The real problem, As I see it, is that in the not too distant future: everyone in the US will essentially be forced to have a Social Network account to be able to function in modern society.
More and more I see all manner of business and government entities handing responsibility over to FB for all sorts of things. It's actually quite disgusting, but not surprising given the (d)evolution of our database driven society. A centralized system of user accounts that almost everything done digitally can use?
When I first saw the subtle changes taking place with FB, things like not being able to contact my local PBS television station unless I used FB , or not being able to enter a contest to see one of my favorite bands unless I used FB I knew it would be only a matter of time until everyone will be forced to have an account.
Currently I don't have one, and never have. However I am part of a group that has an account, and my name and image are located there, so I'm "in the system" as it were.
Once everyone is forced to have an account, then the next step will be for society in general to force those with accounts to update those accounts. There will come a time when via our smartphones those accounts will be updated automatically.
It's almost at that point now:
Who you've talked to.
What you said.
Where you went.
What you bought.
What you listened to.
What you read.
What you think.
I think things like this are the tip of an emerging ice berg relating to the ip-ification of everything:
You haven't upgraded the firmware in your garage door opener?
Did you properly set permissions on your gas furnace?
Which version of the HomeSafe *nix Kernel are you running in your UPnP'd entertainment system?
etc; etc;
To me, all Home Automation does is increase complexity and security risks for some specious conveniences.
Maybe it's just me, but I would rather have to remember that I'm out of Mayo, than have an ip'd fridge send a message to my Android that I need to pick it up at the store.
I play pc games. I've always played pc games. Can't stand console(except PS...) This has caused me increasing frustration and annoyance in what it takes to play games on my pc. There is more and more logins, accounts, pw's, things to download and run and manage and forums and accounts and blah, blah, blah. All I want to do is play fucking Mass Effect.
I paid legally for the game and am punished, yes PUNISHED by all the extraneous bullshit that now goes along with pc games. I paid for the game, but am treated like I'm guilty until proven innocent.
All I want to do is play ME3. Is that too much to ask?
Will The Singularity become manifest and be able to deliver what you claim it can, before the global economy has to absorb and adapt to millions of First World citizens becoming permanently unemployed because of increases in "Productivity" due to computerization/robotization?
As soon as I saw that the author of the article is "Fred Campbell, a former FCC legal adviser who now heads The Communications Liberty & Innovation Project think tank" I knew it was going to be some kooky tea-bagger/liberty-for-corporations-slavery-for-customers bullshit.
Anytime you see the words Liberty or Freedom thrown around by a TeleCom "think-tank" you can expect the usual "were here to fuck the consumer at all costs" propaganda.
My problem was with the simplicity of your analysis regarding Rome's management of conquered peoples. I've seen others try to "boil down" Roman history and I have to say something...
Like I said, the real reason Rome gave up on Germany between the Rhine and the Elbe had more to do with economics and the Will of The Senate. If grapes, grain and olives(or fish sauce...) grew in Germany as they did in Spain, believe me, Rome would have stayed. There wasn't enough of a ROI to keep several legions there, traipsing around the German countryside to keep the tribes in check.
Dacia and Dalmatia on the other hand did have an economic incentives, having gold and other minerals, as well as grain growing capacity. Also, Dacia was more of a military threat to Rome than the Germans, as the Dacians were more organized militarily than the German tribes. Germany had slaves and wood and some lesser mineral wealth. Both Dacia and Dalmatia had similar/geography terrain(especially Dalmatia) to Germany, BUT, had a better ROI(at the time, 1st centuries BC/AD.)
So my point is that the Romans would and could defeat and manage a people, regardless of culture, if there was an economic or strategic/military reason to do so. At the time, "owning" the Germans wasn't worth the trouble, though I'm sure they wished they had done it, looking back with hindsight from the fourth-fifth centuries.
I would recommend any books on Roman history by Adrian Goldsworthy and Anthony Everitt.
As soon as I saw this was an article on Lead I knew it would turn into a "Did Rome Fall because of Lead" discussion.
I disagree with your simplistic analysis of Roman Imperialistic effectiveness: "warm coasties".
Lets see? What was Gaul when Caesar conquered it. His own histories, as well as Gibbon, et al, indicates there was much forested areas. The same goes with conquering the Dacian tribes, and the Dalmatian provinces. Those were heavily forested, yet closer to Rome. When Augustus conquered the Germans all the way up to the Elbe, the reality was, it wasn't really economically feasible to maintain those areas once all the slaves had been "monetized". As you say, it was nothing but trees...
The failure at Teutoburg came in a big part from Arminius subterfuge, and once the damage was done The Senate wasn't too keen on spending the money to subdue a region with little economic value, unlike the "warm coastie" regions with much higher economic value.
Regarding Roman problems dealing with the Persian cavalry, that would be more of a military tactical issue, where The Romans didn't really have an effective method for defeating units who could fire ranged weapons from afar, as the Roman Military was much more effective at close combat.
Yea, it's too bad, because Nolan is a brilliant director. I mean, "Inception" is the best sci-fi I've seen in years. It's hard for me to square it really, because I love most of his films.
But "The Dark Knight Rises", with Bane and his annoying and non-understandable heavily accented blabber via too much audio effects to the police being sent notes via the sewer locked underground, the whole thing was a mess, a much too long mess.
I kept waiting for Peter Jackson to put down his X-Box controller and get on with the movie
Thats brilliant! A more concise assessment of the film could not be had. We can only hope the next two films have less of a premature ejaculation vibe to them.
I'm a HUGE Tolkien fan, and went to the LOTR Extended Version Trilogy Marathon recently before seeing The Hobbit.
I was surprised at how well the longer versions of the films held up, after not watching them for around five years.
However, The Hobbit film was a let down on several levels, most of which I won't go into here. My main complaint? You do not need three films to tell the story. PJ has thrown in everything but the kitchen sink into The Hobbit, and it drags. Even the uber-videogame-esque "escape from the Goblins" scene drags... Too much of a good thing can ruin a film.
I would also say the same thing about the last Batman film. Too long and drawn out. Scenes that should be edited or removed alltogether. Thats why they call it the Directors Cut!
It makes me wonder if there aren't people involved in the film such as producers or editors who tell guys like PJ or Nolan, "hey bro, you might want to trim things down, just a smidge... You know, just to kind of keep the flow of the film going"
Slashdot Mirror
I think Mr. Alienzed was attempting a lowbrow flyby of sarcasm sprinkled with a dash of dickheadedness(aka Trolling)...
The real problem, As I see it, is that in the not too distant future:
everyone in the US will essentially be forced to have a Social Network account to be able to function in modern society.
More and more I see all manner of business and government entities handing responsibility over to FB for all sorts of things. It's actually quite disgusting, but not surprising given the (d)evolution of our database driven society. A centralized system of user accounts that almost everything done digitally can use?
When I first saw the subtle changes taking place with FB, things like not being able to contact my local PBS television station unless I used FB , or not being able to enter a contest to see one of my favorite bands unless I used FB I knew it would be only a matter of time until everyone will be forced to have an account.
Currently I don't have one, and never have. However I am part of a group that has an account, and my name and image are located there, so I'm "in the system" as it were.
Once everyone is forced to have an account, then the next step will be for society in general to force those with accounts to update those accounts. There will come a time when via our smartphones those accounts will be updated automatically.
It's almost at that point now:
Who you've talked to.
What you said.
Where you went.
What you bought.
What you listened to.
What you read.
What you think.
Disgusting, reprehensible, wrong
Consider the shareholders...
Are you saying that fear is the path to a brighter future?
OR
living in a dystopian FB/"We know what you think before you think it" future?
I think things like this are the tip of an emerging ice berg relating to the ip-ification of everything:
etc; etc;
To me, all Home Automation does is increase complexity and security risks for some specious conveniences.
Maybe it's just me, but I would rather have to remember that I'm out of Mayo, than have an ip'd fridge send a message to my Android that I need to pick it up at the store.
I play pc games. I've always played pc games. Can't stand console(except PS...) This has caused me increasing frustration and annoyance in what it takes to play games on my pc. There is more and more logins, accounts, pw's, things to download and run and manage and forums and accounts and blah, blah, blah. All I want to do is play fucking Mass Effect.
I paid legally for the game and am punished, yes PUNISHED by all the extraneous bullshit that now goes along with pc games. I paid for the game, but am treated like I'm guilty until proven innocent.
All I want to do is play ME3. Is that too much to ask?
What about a Cyber-Kursk?
Superbowl pick?
Will The Singularity become manifest and be able to deliver what you claim it can, before the global economy has to absorb and adapt to millions of First World citizens becoming permanently unemployed because of increases in "Productivity" due to computerization/robotization?
So, do that.
As soon as I read that I heard it in my head with the voice of Frank Rizzo from "Volunteer"
As soon as I saw that the author of the article is "Fred Campbell, a former FCC legal adviser who now heads The Communications Liberty & Innovation Project think tank" I knew it was going to be some kooky tea-bagger/liberty-for-corporations-slavery-for-customers bullshit.
Anytime you see the words Liberty or Freedom thrown around by a TeleCom "think-tank" you can expect the usual "were here to fuck the consumer at all costs" propaganda.
bundling thieves
Is that like stealing someones cable tv but ignoring their 10mbit internet connection?
Wish I had some points.
Brilliant!
My problem was with the simplicity of your analysis regarding Rome's management of conquered peoples. I've seen others try to "boil down" Roman history and I have to say something...
.
Like I said, the real reason Rome gave up on Germany between the Rhine and the Elbe had more to do with economics and the Will of The Senate. If grapes, grain and olives(or fish sauce...) grew in Germany as they did in Spain, believe me, Rome would have stayed. There wasn't enough of a ROI to keep several legions there, traipsing around the German countryside to keep the tribes in check.
Dacia and Dalmatia on the other hand did have an economic incentives, having gold and other minerals, as well as grain growing capacity. Also, Dacia was more of a military threat to Rome than the Germans, as the Dacians were more organized militarily than the German tribes. Germany had slaves and wood and some lesser mineral wealth. Both Dacia and Dalmatia had similar/geography terrain(especially Dalmatia) to Germany, BUT, had a better ROI(at the time, 1st centuries BC/AD.)
So my point is that the Romans would and could defeat and manage a people, regardless of culture, if there was an economic or strategic/military reason to do so
At the time, "owning" the Germans wasn't worth the trouble, though I'm sure they wished they had done it, looking back with hindsight from the fourth-fifth centuries.
I would recommend any books on Roman history by Adrian Goldsworthy and Anthony Everitt.
As soon as I saw this was an article on Lead I knew it would turn into a "Did Rome Fall because of Lead" discussion.
I disagree with your simplistic analysis of Roman Imperialistic effectiveness: "warm coasties".
Lets see? What was Gaul when Caesar conquered it. His own histories, as well as Gibbon, et al, indicates there was much forested areas. The same goes with conquering the Dacian tribes, and the Dalmatian provinces. Those were heavily forested, yet closer to Rome. When Augustus conquered the Germans all the way up to the Elbe, the reality was, it wasn't really economically feasible to maintain those areas once all the slaves had been "monetized". As you say, it was nothing but trees...
The failure at Teutoburg came in a big part from Arminius subterfuge, and once the damage was done The Senate wasn't too keen on spending the money to subdue a region with little economic value, unlike the "warm coastie" regions with much higher economic value.
Regarding Roman problems dealing with the Persian cavalry, that would be more of a military tactical issue, where The Romans didn't really have an effective method for defeating units who could fire ranged weapons from afar, as the Roman Military was much more effective at close combat.
should be allowed the use of smartphones.
Nicely.
What book did you read? "The Hawbit"?
Well, then the storyboarding is too long...
Yea, it's too bad, because Nolan is a brilliant director. I mean, "Inception" is the best sci-fi I've seen in years. It's hard for me to square it really, because I love most of his films.
But "The Dark Knight Rises", with Bane and his annoying and non-understandable heavily accented blabber via too much audio effects to the police being sent notes via the sewer locked underground, the whole thing was a mess, a much too long mess.
Yea, I hate to beat a dead horse, but the PJ version of King Kong was pretty bad. But it looked hella kewl...
You'll have to learn Korean or Japanese to have that promise delivered. If the G8 country you're referring to is the US, don't hold your breath.
I kept waiting for Peter Jackson to put down his X-Box controller and get on with the movie
Thats brilliant! A more concise assessment of the film could not be had. We can only hope the next two films have less of a premature ejaculation vibe to them.
This.
How many times do we need to see Goblins getting knocked off wooden plank bridges by dwarves with a pole?
Not enough it seems.
Scorsese understands it.
Goodfellas, The Departed, The Aviator, etc are all over two hours, but they don't drag or slog like most newer films that are > 2 hours.
there is a reason for them to be long(>2 hours).
I'm a HUGE Tolkien fan, and went to the LOTR Extended Version Trilogy Marathon recently before seeing The Hobbit.
I was surprised at how well the longer versions of the films held up, after not watching them for around five years.
However, The Hobbit film was a let down on several levels, most of which I won't go into here. My main complaint? You do not need three films to tell the story. PJ has thrown in everything but the kitchen sink into The Hobbit, and it drags. Even the uber-videogame-esque "escape from the Goblins" scene drags... Too much of a good thing can ruin a film.
I would also say the same thing about the last Batman film. Too long and drawn out. Scenes that should be edited or removed alltogether. Thats why they call it the Directors Cut!
It makes me wonder if there aren't people involved in the film such as producers or editors who tell guys like PJ or Nolan, "hey bro, you might want to trim things down, just a smidge... You know, just to kind of keep the flow of the film going"