I just recently watched an episode of "A Bit Of Fry & Laurie" - and I think they had the right idea (and from 1989, ahead of their time!). If simulated violence made people want to act violent in real life, why not include depictions of heroes giving large sums of money to the game makers? That way, if they're wrong about video games causing violence, it won't matter because they'll be rich, rich, rich!
@ Title: Now, I hardly think anyone's going to start an armed revolution over THIS. Armed revolutions are for when democracy fails (some might argue this has already happened, but that's another can of beans) or the government does something that is universally dispised - otherwise, the best way to announce your objection is to vote on it. If anything, having guns makes the situation worse, because it gives the illusion that people have a "nuclear option" - when really, they don't (I would imagine that the government/army would win in a fight vs the people). As an Australian, I'm glad the guns have been taken away - we have few real reasons for them (you can get gun permits for hunting), and they otherwise do more harm than good.
But good point about fighting for your rights, it's just a terrible shame so few people are passionate AND informed enough to understand the implications of potential laws and not just the PR-wrapper ("Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children").
Re:Interesting
on
The DIY Tank
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Just make up some fake diplomatic immunity plates for it. No-one's going to believe a parking inspector who tells people "I couldn't ticket the panzer because of Iraqi Diplomatic Immunity".
I have an ingenious solution! Sell phone hacking kits (sniff and hijack the frequencies being operated on, and induce noise/a recording of someone telling them to STFU) - and then only sell it in kits! That way, stupid people can't buy them, because they won't know about them and if they did, wouldn't be able to put them together.
Good point, especially since storage capacity is rapidly becoming more-than-enough for Joe User, just as processing power has (Web Browsing and word processing isn't exactly power-hungry). Some of you might reply "what about videos/video servers?", but (unfortunately) most NORMAL people don't have things like that - and for those of us who do, there's always RAID. It's only a matter of time before the extra-storage-for-less-money that magnetic media offers simply isn't enough to make it a better choice than SSD.
From the internet's massively redundant routing system how? After all, this idea isn't talking about self-REPAIRING robots, simply robots that route around problem areas. Seems like a hardware mini-internet to me. Cool idea, but hardly original.
Religion also offer hope for people, especially regarding the afterlife. Also, most modern religions are based on the idea of charity/peace/social harmony/etc (some interpretations may vary from this). [/Devil's Advocate].
On the flip side of the coin, religion is also a powerful method of control (as you pointed out). Atheists are probably the most important element, as they provide a strong, effective safeguard against any exploitation. For this reason, I think that in a perfect world, religion and atheism shouldn't be in conflict. Moderate religion requires atheists (and moderate sensible theists should realise this), and moderate atheists have no natural quandary** with religion - science doesn't merit it's claims on their popularity.
** If there weren't mitigating factors, such as socially/legally enforced one-size-fits-all morality. YMMV.
There's a significant infrastructure factor involved in the internet. ISPs who own infrastructure can't just fall off as easily as you suggest, because they literally have other people (either other ISPs or their customers) by the balls. Remember, internet subscription does not follow a classic supply/demand curve - there are people out there who will still demand the internet no matter what you do to the internet, AND an increase in supply is shortly followed by an increase in demand (as people find things to fill it with). Per your example, Comcast *CAN* fuck their customers over in the areas they have sole domain over, and Verizon may simply not bother coming in, for whatever reason.
As for your "you can't expect internet just because you want it" argument - you have got to be the stupidest free-market proponent I've ever seen. Do you even understand your own philosophy? In a free market, anything that CAN be sold, WILL be sold. This is how supply/demand work - it's so predictable that we can literally expect supply to be made available by some enterprising party if we demand it. The internet's property of being considered a necessity by some people only consolidates its' position. If anything, the only interference to this is from our good old friend, government regulation. And because the government is democratic, (in theory) they're unlikely to do something that pisses off the voters.
Because the internet is powered by THE CONSUMERS as much as it is powered by BUSINESS, we can and will punish them if it's in our best interests using whatever tools at our disposal we have, namely, the government. Just look at consumers as a business interest and government as it's arm, and suddenly, no more tears!.
A lot of people would go smashing into jewellery stores and taking it for ourselves if not for the law - we're the ones who pay taxes and vote these clowns in, why should WE be punished for our [sic] good decisions? You seem to be under the delusion that business should for some reason play by a different set of rules to people, that there should only be restraints for people because businesses will for magically be less sociopathic than people. Just because something's going to behave in a predicable manner, doesn't mean that we should let it.
PS.
So, I think.. Liar.
what I generate with my brain is MY intellectuall property and thus, I can choose to share it, protect it or commercialize it
But, FTA, there's no way you can protect it without involving the law/other physical enforcement. It's not like physical property - you can't just hire a security team to make sure no-one trespasses, because once they have the idea they can't give it back. If you explained your idea to me, I'd then know what it was, and you would no longer have sole domain over it - without the intervention of law. And just like money, the idea is useless to you if you don't do anything with it. Therefore, it's impossible to maintain complete control over an idea without taking some very drastic, paranoid steps - in fact, I don't think you could possibly produce an idea by yourself that's complex enough to not already be prior art.
That's (one reason) why people get so upset over IP law - there's nothing stopping them copying ideas EXCEPT the law (it's so rare that something is produced by one person that it may as well be discounted), and there's no harm done by copying IP (RIAA/MPAA might argue that, but you could just as easily argue that their business system is based solely on the law, which means that it would be different/redundant without that law).
That's as succinctly as I could manage to summarise the article, and none of it seemed like intellectual wankery - this argument has serious ramifications IRL, and looking at the fundamentals of it seems as good a place to start as any. So, what you generate with your brain IS your property, but just like your money, it's completely useless if you don't SPEND it.
Ok, so there's going to be some deadtime. But think of all the extra options a second power source is going to give you - you could go at twice the speed in good conditions, OR you could utilise one propulsion source and store the other for deadtime.
What I would be REALLY interested in is selling a "spiderarm" upgrade for regular boats. The tip of the arm could be completely bouyant, the shaft of the arm inflexible, and the head of the arm could be attached to the ship via a hinge, with the reciprocating "piston" action generating energy for the motor (either by converting to electricity and then back to kinetic, or a mechanical apparatus). With 2 arms in a "V" configuration (the boat itself is the third point of reference), no regular wave could raise all three points at once (thus not harvesting the wave's energy). The only problem I can see is that each arm might not produce much power; but since the "spider-arm" itself would be cheap enough to produce (all you need is a long stiff pole, a large, empty plastic container, a hinge and duct tape), you could easily overcome this by having dozens of arms. Super-tanker ships could really clean up on this technology, thanks to their massive surface area.
Isn't this just a occupational hazard though? Lion feeders have to deal with the fact that their clientele may attack them, shouldn't teachers feel similarly? IMHO, the real problem is that teachers are horribly undervalued - I've known (and had) some real jackass teachers, because it seemed that teaching was the only job they could get. If teachers were more highly valued (like doctors/lawyers/etc), you wouldn't just fall into the job, you'd have to work hard to get it and would see this kind of stuff as a small downside in an otherwise wonderful job (because the only people teaching would be the ones who have a real passion for it). The elevated prestige of the job would actually attract people who may have said "I wouldn't mind teaching but I make way more money in my current job", or people who are talented in many other ways and didn't pick teaching because they found a "better" job (even though they would have made good teachers).
I think a lot of people wouldn't be so annoyed about paying taxes if they thought they were getting their money's worth. As an alternative to the existing tax system, I thought an interesting approach might be instead of paying your taxes directly to the government, you are required to pay the same amount in money, but you get to choose which organization(s) you pay the money to. Interesting idea, but there are tonnes of necessary government organisations that are unpopular - in fact, a free-market minded person would say that there should be no popular government organisation, as anything that is wanted by the public should be on the free market. Think of how funding the police might work in such a scenario - the areas who would need the largest police presence would be the one least able or least likely to fund it, due to disillusionment or animosity people who live in high-crime areas would feel towards the police. The people from low-crime areas would say "If we're giving the most amount of money, we should have the best protection" - even if they didn't need it. And there are some government organisations, while although mildly popular, require vast amounts of money [education, health (even in the US, believe it or not), military, NSA/FBI/CIA, public works (roads/etc)] to function effectively. If this system came into being, I can quickly see America turning into the country with "the best and most football stadiums and TV stations per capita, but nothing else going for it".
Having said that, I DO like the idea, but I just don't see that people are going to donate to causes that they can't see tangible benefits from, even if there are such benefits.
So he's the only one at CNN who saw the ridiculous coverage of Anna Nicole Smith as the crap that it was, and... he was the one with a brain tumor.
That's because he's the only one with a brain.
Answer: Because the world's western population is growing at an alarming rate - think "exponent". India and China (a third of the world's population between them) are westernising at an incredible speed - China adds a new city every month or so, and India's population growth is explosive. Becoming more efficient in energy use is about adapting to the likely future that there simply won't be enough resources to consume at current rates. I think technology has gone, and will go, a long way towards increasing the amount of resources per person, but at some point there will simply be too many people to keep up.
On the plus side, if they decide to prosecute you for sharing a pair of ear bud headphones with your buddy, you'll only be liable for "stealing" half the song! ...But your buddy will take huge legal damages for "setting up an illegal and unauthorised song sharing system".
Slashdot Mirror
Oh great, thanks Anonymous, first Harry Potter, now this! And I was only a chapter from the ending.
Still, what a twist!
I just recently watched an episode of "A Bit Of Fry & Laurie" - and I think they had the right idea (and from 1989, ahead of their time!). If simulated violence made people want to act violent in real life, why not include depictions of heroes giving large sums of money to the game makers? That way, if they're wrong about video games causing violence, it won't matter because they'll be rich, rich, rich!
@ Title: Now, I hardly think anyone's going to start an armed revolution over THIS. Armed revolutions are for when democracy fails (some might argue this has already happened, but that's another can of beans) or the government does something that is universally dispised - otherwise, the best way to announce your objection is to vote on it. If anything, having guns makes the situation worse, because it gives the illusion that people have a "nuclear option" - when really, they don't (I would imagine that the government/army would win in a fight vs the people). As an Australian, I'm glad the guns have been taken away - we have few real reasons for them (you can get gun permits for hunting), and they otherwise do more harm than good.
But good point about fighting for your rights, it's just a terrible shame so few people are passionate AND informed enough to understand the implications of potential laws and not just the PR-wrapper ("Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children").
Crime doesn't pay. Pfft.
BRB, watching to see if the kettle boils.
Just make up some fake diplomatic immunity plates for it. No-one's going to believe a parking inspector who tells people "I couldn't ticket the panzer because of Iraqi Diplomatic Immunity".
Don't worry, what I lack in experience I more than make up for in book-smarts - I frequently study this "sex" business courtesy of the internet.
I have an ingenious solution! Sell phone hacking kits (sniff and hijack the frequencies being operated on, and induce noise/a recording of someone telling them to STFU) - and then only sell it in kits! That way, stupid people can't buy them, because they won't know about them and if they did, wouldn't be able to put them together.
No matter how horrible a business model they use, it still can't be worse than Vista.
Good point, especially since storage capacity is rapidly becoming more-than-enough for Joe User, just as processing power has (Web Browsing and word processing isn't exactly power-hungry). Some of you might reply "what about videos/video servers?", but (unfortunately) most NORMAL people don't have things like that - and for those of us who do, there's always RAID. It's only a matter of time before the extra-storage-for-less-money that magnetic media offers simply isn't enough to make it a better choice than SSD.
From the internet's massively redundant routing system how? After all, this idea isn't talking about self-REPAIRING robots, simply robots that route around problem areas. Seems like a hardware mini-internet to me. Cool idea, but hardly original.
Religion also offer hope for people, especially regarding the afterlife. Also, most modern religions are based on the idea of charity/peace/social harmony/etc (some interpretations may vary from this). [/Devil's Advocate].
On the flip side of the coin, religion is also a powerful method of control (as you pointed out). Atheists are probably the most important element, as they provide a strong, effective safeguard against any exploitation. For this reason, I think that in a perfect world, religion and atheism shouldn't be in conflict. Moderate religion requires atheists (and moderate sensible theists should realise this), and moderate atheists have no natural quandary** with religion - science doesn't merit it's claims on their popularity.
** If there weren't mitigating factors, such as socially/legally enforced one-size-fits-all morality. YMMV.
I'm not sure they do..
As for your "you can't expect internet just because you want it" argument - you have got to be the stupidest free-market proponent I've ever seen. Do you even understand your own philosophy? In a free market, anything that CAN be sold, WILL be sold. This is how supply/demand work - it's so predictable that we can literally expect supply to be made available by some enterprising party if we demand it. The internet's property of being considered a necessity by some people only consolidates its' position. If anything, the only interference to this is from our good old friend, government regulation. And because the government is democratic, (in theory) they're unlikely to do something that pisses off the voters.
Because the internet is powered by THE CONSUMERS as much as it is powered by BUSINESS, we can and will punish them if it's in our best interests using whatever tools at our disposal we have, namely, the government. Just look at consumers as a business interest and government as it's arm, and suddenly, no more tears!.
A lot of people would go smashing into jewellery stores and taking it for ourselves if not for the law - we're the ones who pay taxes and vote these clowns in, why should WE be punished for our [sic] good decisions? You seem to be under the delusion that business should for some reason play by a different set of rules to people, that there should only be restraints for people because businesses will for magically be less sociopathic than people. Just because something's going to behave in a predicable manner, doesn't mean that we should let it. PS.
So, I think.. Liar.
It really doesn't matter how strong the encryption is, people will STILL be using the password "1234".
That's (one reason) why people get so upset over IP law - there's nothing stopping them copying ideas EXCEPT the law (it's so rare that something is produced by one person that it may as well be discounted), and there's no harm done by copying IP (RIAA/MPAA might argue that, but you could just as easily argue that their business system is based solely on the law, which means that it would be different/redundant without that law).
That's as succinctly as I could manage to summarise the article, and none of it seemed like intellectual wankery - this argument has serious ramifications IRL, and looking at the fundamentals of it seems as good a place to start as any. So, what you generate with your brain IS your property, but just like your money, it's completely useless if you don't SPEND it.
Sure they are, they're curing cancer by attrition! Nothing makes me want to shoot myself more than my PC crawling at 1 fps...
Ah yes, but Microsoft's hand has it's fingers in a lot of pies, so it would be tasty to bite. Which means that umm..
Wait, what were we talking about?
Ok, so there's going to be some deadtime. But think of all the extra options a second power source is going to give you - you could go at twice the speed in good conditions, OR you could utilise one propulsion source and store the other for deadtime.
What I would be REALLY interested in is selling a "spiderarm" upgrade for regular boats. The tip of the arm could be completely bouyant, the shaft of the arm inflexible, and the head of the arm could be attached to the ship via a hinge, with the reciprocating "piston" action generating energy for the motor (either by converting to electricity and then back to kinetic, or a mechanical apparatus). With 2 arms in a "V" configuration (the boat itself is the third point of reference), no regular wave could raise all three points at once (thus not harvesting the wave's energy). The only problem I can see is that each arm might not produce much power; but since the "spider-arm" itself would be cheap enough to produce (all you need is a long stiff pole, a large, empty plastic container, a hinge and duct tape), you could easily overcome this by having dozens of arms. Super-tanker ships could really clean up on this technology, thanks to their massive surface area.
And the people who sell/repair replicators, don't forget about them!
Isn't this just a occupational hazard though? Lion feeders have to deal with the fact that their clientele may attack them, shouldn't teachers feel similarly? IMHO, the real problem is that teachers are horribly undervalued - I've known (and had) some real jackass teachers, because it seemed that teaching was the only job they could get. If teachers were more highly valued (like doctors/lawyers/etc), you wouldn't just fall into the job, you'd have to work hard to get it and would see this kind of stuff as a small downside in an otherwise wonderful job (because the only people teaching would be the ones who have a real passion for it). The elevated prestige of the job would actually attract people who may have said "I wouldn't mind teaching but I make way more money in my current job", or people who are talented in many other ways and didn't pick teaching because they found a "better" job (even though they would have made good teachers).
Having said that, I DO like the idea, but I just don't see that people are going to donate to causes that they can't see tangible benefits from, even if there are such benefits.
That's because he's the only one with a brain.
You know 16yo camwhores from MySpace?
Answer: Because the world's western population is growing at an alarming rate - think "exponent". India and China (a third of the world's population between them) are westernising at an incredible speed - China adds a new city every month or so, and India's population growth is explosive. Becoming more efficient in energy use is about adapting to the likely future that there simply won't be enough resources to consume at current rates. I think technology has gone, and will go, a long way towards increasing the amount of resources per person, but at some point there will simply be too many people to keep up.