The Law is there is preserve order, it only dispenses justice on occasion coincidentally.
That's why there is a human component involved, judgement is required to evaluate the situation in comparison to the abstract scenario around which the Law was crafted. Then they can see how the Law should be applied in this specific situation.
If the man broke in, and did no harm, in fact, doing nothing other than highlighting the flaws in security, then he has provided a service with no detriment. A reasonable human perspective can see that the "hacker" doesn't deserve severe punishment. Should another hacker break-in and try to do damage (and even fail to do damage), it would be reasonable to say that this hacker/should/ be punished even though the end result of both hackers' attempts are the same.
There was a shift in the FPS genre from wacky off-the-wall concepts towards gritty bullet-based shooters. It started off with the SWAT mod for Quake1 which really introduced location-based damage, which led to the work of the Actionquake2 team, from which Gooseman went on to develop Counterstrike!
Suddenly, there were bullet-based games everywhere. The confluence of location-based damage, and hit-scan bullets, led to a branching of FPS skills. By this time, most FPS player honed their skills on games designed around a wide variety explosive chaotic weaponry, the most prominent being the Rocket Launcher, the staple of FPS games of the time.
Now, players had to learn to land headshots on the target, rather than trying to detonate rockets at the target's feet. It was a distinct branching in playstyle. Think about how many FPS are all fundamentally about landing headshots now. Today you see a great deal of these semi-realistic/realistic shooters. But it wasn't always so.
MMOs are so popular these days, but MUDs, the text-based progenitors of MMOs started it all off, and are still quite active, with literally decades of their content built-up and still being added.
I spent a while earlier this year exploring a new MUD, picked it out of a list of hundreds.e
Sounds like an elaboration on the 3d diorama puzzle game for the DS that uses the camera to track the user's head and shifts the screen perspective to match the change in angle.
Looks like holding a window into a 3d Box. There was an article on Slashdot about a grad student that used the wii controller cameras to get the same 3d effect on tv.
Human behavior isn't truly random, it can be predicted, though not with a high degree of individual precision.
Offer to give 500 dollars to each person with no strings attached, I think everyone here can make a pretty darned good prediction of whether or not a person would take it. It may not be a 100% accurate prediction, but the outcomes certainly aren't random. This point is just to establish that human behavior forms trends that can be predicted.
After you conclude that there are trends in human behavior, you just need a large enough sample group to find them. You don't need everybody in the sample group to neatly line up on the same response. Let's say 90% take the money, and 10% reject it. You've got a 90% chance of predicting what they'll do. If you want to improve it, figure out why the 10% are really rejecting it. Perhaps they don't trust you, so maybe you can sign a statement attesting that you place no obligation on them for taking your money. If half of that 10% group find this to be enough to accept the money, you can predict that 95% of people will accept 500 dollars if you offer them a signed statement of no obligation with it. You tease out the source of deviation then account for it in the model to get closer to truth.
If you find that in the real world, 20% are rejecting the money, then the model is off and you just need to find out why and account for it, you need to expand the sample set be broad enough to represent the general population and capture all the errors. That's a lot! Or, just get a sample of the set of people you're going to use the model on. If you want to make predictions on Indians, get a sample of Indians. An American may not fit the model, but you wouldn't need to account for his deviation since you aren't planning to use it on him anyway.
It's a monumentally difficult task, but that's not the same as impossible. Simple and relatively obvious predictions can be made, but over time, more factors can be accounted for. It's also why the summary sounds like a load of crap, because I don't believe one man can close the massive gap of unknown factors all by himself, even with a lifetime of work.
I've found Avast registration to be even easier now. I don't even have to go back to the website to register and get a key from my e-mail address. I can just register right in the program itself.
This is more of a TV that is also a PC really. PCs have had TV cards for quite some time, and the experience with them is very uneven, it depends on how knowledgeable you are in setting them up, and the quality of the TV card you buy, casual attempts often end up with horrendously fuzzy SDTV.
But really, they are offering is a streamlining of the process of using a PC on a TV, which is always nice, but the process is far simpler to begin with.
All you need is the Logitech Dinovo Mini (which is the wireless minikeyboard and pointer)and an old PC or laptop, and you pretty much have the same thing, a TV that acts as a PC. But I think the gadget-fiends in the Slashdot audience already have spare PC/laptops considering how quickly they become "obsolete" for them. I think the target market for a GTV is for the wider general market of people who don't buy a PC/laptop every 4 years.
I wonder if there's a better way to vote that would alleviate the issue of people voting without knowing who they're voting for?
Maybe it would be better to just present the voter with a list of short position statements crafted by the candidates, shown to the voter without identifying which candidate it belongs to. The voter can pick the position they agree with the most. After choosing, show them who it belonged to. Then ask them to choose a candidate.
If they find out they keep picking a different candidate than what they originally expected, they may reconsider. They can of course just ignore the results and just choose the one they planned on, but at least they'd have to work a little harder to be ignorant.
Maybe we could just hire some illegals to patrol the border for us?
I'm joking of course, but despite the irony, I can't help but wonder if that would work(assuming it was politically feasible). Maybe use game theory and give bonuses to guards who blow the whistle on any guards that are assisting the border crossers, and letting self-interest police each other.
Would citizens want those fruit picking jobs? I'm not just trolling, I just don't know how many Americans will accept that kind of job. I'd be interested to know if there have been any case studies examining a scenario like this in the past.
I would like to point out mint.com's advertising model. It's a spread of ads for the typical financial institutions an individual might use (Credit cards, mortgage rates, insurance, etc.)
What they do is take the current offers of each of these institutions, rank them in order, and serve up the top 10 list to each person. If the person enters their specific needs, they'll re-order the list to find the one that matches best to that person's needs, with a final total to show how much they might be able to save.
It's a hybrid of advertising and service(separate from their main service of tracking your financials), and must pull in a ton of money for them because while I rarely click an ad, I've already explored Mint's in at least 3 categories.
Certainly this specific model isn't adaptable to many websites, the idea of meshing the advertising with a service can make the advertising more welcome.
That's not how these people think. This is/standard/ CYA (cover-your-ass) strategy for any office.
Inquiry: "What have you done to stop all this piracy!?"
1) Response: "I initiated/contracted a DRM system." Result: Piracy, but at least it looks like you did something.
2) Response: "I don't think it'd help to spend money on DRM, it'd only reduce our sales" Result: Piracy, but now it looks like you didn't do anything!
The boss probably got to where he was by protecting himself from looking bad. DRM is an easy sell to guys like him. He needs an excuse. Otherwise he is relying on the hope that the investor will believe his story about DRM being ineffective.
It's much better to be a man of "action". Guys who do things and shake things up. That's how you get noticed. Politicians do the same thing. Nobody wants to be the guy who doesn't increase any programs and doesn't spend any money on new things. He looks useless, even if he ends up balancing the budget! So the politicians all campaign on making things happen, spending money, cutting taxes...and then they leave the problem of paying for it to whoever comes after them. And whoever comes after them does the same thing because being a man of action is still better than being the guy who did nothing at all.
Whether or not Bush should have invaded Iraq, and whether or not Obama should have tried to stabilize the financial system are separate issues. Just saying that the spending involved is of a different nature.
I fully agree that there is a moral dilemma here, and like most moral dilemmas, nobody can offer the correct answer, only their opinion.
The idea of humanity isn't drawn along distinct lines. It used to mean running around barefoot with sticks and stones. How many of us are still doing that? Evolution just happens. Michael Phelps may be half-man half-dolphin, but he's still human. Humans used to drag their feet along the ground when riding horses, until we selectively influenced their genetic destiny to create the behomoths they are now. I say we're human as long as we still say we're human. Our identity isn't static, throughout our lives from birth to death, even as individuals, we all change. My values have changed greatly since my youth. Whether I think this change was for better or for worse depends on/when/ you ask me.
I think Slashdotters will probably relate best to the Star Trek discussions of genetic research and the "gene wars". The question came down to whether or not mankind's moral growth kept up with their technological growth. I don't think we're ready, but I'm sure the technology will come whether we're ready or not and we just need to steel ourselves to roll with the times.
I hate the city too, but I disagree about city life failing to encourage innovation, invention, or just trying something new.
The density of population is unpleasant for guys like us, but it does force people to face unfamiliar perspectives because they're everywhere.
That list of "can't"s above doesn't point to the city hindering alternative ways of life. It's indicative of the city hindering your way of life. Have you tried the "city's" way of life? It's different than yours, and simply by virtue of being different and proximate, it gives you new perspective that allows you to evaluate both lifestyles and make a decision for yourself on which you'd prefer. You don't really know that you like playing drums, riding motorcycles, and raising animals if you know of no other alternative. You simply do it.
A concentration of disparate of ideas allows them to play off each other and produce new ideas. A gay man can out himself and live proud in a vibrant gay community...if there is one around him. In other places, he may have to just pretend he's straight because the community is so small that the other gays aren't able to connect and realize they're not alone. An angry islamist in the country may actually meet a western infidel in the city and realize the "west" isn't out to get him. A great electrical engineer may meet a great software engineer and realize they could help each other make the invention of their dreams.
The city is just people in a high concentration vs. a low concentration. People are dynamic and just being around other people can spur a great deal of insight. Insular communities cut off from others can stagnate without the benefit of learning from others, and at the same time passing on th benefit of what they know.
"I think the 'average user' has changed, though. Just using facebook, twitter, and all the other social networking crap has to have some positive effect as to their technological knowledge. Not to mention all the other assorted technological crap we all get exposed to. Smartphones, etc. I just think the 'average joe/jane' understands more now than they did even a couple of years ago, if my 70-year-old mother's recent questions regarding an iphone is any indication."
They're learning how to manipulate systems designed for consumers. There are certain design decisions that are copied out of convenience, practicality, tradition, etc. If I want to change how my program works, I should look for an menu titled as either: "Options, Preferences, or Settings". These people are used to these familiar layouts and follow them, and the GUI designers have followed the layouts because the users are familiar with them. Installation process are simple because they've been boiled down to clicking "next" until the end, then you click "finish".
Linux however is designed for the designer. Nobody is looking at the broader user experience.
None of those social networking people or smartphone users ever have to go to the command line to get things done. While some may claim that linux has moved beyond that, I was forced to learn how to use the command line within the first hour of using a linux install. Getting to the default configuration is easy(assuming the program was specifically developed for my distro), but doing anything beyond that needed me to/type out/ the commands needed. Note that it's not a menu where I just scan down the menu and pick the item that sounds like what I want. Instead, I have to/already know/ the command I want. In other words I need to switch over to my browser, search on the internet for 20 minutes, and then type in the command I need. Linux folks take pride in their esoteric knowledge, but regular users don't want to take pride in their knowledge of the system. They just want to get shit done.
They don't want to spend time researching how to do what they want, they just want to do it and move on to something more productive.
Essentially, because our production is linear and our growth is geometric, at some point growth will outstrip production, forcing everyone to live at a subsistence level and the population growth is so constrained by desperate poverty, that growth ceases to outpace production.
We've staved this off so far through a continuous stream of technological advancements that alter or shift our production curves to outpace growth. This spurt of technological advancement has taken place over a relatively short period of time.
But while we know of certain factors that tend to produce technological advancements (heterogeneity of ideas, education, ease of access to information, etc.), we don't know exactly when the next advancement will occur. We don't know if there will always be another, or if the increases in production will manage to stay ahead of consumption indefinitely. It feels as though it will be that way because that's how it's been for hundreds of years. But humanity has existed for far far longer at subsistence levels and constrained to nearly flat levels of population growth.
The distances involved in spacetravel are immense, requiring incredible resources and technology. Even feats that are theoretically possible, may be so impractical that no society/organization will be able to marshal up the resources needed to overcome the challenges. As we can see, problems with today's economy have created budget constraints on space programs. It's not a given that our development will reach the critical mass of investment necessary to travel the stars. It's a tough sell to talk about traveling to distant worlds while people right here aren't getting their needs met. Maybe one day we'll have exhausted resources to a point that we no longer have enough to acquire additional resources.
Heck, maybe the laws of the universe simply don't allow for a technology that can allow for space-faring society.
I think the low standard for grammar and punctuation among today's youth stems from the fact that most of their communication is in a casual and contemporary format.
They only see proper English in a textbook, and their goal is to see as little of that as possible. The teens that read for pleasure don't suffer from the same deficiency. They may not be able to espouse the dictionary definition of a subjunction or a preposition, but they learn to write in the same style as the books they read.
Kids will hate learning grammar and punctuation and only want to put forth the minimum effort required. Perhaps integration with after-school reading programs would help draw out an enthusiasm for the written word.
I hate the lack of buttons on my ipod touch. It is goddamned cold out here and I don't want to take off my gloves just to cycle to the next song. Touchscreens are good for a specific purpose, but there are not the end-all and be-all of human interfaces.
Can you say for sure, where it definitely IS legal?
I'm no lawyer, I don't know what my rights are in that situation as a victim, let alone as a bystander.
There's no personal benefit, and a ton of potential harm. That's just the facts of the situation, regardless of what decision I would make in that situation.
Slashdot Mirror
The Law is there is preserve order, it only dispenses justice on occasion coincidentally.
That's why there is a human component involved, judgement is required to evaluate the situation in comparison to the abstract scenario around which the Law was crafted. Then they can see how the Law should be applied in this specific situation.
If the man broke in, and did no harm, in fact, doing nothing other than highlighting the flaws in security, then he has provided a service with no detriment. A reasonable human perspective can see that the "hacker" doesn't deserve severe punishment. Should another hacker break-in and try to do damage (and even fail to do damage), it would be reasonable to say that this hacker /should/ be punished even though the end result of both hackers' attempts are the same.
There was a shift in the FPS genre from wacky off-the-wall concepts towards gritty bullet-based shooters. It started off with the SWAT mod for Quake1 which really introduced location-based damage, which led to the work of the Actionquake2 team, from which Gooseman went on to develop Counterstrike!
Suddenly, there were bullet-based games everywhere. The confluence of location-based damage, and hit-scan bullets, led to a branching of FPS skills. By this time, most FPS player honed their skills on games designed around a wide variety explosive chaotic weaponry, the most prominent being the Rocket Launcher, the staple of FPS games of the time.
Now, players had to learn to land headshots on the target, rather than trying to detonate rockets at the target's feet. It was a distinct branching in playstyle. Think about how many FPS are all fundamentally about landing headshots now. Today you see a great deal of these semi-realistic/realistic shooters. But it wasn't always so.
MMOs are so popular these days, but MUDs, the text-based progenitors of MMOs started it all off, and are still quite active, with literally decades of their content built-up and still being added.
I spent a while earlier this year exploring a new MUD, picked it out of a list of hundreds.e
Sounds like an elaboration on the 3d diorama puzzle game for the DS that uses the camera to track the user's head and shifts the screen perspective to match the change in angle.
Looks like holding a window into a 3d Box. There was an article on Slashdot about a grad student that used the wii controller cameras to get the same 3d effect on tv.
But in other cases, baring your teeth is a sign that you're planning to bite down on their neck.
Humans smile to relax each other. Some animals use it are a threat. We wouldn't know what showing teeth means in an alien's culture.
Human behavior isn't truly random, it can be predicted, though not with a high degree of individual precision.
Offer to give 500 dollars to each person with no strings attached, I think everyone here can make a pretty darned good prediction of whether or not a person would take it. It may not be a 100% accurate prediction, but the outcomes certainly aren't random. This point is just to establish that human behavior forms trends that can be predicted.
After you conclude that there are trends in human behavior, you just need a large enough sample group to find them. You don't need everybody in the sample group to neatly line up on the same response. Let's say 90% take the money, and 10% reject it. You've got a 90% chance of predicting what they'll do. If you want to improve it, figure out why the 10% are really rejecting it. Perhaps they don't trust you, so maybe you can sign a statement attesting that you place no obligation on them for taking your money. If half of that 10% group find this to be enough to accept the money, you can predict that 95% of people will accept 500 dollars if you offer them a signed statement of no obligation with it. You tease out the source of deviation then account for it in the model to get closer to truth.
If you find that in the real world, 20% are rejecting the money, then the model is off and you just need to find out why and account for it, you need to expand the sample set be broad enough to represent the general population and capture all the errors. That's a lot! Or, just get a sample of the set of people you're going to use the model on. If you want to make predictions on Indians, get a sample of Indians. An American may not fit the model, but you wouldn't need to account for his deviation since you aren't planning to use it on him anyway.
It's a monumentally difficult task, but that's not the same as impossible. Simple and relatively obvious predictions can be made, but over time, more factors can be accounted for. It's also why the summary sounds like a load of crap, because I don't believe one man can close the massive gap of unknown factors all by himself, even with a lifetime of work.
Because hearing "VIRUS DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED" is a moodkiller during sex.
I've found Avast registration to be even easier now. I don't even have to go back to the website to register and get a key from my e-mail address. I can just register right in the program itself.
It gets the job done for me.
This is more of a TV that is also a PC really. PCs have had TV cards for quite some time, and the experience with them is very uneven, it depends on how knowledgeable you are in setting them up, and the quality of the TV card you buy, casual attempts often end up with horrendously fuzzy SDTV.
But really, they are offering is a streamlining of the process of using a PC on a TV, which is always nice, but the process is far simpler to begin with.
All you need is the Logitech Dinovo Mini (which is the wireless minikeyboard and pointer)and an old PC or laptop, and you pretty much have the same thing, a TV that acts as a PC. But I think the gadget-fiends in the Slashdot audience already have spare PC/laptops considering how quickly they become "obsolete" for them. I think the target market for a GTV is for the wider general market of people who don't buy a PC/laptop every 4 years.
I wonder if there's a better way to vote that would alleviate the issue of people voting without knowing who they're voting for?
Maybe it would be better to just present the voter with a list of short position statements crafted by the candidates, shown to the voter without identifying which candidate it belongs to. The voter can pick the position they agree with the most. After choosing, show them who it belonged to. Then ask them to choose a candidate.
If they find out they keep picking a different candidate than what they originally expected, they may reconsider. They can of course just ignore the results and just choose the one they planned on, but at least they'd have to work a little harder to be ignorant.
Maybe we could just hire some illegals to patrol the border for us?
I'm joking of course, but despite the irony, I can't help but wonder if that would work(assuming it was politically feasible). Maybe use game theory and give bonuses to guards who blow the whistle on any guards that are assisting the border crossers, and letting self-interest police each other.
They'd probably continue to cross over the border anyway.
I guess it's because none of the people in charge wanted to be the guy who was "Soft on immigration" by cutting this project.
Would citizens want those fruit picking jobs? I'm not just trolling, I just don't know how many Americans will accept that kind of job. I'd be interested to know if there have been any case studies examining a scenario like this in the past.
I would like to point out mint.com's advertising model. It's a spread of ads for the typical financial institutions an individual might use (Credit cards, mortgage rates, insurance, etc.)
What they do is take the current offers of each of these institutions, rank them in order, and serve up the top 10 list to each person. If the person enters their specific needs, they'll re-order the list to find the one that matches best to that person's needs, with a final total to show how much they might be able to save.
It's a hybrid of advertising and service(separate from their main service of tracking your financials), and must pull in a ton of money for them because while I rarely click an ad, I've already explored Mint's in at least 3 categories.
Certainly this specific model isn't adaptable to many websites, the idea of meshing the advertising with a service can make the advertising more welcome.
That's not how these people think. This is /standard/ CYA (cover-your-ass) strategy for any office.
Inquiry: "What have you done to stop all this piracy!?"
1)
Response: "I initiated/contracted a DRM system."
Result: Piracy, but at least it looks like you did something.
2)
Response: "I don't think it'd help to spend money on DRM, it'd only reduce our sales"
Result: Piracy, but now it looks like you didn't do anything!
The boss probably got to where he was by protecting himself from looking bad. DRM is an easy sell to guys like him. He needs an excuse. Otherwise he is relying on the hope that the investor will believe his story about DRM being ineffective.
It's much better to be a man of "action". Guys who do things and shake things up. That's how you get noticed. Politicians do the same thing. Nobody wants to be the guy who doesn't increase any programs and doesn't spend any money on new things. He looks useless, even if he ends up balancing the budget! So the politicians all campaign on making things happen, spending money, cutting taxes...and then they leave the problem of paying for it to whoever comes after them. And whoever comes after them does the same thing because being a man of action is still better than being the guy who did nothing at all.
The difference in a trillion dollars spent on war, and the 700 billion "spent" in TARP loans, is that loans can get repaid:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126015764384079549.html
Whether or not Bush should have invaded Iraq, and whether or not Obama should have tried to stabilize the financial system are separate issues. Just saying that the spending involved is of a different nature.
I fully agree that there is a moral dilemma here, and like most moral dilemmas, nobody can offer the correct answer, only their opinion.
The idea of humanity isn't drawn along distinct lines. It used to mean running around barefoot with sticks and stones. How many of us are still doing that? Evolution just happens. Michael Phelps may be half-man half-dolphin, but he's still human. Humans used to drag their feet along the ground when riding horses, until we selectively influenced their genetic destiny to create the behomoths they are now. I say we're human as long as we still say we're human. Our identity isn't static, throughout our lives from birth to death, even as individuals, we all change. My values have changed greatly since my youth. Whether I think this change was for better or for worse depends on /when/ you ask me.
I think Slashdotters will probably relate best to the Star Trek discussions of genetic research and the "gene wars". The question came down to whether or not mankind's moral growth kept up with their technological growth. I don't think we're ready, but I'm sure the technology will come whether we're ready or not and we just need to steel ourselves to roll with the times.
I hate the city too, but I disagree about city life failing to encourage innovation, invention, or just trying something new.
The density of population is unpleasant for guys like us, but it does force people to face unfamiliar perspectives because they're everywhere.
That list of "can't"s above doesn't point to the city hindering alternative ways of life. It's indicative of the city hindering your way of life. Have you tried the "city's" way of life? It's different than yours, and simply by virtue of being different and proximate, it gives you new perspective that allows you to evaluate both lifestyles and make a decision for yourself on which you'd prefer. You don't really know that you like playing drums, riding motorcycles, and raising animals if you know of no other alternative. You simply do it.
A concentration of disparate of ideas allows them to play off each other and produce new ideas. A gay man can out himself and live proud in a vibrant gay community...if there is one around him. In other places, he may have to just pretend he's straight because the community is so small that the other gays aren't able to connect and realize they're not alone. An angry islamist in the country may actually meet a western infidel in the city and realize the "west" isn't out to get him. A great electrical engineer may meet a great software engineer and realize they could help each other make the invention of their dreams.
The city is just people in a high concentration vs. a low concentration. People are dynamic and just being around other people can spur a great deal of insight. Insular communities cut off from others can stagnate without the benefit of learning from others, and at the same time passing on th benefit of what they know.
"I think the 'average user' has changed, though. Just using facebook, twitter, and all the other social networking crap has to have some positive effect as to their technological knowledge. Not to mention all the other assorted technological crap we all get exposed to. Smartphones, etc. I just think the 'average joe/jane' understands more now than they did even a couple of years ago, if my 70-year-old mother's recent questions regarding an iphone is any indication."
They're learning how to manipulate systems designed for consumers. There are certain design decisions that are copied out of convenience, practicality, tradition, etc. If I want to change how my program works, I should look for an menu titled as either: "Options, Preferences, or Settings". These people are used to these familiar layouts and follow them, and the GUI designers have followed the layouts because the users are familiar with them. Installation process are simple because they've been boiled down to clicking "next" until the end, then you click "finish".
Linux however is designed for the designer. Nobody is looking at the broader user experience.
None of those social networking people or smartphone users ever have to go to the command line to get things done. While some may claim that linux has moved beyond that, I was forced to learn how to use the command line within the first hour of using a linux install. Getting to the default configuration is easy(assuming the program was specifically developed for my distro), but doing anything beyond that needed me to /type out/ the commands needed. Note that it's not a menu where I just scan down the menu and pick the item that sounds like what I want. Instead, I have to /already know/ the command I want. In other words I need to switch over to my browser, search on the internet for 20 minutes, and then type in the command I need. Linux folks take pride in their esoteric knowledge, but regular users don't want to take pride in their knowledge of the system. They just want to get shit done.
They don't want to spend time researching how to do what they want, they just want to do it and move on to something more productive.
The first to formally recognize the possibility of complete resource depletion was Thomas Malthus. It's also known as a "Malthusian catastrophe": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
Essentially, because our production is linear and our growth is geometric, at some point growth will outstrip production, forcing everyone to live at a subsistence level and the population growth is so constrained by desperate poverty, that growth ceases to outpace production.
We've staved this off so far through a continuous stream of technological advancements that alter or shift our production curves to outpace growth. This spurt of technological advancement has taken place over a relatively short period of time.
But while we know of certain factors that tend to produce technological advancements (heterogeneity of ideas, education, ease of access to information, etc.), we don't know exactly when the next advancement will occur. We don't know if there will always be another, or if the increases in production will manage to stay ahead of consumption indefinitely. It feels as though it will be that way because that's how it's been for hundreds of years. But humanity has existed for far far longer at subsistence levels and constrained to nearly flat levels of population growth.
The distances involved in spacetravel are immense, requiring incredible resources and technology. Even feats that are theoretically possible, may be so impractical that no society/organization will be able to marshal up the resources needed to overcome the challenges. As we can see, problems with today's economy have created budget constraints on space programs. It's not a given that our development will reach the critical mass of investment necessary to travel the stars. It's a tough sell to talk about traveling to distant worlds while people right here aren't getting their needs met. Maybe one day we'll have exhausted resources to a point that we no longer have enough to acquire additional resources.
Heck, maybe the laws of the universe simply don't allow for a technology that can allow for space-faring society.
I think the low standard for grammar and punctuation among today's youth stems from the fact that most of their communication is in a casual and contemporary format.
They only see proper English in a textbook, and their goal is to see as little of that as possible. The teens that read for pleasure don't suffer from the same deficiency. They may not be able to espouse the dictionary definition of a subjunction or a preposition, but they learn to write in the same style as the books they read.
Kids will hate learning grammar and punctuation and only want to put forth the minimum effort required. Perhaps integration with after-school reading programs would help draw out an enthusiasm for the written word.
As an aside, this premise is similar to American History X.
The guy shoots a robber in the leg, makes him put his teeth on the curb, and then stomps on the back of the robber's head to split it in half.
I hate the lack of buttons on my ipod touch. It is goddamned cold out here and I don't want to take off my gloves just to cycle to the next song. Touchscreens are good for a specific purpose, but there are not the end-all and be-all of human interfaces.
Can you say for sure, where it definitely IS legal?
I'm no lawyer, I don't know what my rights are in that situation as a victim, let alone as a bystander.
There's no personal benefit, and a ton of potential harm. That's just the facts of the situation, regardless of what decision I would make in that situation.