Others have said they have been dead for a while now and I'd have to agree. The web simply offers more as far as connectivity.
BBS's have a kind of "community" feel for several reasons. They are relatively small, the users are generally local, and especially, they are devoid of commercial content.
Has there been a good model for that "community" feel on the web (or BBS feeling as he calls it)? There has to be a few, but not any that I know of. Most "local" type webpages (for that community feel) are either highly commercialized (sidewalk.com type stuff) or run by local government types (*.us domains) which maybe have community news, but no forums, and are generally bland. The commercial aspect really prevents anything interesting, everything revolves around materialism.
I think slashdot is good, but you can't get that local community feeling here because this is the web of course, it reaches around the world. I'd rather have it this way however, for obvious reasons. There is no need to isolate yourself, and no need to romanticize the past. The web is a Good Thing, even when it's often used otherwise.
1. To make sure the average citizen is anti-chinese, or to make sure Americans stay patriotic. The whole nuclear secrets scandal was shown to basically be a scam, this is similar territory, at least in it's purpose.
2. To maintain legitimacy for our military and to increase support for military funding. Notice how the article mentioned something like 39 million dollars being allocated to "protect computers".
This stuff tends to work on a society that is short on facts and long on tabloid bullshit. Lets face it, there are VERY few people who know anything on this topic, including those in high level government positions. Since most people take the media to be the accepted version of truth, they buy it. Of course people don't trust the media nearly as much as they used to, but this is still true for the most part.
Any country that wants to be a player in the next century *should* be developing this type of technology. Who doubts that the US is way ahead of the Chinese in this technology anyway? The US gets all whipped up anytime some country even hints that they might be increasing their military in some fashion, even though we easily have the most powerful arsenal on the planet.
This is just another piece of extreme right-wing xenophobic rhetoric.
We've been seeing lots of absurd patents here in the last several months (since I've been here at least), but how many of these will actually stand up in court? While I have zero faith in our patent system, I have a shred of hope for our justice system, at least in issues like these (on social issues I have zero hope).
The benefit of these patents for large corporations, of course, is that they can sue everyone to hell until their enemies go bankrupt, through the appeal process, similar to what the RIAA did to Diamond, and will probably do to Napster. I think this is where the real threat is.
However GraphOn isn't that big of a company as far as I know, so I doubt they have enough money to beat anyone up with this patent anyway. Even when your patent is valid, patent lawsuits usually boil down to who has the most money. Hmm...perhaps I should rethink my shred of hope for the justice system...
You're right in that capitalism in how it is used today is much different than what academics teach and thus what most people beleive, if they have many thoughts on it at all, other than it's the best possible choice, if not the only one.
I am one of those/.'ers who dislikes capitalism. I'd say today's version of capitalism is a bit fairer than it was years ago as you suggest. However this issue is incredibly complex and I don't have enough personal knowledge to really say much more than what I've stated below.
Capitalism suffers from what any system with a structured heirarchy has: a lack of accountability and thus a lot of corruption. Every modern political/economic system is structured like this. Thus I don't see capitalism as being much better than communism (don't take this the wrong way). I dislike communism as well for similar reasons.
Unfortunatly a political/economic system that is controlled by many tends to be inefficient. Perhaps sometime in the future this can be helped by technolgy and strong education for everyone (my personal belief).
The bottom line of capitalism is money. This takes away a sense of reality from what really matters. Scare resources have to be allocated somehow, but capitalism has utterly failed at this. It also has a lack of ability to account for the fact that the earth can only give us so much before we cause irreversable damage.
The interesting thing about the linux community is that it was able to create a very good, complex product completely outside of the context of a capitalist business model. Here we have a product that was designed to be a good OS instead of something that will make money through the artificial means of marketing, or brainwashing if you're cynical like me.
People who develop for linux don't do it because they're on some sort of jihad. There are a few zealots, sure. Most people agree, I think, that people develop for linux for personal reasons, to obtain respect in the community. So here a good product can be created that requires a large number of people working together yet they are able to maintain a sense of individuality. I don't know of any companies that can give you that.
A few points to concede:
Linux could be considered to be a "totalitarian" setup since it's code base is controlled by one person. Developing for linux doesn't pay the bills either.
I define progress by a few things. One is the amount of control the average individual has over his/her own life. Two is technologies (including the proper implementation) that allow people more time to pursue higher order functions: specifically education and personal enlightenment. Linux doesn't really fit these per say, but I think it's a step in the right direction because linux isn't particularly tainted by the need for money. Companies like redhat do need to make money, but we do live in a capitalist society so there is no getting around that anytime soon.
"Money is the root of all evil". One of my favorite sayings. Technology is supposed to improve our lives. By my ideas of progress, it hasn't. It is used primarily to feed our materialistic urges, directly related to money. You can factor microsoft right into this. Bill gates limits our ability to control our lives. Lets face it: he has a lot of control over the future of the internet. His power will fade someday, a point even he concedes. People might change, but the instituions do not. As long as we have a capitalist society there will always be someone there to limit our control. I'm open to attack here and could ramble on for hours, but it's late.
I have no amazing solutions, of course. I just see linux as a Good Thing, a form of progress for society. We're generally off topic here but I think this is what the doctor was getting at, on a level he didn't really discuss.
So, two mediocre companies are teaming up together. I think I'm gunna go take a nap now.
Seriously, why doesn't radio shack just die? Perhaps it's the same reason AOL is the biggest and most successful ISP? Oh well, it's not like anyone makes you go into radio shack while you're at the mall.
3rd world? Are you kidding me? They're so desperate that this won't even have an impact, except for maybe the small elite in power. How many 3rd world countries even have electric power for more than 1% of the population? They're third world countries partly due to the fact that they have NO infrastructure to begin with!
So what if Nike's plants go down? The starving and unrespected workers won't have to work 12 hours a day for a few weeks?
The fact that he's using an open source OS is good, and smart. But I've said this before and I'll say it again: If this guy were in a position to create a monopoly, he would, just like Gates. Most businessmen are ruthless enough. Thats how business works, and thats why we need the government to keep monopoly power in check.
Novell, netscape, and any number of other companies got beat up by the bully, Microsoft. Now that the bully is falling down, the executives are flexing their ego's and trying to get their "self-esteem" back. Other than the fact that choosing an open-source OS is a Good Thing, this is nothing more than ego flexing.
Universities are afraid of making anyone mad, due to the "philosophy" of political correctness and the threat of lawsuits. From what I've seen in lawsuits that come from situations like this, the responsible party is almost always ruled to be the end user, studends in this case.
I go to one of the largest public universities in the country, and at any given time, they have at least 50 lawsuits pending against them, probably many more. The threat is real. Don't count on universities to take a stand in this case. They almost never take a stand on anything.
You would think students at CMU would be smarter than this. Rule number 1: no mp3s on the web. OThey'll be taken down quickly. ONLY run ftp sites from YOUR computer. Rule 2: Don't suck more bandwidth than you can get away with. If you're bogging down an entire t3 line, people will start asking questions.
There is a place for networking...the toaster is not one of them. Cell phone and other communications technology is another issue, but here I'm talking mainly about physical appliances with embedded controls.
I think I've seen this discussed here before. Lets face it, toasters are never going to have IP's. There is no point. Perhaps being able to control your lighting, and a few other things remotely would be nice. Stuff like this is available already (X10 type stuff) if you're willing to pay the price, albeit not with IP's. A lot of audio magazines cover this type of stuff, Home Theatre comes to mind.
Lets keep it real for a moment. Is it just me, or does the whole "give your toaster and everything else an IP" sound like something some dumb ass executive at GE would say? How soon will this be a real problem or a real market? Maybe 5 or 10 years down the road for the 1% of the population that can afford it? Frankly there isn't much in my house that I'd want to be able to control remotely other than my computer/data.
Any consumer with half a fuctioning brain will do a cost/benefit analysis and see that networking your entire house pretty much fails. High cost, and large security risks for minimal gains. How lazy do you really want to be? "Hey honey, I just warmed up the oven while sitting on the couch!" Yawn. Most of this stuff I'll leave for the rich who do it "because they can." Let Bill Gates get his house "owned" if he's actually dumb enough to connect it to the internet.
The person who asked the question on this topic also pointed out that most of these devices are not upgradeable. Indeed, any embedded system you buy most likely isn't How many appliance manufacturers would you trust on this point, especially since the average consumer has no idea what we're talking about here anyway? "Sir, this security is unbreakable. The food in your refridgerator will be safe." Where have I heard something like this before? Ah yes. Witness the recent events in DVD land. Even the suits were convinced that it would never be cracked. Yikes.
A lot of this stuff has important applications, for example in building control, for security systems, air conditioning, or whatever. But this already exists in a LAN environment. Changing this type of system to some sort of PC and TCP/IP environment is not a huge step (in the local or MAYBE WAN environment). As far as connecting all this to the internet only sets you up for disaster. So what if you can control all 10 of your building from one location...just pay a few extra people to work at all of the building and save the security risk.
So I'm not worried about this in general because:
The cost is too high. Doesn't do much for you (mostly more couch potato stuff, at least in the home environment). Only a small percentage of the population will be able to afford it. Once these type of systems are cracked, the average consumer will reject them.
I don't recommend trying to meet women on irc, but if you're really that shy, it isn't all that bad. I've actually met a few really cool women on irc, had a 1 year relationship with one of them. The two women I knew the best weren't "geeks" themselves but get along with the geek personality really well. I have met a number of women from irc who I very much *don't* like, but real life results in the same thing anyway. No big deal.
DO NOT become dependant on online socializing. Thats the way I was about 3 years ago, and even if you hang out with people from irc, it's still generally a depressing life. I still chat on irc a bit, but I don't TRY to meet women online anymore. If I happen upon someone who I really seem to get along with (important note: when you talk with someone online, you only "see" a small part of what they really are...you mind tends to make up the rest of what you think they are) I'll still meet them if possible.
Bottom line: DO NOT BECOME DEPENDANT ON ONLINE SOCIALIZATION!! It's just bad. I think most people here will agree.
I never quite understood libertarian ideas. Libetarians' grasp of economics leaves a bit to be desired.
You assume that capitalism is good. The problem is that unchecked capitalism leads to monopoly situations. Your company fights until you are killed, your competition is killed, or you reach some sort of an "agreement" with competitors that usually includes price fixing. Look at any industry there is and you will see this. There are a few exceptions, of course.
Microsoft did exactly what they were supposed to do in a pure capitalist economy. Our government intervened because that is it's job, it has never beleived in a pure free market. But that is starting to change. Corporations today have more power than they've ever had. Just look at all the corporate mergers in the past 5 years. It's absolutely incredible.
The average CEO today makes 450 times that of an average factory worker, up from about 70 times 15 years ago. Are these the wonderful market forces you are talking about?
You mention the baby bells and how this hasn't helped competition. This is absolutely true. However, keeping it intact wouldn't have helped either, which you support.
You also mention "voting with your dollars." This is an important concept for capitalism to work as theorist's would say. But when a monopoly exists, you no longer have this option, your dollars can only go to one place! Can't you see this? I could start my own company I suppose, but can I make inroads into ATT, MCI, or any other companies territory? Unlikely. They'll buy me out, spread FUD, and just plain outmarket me. Just look at microsoft, that is almost an exact definition of their business operation!!
Capitalsim is a paradox. Unbounded it NEVER reaches any kind of competitive equilibrium! What evidence makes you think that it does? I'd sure like to see some. The fact that your ecenomics 101 professor said so doesn't make it correct.
Yesterday was NOT a sad day for freedom and liberty and personal choice. It was just another day of going down this road. I'm so sick of crap like this, and I'm not just saying that because I support linux. This has nothing to do with microsoft. Corporations AND the government have equal responsibility for these erosions. It's been going on for years.
Lets face it. Corporations care about one thing only: money. This is the botom line. They don't care about you, your family, or the planet. Unless you tell them otherwise. I don't like our government much, either. But I'd rather be led by them than a faceless corporation.
Corporations and our government have never done a thing for our country. They only do things symbolically when the people demand it. We have to fight for our rights, we have to stand up for our freedom, because god damn, the corporations only want your money and your soul.
I'm sorry if this sounds like flamebait, but I get really passionate over this subject.
Yes, it indeed does run a sort of windows CE variant...
But it's still a remote, there isn't any OS per say, it might as well be transparent. It does have a microsoft look/feel, though. Another company sells the same remote, madrigal. (www.madrigal.com) It's called the IRIQ. I think they charge more, however. My friend owns one, he says it's worked pretty well for him. I haven't used it myself though so I can't speak to how good it really is.
There is another alternative though, if you want to spend 2k or more:) There are a few companies that make remotes that don't use microsoft (well pretty much all of them), and have color LCD touch screens. They are highly customizeable as well, and will run up to 8 devices. I'm speaking of the one made by phast (www.phast.com). I'll let the website describe the rest.
Basically you pay more money for more customizability. Check out a few issues of Home Theatre magazine, they always have ads for "universal remotes". There are a lot of options.
While I generally have a lot more respect for wired writers than most journalists in general, I still see them as...well...just plain dumb and uninformed.
I quote from the article:
"But high-capacity recordable DVD is coming. In the first quarter of 2000, there will be 4.7GB recordable DVD drives, and DVD copying will be much easier. It may not be a bad idea to hold off on releasing the drives until the copy protection issue is sorted out.
Why advocate such limitations? Because it beats the alternative, which is that movie studios will withhold future releases. And DVD enthusiasts are eagerly awaiting such film classics as Star Wars, Fantasia, and ET."
Uh, well excuse me, but the studios can go to hell before I advocate holding back technology (at least technology that I see as good). What a pathetic encryption scheme to begin with anyway. It deserved to be cracked. Whoever approved this should be shot (people's head are probably rolling over this right now, hopefully).
There are several things the movie industry can do:
1) Do nothing.
Probably the best solution for all. Piracy won't dent their sales that much (even the music industry hasn't been hit that hard yet). This will keep sales at a decent level (compared to the other possible industry reactions). They're already making boatloads of money off of DVD in spite of themselves when they didn't support it in the first place. In the original article on the crack there were good posts on how the movie industry was terrified by VCR's in the beginning as well (obviously unfounded), and the fact that it costs a lot less to make DVD's than it does to make a video cassette, even though the DVD disc will cost you about twice as much on average. Financially there just isn't that much to fear.
2) Create a new encrytion scheme.
Clearly not a good idea for several reasons, although I'm sure they'll be considering it. Any encryption scheme they come up with will be cracked eventually. It would also render all existing hardware obsolete, which is unfair, unethical, and a PR nightmare. This also includes any other "protection schemes" they might come up with that don't necessarily involve encrytion.
3) Enact one of those "you're all pirates" "taxes".
Similar to the charge that exists on all recordable media now (the extent of this I'm not sure of). In order to "offset" the "losses" of pirateing, they might just jack up the price a certain %. Another pathetic idea, but I included it since it's been done before.
It was pointed out by a number of people why piracy won't be such a big deal in the short term (next few years) in the first article about the crack. In the long term it might, but they have something else to fear. This isn't directly relevant but I thought it deserved a thought, since it's related to current happenings in the music industry.
Large record companies are quickly becoming obsolete middlemen with the exception of marketing. The same could happen to the movie industry down the road. Star Wars episode 1 was the beginning of this, I think (This may have been discussed here before, I've been a regular reader for only a few months now). With advances in computer technology, the price of movie making is coming way down. Star wars cost about 60 million I think? Thats a lot less than the typical action/sci fi movie with lots of explositions, etc. This could radically alter the movie industry landscape in the future. Every writer/director/movie maker could have their own small company, with a small studio for actors to act in, and a back room full of computers for all the rest. They'll be able to do actors digitally down the road as well. With the costs reduced (maybe to around a million bucks per film?), maybe I could go see a movie for a dollar. Wouldn't that be great? Of course, savings like that are rarely passed on to the consumer. Oh well, I can always dream:)
how much is it going to cost? And when will it be avaialable? My roommates and I pay about 80 a month for a 512 kbit line and 5 static IP's. This technology is currently WORTHLESS. Speeds this high won't even be offered to the average consumer for probably 5 to 10 years.
There are too many other hurdles to be cleared, political and economic. Technology is not even close to the limiting factor right now in consumer broadband.
Almost anywhere you go, the local cable and phone service is a monopoly. In some places it might be an oligopoly, I doubt you'll see more than 2 competitors anywhere in one market. Therefore, they can get away with price gouging, and hold back new technologies.
Why would these companies invest in their infrastructure to support this? These companies would rather charge you $20 a month for modem service that costs them probably 10 cents a month. Don't like that fact? Well, you can't tell your phone company to f' off, because you have no alternative. The telecommunications act a few years back only makes this situation worse.
I don't know why this company even wasted their time developing this technology (sounds like a "I've got the biggest penis" thing to me). They should be putting their money into political lobbyists to try and break this monopoly situation. As far as I'm concerned, this technology doesn't even exist. It won't affect me or anyone else for a long time.
"This seems almost a desperate price raising strategy to maintain share value... "
Indeed...I speak out against our economic system all the time (and thus the stock market), but it is great for getting rid of companies that are unwilling to change. If you're unwilling to take a cut in profits for the short term, in order to improve your company in the face of changing technology, you won't be around long term.
But I wonder how many of his 280 articles turned out to be all hot air? Even supposed psychics are right some of the time.
Don't get me wrong though, I love people who shake things up. When you talk about things on the level of millions of years, there are simply too many things we don't know, yet throughout human history there has always been some sort of "accepted truth" of "the way things are". Currently as far as the origin of life we have a form of darwinism. A hundred years from now (maybe more) it will most likely have changed to something different. There is also a theory about oil as well, mentioned by the article. It takes an overwhelming amount of evidence to challenge the status quo however, and that is something Gold doesn't have much of right now.
And on a somewhat unrelated note: For those of you who like to bash christianity because of it's lack of science, keep in mind that accepted "scientists" have been lying, covering things up, and brushing off evidence ever since the concept of "science" was conceived. It's a human problem, not simply a religious one. I appreciate guys like Gold who challenge "the way things are."
much more than the paper they're written on. Whats going to stop the gov't from just working around this stuff? Lies, cheating, etc? The star wars program was (I beleive) show to be nothing more than a black hole for money, at least by the popular press. I don't think it was, I think they came up with some laser weapons. In fact they do, they used a laser a few years ago to modify the orbit of a sattelite. They could have turned up the power and blown it to bits if they want to. This was actually reported by the mainstream media (not frontpage news, however).
These treaties do a few things. They give the citizens a small amount of false security. They're also like a truce between animals...when you have to males fighting over territory, they'll fight for a while, someone wins, ans they have a kind of truce. But we all know they're going to be fighting again later. Same thing here. The nuclear weapons we've disarmed haven't been destroyed, they're simply disasembled and in storage. If a nuclear war comes along, they'll be ready to go in no time.
The point is this: The US and Russia were used to doing what they want during the cold war. The only thing that limited the extent of their actions was each other, specifically Mutually Assured Destruction. Today, the US stands alone. Many have said the US has lost a influence over the past 20 or 30 years. I say the US certainly has not...it runs the world directly or indirectly pretty much top to bottom. So basically our government does what it wants, like a neighborhood bully. Witness the recent "war" in kosovo. We f'ed that country up for many, many years to come. Has any good come out of it? Absolutely not, the racial hatred is as bad as it ever was.
So what makes anyone think the US cares about what these treaties say? Who is going to tell the US what to do? Who can stand up to the US' military might? No one. The only thing I can think of is a few small nuclear weapons in a truck parked somewhere in Manhatten. Evasive terrorist groups are the only real (or even imagined, for that matter) threat to the US right now. There are no coutries left that can threaten the US.
Rob has made some good points but I don't think he brought them all the way to the obvious conclusion, which I don't necessarily blame him for since this forum is mainly about computers.
Here are the two main points that I believe, and that Rob more or less basically stated:
Human greed comes before human need, mainly because high level decisions are made by only a few people (who usually aren't so bright), and thus can swing the direction of our society in their favor.
The internet and computers in general is exasperating the gap between rich and poor, first world and third world.
Rob showed the first point by stating that the best and brightest are in the computer industry. While that of course is not entirely true, there is a lot of truth to it because that's where the money is. Huge amounts of money are being invested here because it is making huge money for a lot of companies. There are a lot of more pressing problems that resources need to be diverted to (pollution control, hunger, economic strife) but they don't make money so they get shoved aside. Sometimes the solutions to these problems are called "politically unfeasable" by those in power. This means, simply, those in power don't care about these problems.
Point number two could probably be restated in that it's the information age in general exasperating the problem. As the current state of technology increases, so does the cost of entry to be a part of it. Thousands of years ago, all you really needed was the ability to gather food or do some basic hunting, there was no economy per say. Today, you need at a bare minimum the ability to read. Last I read this shuts out 23% of AMERICANS , because they are functionally illiterate. In third world countries this number is probably up to over 90%. To truly be sucessful, you usually need a college degree, access to, and a minimal knowledge of, computers. Well, even in America, the college graduation rate isn't that high...around 40% maybe? That's shuting out a lot of people in the country that has the most money and power in the world. The third world? Well, the numbers here might as well be 0%.
Some would say that third world countries cause their own problems through political corruption. This is partly true but is oversimplified; the US government and other powerful countries have a lot to do with it. Sometimes it's direct, sometimes it isn't. The US will generally support any government that allows large corporations to use their natural resources. Since this is obviously unpopular with citizens of these countries, these governments are often brutal dictatorships. If these countries get out of line in some way, we bomb them to hell, like Iraq. If you read almost any non-mainstream political texts you'll see that this is the case. There is too much evidence to simply dismiss what I'm saying here. But I'll let you all figure that out for yourselves, I can't write an entire book here:)
Basically the rich have their priorities wrong. Instead of trying to help the poor by increasing education budgets, or giving third world countries more than token support, they simply fatten their pockets. In fact, the US exasperates problems in these countries with military arms, leaving a lot of countries in perpetual misery. They're doing nothing to help with the increasing cost of entry into today's economy.
Technology can be used for good or evil. The internet can be used for wonderful things, but we see it being used more and more to simply sell things that people don't need, and do nothing for society. Society has evolved very slowly compared to technology. This gap needs to close very quickly if humanity is going to survive. When animals fight over territory, the only means they have at their disposal is their physical strength. They don't have nuclear weapons like we do.
You're right on the money here. One of the only shows around that wants you to think. Think deeply. They've lost that. Our entire society is losing it as well, for that matter.
That's the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars. Star wars was always a special effects show, that focused more on the setting and the technology than the characters or reality. A fairy tail with a sort of binary good vs. evil. But we've all seen this many times now, and I think thats the reason star wars didn't do quite as well all these years later. So when Star Trek reduces itself to this level, it suffers badly, especially since that isn't what made it popular in the first place, or what it excels at.
But does the average public even want a thinking show anymore? I hope so but I'm not so sure. NBC canned TNG while it was still a very strong show. Perhaps this was part of the reason, the dumbing down of our society? Or perhaps we watch dumb happy-feely shows like ally mcbeal because, well, thats all they give us.
Really all it would take is some decent scripts. But this is exactly the problem, it just can't happen. Any time a sci-fi series goes mainstream because of popularity, or is designed for a "pop" audience, it is bound to be mediocre, IMHO. It's designed to make a lot of money, and therefore it has to reach the widest audience, which means it has to be a generic plot. I'm doing some extreme generalizing here, but hopefully you see what I mean. Movies like the matrix could have been so much more if they weren't limited by hollywood rules, and even the matrix was a bit out there by hollywood standards, I think.
The franchise is NOT going to go away anytime soon. If it has even a 1% chance of making money, it will be around (witness most movie sequels). I did enjoy TNG the most, then DS9. Somehow Voyager just doesn't impress me. The plots from show to show get repetitive, with a lot of holes in the plot (big fight with the borg, the ship gets all f'ed up, then suddenly its all back together next week like nothing happened). The characters seem one-dimensional, and I'm simply not impressed by them. Bad acting maybe? I don't know. Maybe I just really like the ST:TNG cast for some reason.
It's not like there is much else on TV right now thats any better than voyager anyway, however. Mediocre across the board (I'm really cynical if you didn't notice). What was the last series on TV or movie that you saw that was at all original? I'd be interested in what other/. readers have to say about this. I can't even think of a movie, maybe x-files on tv back when it was a newer show...
It seems to me that the only originality in sci-fi these days is in books...most of the better sci-fi doesn't translate well to the screen, though. Of course that is true of any book in any genre, however. Maybe thats just because of Hollywood.
Well, we've all seem crap like this before, but I'm not sure even the RIAA is dumb enough to make a statement like that. Horrific scenes of teenage sex? Have you ever seen a more crystal clear piece of FUD in your life? I spit on this "BPI" just like I spit on the RIAA.
It's too bad they didn't use the word pedophelia instead of teenage sex...or maybe that would make it too obvious that this is pure FUD. The "pedophelia" or "pedophile" keyword is a favorite among politicians when they want to take away personal freedoms in favor of government regulation to "protect your children." Unfortunatly it's a just a way for them to protect their power base in the face of a changing world. It's obviously the same thing for the BPI. They're trying to protect their profit margins and distribution channels.
I've seen this same porn argument so many times over the past 3 years or so now that it's really funny and really sad at the same time. It's been applied to almost everything involving the internet. The BPI will be linking the words "pedophilia" and "child porn" to mp3's soon enough, since thats what really gets the public going. They're just lagging behind the US propeganda machine a bit, since America is the undispuded leader in propeganda, FUD, and P.R. bullshit. We've got all the cutting edge tactics over here. Lucky us.
But on the upside, when companies or organizations are resorting to pure FUD tactics, they're already losing the battle.
You're right about this being "the way things are", as I would put it. But intel *is* being immoral. Isn't that what misleading people is? Perhaps you mean it isn't immoral as far as standard business practices go, you're right if that is the case. Of course AMD would be doing the same thing if they were in the same position Intel is in now.
There is a fine line between accepted FUD practices and breaking the law, however. If they are strong-arming a few of the larger board makers like ASUS, that is totally illegal. THAT is EXACTLY a microsoft like practice, and part of the reason for the case against them. Of course it is hard to prove this, and no one has any concrete evidence that I've seen. To me it's almost a given that this is going on however, given "the way things are". Another possibility is that ASUS and others are practicing "self-censorship", ie, they know the possible ramifications if they go all out in support of Athlon motherboards, thus they keep the operation small and quiet. These companies don't exist without intel. That would only change if AMD had a large market share, probably on the lines of at least 30%. AMD has nothing near that right now.
I cheer for AMD because they need to do good in order for us to have good competition in the processor market. I buy their products because they are generally cheaper and yet still deliver the goods. I don't like paying a premium for a brand name. Brand name recognition means nothing to me, I don't care if a company was the best 10 years ago or even yesterday, I want what will deliver the goods today at the lowest price. You *might* be able to argue that the celeron is a better deal, but hey, I got my k6-2-350 for 50 bucks about 4 months ago. I'm a poor college student.
Of course most people don't think this way, if it were, advertising and FUD would be irrelavent. Thats why it's up to people who understand to tell the masses the way things are.
tomshardware.com has an editorial on the same thing...
http://www.tomshardware.com/blurb/index.html
I haven't read the Ars Technica article yet, but the tomshardware.com focuses on the idea that intel is strong-amring the tiawan board makers into not making boards for the athlon, lest intel withdraw their support for the company. Worth the read.
Slashdot Mirror
Others have said they have been dead for a while now and I'd have to agree. The web simply offers more as far as connectivity.
BBS's have a kind of "community" feel for several reasons. They are relatively small, the users are generally local, and especially, they are devoid of commercial content.
Has there been a good model for that "community" feel on the web (or BBS feeling as he calls it)? There has to be a few, but not any that I know of. Most "local" type webpages (for that community feel) are either highly commercialized (sidewalk.com type stuff) or run by local government types (*.us domains) which maybe have community news, but no forums, and are generally bland. The commercial aspect really prevents anything interesting, everything revolves around materialism.
I think slashdot is good, but you can't get that local community feeling here because this is the web of course, it reaches around the world. I'd rather have it this way however, for obvious reasons. There is no need to isolate yourself, and no need to romanticize the past. The web is a Good Thing, even when it's often used otherwise.
This article serves a few functions:
1.
To make sure the average citizen is anti-chinese, or to make sure Americans stay patriotic. The whole nuclear secrets scandal was shown to basically be a scam, this is similar territory, at least in it's purpose.
2.
To maintain legitimacy for our military and to increase support for military funding. Notice how the article mentioned something like 39 million dollars being allocated to "protect computers".
This stuff tends to work on a society that is short on facts and long on tabloid bullshit. Lets face it, there are VERY few people who know anything on this topic, including those in high level government positions. Since most people take the media to be the accepted version of truth, they buy it. Of course people don't trust the media nearly as much as they used to, but this is still true for the most part.
Any country that wants to be a player in the next century *should* be developing this type of technology. Who doubts that the US is way ahead of the Chinese in this technology anyway? The US gets all whipped up anytime some country even hints that they might be increasing their military in some fashion, even though we easily have the most powerful arsenal on the planet.
This is just another piece of extreme right-wing xenophobic rhetoric.
We've been seeing lots of absurd patents here in the last several months (since I've been here at least), but how many of these will actually stand up in court? While I have zero faith in our patent system, I have a shred of hope for our justice system, at least in issues like these (on social issues I have zero hope).
The benefit of these patents for large corporations, of course, is that they can sue everyone to hell until their enemies go bankrupt, through the appeal process, similar to what the RIAA did to Diamond, and will probably do to Napster. I think this is where the real threat is.
However GraphOn isn't that big of a company as far as I know, so I doubt they have enough money to beat anyone up with this patent anyway. Even when your patent is valid, patent lawsuits usually boil down to who has the most money. Hmm...perhaps I should rethink my shred of hope for the justice system...
You're right in that capitalism in how it is used today is much different than what academics teach and thus what most people beleive, if they have many thoughts on it at all, other than it's the best possible choice, if not the only one.
/.'ers who dislikes capitalism. I'd say today's version of capitalism is a bit fairer than it was years ago as you suggest. However this issue is incredibly complex and I don't have enough personal knowledge to really say much more than what I've stated below.
I am one of those
Capitalism suffers from what any system with a structured heirarchy has: a lack of accountability and thus a lot of corruption. Every modern political/economic system is structured like this. Thus I don't see capitalism as being much better than communism (don't take this the wrong way). I dislike communism as well for similar reasons.
Unfortunatly a political/economic system that is controlled by many tends to be inefficient. Perhaps sometime in the future this can be helped by technolgy and strong education for everyone (my personal belief).
The bottom line of capitalism is money. This takes away a sense of reality from what really matters. Scare resources have to be allocated somehow, but capitalism has utterly failed at this. It also has a lack of ability to account for the fact that the earth can only give us so much before we cause irreversable damage.
The interesting thing about the linux community is that it was able to create a very good, complex product completely outside of the context of a capitalist business model. Here we have a product that was designed to be a good OS instead of something that will make money through the artificial means of marketing, or brainwashing if you're cynical like me.
People who develop for linux don't do it because they're on some sort of jihad. There are a few zealots, sure. Most people agree, I think, that people develop for linux for personal reasons, to obtain respect in the community. So here a good product can be created that requires a large number of people working together yet they are able to maintain a sense of individuality. I don't know of any companies that can give you that.
A few points to concede:
Linux could be considered to be a "totalitarian" setup since it's code base is controlled by one person. Developing for linux doesn't pay the bills either.
I define progress by a few things. One is the amount of control the average individual has over his/her own life. Two is technologies (including the proper implementation) that allow people more time to pursue higher order functions: specifically education and personal enlightenment.
Linux doesn't really fit these per say, but I think it's a step in the right direction because linux isn't particularly tainted by the need for money. Companies like redhat do need to make money, but we do live in a capitalist society so there is no getting around that anytime soon.
"Money is the root of all evil". One of my favorite sayings. Technology is supposed to improve our lives. By my ideas of progress, it hasn't. It is used primarily to feed our materialistic urges, directly related to money. You can factor microsoft right into this. Bill gates limits our ability to control our lives. Lets face it: he has a lot of control over the future of the internet. His power will fade someday, a point even he concedes. People might change, but the instituions do not. As long as we have a capitalist society there will always be someone there to limit our control. I'm open to attack here and could ramble on for hours, but it's late.
I have no amazing solutions, of course. I just see linux as a Good Thing, a form of progress for society. We're generally off topic here but I think this is what the doctor was getting at, on a level he didn't really discuss.
ah man come on....why can't I flame once in a while like everyone else? :)
:)
alright alright....I suppose if I start out at 2 I should actually have something to say heh heh
So, two mediocre companies are teaming up together. I think I'm gunna go take a nap now.
Seriously, why doesn't radio shack just die? Perhaps it's the same reason AOL is the biggest and most successful ISP? Oh well, it's not like anyone makes you go into radio shack while you're at the mall.
3rd world? Are you kidding me? They're so desperate that this won't even have an impact, except for maybe the small elite in power. How many 3rd world countries even have electric power for more than 1% of the population? They're third world countries partly due to the fact that they have NO infrastructure to begin with!
So what if Nike's plants go down? The starving and unrespected workers won't have to work 12 hours a day for a few weeks?
The damage has been done, it can't be stopped, and now the film industry is trying to save face. End of story.
Now I just wish I had the money for a few 30 gig drives...
The fact that he's using an open source OS is good, and smart. But I've said this before and I'll say it again: If this guy were in a position to create a monopoly, he would, just like Gates. Most businessmen are ruthless enough. Thats how business works, and thats why we need the government to keep monopoly power in check.
Novell, netscape, and any number of other companies got beat up by the bully, Microsoft. Now that the bully is falling down, the executives are flexing their ego's and trying to get their "self-esteem" back. Other than the fact that choosing an open-source OS is a Good Thing, this is nothing more than ego flexing.
Universities are afraid of making anyone mad, due to the "philosophy" of political correctness and the threat of lawsuits. From what I've seen in lawsuits that come from situations like this, the responsible party is almost always ruled to be the end user, studends in this case.
I go to one of the largest public universities in the country, and at any given time, they have at least 50 lawsuits pending against them, probably many more. The threat is real. Don't count on universities to take a stand in this case. They almost never take a stand on anything.
You would think students at CMU would be smarter than this. Rule number 1: no mp3s on the web. OThey'll be taken down quickly. ONLY run ftp sites from YOUR computer. Rule 2: Don't suck more bandwidth than you can get away with. If you're bogging down an entire t3 line, people will start asking questions.
There is a place for networking...the toaster is not one of them. Cell phone and other communications technology is another issue, but here I'm talking mainly about physical appliances with embedded controls.
I think I've seen this discussed here before. Lets face it, toasters are never going to have IP's. There is no point. Perhaps being able to control your lighting, and a few other things remotely would be nice. Stuff like this is available already (X10 type stuff) if you're willing to pay the price, albeit not with IP's. A lot of audio magazines cover this type of stuff, Home Theatre comes to mind.
Lets keep it real for a moment. Is it just me, or does the whole "give your toaster and everything else an IP" sound like something some dumb ass executive at GE would say? How soon will this be a real problem or a real market? Maybe 5 or 10 years down the road for the 1% of the population that can afford it? Frankly there isn't much in my house that I'd want to be able to control remotely other than my computer/data.
Any consumer with half a fuctioning brain will do a cost/benefit analysis and see that networking your entire house pretty much fails. High cost, and large security risks for minimal gains. How lazy do you really want to be? "Hey honey, I just warmed up the oven while sitting on the couch!" Yawn. Most of this stuff I'll leave for the rich who do it "because they can." Let Bill Gates get his house "owned" if he's actually dumb enough to connect it to the internet.
The person who asked the question on this topic also pointed out that most of these devices are not upgradeable. Indeed, any embedded system you buy most likely isn't How many appliance manufacturers would you trust on this point, especially since the average consumer has no idea what we're talking about here anyway? "Sir, this security is unbreakable. The food in your refridgerator will be safe." Where have I heard something like this before? Ah yes. Witness the recent events in DVD land. Even the suits were convinced that it would never be cracked. Yikes.
A lot of this stuff has important applications, for example in building control, for security systems, air conditioning, or whatever. But this already exists in a LAN environment. Changing this type of system to some sort of PC and TCP/IP environment is not a huge step (in the local or MAYBE WAN environment). As far as connecting all this to the internet only sets you up for disaster. So what if you can control all 10 of your building from one location...just pay a few extra people to work at all of the building and save the security risk.
So I'm not worried about this in general because:
The cost is too high.
Doesn't do much for you (mostly more couch potato stuff, at least in the home environment).
Only a small percentage of the population will be able to afford it.
Once these type of systems are cracked, the average consumer will reject them.
I don't recommend trying to meet women on irc, but if you're really that shy, it isn't all that bad. I've actually met a few really cool women on irc, had a 1 year relationship with one of them. The two women I knew the best weren't "geeks" themselves but get along with the geek personality really well. I have met a number of women from irc who I very much *don't* like, but real life results in the same thing anyway. No big deal.
DO NOT become dependant on online socializing. Thats the way I was about 3 years ago, and even if you hang out with people from irc, it's still generally a depressing life. I still chat on irc a bit, but I don't TRY to meet women online anymore. If I happen upon someone who I really seem to get along with (important note: when you talk with someone online, you only "see" a small part of what they really are...you mind tends to make up the rest of what you think they are) I'll still meet them if possible.
Bottom line: DO NOT BECOME DEPENDANT ON ONLINE SOCIALIZATION!! It's just bad. I think most people here will agree.
I never quite understood libertarian ideas. Libetarians' grasp of economics leaves a bit to be desired.
You assume that capitalism is good. The problem is that unchecked capitalism leads to monopoly situations. Your company fights until you are killed, your competition is killed, or you reach some sort of an "agreement" with competitors that usually includes price fixing. Look at any industry there is and you will see this. There are a few exceptions, of course.
Microsoft did exactly what they were supposed to do in a pure capitalist economy. Our government intervened because that is it's job, it has never beleived in a pure free market. But that is starting to change. Corporations today have more power than they've ever had. Just look at all the corporate mergers in the past 5 years. It's absolutely incredible.
The average CEO today makes 450 times that of an average factory worker, up from about 70 times 15 years ago. Are these the wonderful market forces you are talking about?
You mention the baby bells and how this hasn't helped competition. This is absolutely true. However, keeping it intact wouldn't have helped either, which you support.
You also mention "voting with your dollars." This is an important concept for capitalism to work as theorist's would say. But when a monopoly exists, you no longer have this option, your dollars can only go to one place! Can't you see this? I could start my own company I suppose, but can I make inroads into ATT, MCI, or any other companies territory? Unlikely. They'll buy me out, spread FUD, and just plain outmarket me. Just look at microsoft, that is almost an exact definition of their business operation!!
Capitalsim is a paradox. Unbounded it NEVER reaches any kind of competitive equilibrium! What evidence makes you think that it does? I'd sure like to see some. The fact that your ecenomics 101 professor said so doesn't make it correct.
Yesterday was NOT a sad day for freedom and liberty and personal choice. It was just another day of going down this road. I'm so sick of crap like this, and I'm not just saying that because I support linux. This has nothing to do with microsoft. Corporations AND the government have equal responsibility for these erosions. It's been going on for years.
Lets face it. Corporations care about one thing only: money. This is the botom line. They don't care about you, your family, or the planet. Unless you tell them otherwise. I don't like our government much, either. But I'd rather be led by them than a faceless corporation.
Corporations and our government have never done a thing for our country. They only do things symbolically when the people demand it. We have to fight for our rights, we have to stand up for our freedom, because god damn, the corporations only want your money and your soul.
I'm sorry if this sounds like flamebait, but I get really passionate over this subject.
Yes, it indeed does run a sort of windows CE variant...
:) There are a few companies that make remotes that don't use microsoft (well pretty much all of them), and have color LCD touch screens. They are highly customizeable as well, and will run up to 8 devices. I'm speaking of the one made by phast (www.phast.com). I'll let the website describe the rest.
But it's still a remote, there isn't any OS per say, it might as well be transparent. It does have a microsoft look/feel, though. Another company sells the same remote, madrigal. (www.madrigal.com) It's called the IRIQ. I think they charge more, however. My friend owns one, he says it's worked pretty well for him. I haven't used it myself though so I can't speak to how good it really is.
There is another alternative though, if you want to spend 2k or more
Basically you pay more money for more customizability. Check out a few issues of Home Theatre magazine, they always have ads for "universal remotes". There are a lot of options.
While I generally have a lot more respect for wired writers than most journalists in general, I still see them as...well...just plain dumb and uninformed.
:)
I quote from the article:
"But high-capacity recordable DVD is coming. In the first quarter of 2000, there will be 4.7GB recordable DVD drives, and DVD copying will be much easier. It may not be a bad idea to hold off on releasing the drives until the copy protection issue is sorted out.
Why advocate such limitations? Because it beats the alternative, which is that movie studios will withhold future releases. And DVD enthusiasts are eagerly awaiting such film classics as Star Wars, Fantasia, and ET."
Uh, well excuse me, but the studios can go to hell before I advocate holding back technology (at least technology that I see as good). What a pathetic encryption scheme to begin with anyway. It deserved to be cracked. Whoever approved this should be shot (people's head are probably rolling over this right now, hopefully).
There are several things the movie industry can do:
1) Do nothing.
Probably the best solution for all. Piracy won't dent their sales that much (even the music industry hasn't been hit that hard yet). This will keep sales at a decent level (compared to the other possible industry reactions). They're already making boatloads of money off of DVD in spite of themselves when they didn't support it in the first place. In the original article on the crack there were good posts on how the movie industry was terrified by VCR's in the beginning as well (obviously unfounded), and the fact that it costs a lot less to make DVD's than it does to make a video cassette, even though the DVD disc will cost you about twice as much on average. Financially there just isn't that much to fear.
2) Create a new encrytion scheme.
Clearly not a good idea for several reasons, although I'm sure they'll be considering it. Any encryption scheme they come up with will be cracked eventually. It would also render all existing hardware obsolete, which is unfair, unethical, and a PR nightmare. This also includes any other "protection schemes" they might come up with that don't necessarily involve encrytion.
3) Enact one of those "you're all pirates" "taxes".
Similar to the charge that exists on all recordable media now (the extent of this I'm not sure of). In order to "offset" the "losses" of pirateing, they might just jack up the price a certain %. Another pathetic idea, but I included it since it's been done before.
It was pointed out by a number of people why piracy won't be such a big deal in the short term (next few years) in the first article about the crack. In the long term it might, but they have something else to fear. This isn't directly relevant but I thought it deserved a thought, since it's related to current happenings in the music industry.
Large record companies are quickly becoming obsolete middlemen with the exception of marketing. The same could happen to the movie industry down the road. Star Wars episode 1 was the beginning of this, I think (This may have been discussed here before, I've been a regular reader for only a few months now). With advances in computer technology, the price of movie making is coming way down. Star wars cost about 60 million I think? Thats a lot less than the typical action/sci fi movie with lots of explositions, etc. This could radically alter the movie industry landscape in the future. Every writer/director/movie maker could have their own small company, with a small studio for actors to act in, and a back room full of computers for all the rest. They'll be able to do actors digitally down the road as well. With the costs reduced (maybe to around a million bucks per film?), maybe I could go see a movie for a dollar. Wouldn't that be great? Of course, savings like that are rarely passed on to the consumer. Oh well, I can always dream
how much is it going to cost? And when will it be avaialable? My roommates and I pay about 80 a month for a 512 kbit line and 5 static IP's. This technology is currently WORTHLESS. Speeds this high won't even be offered to the average consumer for probably 5 to 10 years.
There are too many other hurdles to be cleared, political and economic. Technology is not even close to the limiting factor right now in consumer broadband.
Almost anywhere you go, the local cable and phone service is a monopoly. In some places it might be an oligopoly, I doubt you'll see more than 2 competitors anywhere in one market. Therefore, they can get away with price gouging, and hold back new technologies.
Why would these companies invest in their infrastructure to support this? These companies would rather charge you $20 a month for modem service that costs them probably 10 cents a month. Don't like that fact? Well, you can't tell your phone company to f' off, because you have no alternative. The telecommunications act a few years back only makes this situation worse.
I don't know why this company even wasted their time developing this technology (sounds like a "I've got the biggest penis" thing to me). They should be putting their money into political lobbyists to try and break this monopoly situation. As far as I'm concerned, this technology doesn't even exist. It won't affect me or anyone else for a long time.
"This seems almost a desperate price raising strategy to maintain share value... "
Indeed...I speak out against our economic system all the time (and thus the stock market), but it is great for getting rid of companies that are unwilling to change. If you're unwilling to take a cut in profits for the short term, in order to improve your company in the face of changing technology, you won't be around long term.
But I wonder how many of his 280 articles turned out to be all hot air? Even supposed psychics are right some of the time.
Don't get me wrong though, I love people who shake things up. When you talk about things on the level of millions of years, there are simply too many things we don't know, yet throughout human history there has always been some sort of "accepted truth" of "the way things are". Currently as far as the origin of life we have a form of darwinism. A hundred years from now (maybe more) it will most likely have changed to something different. There is also a theory about oil as well, mentioned by the article. It takes an overwhelming amount of evidence to challenge the status quo however, and that is something Gold doesn't have much of right now.
And on a somewhat unrelated note:
For those of you who like to bash christianity because of it's lack of science, keep in mind that accepted "scientists" have been lying, covering things up, and brushing off evidence ever since the concept of "science" was conceived. It's a human problem, not simply a religious one. I appreciate guys like Gold who challenge "the way things are."
much more than the paper they're written on. Whats going to stop the gov't from just working around this stuff? Lies, cheating, etc? The star wars program was (I beleive) show to be nothing more than a black hole for money, at least by the popular press. I don't think it was, I think they came up with some laser weapons. In fact they do, they used a laser a few years ago to modify the orbit of a sattelite. They could have turned up the power and blown it to bits if they want to. This was actually reported by the mainstream media (not frontpage news, however).
These treaties do a few things. They give the citizens a small amount of false security. They're also like a truce between animals...when you have to males fighting over territory, they'll fight for a while, someone wins, ans they have a kind of truce. But we all know they're going to be fighting again later. Same thing here. The nuclear weapons we've disarmed haven't been destroyed, they're simply disasembled and in storage. If a nuclear war comes along, they'll be ready to go in no time.
The point is this: The US and Russia were used to doing what they want during the cold war. The only thing that limited the extent of their actions was each other, specifically Mutually Assured Destruction. Today, the US stands alone. Many have said the US has lost a influence over the past 20 or 30 years. I say the US certainly has not...it runs the world directly or indirectly pretty much top to bottom. So basically our government does what it wants, like a neighborhood bully. Witness the recent "war" in kosovo. We f'ed that country up for many, many years to come. Has any good come out of it? Absolutely not, the racial hatred is as bad as it ever was.
So what makes anyone think the US cares about what these treaties say? Who is going to tell the US what to do? Who can stand up to the US' military might? No one. The only thing I can think of is a few small nuclear weapons in a truck parked somewhere in Manhatten. Evasive terrorist groups are the only real (or even imagined, for that matter) threat to the US right now. There are no coutries left that can threaten the US.
Rob has made some good points but I don't think he brought them all the way to the obvious conclusion, which I don't necessarily blame him for since this forum is mainly about computers.
:)
Here are the two main points that I believe, and that Rob more or less basically stated:
Human greed comes before human need, mainly because high level decisions are made by only a few people (who usually aren't so bright), and thus can swing the direction of our society in their favor.
The internet and computers in general is exasperating the gap between rich and poor, first world and third world.
Rob showed the first point by stating that the best and brightest are in the computer industry. While that of course is not entirely true, there is a lot of truth to it because that's where the money is. Huge amounts of money are being invested here because it is making huge money for a lot of companies. There are a lot of more pressing problems that resources need to be diverted to (pollution control, hunger, economic strife) but they don't make money so they get shoved aside. Sometimes the solutions to these problems are called "politically unfeasable" by those in power. This means, simply, those in power don't care about these problems.
Point number two could probably be restated in that it's the information age in general exasperating the problem. As the current state of technology increases, so does the cost of entry to be a part of it. Thousands of years ago, all you really needed was the ability to gather food or do some basic hunting, there was no economy per say. Today, you need at a bare minimum the ability to read. Last I read this shuts out 23% of AMERICANS , because they are functionally illiterate. In third world countries this number is probably up to over 90%. To truly be sucessful, you usually need a college degree, access to, and a minimal knowledge of, computers. Well, even in America, the college graduation rate isn't that high...around 40% maybe? That's shuting out a lot of people in the country that has the most money and power in the world. The third world? Well, the numbers here might as well be 0%.
Some would say that third world countries cause their own problems through political corruption. This is partly true but is oversimplified; the US government and other powerful countries have a lot to do with it. Sometimes it's direct, sometimes it isn't. The US will generally support any government that allows large corporations to use their natural resources. Since this is obviously unpopular with citizens of these countries, these governments are often brutal dictatorships. If these countries get out of line in some way, we bomb them to hell, like Iraq. If you read almost any non-mainstream political texts you'll see that this is the case. There is too much evidence to simply dismiss what I'm saying here. But I'll let you all figure that out for yourselves, I can't write an entire book here
Basically the rich have their priorities wrong. Instead of trying to help the poor by increasing education budgets, or giving third world countries more than token support, they simply fatten their pockets. In fact, the US exasperates problems in these countries with military arms, leaving a lot of countries in perpetual misery. They're doing nothing to help with the increasing cost of entry into today's economy.
Technology can be used for good or evil. The internet can be used for wonderful things, but we see it being used more and more to simply sell things that people don't need, and do nothing for society. Society has evolved very slowly compared to technology. This gap needs to close very quickly if humanity is going to survive. When animals fight over territory, the only means they have at their disposal is their physical strength. They don't have nuclear weapons like we do.
You're right on the money here. One of the only shows around that wants you to think. Think deeply. They've lost that. Our entire society is losing it as well, for that matter.
That's the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars. Star wars was always a special effects show, that focused more on the setting and the technology than the characters or reality. A fairy tail with a sort of binary good vs. evil. But we've all seen this many times now, and I think thats the reason star wars didn't do quite as well all these years later. So when Star Trek reduces itself to this level, it suffers badly, especially since that isn't what made it popular in the first place, or what it excels at.
But does the average public even want a thinking show anymore? I hope so but I'm not so sure. NBC canned TNG while it was still a very strong show. Perhaps this was part of the reason, the dumbing down of our society? Or perhaps we watch dumb happy-feely shows like ally mcbeal because, well, thats all they give us.
Really all it would take is some decent scripts. But this is exactly the problem, it just can't happen. Any time a sci-fi series goes mainstream because of popularity, or is designed for a "pop" audience, it is bound to be mediocre, IMHO. It's designed to make a lot of money, and therefore it has to reach the widest audience, which means it has to be a generic plot. I'm doing some extreme generalizing here, but hopefully you see what I mean. Movies like the matrix could have been so much more if they weren't limited by hollywood rules, and even the matrix was a bit out there by hollywood standards, I think.
/. readers have to say about this. I can't even think of a movie, maybe x-files on tv back when it was a newer show...
The franchise is NOT going to go away anytime soon. If it has even a 1% chance of making money, it will be around (witness most movie sequels). I did enjoy TNG the most, then DS9. Somehow Voyager just doesn't impress me. The plots from show to show get repetitive, with a lot of holes in the plot (big fight with the borg, the ship gets all f'ed up, then suddenly its all back together next week like nothing happened). The characters seem one-dimensional, and I'm simply not impressed by them. Bad acting maybe? I don't know. Maybe I just really like the ST:TNG cast for some reason.
It's not like there is much else on TV right now thats any better than voyager anyway, however. Mediocre across the board (I'm really cynical if you didn't notice). What was the last series on TV or movie that you saw that was at all original? I'd be interested in what other
It seems to me that the only originality in sci-fi these days is in books...most of the better sci-fi doesn't translate well to the screen, though. Of course that is true of any book in any genre, however. Maybe thats just because of Hollywood.
Well, we've all seem crap like this before, but I'm not sure even the RIAA is dumb enough to make a statement like that. Horrific scenes of teenage sex? Have you ever seen a more crystal clear piece of FUD in your life? I spit on this "BPI" just like I spit on the RIAA.
It's too bad they didn't use the word pedophelia instead of teenage sex...or maybe that would make it too obvious that this is pure FUD. The "pedophelia" or "pedophile" keyword is a favorite among politicians when they want to take away personal freedoms in favor of government regulation to "protect your children." Unfortunatly it's a just a way for them to protect their power base in the face of a changing world. It's obviously the same thing for the BPI. They're trying to protect their profit margins and distribution channels.
I've seen this same porn argument so many times over the past 3 years or so now that it's really funny and really sad at the same time. It's been applied to almost everything involving the internet. The BPI will be linking the words "pedophilia" and "child porn" to mp3's soon enough, since thats what really gets the public going. They're just lagging behind the US propeganda machine a bit, since America is the undispuded leader in propeganda, FUD, and P.R. bullshit. We've got all the cutting edge tactics over here. Lucky us.
But on the upside, when companies or organizations are resorting to pure FUD tactics, they're already losing the battle.
You're right about this being "the way things are", as I would put it. But intel *is* being immoral. Isn't that what misleading people is? Perhaps you mean it isn't immoral as far as standard business practices go, you're right if that is the case. Of course AMD would be doing the same thing if they were in the same position Intel is in now.
There is a fine line between accepted FUD practices and breaking the law, however. If they are strong-arming a few of the larger board makers like ASUS, that is totally illegal. THAT is EXACTLY a microsoft like practice, and part of the reason for the case against them. Of course it is hard to prove this, and no one has any concrete evidence that I've seen. To me it's almost a given that this is going on however, given "the way things are". Another possibility is that ASUS and others are practicing "self-censorship", ie, they know the possible ramifications if they go all out in support of Athlon motherboards, thus they keep the operation small and quiet. These companies don't exist without intel. That would only change if AMD had a large market share, probably on the lines of at least 30%. AMD has nothing near that right now.
I cheer for AMD because they need to do good in order for us to have good competition in the processor market. I buy their products because they are generally cheaper and yet still deliver the goods. I don't like paying a premium for a brand name. Brand name recognition means nothing to me, I don't care if a company was the best 10 years ago or even yesterday, I want what will deliver the goods today at the lowest price. You *might* be able to argue that the celeron is a better deal, but hey, I got my k6-2-350 for 50 bucks about 4 months ago. I'm a poor college student.
Of course most people don't think this way, if it were, advertising and FUD would be irrelavent. Thats why it's up to people who understand to tell the masses the way things are.
tomshardware.com has an editorial on the same thing...
http://www.tomshardware.com/blurb/index.html
I haven't read the Ars Technica article yet, but the tomshardware.com focuses on the idea that intel is strong-amring the tiawan board makers into not making boards for the athlon, lest intel withdraw their support for the company. Worth the read.