It seems unequivocally clear that/. readers are not the types of people that have loud, annoying cell phone conversations in crowded, public environments. Just read these comments! No, the people who do that sort of thing are obviously in another demographic. Yes, this group of refined users of technology practices the most austere cell phone etiquette anywhere.
Actually, I'm sure we've all done this sort of thing a few times: the phone rings in a situation where it would be completely inappropriate to answer the phone. But this particular call is of such startling importance that the call must be answered, just this one time. Because the call is that important, and can't wait.
The widespread use of cell phones is still in its infancy. I hope that one day it will be considered very rude to loudly speak on a cell phone in public. To have your ringer on any setting other than vibrate. To answer during movies or meals. Just as it is now to fart or smoke in close proximity to others. Do people do it? Yes. Is it common? No. Is it legislated? In the case of smoking, yes!
Air travel is generally an uncomfortable experience in the best of cases. Cell phone use is disallowed because of the additional discomfort that would be incurred to most people. Unfortunately, until some social norms have been established, this won't change. That will take time. And in the meantime, it will stay regulated.
As optimistic as I may be about the prospect of manned space flight, the entire proposition seems a little contrived to me.
The Wright Brothers didn't need an airport to build the first working plane. I'm guessing that what we think of as "airports" and "seaports" today didn't exist for some time after the advent of commercial air and sea travel. Rather, they were probably born of some need to consolidate services and facilities. Right now, there is no need for either with regards to commercial space travel.
For that reason, I think that Branson's space port will emerge as nothing more than a tourist-trap theme park in sunny New Mexico, with a sparsely manned "launch" once every three months. If it ever opens. And the denizens of sunny Dona Ana will stand to gain a bit, but their town will be transformed into a novelty town. Maybe some people want this...? I certainly wouldn't.
I think it's worth noting that one of the only reasons that this controversy began in the first place is that we are all accustomed to large amounts of money being associated with the music industry. Ironically, the biggest amounts of money are associated with a very small percentage of the performers, and definitely not with the best music. In other words, CD's cost so much because we don't bat an eye at the thought of millionaire rock stars, multi-million dollar live performances, and billion dollar companies behind it all.
Of course, none of that is really necessary for the production and distribution of good music anymore. Just look at the proliferation of internet radio and things like Pandora.
Compare the music industry with the writing industry. No one thinks about famous authors as millionaires. There isn't a very substantial book piracy industry (in the US, anyway) because people that want to read books don't usually hesitate to pay for them. It's much easier to steal from someone you think is very, very wealthy.
I realize that not all of the cost of a given musical product goes to the performer; in fact, I've heard that only a very small percentage does. Nevertheless, the perception is that most of the money goes in the pockets of people who have more money than you do.
Fortunately, the information superhighway has the potential to mitigate this effect entirely. Let us hope the RIAA and the CRB do not slam the door on that, too.
The same summary, because the same concerns inevitably arise: the technology's ultimate relevance to the story of human history.
How will this bring us closer to 1984? How will this take us farther from the status quo?
The socially responsible development of technology seems to be something that is frequently talked about, but always summarily ignored. It's as if the one requisite for a given technology is that some one, or some group, voice their protests. It's enough to have the meme implanted somewhere in the human psyche, reminding us of the potential for disaster. And then we go on about our merry way, developing RFID's or day-after pills or clones.
This meek protest is a small price to pay, given that development will always, always take place, somewhere. No amount of discussion will block the tide of technology, because we care so much more about what the technology will do for our hedonistic lifestyle.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems unequivocally clear that /. readers are not the types of people that have loud, annoying cell phone conversations in crowded, public environments. Just read these comments! No, the people who do that sort of thing are obviously in another demographic. Yes, this group of refined users of technology practices the most austere cell phone etiquette anywhere.
Actually, I'm sure we've all done this sort of thing a few times: the phone rings in a situation where it would be completely inappropriate to answer the phone. But this particular call is of such startling importance that the call must be answered, just this one time. Because the call is that important, and can't wait.
The widespread use of cell phones is still in its infancy. I hope that one day it will be considered very rude to loudly speak on a cell phone in public. To have your ringer on any setting other than vibrate. To answer during movies or meals. Just as it is now to fart or smoke in close proximity to others. Do people do it? Yes. Is it common? No. Is it legislated? In the case of smoking, yes!
Air travel is generally an uncomfortable experience in the best of cases. Cell phone use is disallowed because of the additional discomfort that would be incurred to most people. Unfortunately, until some social norms have been established, this won't change. That will take time. And in the meantime, it will stay regulated.
As optimistic as I may be about the prospect of manned space flight, the entire proposition seems a little contrived to me.
The Wright Brothers didn't need an airport to build the first working plane. I'm guessing that what we think of as "airports" and "seaports" today didn't exist for some time after the advent of commercial air and sea travel. Rather, they were probably born of some need to consolidate services and facilities. Right now, there is no need for either with regards to commercial space travel.
For that reason, I think that Branson's space port will emerge as nothing more than a tourist-trap theme park in sunny New Mexico, with a sparsely manned "launch" once every three months. If it ever opens. And the denizens of sunny Dona Ana will stand to gain a bit, but their town will be transformed into a novelty town. Maybe some people want this...? I certainly wouldn't.
I think it's worth noting that one of the only reasons that this controversy began in the first place is that we are all accustomed to large amounts of money being associated with the music industry. Ironically, the biggest amounts of money are associated with a very small percentage of the performers, and definitely not with the best music. In other words, CD's cost so much because we don't bat an eye at the thought of millionaire rock stars, multi-million dollar live performances, and billion dollar companies behind it all.
Of course, none of that is really necessary for the production and distribution of good music anymore. Just look at the proliferation of internet radio and things like Pandora.
Compare the music industry with the writing industry. No one thinks about famous authors as millionaires. There isn't a very substantial book piracy industry (in the US, anyway) because people that want to read books don't usually hesitate to pay for them. It's much easier to steal from someone you think is very, very wealthy.
I realize that not all of the cost of a given musical product goes to the performer; in fact, I've heard that only a very small percentage does. Nevertheless, the perception is that most of the money goes in the pockets of people who have more money than you do.
Fortunately, the information superhighway has the potential to mitigate this effect entirely. Let us hope the RIAA and the CRB do not slam the door on that, too.
Does anyone know which companies are slated or working to develop this technology commercially?
The same summary, because the same concerns inevitably arise: the technology's ultimate relevance to the story of human history.
How will this bring us closer to 1984? How will this take us farther from the status quo?
The socially responsible development of technology seems to be something that is frequently talked about, but always summarily ignored. It's as if the one requisite for a given technology is that some one, or some group, voice their protests. It's enough to have the meme implanted somewhere in the human psyche, reminding us of the potential for disaster. And then we go on about our merry way, developing RFID's or day-after pills or clones.
This meek protest is a small price to pay, given that development will always, always take place, somewhere. No amount of discussion will block the tide of technology, because we care so much more about what the technology will do for our hedonistic lifestyle.