I hate DRM/copyright/etc as much as the next/.er.. but...
I think that the easy availability of 'content' has also cheapened it*. Sure, there are 6 billion or so people, and maybe they can all (one day) make content. The truth is, 99.99% of it will be complete crap.
Is it possible for people to sift through 10000 pieces of crap to find one useful/good item? No. People will do what they've always done - go with the crowd. One could argue that this is the 'service' that a centralised distribution system (currently known as a 'record company') provides, but I think even in the future these things will be useful.
For example, how would you find a good jazz album on p2p or bittorrent - if you don't know what it's called? both are really geared to shareing known material - if I made an album and posted it on either, there'd be bloody few downloads!
Sure, there are systems like last.fm, and to a certain extent they *can* replace current distribution systems, when coupled with p2p/BT/etc, but essentially people will still want some review process - that's why Google Scholar isn't putting academic journals out of business.
(*) Just on a side note - I was walking along listening to my ipod the other day, and I started thinking about how little attention I usually pay to the music that its playing. This is very different to our grandparents, who would've given total attention to music. Now, it's just another background noise (not always, of course). We're damn lucky - 4 to 5 generations ago there was *only* 'live' music, now, music's ubiquitous...
I remember seeing a doco about one of Neptune's moons (I forget which, it was at least 5 years ago).
That moon had oceans of Nitrogen, with a frozen nitrogen surface. Scientists thought that the energy to thaw the oceans came from the elliptical orbit of the moon. this caused variations in gravity which contorted the core of the moon - producing heat.
On one hand, I think censorship (in any form) is a bad thing, and that once it's there it will only get more restrictive with each successive regime.
On the other hand, consumers (who were once called citizens) have repeatedly shown that they are, in general, unable to make decisions for their own (and their progeny's) wellbeing. This has manifested itself particularly in the last 50 years in the West with the increased freedom and affluence, and greater questioning of old traditions. Unfortunately, we now have a situation where many people don't think they are answerable to anyone (I'm not including deities here), even their children!
How can people reasonably demand freedom of thought and action if they are too ignorant and lazy to exercise it diligently? Everything must be in balance.
Not annoying;-), but I think you are wrong in parts;-)
I'm not advocating oil/petrol instead of nuclear. I'm saying if we're going to change all our infrastructure, we should take advantage of better technologies. For some funny reason, people like uniformity. I'm not against having any nuclear reactors, but if we can get away with having 85% of our electricity from renewable sources, why not do it? (then have the last 15% as nuclear)
(I agree - fossil fuels are crap;-)
1. I work for a consulting firm (tho I don't claim to be an expert). We assist organisations to improve their energy efficiency. We don't suggest they invest unless we anticipate they'll break even in 5 years. That's a 20% saving.
2. I don't live in the US, bhat you say about public transport is not the case in Europe, or (to a lesser extent) Australia (where I live). I think both the US and Aust will *have* to embrace public transport as petrol becomes more expensive.
3. Sure. So have a *few* uber-reliable power sources for peak demand, and use renewables elsewhere.
Anyway, I can't be buggered typing more - no one will read it;-)
In Australia, _right_now_ you can buy 'green power', which is power that comes only from renewable resources. It costs a little more (maybe AU$40/year more). Perhaps a 10% price increase.
There is no reason why what can't be scaled up to provide electricity to every one in Australia (and presumably other countries too). (Of course, if everybody signed up in one day, I doubt they'd have the infrastructure;-).
This isn't an anti-nuclear rant - it just isn't the best option for domestic electricity.
To use nucular power, you must mine, refine and transport uranium ore. This uses substantial amounts of energy - fossil fuel based energy. That isn't going to change. Once the power is extracted, you have to deal with the waste. That means building storage facilities. That uses fossil fuels. You'd be amazed how significant that is. This waste repository must be maintained. More energy. More expense.
There is no silver bullet, but the best things we can do to reduce greenhouse emmisions are
1. increase efficiency - we could reduce CO2 production by at least 20% with *no* changes to lifestyle. Investing in efficiency actually makes *economic* sense. (eg. Intelligent design (*rolls eyes*) of a house can mean (in temperate climates) that it doesn't need heating or cooling.) 2. Reduce our reliance on oil-powered transport. This means less shipping where unnecessary, more use of public transport, etc 3. a combination of wind,tidal, solar, (and in the future) geothermal.
Solar power doesn't jsut mean Photo-voltaic cells. It can also mean solar hot-water, and solar heating. Designing houses in a sensible way (not building a crap-box, and sticking in an air-conditioner/heater)
I don't have an ideological opposition to nucular power - it just isn't the best solution (It's probably better than coal, but if we're going to change energy source, why not change to the best option? Nuclear is not the best option). Some people are 'anti-nucular', and their irrationality doesn't mean that nuclear is better. It's just that ol' ad hominem thing again...
Clearly what every patriotic and nationalistic citizen should do is maintain a large debt, so that they can send their monthly interest donation to the good credit company. It's honest companies like this that hold the world together, and we should support them!!
Seriously though - I wonder who has to pay the interest on that $6,522 between when they sent it, and when it was finally cleared to be put in their account... Actually, I don't wonder at all.
Stories like this always bring out a host of 'climate change denial' comments.
Let's say I could prove to you that *if* climate change is real (as is thought by many scientists), it would have real consequences to you personally. That you and your children would be malnourished, be drafted to fight resource wars, you'd be struck down with new diseases never before experienced in your area, societies and governments would collapse - would you still be so bloody nonchalant?
What I'm trying to say is that I reckon that climate change deniers do so with the implicit assumption that it won't affect them.
"They would be indepth articles that have no spelling, grammar, or factual errors"...that will be wonderful. It will acheive something that no other document has ever acheived!;-)
Definitely. I agree with you, and I think that free speech is so intrinsic to 'Western' society that any attempt to restict it 'for the greater good' will only bring harm.
I guess what I was trying to say was that perhaps our education system should better emphasise the importance of exercising free speech with sensitivity and tolerance.
Saying [insert bigoted, hate-filled, unsubstantiated statement here], and then 'hiding' behind freedom of speech is just pathetic, in my opinion. I think we need a way to help prevent people using lies and deceit to influence and control others. We have such a tool - it's called 'education'..
It reminds me of a quote (can't remember whos it was) 'when people complain about the cost of education, I ask them to compare it to the cost of ignorance.'
Unfortunately, education seems to be valued less and less...
I agree with you, but I still think that it was partly an acting improvement.
I remember cringing at the delivery of a few lines of the priest (can't remember his name!) in particular, in early episodes. It sounded like he was reading them from a screen!
But yeah, character familiarity definitely helped!;-)
I think Irving is a very twisted man, and is unable to look at WW2, and the holocaust in an objective way. I think the things he says are bollocks. But I think he has the right to say them (and we have the right to call him a bloody idiot). It's a shame he's going to jail.
Having said that, it's a difficult issue. If the neo-nazis come to power, the first thing they'll do is take away free speach (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose)
Also, I think free speech _must_ be tempered by respect. I think this is partly why The Cartoons have caused so many problems. We need the right to be able to say anything. But, we need to exercise that right responsibly, and not use it to facilitate hate-speech, and racism.
Unfortunately, many people who advocate free-speech are trying to use it to promote division and racism. This is something that could ultimately undo free speech in the West.
I'd never seen Firefly (it was never on TV in Oz), but went to see Serenity with a group of friends who liked it. I started watching Firefly later (ahh, the wonders of Bittorrent!), and one thing stood out immetiately..
The acting was sooo bad compared to the movie (particularly in the early episodes)!! It was obvious that as the series progressed, the acting improved heaps, and that was really interesting to watch. I also thought that the standard of the plot/storytelling in the movie was far better - again this was something that improved through the series.
A very cool, original idea for a sci-fi series. It just goes to show how supporting independent movies/music fosters artistic growth and the pushing of new boundaries.
"You DO NOT get to make a statement like that after taking a position like this"
Mate. He's saying SOME Christians would have the same reaction as SOME Muslims. In both cases it would be a small minority. No, it's not hypocritical, because he's not judging all Christians based on a few.
"So, muslims are ok with gays then?"
Again, he's not judging all Christians about this. He's using it to illustrate an instance where a 'Christian' person has behaved in a terrible way - he's not saying all Christians are bad, he's not saying all Muslims are good.
Yup. Without wanting to be alarmist, here's what could happen:
- massive displacement, disease, starvation caused by rising sea levels - increased weather volitility caused by warming oceans, resulting in harsher storms (Gulf of Mexico) - Oil wars - Widespead famine - New diseases, and existing diseases increasing their operational area (eg malaria) - Increase in fundamentalism, as people try to understand why these things are happening - Fingerpointing ('this is YOUR fault!') and more war - destabilisation of trade worldwide - destabilisation of democracies worldwide (also - don't think that this wouldn't be exploited. I imagine some of the fundamentalists would try to hasten the downfall of certain democracies)
It's highly unlikely that climate change will eliminate humanity. However, it could easily destroy our civilisation. Easter islanders went from a reasonably sophisticated fishing society to a group of cannibals living in caves within about 100-200 years. Anyone who doesn't realise how fragile a civilisation is is deluding themselves.
I wonder what the particular attraction of building it there is?
Probably 3 main things, - Cheap fuel - Wealthy elite prepared to pay - Cheap labour, with little workers' protection (safe working conditions, etc - this is an assumption on my part)
A friend of mine moved house to regional New South Wales (one of the States of Australia) about four years ago. I remember him telling me that one of the harder things was the internet connection there. They only had dial-up, and he told me that he was averaging about 200 bytes/second...
Just downloading text-based email was taking a long time...
but my broadband connection is quite cheap (albeit relatively slow). For AU$24/month (about US$18) I get 2gb up/down at 256/64 kbit/s... not speedy - but enough for everything I want to do...
Slashdot Mirror
I hate DRM/copyright/etc as much as the next /.er.. but...
I think that the easy availability of 'content' has also cheapened it*. Sure, there are 6 billion or so people, and maybe they can all (one day) make content. The truth is, 99.99% of it will be complete crap.
Is it possible for people to sift through 10000 pieces of crap to find one useful/good item? No. People will do what they've always done - go with the crowd. One could argue that this is the 'service' that a centralised distribution system (currently known as a 'record company') provides, but I think even in the future these things will be useful.
For example, how would you find a good jazz album on p2p or bittorrent - if you don't know what it's called? both are really geared to shareing known material - if I made an album and posted it on either, there'd be bloody few downloads!
Sure, there are systems like last.fm, and to a certain extent they *can* replace current distribution systems, when coupled with p2p/BT/etc, but essentially people will still want some review process - that's why Google Scholar isn't putting academic journals out of business.
(*) Just on a side note - I was walking along listening to my ipod the other day, and I started thinking about how little attention I usually pay to the music that its playing. This is very different to our grandparents, who would've given total attention to music. Now, it's just another background noise (not always, of course). We're damn lucky - 4 to 5 generations ago there was *only* 'live' music, now, music's ubiquitous...
That'd be the one. Sorry (I was unclear) - not oceans, but liquid water below the surface. the surface was frozen.
I remember seeing a doco about one of Neptune's moons (I forget which, it was at least 5 years ago).
;-)
That moon had oceans of Nitrogen, with a frozen nitrogen surface. Scientists thought that the energy to thaw the oceans came from the elliptical orbit of the moon. this caused variations in gravity which contorted the core of the moon - producing heat.
Pretty awesome, IMO..
I'm quite torn on this issue.
On one hand, I think censorship (in any form) is a bad thing, and that once it's there it will only get more restrictive with each successive regime.
On the other hand, consumers (who were once called citizens) have repeatedly shown that they are, in general, unable to make decisions for their own (and their progeny's) wellbeing. This has manifested itself particularly in the last 50 years in the West with the increased freedom and affluence, and greater questioning of old traditions. Unfortunately, we now have a situation where many people don't think they are answerable to anyone (I'm not including deities here), even their children!
How can people reasonably demand freedom of thought and action if they are too ignorant and lazy to exercise it diligently? Everything must be in balance.
Not annoying ;-), but I think you are wrong in parts ;-)
;-)
;-)
I'm not advocating oil/petrol instead of nuclear. I'm saying if we're going to change all our infrastructure, we should take advantage of better technologies. For some funny reason, people like uniformity. I'm not against having any nuclear reactors, but if we can get away with having 85% of our electricity from renewable sources, why not do it? (then have the last 15% as nuclear)
(I agree - fossil fuels are crap
1. I work for a consulting firm (tho I don't claim to be an expert). We assist organisations to improve their energy efficiency. We don't suggest they invest unless we anticipate they'll break even in 5 years. That's a 20% saving.
2. I don't live in the US, bhat you say about public transport is not the case in Europe, or (to a lesser extent) Australia (where I live). I think both the US and Aust will *have* to embrace public transport as petrol becomes more expensive.
3. Sure. So have a *few* uber-reliable power sources for peak demand, and use renewables elsewhere.
Anyway, I can't be buggered typing more - no one will read it
In Australia, _right_now_ you can buy 'green power', which is power that comes only from renewable resources. It costs a little more (maybe AU$40/year more). Perhaps a 10% price increase.
;-).
There is no reason why what can't be scaled up to provide electricity to every one in Australia (and presumably other countries too). (Of course, if everybody signed up in one day, I doubt they'd have the infrastructure
This isn't an anti-nuclear rant - it just isn't the best option for domestic electricity.
Wrong.
To use nucular power, you must mine, refine and transport uranium ore. This uses substantial amounts of energy - fossil fuel based energy. That isn't going to change.
Once the power is extracted, you have to deal with the waste. That means building storage facilities. That uses fossil fuels. You'd be amazed how significant that is. This waste repository must be maintained. More energy. More expense.
There is no silver bullet, but the best things we can do to reduce greenhouse emmisions are
1. increase efficiency - we could reduce CO2 production by at least 20% with *no* changes to lifestyle. Investing in efficiency actually makes *economic* sense. (eg. Intelligent design (*rolls eyes*) of a house can mean (in temperate climates) that it doesn't need heating or cooling.)
2. Reduce our reliance on oil-powered transport. This means less shipping where unnecessary, more use of public transport, etc
3. a combination of wind,tidal, solar, (and in the future) geothermal.
Solar power doesn't jsut mean Photo-voltaic cells. It can also mean solar hot-water, and solar heating. Designing houses in a sensible way (not building a crap-box, and sticking in an air-conditioner/heater)
I don't have an ideological opposition to nucular power - it just isn't the best solution (It's probably better than coal, but if we're going to change energy source, why not change to the best option? Nuclear is not the best option). Some people are 'anti-nucular', and their irrationality doesn't mean that nuclear is better. It's just that ol' ad hominem thing again...
Clearly what every patriotic and nationalistic citizen should do is maintain a large debt, so that they can send their monthly interest donation to the good credit company. It's honest companies like this that hold the world together, and we should support them!!
Seriously though - I wonder who has to pay the interest on that $6,522 between when they sent it, and when it was finally cleared to be put in their account... Actually, I don't wonder at all.
I love it..
;-)
"... it is a little too big brother" (emphasis mine)
yup.. just an eeensy teeenny bit to much. A barcode on the forehead would be just fine.
Stories like this always bring out a host of 'climate change denial' comments.
Let's say I could prove to you that *if* climate change is real (as is thought by many scientists), it would have real consequences to you personally. That you and your children would be malnourished, be drafted to fight resource wars, you'd be struck down with new diseases never before experienced in your area, societies and governments would collapse - would you still be so bloody nonchalant?
What I'm trying to say is that I reckon that climate change deniers do so with the implicit assumption that it won't affect them.
"They would be indepth articles that have no spelling, grammar, or factual errors" ...that will be wonderful. It will acheive something that no other document has ever acheived! ;-)
Go Wikipedia!
The satirists will love this one - especially those that refer to Office as 'Orifice'... ;-)
Yup. No arguements here :-)
;-)
(Although, I reckon a better commandment would be: 'do unto others as you think they would want done unto them'
Definitely. I agree with you, and I think that free speech is so intrinsic to 'Western' society that any attempt to restict it 'for the greater good' will only bring harm.
...
I guess what I was trying to say was that perhaps our education system should better emphasise the importance of exercising free speech with sensitivity and tolerance.
Saying [insert bigoted, hate-filled, unsubstantiated statement here], and then 'hiding' behind freedom of speech is just pathetic, in my opinion. I think we need a way to help prevent people using lies and deceit to influence and control others. We have such a tool - it's called 'education'..
It reminds me of a quote (can't remember whos it was) 'when people complain about the cost of education, I ask them to compare it to the cost of ignorance.'
Unfortunately, education seems to be valued less and less
I agree with you, but I still think that it was partly an acting improvement.
;-)
I remember cringing at the delivery of a few lines of the priest (can't remember his name!) in particular, in early episodes. It sounded like he was reading them from a screen!
But yeah, character familiarity definitely helped!
Agreed. It's a pity.
I think Irving is a very twisted man, and is unable to look at WW2, and the holocaust in an objective way. I think the things he says are bollocks. But I think he has the right to say them (and we have the right to call him a bloody idiot). It's a shame he's going to jail.
Having said that, it's a difficult issue. If the neo-nazis come to power, the first thing they'll do is take away free speach (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose)
Also, I think free speech _must_ be tempered by respect. I think this is partly why The Cartoons have caused so many problems. We need the right to be able to say anything. But, we need to exercise that right responsibly, and not use it to facilitate hate-speech, and racism.
Unfortunately, many people who advocate free-speech are trying to use it to promote division and racism. This is something that could ultimately undo free speech in the West.
I'd never seen Firefly (it was never on TV in Oz), but went to see Serenity with a group of friends who liked it. I started watching Firefly later (ahh, the wonders of Bittorrent!), and one thing stood out immetiately..
:-)
The acting was sooo bad compared to the movie (particularly in the early episodes)!! It was obvious that as the series progressed, the acting improved heaps, and that was really interesting to watch. I also thought that the standard of the plot/storytelling in the movie was far better - again this was something that improved through the series.
A very cool, original idea for a sci-fi series. It just goes to show how supporting independent movies/music fosters artistic growth and the pushing of new boundaries.
Way to go Firefly/Serenity team!
By the way, 99_Bottles_Of_Beer.. sorry for assuming you are a guy - I didn't want to complicate my post by speculating. Kept it nice and simple.
I figured that any nick with 'beer' in it was likely to be a fella..
"You DO NOT get to make a statement like that after taking a position like this"
Mate. He's saying SOME Christians would have the same reaction as SOME Muslims. In both cases it would be a small minority. No, it's not hypocritical, because he's not judging all Christians based on a few.
"So, muslims are ok with gays then?"
Again, he's not judging all Christians about this. He's using it to illustrate an instance where a 'Christian' person has behaved in a terrible way - he's not saying all Christians are bad, he's not saying all Muslims are good.
I hope that's clarified it for you.
Dunno about you, but I had a P3/667. You were ripped-off by 2MHz!!!
" You did not see them mention that the most offensive cartoons were not drawn by the Danish"
5 DA-499F-BF8B-9BACA4D471EC.htm
Do you mean an article like this one?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F0E1F392-A
Yup. Without wanting to be alarmist, here's what could happen:
- massive displacement, disease, starvation caused by rising sea levels
- increased weather volitility caused by warming oceans, resulting in harsher storms (Gulf of Mexico)
- Oil wars
- Widespead famine
- New diseases, and existing diseases increasing their operational area (eg malaria)
- Increase in fundamentalism, as people try to understand why these things are happening
- Fingerpointing ('this is YOUR fault!') and more war
- destabilisation of trade worldwide
- destabilisation of democracies worldwide (also - don't think that this wouldn't be exploited. I imagine some of the fundamentalists would try to hasten the downfall of certain democracies)
It's highly unlikely that climate change will eliminate humanity. However, it could easily destroy our civilisation. Easter islanders went from a reasonably sophisticated fishing society to a group of cannibals living in caves within about 100-200 years. Anyone who doesn't realise how fragile a civilisation is is deluding themselves.
good point. Spaceships mostly run on hydrogen. Where's that mined again?
oops. We _can't_ mine it. Hmmm... maybe we have to _make_ it. I wonder how we'd do that? Maybe.. just maybe.. we'd need some other fuel source...
Cheap fuel == Cheap energy. I don't think you'd be arguing that spaceships don't need energy, right kiddo?
Piss-taking aside, some spacecraft actually _do_ use types of hydrocarbon-based fuel. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipropellant_rocket for more info.
I wonder what the particular attraction of building it there is?
Probably 3 main things,
- Cheap fuel
- Wealthy elite prepared to pay
- Cheap labour, with little workers' protection (safe working conditions, etc - this is an assumption on my part)
A friend of mine moved house to regional New South Wales (one of the States of Australia) about four years ago. I remember him telling me that one of the harder things was the internet connection there. They only had dial-up, and he told me that he was averaging about 200 bytes/second...
Just downloading text-based email was taking a long time...
but my broadband connection is quite cheap (albeit relatively slow). For AU$24/month (about US$18) I get 2gb up/down at 256/64 kbit/s... not speedy - but enough for everything I want to do...