or a top-end ferrari, are going to be satisfied "turning over all control" of their car and just reading the newspaper or watching a movie on the way to work?
You sir, have never had to drive to work on I-76 in Philadelphia during morning traffic. I might as well be reading a newspaper on the way to work and heck... I've got a manual trasmision.