You won't lose your money if you invest in oil companies. You won't lose your money if you invest in tabacco companies. You wont lose your money if you invest in alcohol companies. You wont lose your money if you invest in surveillance companies.
There are some companies which are guarenteed to make money simply because the federal government spends billions of year giving money to companies to defend the country. You can bet phone companies won't be losing money, banks won't be losing money, most hedge funds wont lose money.
I can always be wrong, but if I had the money, I'd invest in Haliburton.
Buy stock, buy bonds, even buy gold, but don't buy realestate. Real estate only makes sense when you know the population will increase, and demand will increase. What if population decreases?
Since we do not yet know if population will increase or decrease, realestate is a very temporary investment which might make money this year, but be worthless if say avian flu hits, or if there are natural disasters. It's better to profit from the natural disasters, avian flu, and everything related to it. This makes more sense than investing in homes when people cannot find clean food, water, and are hiding from bird flu and killer storms.
I'd suggest you invest in bottled water. I suggest you invest in food. If I thought the world could last long enough I'd tell you to invest in bottled air, and wait for the clean air to run out, but thats for our children to invest in. The point is, houses only matter if theres clean food, clean water, a disease free environment, etc. In a world where natural disasters are increasing, where terrorism is a threat, and where clean water and food is running out, it makes the most sense to invest in the companies you know for sure will profit in the rebuilding efforts, the companies which will create the drugs, the companies which sell bottled water, the companies which sell clean food, and especially the farmers. It makes sense to invest in gold in case there is an economic collapse of some sort. It makes sense to invest in silver, it makes sense to invest in corn because it's the most popular crop in America and it's only a matter of time before it becomes more popular. It makes sense to invest in surveillance because how are we going to track the terrorists? It makes sense to invest in emotions.
Which emotions are people going to feel after a natural disaster? Some will feel sad or upset, some will feel hate, some will feel one way or another, but when profiting and investing, it's all about predicting how people will feel, and investing accordingly. Investing is a science, of psychology. It's neuro-economics. Our economy is not rational, it works on emotions, it's irrational, it's hate, love, fear and other emotions, but thats the secret. You know what to invest in based on what the majority of people are feeling, and you know what to invest in based on what the majority of people with money are feeling. Most people who have a lot of money, what are they feeling? Figure it out and invest.
We are currently in a war, a long war. Many companies are currently profiting. Lets see which companies will profit in the future if the current mindstate of the world stays the same?
1. Weapons companies.
2. Security and surveillance companies.
3. Drug companies.
4. Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms companies.
5. Datamining companies.
6. Cosmetics
This is just 5 examples. The point is, you should invest based on the emotions of the current society and population. People have chosen death, misery, pain, through all sorts of different means. Some are smoking tabacco, some are alcoholics, some are gamblers, but the key to success in investing is to profit from human vices, and from popular emotions.
Example, when racism increases, it helps the cosmetics industry. When obesity and weight becomes the new race, it helps the dieting and supplement industry. Both of these help the bio-tech industry, and genetics, stem cell research and other related fields, in the future will profit from cosmetics.
Example #2, Disease, expect the avian flu, madcow disease, cancer and heart disease to become more popular and bet on the companies which treat but do not cure the disease. Once again related to stem cell research which certainly could cure the disease but wont.
It's also safe to assume, that if the world ignoance/homophobia level stays the same as it is today, homosexualiy will eventually be declared a disease, and there might eventually be a drug which can cure it. This would be a drug to invest in if it's ever released in the same way that viagra was a drug to invest in when it was released, or the breast implant. In the future there might be a pill which can make breasts large or small, turn skin from white to black and back to white again, and all sorts of other cosmetic things which now surgery is required for. If this happens, it makes sense to invest.
Never bet against human nature. Always bet on humans to remain self destructive and ignorant, thats the secret to profit. Expect a future with even more homophobia, racism, sexism, agism, and other isms, and expect the hate industry to merge with the drug industry.
Look, there is a good chance there will be more wars, until eventually we wipe ourselves out. The best thing you can do if you are college aged, is to invest in the end of the world, because there is a good chance it will happen in our lifetimes.
Invest in the obvious weapons companies, like Lockheed Martin. Invest in Boeing. Invest in Haliburton. Invest in tabacco companies. Invest in gun markers, alcohol, and anything else which will profit from the chaos. If you want you can hedge your bets on energy, but definately invest in the big oil companies, they arent going anywhere and will continue to remain profitable for the near future. Invest in corn, corn syrup won't be going anywhere, and if alternative fuels such as ethanol or biofuels take off, corn will become nearly as profitable as oil.
The best strategy in my opinion is, if you can see the end of the world coming, invest in it so you can profit from it. Invest based on peoples emotions, so lets see, currently the world is filled with pain, hate and misery, so you should invest accordingly. You will have a lot of people drinking more, you will have plenty of natural disasters, which companies profit from natural disasters? You will have plenty of new diseases, which companies profit from diseaases? We may have new wars, we may have the war on terrorism, so invest in security related industries, suviellance, and others. Invest in companies which will profit as the world falls apart, and you'll get rich while the world ends, increasing your chance of survival.
If the world doesnt end, you'll be broke but alive.
Please tell me why we should give out special laptops to people in the third world? If you were living in the third world, would you want one of these special laptops or an Ibook? I think if we just offered Ibooks in the first place it would be accepted. It's that we are offering these new unusual laptops that most likely scares people away from using them.
I think computers are very useful, I think the idea is very good, I just wish we would have given out ibooks in the first place instead of computers people never heard of that are handcranked or whatever. I understand the third world has energy problems, so how about a solar powered or handcranked modified ibook?
I do not think you can market a program like this as "One Laptop per Child Program", and it just happens to be from America, and just happens to include the name Negroponte. I mean, I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I'm an American, but what government will agree to this when it's marketed like this?
Most people question anything that is so cheap that it is nearly free, they ask why if laptops are so cheap that only the third world can have them? Since when did we design laptops or anything of this sort for the third world, or India?
I think these laptops ARE a good idea, I just don't think you can market it like this and expect it to take off, at a time like this when the middle east is falling down the drain. I'm not surprised by India's reaction, India is suspicious of the deal, and who wouldnt be.
The name "Negroponte", and free laptops will make any government alittle bit suspicious. This would be like the last names Clinton and Bush joining forces to give out free laptops, and offering it to India.
I think it's a good idea, but just, don't I think even people in India know the name Negroponte. So I'm not surprised they rejected the one laptop per child program. It just seems political even if it isnt.
National Security trumps privacy, it's already been decided on. The gun registry exists for non-criminals, so surveillance of gun ownrs isn't new. Criminal gun owners are in a league of their own, especially if they are carrying a gun without a license.
I'm not saying you cannot carry a gun, I'm not against the NRA, but if someone carries a gun everyone should know it, including the police, the government, and other citizens. We should know where the people carrying guns are.
Poverty has nothing to do with the criminal mentality, and everything to do with the chance you have of getting caught. Yes poverty can motivate a person to commit crimes to survive, but a greedy rich person will commit crimes to keep up with their rich neighbors and stay ahead just as quickly. The difference is, white collar criminals almost never get caught, and when they do it's a slap on the wrist. Tabacco drug dealers, and Pharma drug dealers sell drugs all the time which are harmful, like Viox, and none of them go to prison for it because they can pay a fine. Even the big marijuana dealers, who deal in tons, and who operate in other countries are immune for political reasons.
The end result is, only the stupid drug dealer, who sells drugs by walking up to people and asking "wanna buy some drugs?" gets caught. Stupid criminals get caught, smart criminals almost never get caught, and thats the only point to make.
I agree with you completely, I think we should elimate the drug laws, and regulate drugs on safety, as a form of quality control. The more money we spend going after marijuana dealers the more money we arent spending going after the murderers. In gangwars, most gangsters arent killers or murderers, they are just like you and me, but because of the environment they live in, the lack of oppurtunity, the lack of education and in some cases dyslexia and inability to read, their options are a life of McDonalds or a life of crime. Most people in these desperate situations have nothing to lose.
We also must remember, that the entire world is just a group of gangs, factions, groups, networks. Yes there are street gangs, but theres gangs of lawyers, doctors, and everything else. Basically everyone is in some sorta group or community, including the slashdotter open source community which could just as easily be labeled a gang by anti open source groups.
We have to start viewing street kids as people, and yes maybe they are just as scared of being shot as you, and maybe because they are living in such a violent neighborhood they join a gang out of fear. Once we can see that there can be someone just like us in any gang we can see that it's not gangs that are bad, it's violent individuals in gangs that commit the violent crimes. Perhaps we could have more success fighting violent crime if we just faught violent crime instead of fighting entire groups, gangs, etc and treating every member as a violent criminal. The average drug dealer, does not support the murderer in their community anymore than you would. The average thief does not support the murderer. The non-violent criminals are not in some sorta suicidal alliance with the violent criminals, it's more that the non-violent criminals fear both the violent criminal, and the police, and they side with the violent criminal because they know the violent criminal better than they know the police. Maybe if there were better community policing, and maybe if there were better communication between kids in the hood, or ghetto, or gangsters with the outside world, this wouldnt be such a problem.
Why are there no websites on gangs from a gangsters perspective? It's nothing like those rap videos. Perhaps it is due to the code of silence, as all mafias have a code of silence, but in any case even with a code of silence, without any form of communication to the outside world, those who are inside this world are trapped.
The simple way to deal with violent crime is to track people who commit violent offenses or who are carrying a gun. If someone is a gang member, and we can see they carry a gun using advanced surveillance technology, we can track just these gun carrying persons. If someone is known to get into lots of fights and commit assaults we can track people with this criminal history. The violent criminal database would solve this problem. what do you think?
You also have to take into account that there is a gangster mentality, not just among kids in ghettos and street gangs, but the foundation of this country was based no gangs. Just watch gangs of new york, or watch a mafia movie. The cowboy mentality applies well to the south but then everywhere else you have the gang mentality.
Also, your statistic figures appear racist. Most criminals are not in the projects dealing drugs, those are just the criminals we want to catch. The criminals we don't want to catch commit crimes essentially for decades and nothing happens to them. Some people are above the law, only the small criminals get caught, usually the drug dealer types. No one really knows how many murderers there are in the US, but we do know the death tolls, the life expectancy, and things such as this. In general, the number 1 method of murder is through poisoning, not gun violence. Most violent crimes are not racial, this means you are more likely to face violence from someone who looks like you do, than someone who looks different from you. Most violence comes from a small percentage of aggressive minded individuals who like violence, and the majority of us simply go to work, pay our taxes, raise our families, and avoid the violent life. It's always been this way.
Our criminal justice system is too outdated to handle violence because we arent focused on violent criminals. Drug dealers arent violent criminals.
I hope you know there is Mad Cow disease because of what we did to cows. Once and for all, I'm not against genetic modification, I just think it has nothing to do with making the food produce more yield. That makes no business sense. Farmers want to make money, thats it.
People are starving not because theres a shortage of food, there was never a global shortage of food, theres a shortage of water before theres a shortage of food. The water in some countries is dirty, and in this country most tap water is dirty. So it's the water we should be focused on.
I'm all for genetic modification, you are correct these things are important, but I'd rather we learn more about mammals than plants, I cannot see any use for genetically modified corn unless we use that corn as fuel for our cars.
Sony has not been running a very profitable business. They don't make as much money as Nintendo, the N64 made Nintendo more of a profit than Sony made off the PSX. Pokemon and the handhelds made Nintendo more of a profit than any Sony game ever released. Nintendo is the most profitable game company, Sony simply plays with numbers and people act like numbers have anything to do with profitability?!
You can sell a billion systems but if you can't sell a billion games you cannot profit. Sega Dreamcast sold more systems than PS2 in the beginning, but people started pirating the games and game sales couldnt keep up with system sales, the result, the fastest growing marketshare system the Dreamcast failed because Sega couldnt afford to keep selling systems.
Sony is about to be in the same state, with a very expensive system, which they can afford to sell because of their money, but which won't make a profit due to lack of quality games. It's about selling GAMES not SYSTEMS. It always has been about selling GAMES. Sega always sold SYSTEMS and went out of business while Nintendo sold GAMES. Sony sold SYSTEMS and GAMES with PSX, but from PS2 on they focused only on hardware and SYSTEMS. Therefore Nintendo will just sell GAMES, and this is why Sega made the brilliant move of selling GAMES.
Hey, if Sony's plan is to sell overpriced systems and TV's to rich parents, let them go ahead. This strategy only works with early adopters, and it's just barely selling the HDTV. How many rich kids are there? Thousands? a few million? The rest of the parents in this country who arent millionaires, arent buying their kids brand new cars and paying for college. And honestly, if the kid is colleged age, the kid remembers growing up playing with SNES, and remmebers the way the game industry once was. So you are right a few rich kids will buy PS3, about as many bought 3D0, and other over priced systems. Remember Sega Saturn? It came with 3 free good games made by a gaming company and it couldnt outsell the PSX or the N64. Why? Because it was too expensive.
Sony has never made a fun game. I cannot think of any game Sony has ever made that was fun. PSX had good games, I was not impressed with PS2. I can admit PS2 did not have any good games. I did not buy one. I did buy PSX.
Most PS2 owners decided to buy the PS2 because they needed a DVD player. You are trying to tell me, that people who know what games they want, need to be convinced to buy the system with the most games?
It's about the games, and PS3 does not have the games. Mainstream gamers keep buying the same games over and over, Madden 2006-7-8 will sell on the PS3 and Xbox, but the hardcore gamers want NEW games, or OLD games, but not the same game with a different year on it. So I don't think people will buy PS3 for Tekken 6 and Final Fantasy 2007. It's all about the games, and once people play the Nintendo Wii at their friends house, that will be enough to sell it. The hardcore gamers and the kids will sell the system to the mainstreamers.
When I last checked, Nintendo was the kiddie gamer system. How did Sony somehow become the system for kids?
That's the main point, Nintendo has the children all the way back going to N64, and Gamecube, and now they are about take the hardcore gamers, leaving Sony with the mainstream gamers who don't buy a lot of games anyway. I see this as a profit losing strategy for Sony, because the mainstream gamers will be divided between the Sony and the Microsoft system. The hardcores and the children will definately be going with Nintendo.
Atari, Nintendo and Sega, remember them? In the end, Nintendo has the market, they have the older gamers from the 80s (people like us), they have the kids (N64 and DS Pokemon), The only audience they are missing are the current teenagers, who don't really make up a big market share to begin with.
The gaming industry has changed now, everyone is looking forward to the Nintendo Wii, people I know who havent been playing video games since Dreamcast are coming back. The Nintendo Wii will outsell the PS3 because it's a better system, with better games, and better marketing. PS3 is just a brand name, and brand name only takes you so far. Sony has ruined it's brand name with the rootkit BS. Do you really think the average teenage hacker or geek likes the Sony brand right now?
Sony has almost no leverage, Nintendo has all the SNES games, all the Sega games, Turbo Grafix games, and if they can get SNK games, they'll be unstoppable. They have internet connection too, honestly I HAVE to buy the system just because of all the games, you'd have to be foolish to give up thousands of great games.
Sony does not make games, Sony only beat Sega because they had third party support, and now Nintendo has equalized this. I'd say it's over for Sony, I expect Microsoft to take Sony's place, I mean tell me why would anyone want an Xbox360 AND a PS3? The average person will be one or the other, dividing Sony's market share in half. Nintendo will take the majority because the hardcore gamers, older gamers, and people who are price conscious will choose the cheaper system with the most games. The cheapest system almost always wins, with the exception of the Sega Dreamcast which ran out of money, even the Sega Dreamcast would have beat PS2 if Sega had enough money to keep making it. In a way, Sony has been riding on the mistakes of Sega and Nintendo, now Sega makes the games and Nintendo makes the hardware and games, leaving Sony to compete with Microsoft as a hardware company.
I'll admit, the PS3 and the Xbox360 are awesome pieces of hardware, but if I want hardware I'll buy a computer not a game system. I think most people buy game systems for the games, the proof is in the success of the Nintendo DS which does not have the most superior hardware. Nintendo is trying to pull another gameboy, by launching a gameboy or DS style system in the Nintendo Wii, everything from the name, to the look seems like they are trying to make gaming fun again, and make toys while Sony is trying to make portable computers along with Microsoft.
In the end a system is judged by how much fun it gives the user. PS3 just won't be as fun.
We have to ultimately decide if we want to invest our time in increasing quality of life, or in increasing quality of death. These are the main two motivational factors.
I'd prefer quality of life, I like the idea of working hard for years as life continues to get better and better. I don't like the idea of working hard as life continues to get worse and worse, more dangerous, and shorter.
How many people here actually agree on supporting quality of life?
Genetic engineers often know nothing of ecology.
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
And thats the point. It's not a matter of how much science of the genetics you know, if you have no long term view of what you are doing to the earths ecosystem.
Anyone can be a geneticist and work on this in a lab, anyone from a completely insane person, to a sane person, from a nice person to a mean person, anyone. To think that we can have research without any form of ethical caution or review is ridiculous. We need to actually think about what we are doing here, otherwise we don't know the results of what we are creating. There is a very good chance that once these new plants leave the lab they may replace the original species of plants, and how exactly is this good? Not to mention, other plants may be genetically engineered, so I hope no one here smokes marijuana or tabacco.
I'm fine with genetic engineering, I just think we have to be very careful to consider the side effects it will have to the eco-system. There are many animals that exist in a fragile web of life that will die off because of this genetic engineering, there are many insects, and many lifeforms that will be directly influenced. Can we agree to consider the impact our actions cause to everyone/everything else?
Everytime you create a new lifeform.
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
It alters the entire ecology of the earth. We've already created killer bees, whats next? Smart plants?
Just because you can do something doesnt mean what you do has no cost to many other species of life. How will these new plants influence the original species? Don't we even take into account that someday these new plants might be the only plants left on earth?
We don't know the long term risks to the eco-system. How will our genetic gaming influence the future evolution of these new lifeforms we are creating in labs?
The worry is, it's electronic, it's not the type of device you can depend on with your life. No electronic device is reliable to that level. Sure if you have no other choice but if you have a choice you wont choose this.
I know we share a lot of genes with monkeys and mice. This is plain obvious. However that 1% difference between humans, monkeys or mice, is so vast that look at where we are and look at them. I don't know where we came from, but at some point in evolution, we divided, some of us became monkeys, some of us became human, and the humans then divided between neanderthal and the current. Let's say neanderthal mated with the advanced human, the result would be what we have now.
Do we want evolution to continue? If we do, we need as much genetic diversity as possible. The problem is, too many people mate with their cousins, and while I have no problem with this on the small scale, on the large scale I think you can see that these practices on a long term basis can slow evolution down.
I'm not saying we don't share any genes with plants, we share plenty. All living creatures are relatives, all humans are relative, you are my relative and I'm yours, and genetics prove this, but my question is why do these experiments on plants and not primates?
Slashdot Mirror
You won't lose your money if you invest in oil companies. You won't lose your money if you invest in tabacco companies. You wont lose your money if you invest in alcohol companies. You wont lose your money if you invest in surveillance companies.
There are some companies which are guarenteed to make money simply because the federal government spends billions of year giving money to companies to defend the country. You can bet phone companies won't be losing money, banks won't be losing money, most hedge funds wont lose money.
I can always be wrong, but if I had the money, I'd invest in Haliburton.
Buy stock, buy bonds, even buy gold, but don't buy realestate. Real estate only makes sense when you know the population will increase, and demand will increase. What if population decreases?
Since we do not yet know if population will increase or decrease, realestate is a very temporary investment which might make money this year, but be worthless if say avian flu hits, or if there are natural disasters. It's better to profit from the natural disasters, avian flu, and everything related to it. This makes more sense than investing in homes when people cannot find clean food, water, and are hiding from bird flu and killer storms.
I'd suggest you invest in bottled water. I suggest you invest in food. If I thought the world could last long enough I'd tell you to invest in bottled air, and wait for the clean air to run out, but thats for our children to invest in. The point is, houses only matter if theres clean food, clean water, a disease free environment, etc. In a world where natural disasters are increasing, where terrorism is a threat, and where clean water and food is running out, it makes the most sense to invest in the companies you know for sure will profit in the rebuilding efforts, the companies which will create the drugs, the companies which sell bottled water, the companies which sell clean food, and especially the farmers. It makes sense to invest in gold in case there is an economic collapse of some sort. It makes sense to invest in silver, it makes sense to invest in corn because it's the most popular crop in America and it's only a matter of time before it becomes more popular. It makes sense to invest in surveillance because how are we going to track the terrorists? It makes sense to invest in emotions.
Which emotions are people going to feel after a natural disaster? Some will feel sad or upset, some will feel hate, some will feel one way or another, but when profiting and investing, it's all about predicting how people will feel, and investing accordingly. Investing is a science, of psychology. It's neuro-economics. Our economy is not rational, it works on emotions, it's irrational, it's hate, love, fear and other emotions, but thats the secret. You know what to invest in based on what the majority of people are feeling, and you know what to invest in based on what the majority of people with money are feeling. Most people who have a lot of money, what are they feeling? Figure it out and invest.
We are currently in a war, a long war. Many companies are currently profiting. Lets see which companies will profit in the future if the current mindstate of the world stays the same?
1. Weapons companies.
2. Security and surveillance companies.
3. Drug companies.
4. Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms companies.
5. Datamining companies.
6. Cosmetics
This is just 5 examples. The point is, you should invest based on the emotions of the current society and population. People have chosen death, misery, pain, through all sorts of different means. Some are smoking tabacco, some are alcoholics, some are gamblers, but the key to success in investing is to profit from human vices, and from popular emotions.
Example, when racism increases, it helps the cosmetics industry. When obesity and weight becomes the new race, it helps the dieting and supplement industry. Both of these help the bio-tech industry, and genetics, stem cell research and other related fields, in the future will profit from cosmetics.
Example #2, Disease, expect the avian flu, madcow disease, cancer and heart disease to become more popular and bet on the companies which treat but do not cure the disease. Once again related to stem cell research which certainly could cure the disease but wont.
It's also safe to assume, that if the world ignoance/homophobia level stays the same as it is today, homosexualiy will eventually be declared a disease, and there might eventually be a drug which can cure it. This would be a drug to invest in if it's ever released in the same way that viagra was a drug to invest in when it was released, or the breast implant. In the future there might be a pill which can make breasts large or small, turn skin from white to black and back to white again, and all sorts of other cosmetic things which now surgery is required for. If this happens, it makes sense to invest.
Never bet against human nature. Always bet on humans to remain self destructive and ignorant, thats the secret to profit. Expect a future with even more homophobia, racism, sexism, agism, and other isms, and expect the hate industry to merge with the drug industry.
Look, there is a good chance there will be more wars, until eventually we wipe ourselves out. The best thing you can do if you are college aged, is to invest in the end of the world, because there is a good chance it will happen in our lifetimes.
Invest in the obvious weapons companies, like Lockheed Martin. Invest in Boeing. Invest in Haliburton. Invest in tabacco companies. Invest in gun markers, alcohol, and anything else which will profit from the chaos. If you want you can hedge your bets on energy, but definately invest in the big oil companies, they arent going anywhere and will continue to remain profitable for the near future. Invest in corn, corn syrup won't be going anywhere, and if alternative fuels such as ethanol or biofuels take off, corn will become nearly as profitable as oil.
The best strategy in my opinion is, if you can see the end of the world coming, invest in it so you can profit from it. Invest based on peoples emotions, so lets see, currently the world is filled with pain, hate and misery, so you should invest accordingly. You will have a lot of people drinking more, you will have plenty of natural disasters, which companies profit from natural disasters? You will have plenty of new diseases, which companies profit from diseaases? We may have new wars, we may have the war on terrorism, so invest in security related industries, suviellance, and others. Invest in companies which will profit as the world falls apart, and you'll get rich while the world ends, increasing your chance of survival.
If the world doesnt end, you'll be broke but alive.
Please tell me why we should give out special laptops to people in the third world?
If you were living in the third world, would you want one of these special laptops or an Ibook? I think if we just offered Ibooks in the first place it would be accepted. It's that we are offering these new unusual laptops that most likely scares people away from using them.
I think computers are very useful, I think the idea is very good, I just wish we would have given out ibooks in the first place instead of computers people never heard of that are handcranked or whatever. I understand the third world has energy problems, so how about a solar powered or handcranked modified ibook?
I do not think you can market a program like this as "One Laptop per Child Program", and it just happens to be from America, and just happens to include the name Negroponte. I mean, I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I'm an American, but what government will agree to this when it's marketed like this?
Most people question anything that is so cheap that it is nearly free, they ask why if laptops are so cheap that only the third world can have them? Since when did we design laptops or anything of this sort for the third world, or India?
I think these laptops ARE a good idea, I just don't think you can market it like this and expect it to take off, at a time like this when the middle east is falling down the drain. I'm not surprised by India's reaction, India is suspicious of the deal, and who wouldnt be.
The name "Negroponte", and free laptops will make any government alittle bit suspicious. This would be like the last names Clinton and Bush joining forces to give out free laptops, and offering it to India.
I think it's a good idea, but just, don't I think even people in India know the name Negroponte. So I'm not surprised they rejected the one laptop per child program. It just seems political even if it isnt.
Not in all people. Not all people are killers.
I mean simply put a tracking device in all the guns. Problem solved, every owner of a gun no matter where they buy it is tracked.
National Security trumps privacy, it's already been decided on. The gun registry exists for non-criminals, so surveillance of gun ownrs isn't new. Criminal gun owners are in a league of their own, especially if they are carrying a gun without a license.
I'm not saying you cannot carry a gun, I'm not against the NRA, but if someone carries a gun everyone should know it, including the police, the government, and other citizens. We should know where the people carrying guns are.
Poverty has nothing to do with the criminal mentality, and everything to do with the chance you have of getting caught. Yes poverty can motivate a person to commit crimes to survive, but a greedy rich person will commit crimes to keep up with their rich neighbors and stay ahead just as quickly. The difference is, white collar criminals almost never get caught, and when they do it's a slap on the wrist. Tabacco drug dealers, and Pharma drug dealers sell drugs all the time which are harmful, like Viox, and none of them go to prison for it because they can pay a fine. Even the big marijuana dealers, who deal in tons, and who operate in other countries are immune for political reasons.
The end result is, only the stupid drug dealer, who sells drugs by walking up to people and asking "wanna buy some drugs?" gets caught. Stupid criminals get caught, smart criminals almost never get caught, and thats the only point to make.
I agree with you completely, I think we should elimate the drug laws, and regulate drugs on safety, as a form of quality control. The more money we spend going after marijuana dealers the more money we arent spending going after the murderers. In gangwars, most gangsters arent killers or murderers, they are just like you and me, but because of the environment they live in, the lack of oppurtunity, the lack of education and in some cases dyslexia and inability to read, their options are a life of McDonalds or a life of crime. Most people in these desperate situations have nothing to lose.
We also must remember, that the entire world is just a group of gangs, factions, groups, networks. Yes there are street gangs, but theres gangs of lawyers, doctors, and everything else. Basically everyone is in some sorta group or community, including the slashdotter open source community which could just as easily be labeled a gang by anti open source groups.
We have to start viewing street kids as people, and yes maybe they are just as scared of being shot as you, and maybe because they are living in such a violent neighborhood they join a gang out of fear. Once we can see that there can be someone just like us in any gang we can see that it's not gangs that are bad, it's violent individuals in gangs that commit the violent crimes. Perhaps we could have more success fighting violent crime if we just faught violent crime instead of fighting entire groups, gangs, etc and treating every member as a violent criminal. The average drug dealer, does not support the murderer in their community anymore than you would. The average thief does not support the murderer. The non-violent criminals are not in some sorta suicidal alliance with the violent criminals, it's more that the non-violent criminals fear both the violent criminal, and the police, and they side with the violent criminal because they know the violent criminal better than they know the police. Maybe if there were better community policing, and maybe if there were better communication between kids in the hood, or ghetto, or gangsters with the outside world, this wouldnt be such a problem.
Why are there no websites on gangs from a gangsters perspective? It's nothing like those rap videos. Perhaps it is due to the code of silence, as all mafias have a code of silence, but in any case even with a code of silence, without any form of communication to the outside world, those who are inside this world are trapped.
The simple way to deal with violent crime is to track people who commit violent offenses or who are carrying a gun. If someone is a gang member, and we can see they carry a gun using advanced surveillance technology, we can track just these gun carrying persons. If someone is known to get into lots of fights and commit assaults we can track people with this criminal history. The violent criminal database would solve this problem. what do you think?
You also have to take into account that there is a gangster mentality, not just among kids in ghettos and street gangs, but the foundation of this country was based no gangs. Just watch gangs of new york, or watch a mafia movie. The cowboy mentality applies well to the south but then everywhere else you have the gang mentality.
Also, your statistic figures appear racist. Most criminals are not in the projects dealing drugs, those are just the criminals we want to catch. The criminals we don't want to catch commit crimes essentially for decades and nothing happens to them. Some people are above the law, only the small criminals get caught, usually the drug dealer types. No one really knows how many murderers there are in the US, but we do know the death tolls, the life expectancy, and things such as this. In general, the number 1 method of murder is through poisoning, not gun violence. Most violent crimes are not racial, this means you are more likely to face violence from someone who looks like you do, than someone who looks different from you. Most violence comes from a small percentage of aggressive minded individuals who like violence, and the majority of us simply go to work, pay our taxes, raise our families, and avoid the violent life. It's always been this way.
Our criminal justice system is too outdated to handle violence because we arent focused on violent criminals. Drug dealers arent violent criminals.
I hope you know there is Mad Cow disease because of what we did to cows. Once and for all, I'm not against genetic modification, I just think it has nothing to do with making the food produce more yield. That makes no business sense. Farmers want to make money, thats it.
People are starving not because theres a shortage of food, there was never a global shortage of food, theres a shortage of water before theres a shortage of food. The water in some countries is dirty, and in this country most tap water is dirty. So it's the water we should be focused on.
I'm all for genetic modification, you are correct these things are important, but I'd rather we learn more about mammals than plants, I cannot see any use for genetically modified corn unless we use that corn as fuel for our cars.
Sony has not been running a very profitable business. They don't make as much money as Nintendo, the N64 made Nintendo more of a profit than Sony made off the PSX. Pokemon and the handhelds made Nintendo more of a profit than any Sony game ever released. Nintendo is the most profitable game company, Sony simply plays with numbers and people act like numbers have anything to do with profitability?!
You can sell a billion systems but if you can't sell a billion games you cannot profit. Sega Dreamcast sold more systems than PS2 in the beginning, but people started pirating the games and game sales couldnt keep up with system sales, the result, the fastest growing marketshare system the Dreamcast failed because Sega couldnt afford to keep selling systems.
Sony is about to be in the same state, with a very expensive system, which they can afford to sell because of their money, but which won't make a profit due to lack of quality games. It's about selling GAMES not SYSTEMS. It always has been about selling GAMES. Sega always sold SYSTEMS and went out of business while Nintendo sold GAMES. Sony sold SYSTEMS and GAMES with PSX, but from PS2 on they focused only on hardware and SYSTEMS. Therefore Nintendo will just sell GAMES, and this is why Sega made the brilliant move of selling GAMES.
Hey, if Sony's plan is to sell overpriced systems and TV's to rich parents, let them go ahead. This strategy only works with early adopters, and it's just barely selling the HDTV. How many rich kids are there? Thousands? a few million? The rest of the parents in this country who arent millionaires, arent buying their kids brand new cars and paying for college. And honestly, if the kid is colleged age, the kid remembers growing up playing with SNES, and remmebers the way the game industry once was. So you are right a few rich kids will buy PS3, about as many bought 3D0, and other over priced systems. Remember Sega Saturn? It came with 3 free good games made by a gaming company and it couldnt outsell the PSX or the N64. Why? Because it was too expensive.
Sony has never made a fun game. I cannot think of any game Sony has ever made that was fun. PSX had good games, I was not impressed with PS2. I can admit PS2 did not have any good games. I did not buy one. I did buy PSX.
Most PS2 owners decided to buy the PS2 because they needed a DVD player. You are trying to tell me, that people who know what games they want, need to be convinced to buy the system with the most games?
It's about the games, and PS3 does not have the games. Mainstream gamers keep buying the same games over and over, Madden 2006-7-8 will sell on the PS3 and Xbox, but the hardcore gamers want NEW games, or OLD games, but not the same game with a different year on it. So I don't think people will buy PS3 for Tekken 6 and Final Fantasy 2007. It's all about the games, and once people play the Nintendo Wii at their friends house, that will be enough to sell it. The hardcore gamers and the kids will sell the system to the mainstreamers.
When I last checked, Nintendo was the kiddie gamer system. How did Sony somehow become the system for kids?
That's the main point, Nintendo has the children all the way back going to N64, and Gamecube, and now they are about take the hardcore gamers, leaving Sony with the mainstream gamers who don't buy a lot of games anyway. I see this as a profit losing strategy for Sony, because the mainstream gamers will be divided between the Sony and the Microsoft system. The hardcores and the children will definately be going with Nintendo.
Atari, Nintendo and Sega, remember them? In the end, Nintendo has the market, they have the older gamers from the 80s (people like us), they have the kids (N64 and DS Pokemon), The only audience they are missing are the current teenagers, who don't really make up a big market share to begin with.
The gaming industry has changed now, everyone is looking forward to the Nintendo Wii, people I know who havent been playing video games since Dreamcast are coming back. The Nintendo Wii will outsell the PS3 because it's a better system, with better games, and better marketing. PS3 is just a brand name, and brand name only takes you so far. Sony has ruined it's brand name with the rootkit BS. Do you really think the average teenage hacker or geek likes the Sony brand right now?
Sony has almost no leverage, Nintendo has all the SNES games, all the Sega games, Turbo Grafix games, and if they can get SNK games, they'll be unstoppable. They have internet connection too, honestly I HAVE to buy the system just because of all the games, you'd have to be foolish to give up thousands of great games.
Sony does not make games, Sony only beat Sega because they had third party support, and now Nintendo has equalized this. I'd say it's over for Sony, I expect Microsoft to take Sony's place, I mean tell me why would anyone want an Xbox360 AND a PS3? The average person will be one or the other, dividing Sony's market share in half. Nintendo will take the majority because the hardcore gamers, older gamers, and people who are price conscious will choose the cheaper system with the most games. The cheapest system almost always wins, with the exception of the Sega Dreamcast which ran out of money, even the Sega Dreamcast would have beat PS2 if Sega had enough money to keep making it. In a way, Sony has been riding on the mistakes of Sega and Nintendo, now Sega makes the games and Nintendo makes the hardware and games, leaving Sony to compete with Microsoft as a hardware company.
I'll admit, the PS3 and the Xbox360 are awesome pieces of hardware, but if I want hardware I'll buy a computer not a game system. I think most people buy game systems for the games, the proof is in the success of the Nintendo DS which does not have the most superior hardware. Nintendo is trying to pull another gameboy, by launching a gameboy or DS style system in the Nintendo Wii, everything from the name, to the look seems like they are trying to make gaming fun again, and make toys while Sony is trying to make portable computers along with Microsoft.
In the end a system is judged by how much fun it gives the user. PS3 just won't be as fun.
We have to ultimately decide if we want to invest our time in increasing quality of life, or in increasing quality of death. These are the main two motivational factors.
I'd prefer quality of life, I like the idea of working hard for years as life continues to get better and better. I don't like the idea of working hard as life continues to get worse and worse, more dangerous, and shorter.
How many people here actually agree on supporting quality of life?
And thats the point. It's not a matter of how much science of the genetics you know, if you have no long term view of what you are doing to the earths ecosystem.
Anyone can be a geneticist and work on this in a lab, anyone from a completely insane person, to a sane person, from a nice person to a mean person, anyone. To think that we can have research without any form of ethical caution or review is ridiculous. We need to actually think about what we are doing here, otherwise we don't know the results of what we are creating. There is a very good chance that once these new plants leave the lab they may replace the original species of plants, and how exactly is this good? Not to mention, other plants may be genetically engineered, so I hope no one here smokes marijuana or tabacco.
I'm fine with genetic engineering, I just think we have to be very careful to consider the side effects it will have to the eco-system. There are many animals that exist in a fragile web of life that will die off because of this genetic engineering, there are many insects, and many lifeforms that will be directly influenced. Can we agree to consider the impact our actions cause to everyone/everything else?
It alters the entire ecology of the earth. We've already created killer bees, whats next? Smart plants?
Just because you can do something doesnt mean what you do has no cost to many other species of life. How will these new plants influence the original species? Don't we even take into account that someday these new plants might be the only plants left on earth?
We don't know the long term risks to the eco-system. How will our genetic gaming influence the future evolution of these new lifeforms we are creating in labs?
The worry is, it's electronic, it's not the type of device you can depend on with your life. No electronic device is reliable to that level. Sure if you have no other choice but if you have a choice you wont choose this.
I know we share a lot of genes with monkeys and mice. This is plain obvious. However that 1% difference between humans, monkeys or mice, is so vast that look at where we are and look at them. I don't know where we came from, but at some point in evolution, we divided, some of us became monkeys, some of us became human, and the humans then divided between neanderthal and the current. Let's say neanderthal mated with the advanced human, the result would be what we have now.
Do we want evolution to continue? If we do, we need as much genetic diversity as possible. The problem is, too many people mate with their cousins, and while I have no problem with this on the small scale, on the large scale I think you can see that these practices on a long term basis can slow evolution down.
I'm not saying we don't share any genes with plants, we share plenty. All living creatures are relatives, all humans are relative, you are my relative and I'm yours, and genetics prove this, but my question is why do these experiments on plants and not primates?