The unfortunate thing is that your letter will never reach their eyes. These guys have people working to filter what passes their way... with salaries in the six and seven figures, their time is too valuable to waste with small-timers like most of us here. Either it will end up in the round metal filing cabinet, or if someone actually reads it and notices your confession of piracy, it will end up being forwarded to their legal department. You'll know for sure if you get a nasty letter in a few weeks.
Large companies such as these are slow to change, and usually only do when they have no alternative. Change won't happen from one or even a thousand nasty letters, it will happen when the people and companies that matter to their business give them no alternative. And as a sad little twist, these guys don't place average customers in that group... just look at their track record.
This has already happened to modems and to graphics on low end PCs.
Umm, show me where a general purpose CPU has replaced a modem or graphics processor. What you're talking about now is the Northbridge (which is really just a collection of different kinds of cores on a single sliver of silicon). Why isn't a GP CPU being used for the modem or GPU? A modem is a mixed signal device, working on both analog signals and digital signals... something that a general purpose processing core doesn't do. The same really goes for a GPU as well. Most modern GPUs output VGA signals, YPrPb signals, etc. VGA is not digital signalling... it's analog. Same with component. So somewhere in the chain there is analog processing taking place that can't be done on a GP CPU today. There are cores that can do this... but they employ the use of DSPs to work on the analog signal and are targeted for embedded devices (ever heard of SoC?). So yes, if the architecture of a desktop CPU could include mixed signal processing (which has been done in the embedded world for years now), then implementing a system such as the one you describe might be fiscally feasible.
It is simple economics.
Simple economics is still constrained by what is technically possible.
Actually, I think throwing an entire general purpose processor core to implement an ethernet MAC or AC'97 codec is a waste. Haven't actually read the other replies to your comment, but I'm sure other people are saying it too...
The problem isn't with bandwidth. Anytime you place a call on a land line (non-local), your signal on the analog POTS line is digited (8KHz, ADPCM, uLaw encoded) at the FXO (foreign exchange office) and transfered over a channel on a T1. 8KHz is plenty of bandwidth to transfer the human voice (Bell labs figured this out in the 50's)... With VOIP, extra bandwidth on one end doesn't give you a thing if you're calling a non-VOIP phone on the other end... eventually the signal gets transfered over a T1, at 8KHz (the lowest common denominator). The real problem is that VOIP is packet switched, without a guarantee of delivery... and as you know with IP, you can also run into issues of packets being received out of order. The real value in VOIP isn't QoS (it won't be for years to come)... the real value is in being able to deploy voice services over an existing IP infrastructure... no more clunky and expensive PBX's!
Now, if you're placing a VOIP to VOIP call (I assume this is what the test was... didn't read TFA), there is no 8KHz constraint and throughtput can theoretically be higher.
Microsoft Office Live Communications Server will replace PBXs.
I assume you mean monolithic proprietary PBX hardware, and not PBX itself.
It's already happening, and has been for the last 15 years before MS ever entered this market. Companies like Dianatel, Dialogic, and Eicon have been rapidly turning big expensive PBX's into smaller and cheaper virtual PBX's for quite some time with their signalling and voice processing boards. Private Branch eXchanges of one form or another is necessary for the telecom industry. The technology that drives a PBX is changing, but the PBX will not go away... sorry VOIP fans:-).
I actually have a business relationship with one of the Dianatel founders (they sold the company to Dialogic in the late 90's)... I'd be interested to see what he thinks about Microsoft's latest stab into telecom... it's an industry full of proprietary technology and big money, and the big players in this field won't let go of market share that easily.
As a devout fan of the cuddly purple dinosaur, and a close personal friend, I can say quite positively that Barney has no ill fellings towards this parody master. In his words: "All the great entertainers are made fun of... that someone would waste their time long enough to call me the anti-christ, is just another sign of my greatness".
BTW, Barney just finished filming an E! True Hollywood story to be aired sometime next month. The title of this episode is called "Peaking Under the Purple Rug: The Life of Barney". It chronologically covers his career starting with: "Jurassic Stardom", "How a Sex Change Changed My Life", "Purple, Die!", and finishing with "Mediarights Caused My Extinction".
you ought to also realize that genetic mutation is an inevitable consequence of our biological design
I absolutely do understand this... it is true that meiosis is a kind of genetic mutation, but one under the control of the cells themself. It is a genetic mutation called translocation that occurs neither randomly nor accidentally. A tumor is only a slight variation from the original DNA (a deletion, insertion, or point mutation) caused by copy errors, or exposure to harmful radition or chemicals. The difference between these two kinds of mutations is huge: one ultimately results in a seperate and distinct human being... the other results in a benign or harmful lump of tissue, but never a seperate organism that can one day survive on its own.
A tumor also has distinct DNA from its host, but that doesn't really imply that it's a separate human life or that excising a tumor is wrong
Correct... partly. The DNA found in a tumor is differrent from the rest of the body, true... but only slightly. We're talking a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent difference. The DNA found in a fetus on the other hand has a much greater difference. Meiosis works to produce a crossover from the chromesomes of both donors... these are new chromesomes not inherited completely from either parent. Mutation as a result of deletion, insertion or point modification is the same DNA as before... only slightly modified.
Given this understanding of the differences between one genetic mutation and another yeilds an answer to the ethical question (for some, well... OK, for me anyway). There are 2 parts to my conclusion:
1 - A tumor is not a seperate organism and excising a tumor is not wrong because it is essentially 99.99999% your genetic material. Excising a fetus is wrong because it is 0% your genetic material. In laymans terms, we could say it's 50% of each donor... but that's not a literal copy of the donor's DNA... it is a crossover between yours and another persons.
2 - Although "The Hidden Life of a Tumor" might make a great title for a show on the Discovery channel, the tumor doesn't really have a life apart from your body... cut it out now, and the cells rapidly die. Cut it out in 9 months, and it's the same story. With a fetus, an abortion will result in its death because it is not mature enough to survive outside of the mother... wait 9 months, and we have [insert your name here]. The difference between day 1 and month 9 is only the maturity of the organism. Absolutely nothing happens at birth, mystical or scientific, that now makes it wrong to end the life of the child just because it's outside the womb.
I always find it interesting when pro-choicers include a fetus in the same group as a tumor... it's a convenient argument that has no merit when examined in the proper scientific context. One is caused by an accidental genetic mutation resulting in only a slight variation in DNA, the other is caused by a natural process within the organism that starts at fertilization resulting in a crossover of DNA and a seperate organism.
The issue of abortion may not be self-contained in the field of science, but it clearly requires a certain measure of scientific background to properly grasp it.
Absolutely! And speaking of having a scientific background, it doesn't seem you understand the difference between translocation mutations and insertion/deletion/point mutations. If you did, I dare say you wouldn't classify a fetus as a tumor.
Yep. A movie at 24 FPS, on a projector with a vertical scan rate of 2.5kHz will result in each frame being projected about 100 times before moving to the next frame.
You started with some good comments... however:
Frankly, people who can't make the distinction between a gamete/embryo/fetus/child should really have no say in the argument until they get some basic background in biology.
I guess before I comment, I'll validate my right to argue (wouldn't want you accusing me of ignorance):
Gamete = Seperate germ cells from male and female genetic donors (egg and sperm)
Zygote = Meiosis has transformed gamete from male and female into a zygote (unique DNA from both donors at this point)
Embryo = Zygote split at least once... mitosis has occurred
Fetus = Major structure and organs are formed... continuing development
Child = Fully developed organism, capable of sustaining itself outside of the womb with little or no assistance
Notice that after meiosis, and before mitosis we have a cell with completely distinct DNA from both donors? This is a compelling argument for pro-lifer's, but if science were cut and dry, there would really be no argument, would there?
Understanding that all points of view (pro-life, pro-abortion, and pro-choice) make assumptions and render seperate interpretations of the same science is a good step towards fully comprehending the issue. Too many people on/. think that science paints a black and white picture, and themselves become as narrow minded in their interpretations as the right-wing ultra-zealots.
Ambiguous science only becomes valuable when it is properly interpreted... more so in cases such as this where ethics play a role. The real issue isn't the science... it's the interpretation of the results within one context or another.
BTW... people with little or no background in biology should comment... they might learn a thing or to from the impassioned responses they invoke.
First, I took the time to read through all of your post... I truly hope you do the same:
However, "natural" is a sticky, and somewhat meaningless, idea.
First of all, there is a difference between natural human behavior and those things that are a part of our human nature. Natural human behavior is quite subjective, isn't it? Human nature, on the otherhand, is not at all subjective... and while some people argue about what is part of our nature and what isn't, the fact remains that there are things that are a part of our nature that are not changed by external influences. For instance: it is part of our nature that we have a sense of self preservation. There are some that can ignore that part of their nature, but in doing so, it is in direct opposition to their nature as a human being, and I contend it requires an act of the will to do so.
If I didn't explain myself well enough, here's another way of looking at it: human nature is the subset of human behavior that is common to all human beings. BTW, in all of my posts I have been talking about human nature, and not human behavior.
Sticky? Absolutely. Having studied my fair share of psychology in college I understand the "stickiness" with abstractions that are sometimes made in this field. BTW, these abstractions are made in order to better explain human behavior.
Meaningless? Absolutely not. If you find abstractions such as this meaningless, then you should stick to arguing about things which don't trouble you or stretch your mind too far.
Tribal warfare is also a natural human instinct, yet somehow I've managed to avoid killing my neighbours with a spear (though I won't deny that the thought is temping, especially when they share their bad taste in music at three in the morning).
Clever! I like your sense of wit... and especially your example. You made my point probably without even realizing it: the operative word here is "tribal". Hopefully I can hold your attention for the rest of this post... it will be long.
Throughout history, mankind has tended to clump together into groups... to continue with your analogy, we'll call them tribes. The first thing that comes to mind when most people hear the word "tribe" is probably some half-dressed natives living in huts and painting pictures of animals on a rock wall. But in truth, "tribes" exist in areas that we would otherwise consider civilized and/or modern. The family unit can be considered a tribe. A group of friends with common interests and goals can be considered a tribe. Hell, even MySpace and other social networking sites can be considered tribes. Despite advances in technology, we still work to create tribes, to feel connected.
Have you heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Abraham Maslow was a psychologist who wrote a paper in the 40's called A Theory of Human Motivation. Since then, it has become widely accepted by the scientific and psychological community. In it he proposed that there are 5 levels of needs that all human beings have, and that one becomes free to pursue the next level of needs after he/she has satisfied the needs of the lower levels. Here they are (starting from the most basic level of needs):
BIOLOGICAL NEEDS
* the need to breathe
* the need for water
* the need to eat
* the need to dispose of bodily wastes
* the need for sleep
* the need to regulate body temperature
SAFETY NEEDS
* Security of employment
* Security of revenues and resources
* Physical security - safety from violence, delinquency, aggressions
* Moral and physiological security
* Familial security
* Security of health
BELONGING NEEDS (we can also call this one social needs... this level of needs is important to our conversation)
* the need for friendship
* the need for sexual intimacy
* the need to have a family
Ah, final word goes to the Anonymous Coward. Good for you! Next time, grow some balls and resist clicking that little check box before posting. If you can't stand by your comments, I don't want to hear them.
Apart from that, any craving for social interaction is learned behavior.
No! Any skill in social interaction is learned behavior... the desire for it is in our nature!
BTW, if any of you web hermits are listening, I truly apologize for "generalizing" and lumping you all into a group with the rest of us. I apologize for calling you a human being, but if my suspicions are correct, some of your hermit brethren have been doing a great job arguing that you guys are not in fact humans, with the same nature as the rest of us. So, since this conversation has degraded to this point, I'll just ask this question: what planet are you hermits from?
Most of us. Careful with the generalizations, there.
How is saying that every human being by nature craves physical interaction a generalization? We can't escape our nature... It's not like we're given the option to choose which aspects of human nature we want and those that we don't before we're born. Jeez, I never thought I'd get called on the carpet for calling a human a human.
I don't think it's helpful to stigmatize what may be their only social contact.
That wasn't my point. I never said that these people shouldn't socialize on the internet... all I said was that these people are the exception. It's true that there are some people who have been conditioned by one stimuli or another to supress certain aspects of their nature (in this case, the desire for personal and physical interaction).
I don't disagree with your statements, but I do think that this issue transcends the social aspect of humanity. We human beings not only crave personal interaction with others, but we also crave physical interaction with others in the real world. For instance, when the personal computer first arrived, many people were predicting a paper-less society by the 90's. The technology is certainly there to make this a reality, so why is my desk still cluttered with binders full of spec sheets, and printed email correspondence? It's the tactile feedback that holding a piece of paper provides, or turning the pages of a book. We humans tend to prefer interacting with real objects, and real people.
As for the hermits that don't, it seems to me that these people will always be the "odd-balls". Whether or not their seclusion includes a computer and an internet connection, they are still oddities of nature. You just can't undo thousands of years of human civilization and human experience in a matter of decades.
Maybe I'm missing something here... was that 2M figure gross or net? If it's gross, I don't see how anyone could turn a profit and remain competitive while spending 25%-35% of gross sales on marketing (granted, marketing is a broad term here... not necessarily just advertising). Maybe their margin is just huge? (Or maybe it was a fluke that I passed that biz management class in college):-)
Damn it feels good to be a nerdsta
A real nerdsta-ass coda flips his bits right
A real nerdsta-ass coda never runs a windowz proc
Cuz real nerdsta-ass codas write code all night
I know exactly what you mean... I keep a windows box around just for games (shame):0)
Actually, when I was in college, the thing that attracted me the most to Linux (and why I made the switch) was my senior project. It was absolutely sweet to be able to grab the source for a Linux kernel, customize it, and build an entire distro from scratch. And the embedded branch (uCLinux) is really sweet too. I have to admit, though... at work, we developed a system from Windows CE, and their Platform Manager allowed you to customize the OS too... it was a cost effective little OS and worked like a charm.
I think you hit a good point too... if Linux is really ever to compete on the desktop market with Windows... they need to get their act together and attract some game developers!
Slashdot Mirror
Good god... the Lilliputians are invading.
Ancient Hebrew DRM.
Yeah, just messing with you :0)
The unfortunate thing is that your letter will never reach their eyes. These guys have people working to filter what passes their way... with salaries in the six and seven figures, their time is too valuable to waste with small-timers like most of us here. Either it will end up in the round metal filing cabinet, or if someone actually reads it and notices your confession of piracy, it will end up being forwarded to their legal department. You'll know for sure if you get a nasty letter in a few weeks.
Large companies such as these are slow to change, and usually only do when they have no alternative. Change won't happen from one or even a thousand nasty letters, it will happen when the people and companies that matter to their business give them no alternative. And as a sad little twist, these guys don't place average customers in that group... just look at their track record.
Do you really think these execs will take someone who listens to The Cardigans seriously?
This has already happened to modems and to graphics on low end PCs.
Umm, show me where a general purpose CPU has replaced a modem or graphics processor. What you're talking about now is the Northbridge (which is really just a collection of different kinds of cores on a single sliver of silicon). Why isn't a GP CPU being used for the modem or GPU? A modem is a mixed signal device, working on both analog signals and digital signals... something that a general purpose processing core doesn't do. The same really goes for a GPU as well. Most modern GPUs output VGA signals, YPrPb signals, etc. VGA is not digital signalling... it's analog. Same with component. So somewhere in the chain there is analog processing taking place that can't be done on a GP CPU today. There are cores that can do this... but they employ the use of DSPs to work on the analog signal and are targeted for embedded devices (ever heard of SoC?). So yes, if the architecture of a desktop CPU could include mixed signal processing (which has been done in the embedded world for years now), then implementing a system such as the one you describe might be fiscally feasible.
It is simple economics.
Simple economics is still constrained by what is technically possible.
Everything else is just a waste of silicon.
Actually, I think throwing an entire general purpose processor core to implement an ethernet MAC or AC'97 codec is a waste. Haven't actually read the other replies to your comment, but I'm sure other people are saying it too...
The problem isn't with bandwidth. Anytime you place a call on a land line (non-local), your signal on the analog POTS line is digited (8KHz, ADPCM, uLaw encoded) at the FXO (foreign exchange office) and transfered over a channel on a T1. 8KHz is plenty of bandwidth to transfer the human voice (Bell labs figured this out in the 50's)... With VOIP, extra bandwidth on one end doesn't give you a thing if you're calling a non-VOIP phone on the other end... eventually the signal gets transfered over a T1, at 8KHz (the lowest common denominator). The real problem is that VOIP is packet switched, without a guarantee of delivery... and as you know with IP, you can also run into issues of packets being received out of order. The real value in VOIP isn't QoS (it won't be for years to come)... the real value is in being able to deploy voice services over an existing IP infrastructure... no more clunky and expensive PBX's!
Now, if you're placing a VOIP to VOIP call (I assume this is what the test was... didn't read TFA), there is no 8KHz constraint and throughtput can theoretically be higher.
Wow... guess there are only a few of us here that have seen Veggie Tales.
Bloody brilliant! A trekkie who can spell Khan correctly, but can't spell 'learn'.
Genius...
Good points!
:-).
Microsoft Office Live Communications Server will replace PBXs.
I assume you mean monolithic proprietary PBX hardware, and not PBX itself.
It's already happening, and has been for the last 15 years before MS ever entered this market. Companies like Dianatel, Dialogic, and Eicon have been rapidly turning big expensive PBX's into smaller and cheaper virtual PBX's for quite some time with their signalling and voice processing boards. Private Branch eXchanges of one form or another is necessary for the telecom industry. The technology that drives a PBX is changing, but the PBX will not go away... sorry VOIP fans
I actually have a business relationship with one of the Dianatel founders (they sold the company to Dialogic in the late 90's)... I'd be interested to see what he thinks about Microsoft's latest stab into telecom... it's an industry full of proprietary technology and big money, and the big players in this field won't let go of market share that easily.
As a devout fan of the cuddly purple dinosaur, and a close personal friend, I can say quite positively that Barney has no ill fellings towards this parody master. In his words: "All the great entertainers are made fun of... that someone would waste their time long enough to call me the anti-christ, is just another sign of my greatness".
BTW, Barney just finished filming an E! True Hollywood story to be aired sometime next month. The title of this episode is called "Peaking Under the Purple Rug: The Life of Barney". It chronologically covers his career starting with: "Jurassic Stardom", "How a Sex Change Changed My Life", "Purple, Die!", and finishing with "Mediarights Caused My Extinction".
you ought to also realize that genetic mutation is an inevitable consequence of our biological design
I absolutely do understand this... it is true that meiosis is a kind of genetic mutation, but one under the control of the cells themself. It is a genetic mutation called translocation that occurs neither randomly nor accidentally. A tumor is only a slight variation from the original DNA (a deletion, insertion, or point mutation) caused by copy errors, or exposure to harmful radition or chemicals. The difference between these two kinds of mutations is huge: one ultimately results in a seperate and distinct human being... the other results in a benign or harmful lump of tissue, but never a seperate organism that can one day survive on its own.
A tumor also has distinct DNA from its host, but that doesn't really imply that it's a separate human life or that excising a tumor is wrong
Correct... partly. The DNA found in a tumor is differrent from the rest of the body, true... but only slightly. We're talking a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent difference. The DNA found in a fetus on the other hand has a much greater difference. Meiosis works to produce a crossover from the chromesomes of both donors... these are new chromesomes not inherited completely from either parent. Mutation as a result of deletion, insertion or point modification is the same DNA as before... only slightly modified.
Given this understanding of the differences between one genetic mutation and another yeilds an answer to the ethical question (for some, well... OK, for me anyway). There are 2 parts to my conclusion:
1 - A tumor is not a seperate organism and excising a tumor is not wrong because it is essentially 99.99999% your genetic material. Excising a fetus is wrong because it is 0% your genetic material. In laymans terms, we could say it's 50% of each donor... but that's not a literal copy of the donor's DNA... it is a crossover between yours and another persons.
2 - Although "The Hidden Life of a Tumor" might make a great title for a show on the Discovery channel, the tumor doesn't really have a life apart from your body... cut it out now, and the cells rapidly die. Cut it out in 9 months, and it's the same story. With a fetus, an abortion will result in its death because it is not mature enough to survive outside of the mother... wait 9 months, and we have [insert your name here]. The difference between day 1 and month 9 is only the maturity of the organism. Absolutely nothing happens at birth, mystical or scientific, that now makes it wrong to end the life of the child just because it's outside the womb.
I always find it interesting when pro-choicers include a fetus in the same group as a tumor... it's a convenient argument that has no merit when examined in the proper scientific context. One is caused by an accidental genetic mutation resulting in only a slight variation in DNA, the other is caused by a natural process within the organism that starts at fertilization resulting in a crossover of DNA and a seperate organism.
The issue of abortion may not be self-contained in the field of science, but it clearly requires a certain measure of scientific background to properly grasp it.
Absolutely! And speaking of having a scientific background, it doesn't seem you understand the difference between translocation mutations and insertion/deletion/point mutations. If you did, I dare say you wouldn't classify a fetus as a tumor.
Yep. A movie at 24 FPS, on a projector with a vertical scan rate of 2.5kHz will result in each frame being projected about 100 times before moving to the next frame.
Argghhh... sorry if it's hard to read... forgot the line breaks. :-)
You started with some good comments... however: Frankly, people who can't make the distinction between a gamete/embryo/fetus/child should really have no say in the argument until they get some basic background in biology. I guess before I comment, I'll validate my right to argue (wouldn't want you accusing me of ignorance): Gamete = Seperate germ cells from male and female genetic donors (egg and sperm) Zygote = Meiosis has transformed gamete from male and female into a zygote (unique DNA from both donors at this point) Embryo = Zygote split at least once... mitosis has occurred Fetus = Major structure and organs are formed... continuing development Child = Fully developed organism, capable of sustaining itself outside of the womb with little or no assistance Notice that after meiosis, and before mitosis we have a cell with completely distinct DNA from both donors? This is a compelling argument for pro-lifer's, but if science were cut and dry, there would really be no argument, would there? Understanding that all points of view (pro-life, pro-abortion, and pro-choice) make assumptions and render seperate interpretations of the same science is a good step towards fully comprehending the issue. Too many people on /. think that science paints a black and white picture, and themselves become as narrow minded in their interpretations as the right-wing ultra-zealots.
Ambiguous science only becomes valuable when it is properly interpreted... more so in cases such as this where ethics play a role. The real issue isn't the science... it's the interpretation of the results within one context or another.
BTW... people with little or no background in biology should comment... they might learn a thing or to from the impassioned responses they invoke.
:-) Agreed. I was born in Twin Falls and last time I was back home I couldn't believe the cost of housing. It's the same way here in Reno, too.
What happens if a dyslexic or autistic brain is linked in that collective?
Delete the Windows installation on that brain and install Linux.
First, I took the time to read through all of your post... I truly hope you do the same:
However, "natural" is a sticky, and somewhat meaningless, idea.
First of all, there is a difference between natural human behavior and those things that are a part of our human nature. Natural human behavior is quite subjective, isn't it? Human nature, on the otherhand, is not at all subjective... and while some people argue about what is part of our nature and what isn't, the fact remains that there are things that are a part of our nature that are not changed by external influences. For instance: it is part of our nature that we have a sense of self preservation. There are some that can ignore that part of their nature, but in doing so, it is in direct opposition to their nature as a human being, and I contend it requires an act of the will to do so.
If I didn't explain myself well enough, here's another way of looking at it: human nature is the subset of human behavior that is common to all human beings. BTW, in all of my posts I have been talking about human nature, and not human behavior.
Sticky? Absolutely. Having studied my fair share of psychology in college I understand the "stickiness" with abstractions that are sometimes made in this field. BTW, these abstractions are made in order to better explain human behavior.
Meaningless? Absolutely not. If you find abstractions such as this meaningless, then you should stick to arguing about things which don't trouble you or stretch your mind too far.
Tribal warfare is also a natural human instinct, yet somehow I've managed to avoid killing my neighbours with a spear (though I won't deny that the thought is temping, especially when they share their bad taste in music at three in the morning).
Clever! I like your sense of wit... and especially your example. You made my point probably without even realizing it: the operative word here is "tribal". Hopefully I can hold your attention for the rest of this post... it will be long.
Throughout history, mankind has tended to clump together into groups... to continue with your analogy, we'll call them tribes. The first thing that comes to mind when most people hear the word "tribe" is probably some half-dressed natives living in huts and painting pictures of animals on a rock wall. But in truth, "tribes" exist in areas that we would otherwise consider civilized and/or modern. The family unit can be considered a tribe. A group of friends with common interests and goals can be considered a tribe. Hell, even MySpace and other social networking sites can be considered tribes. Despite advances in technology, we still work to create tribes, to feel connected.
Have you heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Abraham Maslow was a psychologist who wrote a paper in the 40's called A Theory of Human Motivation. Since then, it has become widely accepted by the scientific and psychological community. In it he proposed that there are 5 levels of needs that all human beings have, and that one becomes free to pursue the next level of needs after he/she has satisfied the needs of the lower levels. Here they are (starting from the most basic level of needs):
BIOLOGICAL NEEDS
* the need to breathe
* the need for water
* the need to eat
* the need to dispose of bodily wastes
* the need for sleep
* the need to regulate body temperature
SAFETY NEEDS
* Security of employment
* Security of revenues and resources
* Physical security - safety from violence, delinquency, aggressions
* Moral and physiological security
* Familial security
* Security of health
BELONGING NEEDS (we can also call this one social needs... this level of needs is important to our conversation)
* the need for friendship
* the need for sexual intimacy
* the need to have a family
ESTEEM NEEDS
* the
Ah, final word goes to the Anonymous Coward. Good for you! Next time, grow some balls and resist clicking that little check box before posting. If you can't stand by your comments, I don't want to hear them.
Apart from that, any craving for social interaction is learned behavior.
No! Any skill in social interaction is learned behavior... the desire for it is in our nature!
BTW, if any of you web hermits are listening, I truly apologize for "generalizing" and lumping you all into a group with the rest of us. I apologize for calling you a human being, but if my suspicions are correct, some of your hermit brethren have been doing a great job arguing that you guys are not in fact humans, with the same nature as the rest of us. So, since this conversation has degraded to this point, I'll just ask this question: what planet are you hermits from?
Most of us. Careful with the generalizations, there.
How is saying that every human being by nature craves physical interaction a generalization? We can't escape our nature... It's not like we're given the option to choose which aspects of human nature we want and those that we don't before we're born. Jeez, I never thought I'd get called on the carpet for calling a human a human.
I don't think it's helpful to stigmatize what may be their only social contact.
That wasn't my point. I never said that these people shouldn't socialize on the internet... all I said was that these people are the exception. It's true that there are some people who have been conditioned by one stimuli or another to supress certain aspects of their nature (in this case, the desire for personal and physical interaction).
I don't disagree with your statements, but I do think that this issue transcends the social aspect of humanity. We human beings not only crave personal interaction with others, but we also crave physical interaction with others in the real world. For instance, when the personal computer first arrived, many people were predicting a paper-less society by the 90's. The technology is certainly there to make this a reality, so why is my desk still cluttered with binders full of spec sheets, and printed email correspondence? It's the tactile feedback that holding a piece of paper provides, or turning the pages of a book. We humans tend to prefer interacting with real objects, and real people.
As for the hermits that don't, it seems to me that these people will always be the "odd-balls". Whether or not their seclusion includes a computer and an internet connection, they are still oddities of nature. You just can't undo thousands of years of human civilization and human experience in a matter of decades.
Maybe I'm missing something here... was that 2M figure gross or net? If it's gross, I don't see how anyone could turn a profit and remain competitive while spending 25%-35% of gross sales on marketing (granted, marketing is a broad term here... not necessarily just advertising). Maybe their margin is just huge? (Or maybe it was a fluke that I passed that biz management class in college) :-)
Is that really 25% of your revenue spent on your advertising budget? What does your company net each year?
Damn it feels good to be a nerdsta
A real nerdsta-ass coda flips his bits right
A real nerdsta-ass coda never runs a windowz proc
Cuz real nerdsta-ass codas write code all night
I know exactly what you mean... I keep a windows box around just for games (shame) :0)
Actually, when I was in college, the thing that attracted me the most to Linux (and why I made the switch) was my senior project. It was absolutely sweet to be able to grab the source for a Linux kernel, customize it, and build an entire distro from scratch. And the embedded branch (uCLinux) is really sweet too. I have to admit, though... at work, we developed a system from Windows CE, and their Platform Manager allowed you to customize the OS too... it was a cost effective little OS and worked like a charm.
I think you hit a good point too... if Linux is really ever to compete on the desktop market with Windows... they need to get their act together and attract some game developers!