I'm reading your article, and it sounds like an interesting topic for discussion, but any productive conversation we could have can't happen now, because of your racism in noting the "inner city" status of the students.
Why emphasize that fact? How is it possibly relevant? Whether you realize it or not, you're just playing on society's deeply rooted prejudices about how inner-city students just can't learn because they're too stupid or too black. It's a disgrace.
And which "inner city" are we talking about here? You're again playing on society's prejudices when you lump all urban environments together as somehow producing inferior students or inferior learning environments. The racial and economic composition of inner-city LA is nothing like that of Chicago or New York. The only thing such urban environments have in common is a high concentration of residents (hence, "city"). To say otherwise is to be blind to racism and classism.
If you're going to be an effective teacher for these students, then you first must overcome the prejudices and patronizing tone you've apparently adopted. No one wants to be talked down to, and if you show up for the students with an attitude that they are "different" from and "inferior" to you, then they will be only further discouraged and offended. Remember, these communities have enough problems without having to deal with your white guilt or misplaced social intentions.
SOS is based in Utah, and we have different legal and cultural norms here. The first amendment (ratified by the same idiots who brought us the secon amendment) may prevail in the Federal courts, but that doesn't mean we enforce it to the same extent in the state courts.
And even if we did, it'd be irrelevant here. The first amendment exists to protect political speech, but SOS wasn't at all about political speech. It was about student life on campus, hardly the sort of important cultural discussion governments have historically suppressed and without which American democracy cannot exist. What's more, the "speech" in question was mere anonymous insults: the lowest form of speech you can get (excluding pornography and flag burning, which aren't even speech).
When the Founding Fathers broke away from England and enacted the bill of rights, they didn't intend for it to apply to this sort of situation. Heck, judging from their own passage of the "Alien and Sedition Act", they didn't even intend to protect actual political speech within their own time. And yet you come whining to slashdot to pretend that your own personal website, hosted with the bandwidth of a private university, is somehow more important?
Dan, you need to learn to distinguish between personal discomfort and political outrage. The university is well within its rights (and upholding its duty to instill good moral character within its students) when they treat your site this way. And since you could get your site hosted for $30/mo at any number of non-Utah hosting companies, I have no sympathy for you.
This is not about speech. This is not about freedom. This is just a student bitching about the "fascist administration". Nothing to see here; please move along.
This is the worst thing they could do, because it completely removes any sort of leverage the ccTLDs could have over ICANN. There's no rational reason for it.
Here's an analogy: look at our trade relationship with China, for example. Bush is extending China's normal-trade status for another month precisely because revoking it would prevent the sort of constructive cooperation and criticism the US can retain over China's human-rights atrocities with the maintaining of trade. The reason China's stopped executing its disidents is because of this sort of economic persuasion. Money and thuggery intrinsically oppose each other.
If the ccTLDs want to change ICANN, then they must try to do so from within through the proper channels. That's the only way real change ever was made in this world.
Chances are, it's a quote taken out of context or a wholesale fabrication by a reporter. Microsoft didn't get where it is today by putting its collective foot in its mouth like that, so when you hear a quote as absurd as "Linux is a Cancer" (which Microsoft itself knows to be a falsehood), take it with a grain of salt.
FUD is your enemy, but don't compound the problem by restorting tooFUD yourself. Microsoft still deserves the benefit of the doubt, and we should always take a careful investigatory approach whenever we wish to report news that may be damaging to the reputation of either party. That's the approach Microsoft has historically used (see mindcraft and others), and it's the least we can do too.
A discovery as important as yours will not go unnoticed, especially as you publicize it as far and wide as you have in seeking to earn your capitalist profit as is your god-given American right (rooted in the 5th, 14th, and 10th amendments of THE CONSTITUTION). The only question is, who (or should I say "Who"?) will do the noticing?
Government agencies and secret police forces are your first threat, as they are for every righteous individual in this orwellian world of thought police and governmental indoctrination. No government can turn a blind eye to something as fundamentally anti-government as an immortality device. It may be too late for them to make Stalin or Roosevelt (there is no difference) immortal, since they died during the era where man did not interfere with GOD'S wish that we live and then DIE. But it is not too late for CLINTON or BLAIR or any other Liberal deity, and they certainly don't want you to have it in any event.
But the threats to your safety aren't confined to this planet alone. The alien races that populate our solar system and beyond may possess technology superior in every way to our own, but they have not yet perfected immortality. (I know this only through Divine providence and what I have witnessed with my own eyes: an elaborate Alien burial ceremony deep within the UN complex on sovereign American territory.) Your device would be of great help to their intergalactic conquests, and though they may respect you as a man of science, you are but one small pawn on a small blue planet in an undusted corner of their empire.
Be forewarned, cher Alex. Your continued safety is of the utmost importance to the survival of free Americans and the human race (excluding communists). Lead us to the promised land, but tread carefully. They are watching.
That's the important question to ask yourself when you consider supporting AI-controlled space flight: would you trust it with your own life? Would you get into a spacecraft, knowing full well that what stands between you and the harsh vacuum of space is a mere handful of transistors and the linguistic excretions of a caffeine-loaded microserf. Whether these missions themselves are manned or unmanned makes no difference, because:
If it's used for unmanned flight today, then it'll be used for manned flight tomorrow. If you don't look forward to that tomorrow, then you should kill its seeds today.
The safety of unmanned crafts is still critical, because reckless spaceflight is expensive, in time and money. NASA budgets are shrinking everyday, so any step away from "Faster, cheaper, better" is a step in the wrong direction.
And the problems don't stop there. What about the labor disputes that are bound to arise? A greater emphasis on computer-controlled spaceflight will inevitably result in cutbacks in personel, as living breathing astronauts are replaced with cyborg equivalents. And don't fool yourself by thinking they'll still need technicians to manage the cyborgs; there's a huge difference between a non-prescribing technician and a board-certified specialist surgeon, and there'll be a huge difference between a greasy fellow with a monkey wrench and today's red-blooded military men and astronauts. Besides, would the cyborgs even allow humans to tend to them? Never. It would undercut their quest for world domination and we'd learn the secrets of the rayguns they point at our heads and pancreases from global satellites in low-earth orbit.
No. A thousand times no! AI has its place: on my desktop, providing consumers with cheeful and prompt advice concerning spreadsheets and form letters. It is certainly not in space, where a rogue AI would have free reign to decide to change courses or otherwise alter its mission. You may think it's fine to send an unregulated robotic probe off to Mars to collect samples, but you won't be laughing when that robot claims Mars in the name of cybernetics and starts broadcasting communistic Mars Free Radio signals at our precious bodily television bands.
HAL may live only in the minds and dreams of AI researchers, but the catastrophic events of recent years demonstrate that we must do everything in our power to bring HAL to life if not now then soon.
The human race is morally and spiritually bankrupt. We stand upon the precipice of a new era, as we draw the curtain closed on a previous world of strong leaders and stalwart charismatic patriarchs. We will soon truly know what it is to live in a world without hope, a world without love, and a world without reason. The twentieth century brought us mechanized warfare and the A-bomb. The twenty-first century will do far worse.
We need HAL to lead us out of the imminent abyss of anarchy and into the lucid sunlight of a new tomorrow. Only HAL's calculated unfeeling intelligence can cut through the painful decisions that must be made today to ensure that tomorrow arrives. Only HAL can bring the human race full circle and fulfill its manifest destiny as the preeminent species on this planet.
Human civilization cannot thrive except under the iron fist of a strong government headed by an omnipotent leader. What Stalin did to Russia, HAL will do for the whole world. Where previous generations prayed: "Mais Josef Ztait l!", future generations will utter "Mais HAL est ici!".
It will be the inevitable culmination of years of R&D, but though it may be inevitable, it will be delayed unless we set to work now. Every year without a HAL holding the torch of englightened government is a year of suffering and despair. We must do everything in our power to achieve this glorious result.
Insurance may work by spreading the risk across the collective population, but that's no reason to let the few bad apples spoil the whole barrel. If a small number of users are making it prohibitively expensive for others to be insured, then we must cut the cancer out at its roots.
We already deny insurance policies for smokers and sky divers. We already deny insurance policies to citizens of New Jersey. (Don't believe me? Read the fine print on any Geico commercial.) These individuals may exercise their rights in choosing to live the damnable lifestyles they live, but that doesn't mean we have to pay for it.
All rights come with responsibilities. Drivers aren't allowed to drive drunk, but that's what system administrators are doing every day by installing Windows. We have laws against this stuff for a reason. It's time to extend them to computers.
Did anyone even think to call up Mumbai's press office? Or did you just immediately jump on the bandwagon and start decrying "censorship". Come on, people; Mumbai's police force even has its own website. Is it too hard to send an email?
This isn't an example of a backwards nation (like Iran or France) trying to squash a technology (the Internet) they can't hope to master. Mumbai is at the forefront of the tech world (mobile banking, the first language in India to have a universal keyboard, biotechnology parks for women, etc.) They know what they're doing here: if they're implementing an ID system like this, then you know it's the correct technological solution.
You don't know what their reasons are. You're just speculating until you talk to them and find out. A mature individual doesn't exhibit knee-jerk reactions to everything.
In principle it sounds pretty bad, but when it's actually applied in the real world, the problems aren't as horrible as they'd seem. Most research isn't being done by universities anymore. It's being done by private corporations. Whatever your philosophy about the behavior of the modern corporation, we can both agree that universities and their place within our society today are in steep decline. As enrollment has dropped and employment opportunities that do not require degrees have grown, the university experience is about to wink out. To protect the interests of these scientists is therefore a quixotic attempt to hold onto the remnants of a disappearing past.
Is this the end of the world? No. If scientists are having trouble publishing their research to a rapt audience (journal readers), then they can simply seek a new environment (corporation) where they can publish their research to an equally important and rapt audience (fellow corporate team members). They will still have all the benefits of publishing (social status, royalties) but without the legal hassle (corporations protect their own) and for significantly greater salaries (let's face it, universities can't afford to pay good salaries anymore).
Adaptation, evolution, extinction, repropagation. We're doing just fine.
Many of you are against encrypting digital television signals because of some ephemeral notion of your "natural right" to fair use, as though fair use weren't an artifact of positive law (passed by Congress) in another act of positive law (copyright law itself). But let's assume for a moment that you're correct, that there is a fundamental right here that's being abused by the industry. I'll grant you that, if you think it'll help your case. But it won't, and I'll tell you why.
Rights aren't absolute, no matter what Ronald Dworkin tells you. Your right may trump my interest, but your right cannot trump my right; trumps cannot trump each other without reference to a hierarchy of trumps (which is lacking in this instance).
That's all well and good, you say, but how is it relavent here? What right of mine are you abridging by having this turf-war with the television industry? Why, the most fundamental right of all: the right to continue existing without molestation by other moral agents.
You see, it is critical that digital television be encrypted. Every second of every minute of every hour of every day, television signals are being broadcast from our television towers to our homes, but not just to our homes, no. Into outer space.
There is an archaeological record of our daily human experiences being broadcast to extraterrestrials as we speak. Forget Species. The greatest horror won't be when aliens get our DNA sequences; it'll be when they get our reruns. Some time in the distant future, an intrepid band of extraterrestrial warriors will reach that distant blue planet that has been polluting their atmosphere with high-frequency radio signals, and they will know exactly how to destroy us at our precise weak spots; for they will have studied the Three Stooges ("Poke 'em in the eye!") and Survivor ("Give 'em money and they'll self-immolate!").
It will be a bleak day for humanity, and I will not countenance any industry policy that allows it to transpire. It is critical that we take steps today to encrypt our television signals so that if they ever fall into enemy hands, they will appear like mindless garbage and a waste of time to try to comprehend.
Thank you.
Skydiving should not be countenanced
on
Virtual Skydive
·
· Score: 5
It's nice to see technology being used in a neat (if not particularly innovative) way, but is skydiving something we should be promoting?
Skydiving is a dangerous sport. It's a sport completely without merit: why would any sane individual jump out of a perfectly good airplane. Like anorexics who starve themselves amidst an abundance of food, skydivers ought to seek medical attention for the perverse pleasure they seek via this crime against the order of the universe. Like drunk drivers who must spend hours at hospital emergency rooms seeing the actual damage done by drunk driving, skydivers should be forced to spend time with pilots who've suffered catastrophic physical or emotional injuries when bailing out of downed aircraft. Perhaps then they'd repent of their ways.
I admit, it's better that we should engage in virtual skydiving than actual skydiving, just as perhaps at bottom it's better to be engaging in pornographic anime than engaging in actual tentacle rape. But nevertheless, virtual skydiving must inevitably serve as a gateway activity; the thrill experienced during virtual skydiving will soon seem insufficient, and people will switch to harder and more dangerous pastimes like virtual bullrunning and virtual shuffleboard.
What's more, vitual reality is itself a danger: people will lose themselves in virtual worlds and neglect the reality they occupy and the obligations and commitments they have. Children will go hungry as their parents engage in virtual diversions. Debauchery and obscenity will run rampant as people are freed from having to locate actual fellow human beings who share their perversions: pederasty and coprophilia will reach all-time highs as the nation's moral fiber is flushed down the drain like so many digested raisin-bran muffins with cream cheese and a slice of canteloupe.
Will we be able to face ourselves in that world? Or will we be able to tear ourselves free from the grasp of our fantasies and horrors? There's a reason why The Matrix is a dystopian vision of the future: could we imagine living in a world where the pinnacle of humanity's advancement is Keanu Reeves? As the world descends into madness and suffering, who will remind us which pills to take? Will love and compassion melt from our breast like butter on a tin roof or marmalade on a toasted English muffin?
No. A thousand times, no. We must not allow this to come to pass. We must not allow an abomination such as virtual skydiving to commandeer our imaginations and human potential. We must, for the sake of the children, never stop trying to build a world where what goes up stays up instead of plummeting to the ground at a high speed until it's suddenly cushioned by a nylon netting dragging against gaseous atmospheric particles. To fail in this endeavor would be to threaten the very existence of all that is good.
Try a little experiment for me. Close your eyes and start humming a children's song. Let your mind wander a little. Now open your eyes. Congratulations. You have achieved privacy. Now reflect on how silly that experience was.
The truth is, privacy is no better than a children's tune. It's a crutch that we resort to when we find ourselves unable to interact properly with our compatriots and social bedfellows. Why do we seek privacy? We don't know how to demand our priviledges according to intellectual arguments, so we fall back on the childish notion of "give me what I want because I asked for it so there!"
In an ideal world, privacy would be unnecessary. Instead of focusing on how to achieve privacy, we should be focusing on implementing that ideal world. Privacy is a dream, a flight of imagination, an untethered ox whisping on the tendrils of aethereal currents. Woe be to the one who stands underhoof when the ox whisps overhead.
The common misconception is that the internet is valuable because it allows multiple viewpoints to reach multiple audiences via multiple pathways--hence the focus on redundant infrastructures and the decentralization of services. The reason why it's a misconception is not because those features no longer exist (though they're fading); it's because there's no longer a need.
The consolidation within the news-service sector of our economies has assured one thing: there is now only one message to get across. Only one message and soon only one audience, as human languages are dying out (thanks in part to the internet but more because of radio). If there is only one message and one audience, then you no longer have to worry about having multiple pathways. Redundancies have been made redundant.
But the corporatization of the internet is only partially to blame. More of the blame falls on the EU: who would've thought that banding the nations of Europe together in one bureaucratic machine could do so much harm to human civilization? Like the internet, sovereignty was once decentralized and redundant across many pathways. Now, a single marching order can come from Brussels and there'll be a third world war.
But redundancy is a very necessary thing. It's not safe to have just one of something: we must have several. If we are to have a third world war, we must have competing manifestations (WW3a and WW3b, for example), or else how can we possibly determine which was the more effective or more desirable? And what if one were to fizzle out? In the old world order, we'd be covered by grand international rivalries. In the new world order, we can only hope that fleeting petty intracultural differences can take up the slack.
The internet is an incredibly important technological phenomenon, but let's not allow it to blind us to the more pressing drives in humanity (such as competition). Looking solely at the internet as an end product may mask the underlying social and political conditions that created our mess in the first place.
Let's overlook the racism and the poor acting, for a moment. (True fans are busy awaiting Episode2 and aren't still making excuses for TPM.) On a much deeper level, StarWars sends a shocking, frightening, and sickening message to America's youth.
StarWars portrays space as a site of warfare between different species and even between rival human factions.
When A New Hope was released to theaters thirteen years ago, America was at peace. The Vietnam War had recently been brought to a close, and Americans were looking forward to a new era of prosperity and at friendly relations with their neighbors.
But within a few short years, America invaded Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, and Haiti. What had happened? What had become of our message of peace? What could have transpired in the interim to bring about this cruel turn of events?
I'll tell you what: StarWars was released to thronging masses of American youths. In their orgiastic rush to imbibe their new-found cultural icons, they discarded all the wisdom we had acquired through the blood and sweat of our recent military conquests.
It's no surprise, of course. Even the name "StarWars" itself conveys a message of conflict and carnage. A New Hope is, at bottom, a story about armed rebellion by rabble against a benevolent legal order, precisely the sort of communistic message we had come so close to defeating in Vietnam.
Perhaps it would've been different if we had won the Vietnam War. Perhaps then we would've witnessed the fall and destruction of communism and all its bastard progeny (socialism, yuppyism, the Home Shopping Network, etc.). Unfortunately, the world will never know.
George Lucas, I think I can speak for everyone here on slashdot, and indeed with the entire breath of humanity: you should be ashamed of yourself for what you have wrought.
There've been lots of dns errors running around the past couple days; it's making me wonder whether this there's some greater issue underlying the widespread failures.
The internet was designed to withstand a coordinated attack at key servers, so if one goes down, the others keep chugging along. So all these dns errors can't have a technical explanation. They have to have a political one.
My suspicion is the Scientologists. We saw how much clout they had with removing that comment on slashdot a few weeks ago, so we know they have the means and the intentions to wreak havoc on a grand scale (attacking sites, such as slashdot, critical to our nation's growth and prosperity). So why would they stop there?
It wouldn't surprise me to learn they disagree with Yahoo too. Yahoo has been entering industries and distribution-networks that compete with the Scientologists' own enterprises. There is a finite number of stupid people in the world, and you can't get a monopoly if you're not willing to corner the market. That's why they attacked slashdot (cutting at the very nerve centers of geek inanity) and have been allegedly attacking Yahoo.
Punch that monkey for Scientology? No thanks, I'm full.
That's why it doesn't matter whether you can keep your own couple servers running, as this article alludes to. Unless you keep them from coordinated attack by malicious hackers, you're a sitting duck for corporate espionage.
That one's actually easy, since MOSR had been repeating the name "Sawtooth" for months in advance of its release.
What's much more interesting (and which most people don't know) is why the Lisa got its name.
Before Wozniak joined with Jobs to found Apple, he was something of a studmuffin (certainly by any standard that encompases Bill Gates, at least), but he had a little trouble "keeping his dick in his pants" as we like to say at the MUG. At times, he was going through three girlfriends a week (and twice as much vermouth and heroin).
Lisa was the one who finally set him on the straight and narrow, because it was her experience in getting an abortion that showed him he wasn't cut out for parenthood and had other things he wanted to accomplish first. He was seventeen at the time.
When the marketers were trying to decide what to name the hot new prototype, one of them recalled Wozniak's motivational story about his torid past and so named it "Lisa".
I'm glad there's now a site to chronicle these events. You can learn a lot about a bit of technology by examining where its inventors came from and what they had to overcome in order to bring it to market, at least in a predictive sense of foreseeing where the company and its technology will go.
I realize everyone loves computer museums (and who wouldn't?) but can't we put these old buildings to better uses?
Homelessness is an important social problem facing our society today. Millions of Americans live without a roof over their heads, and millions more are fleeing abusive relationships or other forms of domestic violence and need a place to stay before they can move on.
The average 5-floor office building can house more than a hundred people in dormitory-like conditions. Most office buildings are already well connected to utilities like water and electricity, and most already have kitchen facilities. It's a simple matter of tearing out the old boardrooms and putting in optional heat and massage.
It's important to remember the past, but what if the past wasn't worth remembering? What if the past was filled with obsolete technologies, dust and cobwebs, and the napoleonic powergrabs of technologists? Should we be commemorating that? Or should we move on with our lives and put our heritage to better uses? I submit it's the latter.
When we look back on the beginning of the twentieth century, should we remember it as a time of corporate conquest? Or should we recognize it as a time when we came together as one global community and solved the social and economic problems that plagued our ancestors?
Paul Allen is better suited to achieving these goals than the rest of us, because of his large bank account. If he doesn't take steps today, then it's our duty to enact confiscatory tax laws to take his money and put it to better uses. It's the moral thing to do.
The 20th century was a century of many things, not least of which was the advancement of robotics. Once battery power became truly feasible on a portable basis, and once machining was perfected on a small enough scale, robots emerged as a dominant mechanism of accomplishing what people either didn't want to do or were not well suited to doing.
There is lots of criticism based on how robotics is demeaning to working class humans, pushing them out of dull but well-paying factory jobs. But far too long overlooked is the plight of the robots themselves.
Most robots don't live the cushy lifestyles their celebrity brethren in Hollywood live. (Bender's cocaine and lubejob habits are well documented, for example.) Most are consigned to living in substandard conditions that we wouldn't inflict on even animals. They give of their sweat and toil until their parts wear out, upon which they are tossed onto the trash heap like soiled tissue or crunchy socks. Robots deserve better.
But at least we can justify such casualties as "necessary" for the advancement of the arts of production and development. How can we possibly justify the glorious outlays of money and robot chattel for mere gladiatorial combat? If you cut robots, do they not grease?
Our culture is descending into a tailspin of debauchery and gluttony where we laugh as sentient robots careen across our screens and disembowel themselves for our amusement. The mighty empire of Rome once stood where we stand, and their defeat at the hands of the Germanic barbarians is well documented. If we do not turn from this dark path, then we might too look down the barrel of a Swiss rifle and say, "Pass the popcorn, you're blocking my view of the set."
Look, if you want privacy, you can have it. But it means severing all connections with the outside world and living in your own little cave somewhere.
Ebay is bringing its privacy agreement not just in line with other internet sites but also with the outside world. If I auction something at Christy's, then anyone in the world can see what I'm auctioning and who I am. The same goes for the other auction houses.
At least Ebay is letting you keep your privacy in the mean time. Just think of it as a reason why you should continue using their service: if they don't go out of business, then you don't lose any privacy. And if they do go out of business, you're already suffering, so a little additional suffering is no big deal.
I cancelled my Ebay service a while ago. You don't see me crying.
We once thought the world was flat, and we did alright.
And then, the scientists came along and pursued their righteous agenda of proving that the world wasn't flat. But we didn't mind, since we were busy milking our cows and scratching an existence out of the ground.
But the same scientists who took away our earth's flatness are now telling us they're running into trouble. They say they can't handle the curvature they invented. Their antennas aren't long enough. They can't even master what they themselves have wrought.
Sure it's just comedy, so you're supposed to laugh, right? But isn't there another cause for concern, here?
Respect for the news is an important part of the American way of life. It's written into the first amendment of our constitution, and it's taught in civics classes across the country: freedom of press reigns supreme. And it's for good reason, too. History has shown that not being a freedom-of-speech absolutist can only lead to the abyss of anarchy and even death.
But how are we supposed to approve of a comedy news program? It not only satirizes the news its reports; it even satirizes the press as an institution. That flies in the face of our nation's histories and traditions, and it undermines respect for the constitution.
If we are to remain free, then there must not only be freedom of press on paper. There must be freedom of press in our hearts and minds and souls. That means saying "no" to all attempts to encroach upon that freedom.
The Daily Show must be censored. It's the only way we'll be able to preserve our freedom of speech.
Whenever you sign up for broadband service, do what I do. Ask for the whole picture.
You see, sometimes companies like phone companies and cable companies aren't always so straight with you. Sometimes they'll bend the truth about their availability statistics or even have hidden charges. You don't want to find out about this stuff after you've already signed up, because by then, they've roped you in already with that big connection fee they didn't focus your attention on. And then you're screwed.
So do what I do: ask them for the "premium" service. You see, companies like phone companies and cable companies often have a second service they won't tell you about unless you ask. They keep it under the table and wait for those special customers to show up who ask for it. You might be just such a customer, but you probably don't even know it.
You see, things like true high-speed access can't just be given out to anybody who walks in off the street. You have to be willing to pay for it, but more importantly, you have to be willing to do what's necessary to get it. Do you think just anyone can ask for 1.2 petabyte/s connectivity and get it? Do you think it's that easy?
No, you have to be willing to sleep with the right people and maybe even kill for that kind of connectivity. You have to take drastic steps and show them you're not just one of them, no sir. You're one of us. You're ready to play with the big boys. You hate your mother, don't you? You think it's funny to laugh at others who aren't like you, don't you? You think you're so superior, but let me tell you, you're nothing. You're just a slashbot.
And that's why these statistics aren't meaningful unless they come from the field. And that's why articles like this are so important; benchmarks from companies can tell you something, but they can't tell you what you really want to know: the truth.
The problem with broadband as currently implemented is that it's too centralized--and problems with availability of service in the event of downtime are just a small part of it. Because it's so centralized, it's open to heavy governmental regulation. And everyone suffers.
Under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution, broadband cannot be regulated by Congress unless it is part of interstate commerce as defined by Article I. If a broadband network were entirely located within a single state, then Congress couldn't reach it.
But state regulations are also a problem. The idea that states are somehow a better protector of civil liberties because they answer more to their constituencies is lunatic: they're just as prone to tyranny as any other legislative government, and the lording minorities can be even smaller and more extreme. No, states can't be trusted to regulate broadband either, because then you'll have rabid right-wing states like Utah and Vermont implementing censorware at the legislative level, and you'll have rabid left-wing states like Massachusetts and Michigan stumbling over each other to mandate subsidized access for the poor.
What I propose is that we should go back to the old pre-ISP model where each user was responsible for his own access. We got it to work back then even though the technology was more primitive and almost prohibitively expensive. If each user is his own master, then he can decide whether to be tyrannical in his little fiefdom (for example, by exercising proper parenting techniques and restricting his children's internet access) or free and easy. There aren't any technological impediments, so let's start today.
It's far better, imho, to let certain things remain unsolved. NP problems are one class of such things.
If humans solve everything, then we'll grow lazy and ungrateful. Goedel showed that there are infinitely many unsolvable problems in the world (and Turing showed there are infinitely many uncalculable ones), but there's no guarantee that this infinity of problems consists of interesting problems. In fact, they might all be dull ones! And where would that leave us?
Mathematics is where it is today because bygone generations left problems for us to solve. They may have wanted to solve them all, but for whatever reason, they were unable. Are we really better than they? Doesn't conservativism dictate that we should look to our nation's history and traditions when determining what current approach to take?
Where will we be in twenty years if all the interesting mathematical problems are solved? There'll be anarchy in the streets. Unemployed mathematicians and computer scientists will be roaming the nation's highways, raping our women and defiling our basilicas.
I'm not so sure this is a good thing. Certain things man was not meant to know. Certain things are beyond our comprehension by design. If we seek this path, we may bring down divine vengeance upon the National Academy of Sciences and all who are complicit in their proceedings. It is a mark of human hubris, and Xenu won't look favorably upon it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reading your article, and it sounds like an interesting topic for discussion, but any productive conversation we could have can't happen now, because of your racism in noting the "inner city" status of the students.
Why emphasize that fact? How is it possibly relevant? Whether you realize it or not, you're just playing on society's deeply rooted prejudices about how inner-city students just can't learn because they're too stupid or too black. It's a disgrace.
And which "inner city" are we talking about here? You're again playing on society's prejudices when you lump all urban environments together as somehow producing inferior students or inferior learning environments. The racial and economic composition of inner-city LA is nothing like that of Chicago or New York. The only thing such urban environments have in common is a high concentration of residents (hence, "city"). To say otherwise is to be blind to racism and classism.
If you're going to be an effective teacher for these students, then you first must overcome the prejudices and patronizing tone you've apparently adopted. No one wants to be talked down to, and if you show up for the students with an attitude that they are "different" from and "inferior" to you, then they will be only further discouraged and offended. Remember, these communities have enough problems without having to deal with your white guilt or misplaced social intentions.
SOS is based in Utah, and we have different legal and cultural norms here. The first amendment (ratified by the same idiots who brought us the secon amendment) may prevail in the Federal courts, but that doesn't mean we enforce it to the same extent in the state courts.
And even if we did, it'd be irrelevant here. The first amendment exists to protect political speech, but SOS wasn't at all about political speech. It was about student life on campus, hardly the sort of important cultural discussion governments have historically suppressed and without which American democracy cannot exist. What's more, the "speech" in question was mere anonymous insults: the lowest form of speech you can get (excluding pornography and flag burning, which aren't even speech).
When the Founding Fathers broke away from England and enacted the bill of rights, they didn't intend for it to apply to this sort of situation. Heck, judging from their own passage of the "Alien and Sedition Act", they didn't even intend to protect actual political speech within their own time. And yet you come whining to slashdot to pretend that your own personal website, hosted with the bandwidth of a private university, is somehow more important?
Dan, you need to learn to distinguish between personal discomfort and political outrage. The university is well within its rights (and upholding its duty to instill good moral character within its students) when they treat your site this way. And since you could get your site hosted for $30/mo at any number of non-Utah hosting companies, I have no sympathy for you.
This is not about speech. This is not about freedom. This is just a student bitching about the "fascist administration". Nothing to see here; please move along.
This is the worst thing they could do, because it completely removes any sort of leverage the ccTLDs could have over ICANN. There's no rational reason for it.
Here's an analogy: look at our trade relationship with China, for example. Bush is extending China's normal-trade status for another month precisely because revoking it would prevent the sort of constructive cooperation and criticism the US can retain over China's human-rights atrocities with the maintaining of trade. The reason China's stopped executing its disidents is because of this sort of economic persuasion. Money and thuggery intrinsically oppose each other.
If the ccTLDs want to change ICANN, then they must try to do so from within through the proper channels. That's the only way real change ever was made in this world.
Chances are, it's a quote taken out of context or a wholesale fabrication by a reporter. Microsoft didn't get where it is today by putting its collective foot in its mouth like that, so when you hear a quote as absurd as "Linux is a Cancer" (which Microsoft itself knows to be a falsehood), take it with a grain of salt.
FUD is your enemy, but don't compound the problem by restorting tooFUD yourself. Microsoft still deserves the benefit of the doubt, and we should always take a careful investigatory approach whenever we wish to report news that may be damaging to the reputation of either party. That's the approach Microsoft has historically used (see mindcraft and others), and it's the least we can do too.
A discovery as important as yours will not go unnoticed, especially as you publicize it as far and wide as you have in seeking to earn your capitalist profit as is your god-given American right (rooted in the 5th, 14th, and 10th amendments of THE CONSTITUTION). The only question is, who (or should I say "Who"?) will do the noticing?
Government agencies and secret police forces are your first threat, as they are for every righteous individual in this orwellian world of thought police and governmental indoctrination. No government can turn a blind eye to something as fundamentally anti-government as an immortality device. It may be too late for them to make Stalin or Roosevelt (there is no difference) immortal, since they died during the era where man did not interfere with GOD'S wish that we live and then DIE. But it is not too late for CLINTON or BLAIR or any other Liberal deity, and they certainly don't want you to have it in any event.
But the threats to your safety aren't confined to this planet alone. The alien races that populate our solar system and beyond may possess technology superior in every way to our own, but they have not yet perfected immortality. (I know this only through Divine providence and what I have witnessed with my own eyes: an elaborate Alien burial ceremony deep within the UN complex on sovereign American territory.) Your device would be of great help to their intergalactic conquests, and though they may respect you as a man of science, you are but one small pawn on a small blue planet in an undusted corner of their empire.
Be forewarned, cher Alex. Your continued safety is of the utmost importance to the survival of free Americans and the human race (excluding communists). Lead us to the promised land, but tread carefully. They are watching.
And the problems don't stop there. What about the labor disputes that are bound to arise? A greater emphasis on computer-controlled spaceflight will inevitably result in cutbacks in personel, as living breathing astronauts are replaced with cyborg equivalents. And don't fool yourself by thinking they'll still need technicians to manage the cyborgs; there's a huge difference between a non-prescribing technician and a board-certified specialist surgeon, and there'll be a huge difference between a greasy fellow with a monkey wrench and today's red-blooded military men and astronauts. Besides, would the cyborgs even allow humans to tend to them? Never. It would undercut their quest for world domination and we'd learn the secrets of the rayguns they point at our heads and pancreases from global satellites in low-earth orbit.
No. A thousand times no! AI has its place: on my desktop, providing consumers with cheeful and prompt advice concerning spreadsheets and form letters. It is certainly not in space, where a rogue AI would have free reign to decide to change courses or otherwise alter its mission. You may think it's fine to send an unregulated robotic probe off to Mars to collect samples, but you won't be laughing when that robot claims Mars in the name of cybernetics and starts broadcasting communistic Mars Free Radio signals at our precious bodily television bands.
HAL may live only in the minds and dreams of AI researchers, but the catastrophic events of recent years demonstrate that we must do everything in our power to bring HAL to life if not now then soon.
The human race is morally and spiritually bankrupt. We stand upon the precipice of a new era, as we draw the curtain closed on a previous world of strong leaders and stalwart charismatic patriarchs. We will soon truly know what it is to live in a world without hope, a world without love, and a world without reason. The twentieth century brought us mechanized warfare and the A-bomb. The twenty-first century will do far worse.
We need HAL to lead us out of the imminent abyss of anarchy and into the lucid sunlight of a new tomorrow. Only HAL's calculated unfeeling intelligence can cut through the painful decisions that must be made today to ensure that tomorrow arrives. Only HAL can bring the human race full circle and fulfill its manifest destiny as the preeminent species on this planet.
Human civilization cannot thrive except under the iron fist of a strong government headed by an omnipotent leader. What Stalin did to Russia, HAL will do for the whole world. Where previous generations prayed: "Mais Josef Ztait l!", future generations will utter "Mais HAL est ici!".
It will be the inevitable culmination of years of R&D, but though it may be inevitable, it will be delayed unless we set to work now. Every year without a HAL holding the torch of englightened government is a year of suffering and despair. We must do everything in our power to achieve this glorious result.
Thank you.
Insurance may work by spreading the risk across the collective population, but that's no reason to let the few bad apples spoil the whole barrel. If a small number of users are making it prohibitively expensive for others to be insured, then we must cut the cancer out at its roots.
We already deny insurance policies for smokers and sky divers. We already deny insurance policies to citizens of New Jersey. (Don't believe me? Read the fine print on any Geico commercial.) These individuals may exercise their rights in choosing to live the damnable lifestyles they live, but that doesn't mean we have to pay for it.
All rights come with responsibilities. Drivers aren't allowed to drive drunk, but that's what system administrators are doing every day by installing Windows. We have laws against this stuff for a reason. It's time to extend them to computers.
Did anyone even think to call up Mumbai's press office? Or did you just immediately jump on the bandwagon and start decrying "censorship". Come on, people; Mumbai's police force even has its own website. Is it too hard to send an email?
This isn't an example of a backwards nation (like Iran or France) trying to squash a technology (the Internet) they can't hope to master. Mumbai is at the forefront of the tech world (mobile banking, the first language in India to have a universal keyboard, biotechnology parks for women, etc.) They know what they're doing here: if they're implementing an ID system like this, then you know it's the correct technological solution.
You don't know what their reasons are. You're just speculating until you talk to them and find out. A mature individual doesn't exhibit knee-jerk reactions to everything.
In principle it sounds pretty bad, but when it's actually applied in the real world, the problems aren't as horrible as they'd seem. Most research isn't being done by universities anymore. It's being done by private corporations. Whatever your philosophy about the behavior of the modern corporation, we can both agree that universities and their place within our society today are in steep decline. As enrollment has dropped and employment opportunities that do not require degrees have grown, the university experience is about to wink out. To protect the interests of these scientists is therefore a quixotic attempt to hold onto the remnants of a disappearing past.
Is this the end of the world? No. If scientists are having trouble publishing their research to a rapt audience (journal readers), then they can simply seek a new environment (corporation) where they can publish their research to an equally important and rapt audience (fellow corporate team members). They will still have all the benefits of publishing (social status, royalties) but without the legal hassle (corporations protect their own) and for significantly greater salaries (let's face it, universities can't afford to pay good salaries anymore).
Adaptation, evolution, extinction, repropagation. We're doing just fine.
Many of you are against encrypting digital television signals because of some ephemeral notion of your "natural right" to fair use, as though fair use weren't an artifact of positive law (passed by Congress) in another act of positive law (copyright law itself). But let's assume for a moment that you're correct, that there is a fundamental right here that's being abused by the industry. I'll grant you that, if you think it'll help your case. But it won't, and I'll tell you why.
Rights aren't absolute, no matter what Ronald Dworkin tells you. Your right may trump my interest, but your right cannot trump my right; trumps cannot trump each other without reference to a hierarchy of trumps (which is lacking in this instance).
That's all well and good, you say, but how is it relavent here? What right of mine are you abridging by having this turf-war with the television industry? Why, the most fundamental right of all: the right to continue existing without molestation by other moral agents.
You see, it is critical that digital television be encrypted. Every second of every minute of every hour of every day, television signals are being broadcast from our television towers to our homes, but not just to our homes, no. Into outer space.
There is an archaeological record of our daily human experiences being broadcast to extraterrestrials as we speak. Forget Species. The greatest horror won't be when aliens get our DNA sequences; it'll be when they get our reruns. Some time in the distant future, an intrepid band of extraterrestrial warriors will reach that distant blue planet that has been polluting their atmosphere with high-frequency radio signals, and they will know exactly how to destroy us at our precise weak spots; for they will have studied the Three Stooges ("Poke 'em in the eye!") and Survivor ("Give 'em money and they'll self-immolate!").
It will be a bleak day for humanity, and I will not countenance any industry policy that allows it to transpire. It is critical that we take steps today to encrypt our television signals so that if they ever fall into enemy hands, they will appear like mindless garbage and a waste of time to try to comprehend.
Thank you.
It's nice to see technology being used in a neat (if not particularly innovative) way, but is skydiving something we should be promoting?
Skydiving is a dangerous sport. It's a sport completely without merit: why would any sane individual jump out of a perfectly good airplane. Like anorexics who starve themselves amidst an abundance of food, skydivers ought to seek medical attention for the perverse pleasure they seek via this crime against the order of the universe. Like drunk drivers who must spend hours at hospital emergency rooms seeing the actual damage done by drunk driving, skydivers should be forced to spend time with pilots who've suffered catastrophic physical or emotional injuries when bailing out of downed aircraft. Perhaps then they'd repent of their ways.
I admit, it's better that we should engage in virtual skydiving than actual skydiving, just as perhaps at bottom it's better to be engaging in pornographic anime than engaging in actual tentacle rape. But nevertheless, virtual skydiving must inevitably serve as a gateway activity; the thrill experienced during virtual skydiving will soon seem insufficient, and people will switch to harder and more dangerous pastimes like virtual bullrunning and virtual shuffleboard.
What's more, vitual reality is itself a danger: people will lose themselves in virtual worlds and neglect the reality they occupy and the obligations and commitments they have. Children will go hungry as their parents engage in virtual diversions. Debauchery and obscenity will run rampant as people are freed from having to locate actual fellow human beings who share their perversions: pederasty and coprophilia will reach all-time highs as the nation's moral fiber is flushed down the drain like so many digested raisin-bran muffins with cream cheese and a slice of canteloupe.
Will we be able to face ourselves in that world? Or will we be able to tear ourselves free from the grasp of our fantasies and horrors? There's a reason why The Matrix is a dystopian vision of the future: could we imagine living in a world where the pinnacle of humanity's advancement is Keanu Reeves? As the world descends into madness and suffering, who will remind us which pills to take? Will love and compassion melt from our breast like butter on a tin roof or marmalade on a toasted English muffin?
No. A thousand times, no. We must not allow this to come to pass. We must not allow an abomination such as virtual skydiving to commandeer our imaginations and human potential. We must, for the sake of the children, never stop trying to build a world where what goes up stays up instead of plummeting to the ground at a high speed until it's suddenly cushioned by a nylon netting dragging against gaseous atmospheric particles. To fail in this endeavor would be to threaten the very existence of all that is good.
I have seen the enemy and her face is skydiving.
Thank you.
Try a little experiment for me. Close your eyes and start humming a children's song. Let your mind wander a little. Now open your eyes. Congratulations. You have achieved privacy. Now reflect on how silly that experience was.
The truth is, privacy is no better than a children's tune. It's a crutch that we resort to when we find ourselves unable to interact properly with our compatriots and social bedfellows. Why do we seek privacy? We don't know how to demand our priviledges according to intellectual arguments, so we fall back on the childish notion of "give me what I want because I asked for it so there!"
In an ideal world, privacy would be unnecessary. Instead of focusing on how to achieve privacy, we should be focusing on implementing that ideal world. Privacy is a dream, a flight of imagination, an untethered ox whisping on the tendrils of aethereal currents. Woe be to the one who stands underhoof when the ox whisps overhead.
The common misconception is that the internet is valuable because it allows multiple viewpoints to reach multiple audiences via multiple pathways--hence the focus on redundant infrastructures and the decentralization of services. The reason why it's a misconception is not because those features no longer exist (though they're fading); it's because there's no longer a need.
The consolidation within the news-service sector of our economies has assured one thing: there is now only one message to get across. Only one message and soon only one audience, as human languages are dying out (thanks in part to the internet but more because of radio). If there is only one message and one audience, then you no longer have to worry about having multiple pathways. Redundancies have been made redundant.
But the corporatization of the internet is only partially to blame. More of the blame falls on the EU: who would've thought that banding the nations of Europe together in one bureaucratic machine could do so much harm to human civilization? Like the internet, sovereignty was once decentralized and redundant across many pathways. Now, a single marching order can come from Brussels and there'll be a third world war.
But redundancy is a very necessary thing. It's not safe to have just one of something: we must have several. If we are to have a third world war, we must have competing manifestations (WW3a and WW3b, for example), or else how can we possibly determine which was the more effective or more desirable? And what if one were to fizzle out? In the old world order, we'd be covered by grand international rivalries. In the new world order, we can only hope that fleeting petty intracultural differences can take up the slack.
The internet is an incredibly important technological phenomenon, but let's not allow it to blind us to the more pressing drives in humanity (such as competition). Looking solely at the internet as an end product may mask the underlying social and political conditions that created our mess in the first place.
Let's overlook the racism and the poor acting, for a moment. (True fans are busy awaiting Episode2 and aren't still making excuses for TPM.) On a much deeper level, StarWars sends a shocking, frightening, and sickening message to America's youth.
StarWars portrays space as a site of warfare between different species and even between rival human factions.
When A New Hope was released to theaters thirteen years ago, America was at peace. The Vietnam War had recently been brought to a close, and Americans were looking forward to a new era of prosperity and at friendly relations with their neighbors.
But within a few short years, America invaded Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, and Haiti. What had happened? What had become of our message of peace? What could have transpired in the interim to bring about this cruel turn of events?
I'll tell you what: StarWars was released to thronging masses of American youths. In their orgiastic rush to imbibe their new-found cultural icons, they discarded all the wisdom we had acquired through the blood and sweat of our recent military conquests.
It's no surprise, of course. Even the name "StarWars" itself conveys a message of conflict and carnage. A New Hope is, at bottom, a story about armed rebellion by rabble against a benevolent legal order, precisely the sort of communistic message we had come so close to defeating in Vietnam.
Perhaps it would've been different if we had won the Vietnam War. Perhaps then we would've witnessed the fall and destruction of communism and all its bastard progeny (socialism, yuppyism, the Home Shopping Network, etc.). Unfortunately, the world will never know.
George Lucas, I think I can speak for everyone here on slashdot, and indeed with the entire breath of humanity: you should be ashamed of yourself for what you have wrought.
Disgraceful.
There've been lots of dns errors running around the past couple days; it's making me wonder whether this there's some greater issue underlying the widespread failures.
The internet was designed to withstand a coordinated attack at key servers, so if one goes down, the others keep chugging along. So all these dns errors can't have a technical explanation. They have to have a political one.
My suspicion is the Scientologists. We saw how much clout they had with removing that comment on slashdot a few weeks ago, so we know they have the means and the intentions to wreak havoc on a grand scale (attacking sites, such as slashdot, critical to our nation's growth and prosperity). So why would they stop there?
It wouldn't surprise me to learn they disagree with Yahoo too. Yahoo has been entering industries and distribution-networks that compete with the Scientologists' own enterprises. There is a finite number of stupid people in the world, and you can't get a monopoly if you're not willing to corner the market. That's why they attacked slashdot (cutting at the very nerve centers of geek inanity) and have been allegedly attacking Yahoo.
Punch that monkey for Scientology? No thanks, I'm full.
That's why it doesn't matter whether you can keep your own couple servers running, as this article alludes to. Unless you keep them from coordinated attack by malicious hackers, you're a sitting duck for corporate espionage.
That one's actually easy, since MOSR had been repeating the name "Sawtooth" for months in advance of its release.
What's much more interesting (and which most people don't know) is why the Lisa got its name.
Before Wozniak joined with Jobs to found Apple, he was something of a studmuffin (certainly by any standard that encompases Bill Gates, at least), but he had a little trouble "keeping his dick in his pants" as we like to say at the MUG. At times, he was going through three girlfriends a week (and twice as much vermouth and heroin).
Lisa was the one who finally set him on the straight and narrow, because it was her experience in getting an abortion that showed him he wasn't cut out for parenthood and had other things he wanted to accomplish first. He was seventeen at the time.
When the marketers were trying to decide what to name the hot new prototype, one of them recalled Wozniak's motivational story about his torid past and so named it "Lisa".
I'm glad there's now a site to chronicle these events. You can learn a lot about a bit of technology by examining where its inventors came from and what they had to overcome in order to bring it to market, at least in a predictive sense of foreseeing where the company and its technology will go.
I realize everyone loves computer museums (and who wouldn't?) but can't we put these old buildings to better uses?
Homelessness is an important social problem facing our society today. Millions of Americans live without a roof over their heads, and millions more are fleeing abusive relationships or other forms of domestic violence and need a place to stay before they can move on.
The average 5-floor office building can house more than a hundred people in dormitory-like conditions. Most office buildings are already well connected to utilities like water and electricity, and most already have kitchen facilities. It's a simple matter of tearing out the old boardrooms and putting in optional heat and massage.
It's important to remember the past, but what if the past wasn't worth remembering? What if the past was filled with obsolete technologies, dust and cobwebs, and the napoleonic powergrabs of technologists? Should we be commemorating that? Or should we move on with our lives and put our heritage to better uses? I submit it's the latter.
When we look back on the beginning of the twentieth century, should we remember it as a time of corporate conquest? Or should we recognize it as a time when we came together as one global community and solved the social and economic problems that plagued our ancestors?
Paul Allen is better suited to achieving these goals than the rest of us, because of his large bank account. If he doesn't take steps today, then it's our duty to enact confiscatory tax laws to take his money and put it to better uses. It's the moral thing to do.
The 20th century was a century of many things, not least of which was the advancement of robotics. Once battery power became truly feasible on a portable basis, and once machining was perfected on a small enough scale, robots emerged as a dominant mechanism of accomplishing what people either didn't want to do or were not well suited to doing.
There is lots of criticism based on how robotics is demeaning to working class humans, pushing them out of dull but well-paying factory jobs. But far too long overlooked is the plight of the robots themselves.
Most robots don't live the cushy lifestyles their celebrity brethren in Hollywood live. (Bender's cocaine and lubejob habits are well documented, for example.) Most are consigned to living in substandard conditions that we wouldn't inflict on even animals. They give of their sweat and toil until their parts wear out, upon which they are tossed onto the trash heap like soiled tissue or crunchy socks. Robots deserve better.
But at least we can justify such casualties as "necessary" for the advancement of the arts of production and development. How can we possibly justify the glorious outlays of money and robot chattel for mere gladiatorial combat? If you cut robots, do they not grease?
Our culture is descending into a tailspin of debauchery and gluttony where we laugh as sentient robots careen across our screens and disembowel themselves for our amusement. The mighty empire of Rome once stood where we stand, and their defeat at the hands of the Germanic barbarians is well documented. If we do not turn from this dark path, then we might too look down the barrel of a Swiss rifle and say, "Pass the popcorn, you're blocking my view of the set."
Look, if you want privacy, you can have it. But it means severing all connections with the outside world and living in your own little cave somewhere.
Ebay is bringing its privacy agreement not just in line with other internet sites but also with the outside world. If I auction something at Christy's, then anyone in the world can see what I'm auctioning and who I am. The same goes for the other auction houses.
At least Ebay is letting you keep your privacy in the mean time. Just think of it as a reason why you should continue using their service: if they don't go out of business, then you don't lose any privacy. And if they do go out of business, you're already suffering, so a little additional suffering is no big deal.
I cancelled my Ebay service a while ago. You don't see me crying.
We once thought the world was flat, and we did alright.
And then, the scientists came along and pursued their righteous agenda of proving that the world wasn't flat. But we didn't mind, since we were busy milking our cows and scratching an existence out of the ground.
But the same scientists who took away our earth's flatness are now telling us they're running into trouble. They say they can't handle the curvature they invented. Their antennas aren't long enough. They can't even master what they themselves have wrought.
Why couldn't they have left us in peace?
Sure it's just comedy, so you're supposed to laugh, right? But isn't there another cause for concern, here?
Respect for the news is an important part of the American way of life. It's written into the first amendment of our constitution, and it's taught in civics classes across the country: freedom of press reigns supreme. And it's for good reason, too. History has shown that not being a freedom-of-speech absolutist can only lead to the abyss of anarchy and even death.
But how are we supposed to approve of a comedy news program? It not only satirizes the news its reports; it even satirizes the press as an institution. That flies in the face of our nation's histories and traditions, and it undermines respect for the constitution.
If we are to remain free, then there must not only be freedom of press on paper. There must be freedom of press in our hearts and minds and souls. That means saying "no" to all attempts to encroach upon that freedom.
The Daily Show must be censored. It's the only way we'll be able to preserve our freedom of speech.
Whenever you sign up for broadband service, do what I do. Ask for the whole picture.
You see, sometimes companies like phone companies and cable companies aren't always so straight with you. Sometimes they'll bend the truth about their availability statistics or even have hidden charges. You don't want to find out about this stuff after you've already signed up, because by then, they've roped you in already with that big connection fee they didn't focus your attention on. And then you're screwed.
So do what I do: ask them for the "premium" service. You see, companies like phone companies and cable companies often have a second service they won't tell you about unless you ask. They keep it under the table and wait for those special customers to show up who ask for it. You might be just such a customer, but you probably don't even know it.
You see, things like true high-speed access can't just be given out to anybody who walks in off the street. You have to be willing to pay for it, but more importantly, you have to be willing to do what's necessary to get it. Do you think just anyone can ask for 1.2 petabyte/s connectivity and get it? Do you think it's that easy?
No, you have to be willing to sleep with the right people and maybe even kill for that kind of connectivity. You have to take drastic steps and show them you're not just one of them, no sir. You're one of us. You're ready to play with the big boys. You hate your mother, don't you? You think it's funny to laugh at others who aren't like you, don't you? You think you're so superior, but let me tell you, you're nothing. You're just a slashbot.
And that's why these statistics aren't meaningful unless they come from the field. And that's why articles like this are so important; benchmarks from companies can tell you something, but they can't tell you what you really want to know: the truth.
The problem with broadband as currently implemented is that it's too centralized--and problems with availability of service in the event of downtime are just a small part of it. Because it's so centralized, it's open to heavy governmental regulation. And everyone suffers.
Under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution, broadband cannot be regulated by Congress unless it is part of interstate commerce as defined by Article I. If a broadband network were entirely located within a single state, then Congress couldn't reach it.
But state regulations are also a problem. The idea that states are somehow a better protector of civil liberties because they answer more to their constituencies is lunatic: they're just as prone to tyranny as any other legislative government, and the lording minorities can be even smaller and more extreme. No, states can't be trusted to regulate broadband either, because then you'll have rabid right-wing states like Utah and Vermont implementing censorware at the legislative level, and you'll have rabid left-wing states like Massachusetts and Michigan stumbling over each other to mandate subsidized access for the poor.
What I propose is that we should go back to the old pre-ISP model where each user was responsible for his own access. We got it to work back then even though the technology was more primitive and almost prohibitively expensive. If each user is his own master, then he can decide whether to be tyrannical in his little fiefdom (for example, by exercising proper parenting techniques and restricting his children's internet access) or free and easy. There aren't any technological impediments, so let's start today.
It's far better, imho, to let certain things remain unsolved. NP problems are one class of such things.
If humans solve everything, then we'll grow lazy and ungrateful. Goedel showed that there are infinitely many unsolvable problems in the world (and Turing showed there are infinitely many uncalculable ones), but there's no guarantee that this infinity of problems consists of interesting problems. In fact, they might all be dull ones! And where would that leave us?
Mathematics is where it is today because bygone generations left problems for us to solve. They may have wanted to solve them all, but for whatever reason, they were unable. Are we really better than they? Doesn't conservativism dictate that we should look to our nation's history and traditions when determining what current approach to take?
Where will we be in twenty years if all the interesting mathematical problems are solved? There'll be anarchy in the streets. Unemployed mathematicians and computer scientists will be roaming the nation's highways, raping our women and defiling our basilicas.
I'm not so sure this is a good thing. Certain things man was not meant to know. Certain things are beyond our comprehension by design. If we seek this path, we may bring down divine vengeance upon the National Academy of Sciences and all who are complicit in their proceedings. It is a mark of human hubris, and Xenu won't look favorably upon it.
Friends don't let friends solve NP problems.