When this article askes if the internet has 'peaked' it seems to be making three statements.
1. That the internet is now a mature rather than an emerging market.
AND
2. That people Have a pretty good idea of what the internet is all about and what it can offer.
3. That people are increasingly beginning to see (the internet's) limitations and shortcomings.
I agree with the third statement. I strongly disagree with the first two.
As the article mentioned, the web is no longer universally hyped.
But the web is still an emerging market. One way of judging the rate of progress in a particular market is by looking at the obsolescence curve that a particular product has. How big is the gap between the time a product is invented and the time it becomes obsolete. The gap is huge in some areas; soap making, textiles etc. These products try and differentiate themselves through advertising and brand loyalty and similar techniques, or else they try and carve out a particular price niche.
The gap from cradle to grave is still quite small in relation to 'the web/internet' (whichever you choose). Companies are judged on the basis of their merits ( or at least their perceived merits), and innovation is a constant requirement.
Businesses are beginning to learn the web's limitations. And yes, venture capital has trickled off.
But I find it difficult to believe that anyone really has a firm grasp on the possibilities of the internet. Hardware continues to improve. Bandwith continues to increase, particularly for high end applications. (look at Ohionet, which is going to be putting gigabytes of satelite information online). Likewise, tracking of individuals and their habits will no doubt improve. I don't believe the possibilities of distributed computing have even begun to be truly explored, and artificial intellegence is as yet in its infancy.
This article reads like an IBM executive turning down the possibility of producing the first Xerox machines because 'we already have carbon paper'.
There were a lot of people out there who wanted the web to become a brighter shinier version of somthing that they already owned; TV. Instead, it is becomeing somthing quite different. The fact that the web is not becoming TV does not mean that the internet has stopped evolving. But the possibility of obsolesence for anyone in the tech field is still a looming threat, which means that the web will continue to buck many of the trends displayed by a mature market like coke and pepsi trying to differentiate nearly identical products through brand loyalty.
My comment should have said;
average=mean
statisitic that describes the most number of people=mode
i.e. 'the average family has 2.5 children'. I think the artilce is unsubstantiated as hell but If you wanted to flame there were better places to do it.
average=mean
statisitic that describes the most number of people=mode
i.e. 'the average family has 2.5 children'.
I think the artilce is unsubstantiated as hell but
If you wanted to flame there were better places to do it.
I wonder what would happen if you used some of the stolen credit card numbers to send large amounts of stuff to someone that you didn't like.
Would they get arrested?
Or would they just get a whole bunch of free stuff. Of course, I'm sure that someone could have fun with this. Lets see, what could you send; live animals? pornographic material? software that forces all sorts of horrible binding conditions on the user as soon as he breaks the shrinkwrap liscense. The possibilities are endless.
If people don't have many friends, I think that they'd be more likely to play solitaire.
I can't speak for D&D, but having done roleplaying throughout my youth my grip on reality is just peachy. I can explain the citric acid cycle or the effect of merchantilistic culture on Darwin's theory of evolution. That matches the sociologically accepted definition of 'having a grip on reality', right?
Perhaps you'd like to provide just a little of the documentation which shows that "D&D is designed to immerse insecure people who probably don't have many friends into a fantasy world and cause them to lose their grip on reality" . Honesty is 9/10th cynicsm, after all.
And just for the record, a troll, according to the dictonary of computer and internet terms is definded as; "a message that is posted solely in order to stir up as many replies as possible. Trolls often contain deliberate misinformation or insults. Naturally, the person doing the trolling looks foolish, but some of them don't mind. (from troll, a fishing term.)
It's a bit more than that. Most people buy things based as much on emotion as price. (I imagine a lot of techie types might be different, but geeks still have emotions.
The point is that the employer shows respect. Having to say 'yes sir' all the time and be subservient isn't the best feeling, but some employers don't consider this viewpoint.
If people are going to spend lots of money to find happiness and respect when they're not at work, then they should also consider an employer that provides a respectful, enjoyable workplace to be an asset.
Also, think in terms of convenience. It's a bitch to change health plans etc. Any benefit which either offers convenience or creates inconvenience if withdrawn is going to be worth more than it's simple dollar value in terms of staying power. Besides, if the company gives the benefits, the employee dosen't pay taxes on them.
But technology is being used for both research and education.
Of course, if you'd like to pay for me to go back to school, I won't object.... but seriously, keep in mind that the 3D graphics engine that was developed for video games can be very useful in both research and education. I'm willing to bet that money from the video game industry will also give a very real push to the development of artificial intellegence. And the novelty seeking aspect of the entertainment industry means that it will continue to provide much needed venture capital to help give these new technologies the initial boost that they need.
You; I don't think that this particular business practice is right or ethical and may not buy this company's products.
Them; (totally out of the blue) Business people/artists/software programmers have a right to be compensated!
This isn't the first time where I've heard someone launch into a rant about a creators need for compensation when that wasn't even what the conversation was _about_. The fact that so many people make this mistake so often makes me wonder how this particular response became so conditioned .
Incidentaly, I know that authors wrote to be compensated. I think much of Dicken's writing would have been a blessed bit more breif if he wasn't being paid by the word.
Thank you for puchasing legal defense for dummies.
By breaking the seal on this book and reading the contents, the consumer of information, forwith refered to as the customer, signifies consent to a non-disclosure agreement whereby they will not discuss the contents of this book.
If the customer chooses to do so, they will recognize that they have purchased the right to rent the ideas contained whithin the book, and will forwith pay the authors $500 remuneration for said rental. Failure to do so may result in confiscation of all media, biological or otherwise, within which this information is stored....
One advantage of the microsoft monopoly in terms of efficiency that you never hear mentioned is that Microsoft can have massive internal reuse of code- somthing that can be difficult in a closed source environment.
I'll be glad to see microsoft split up, even though it'll probably mean some loss of tax revenues for the USA as overseas companies pick up some of the slack. But it's not the end of the world.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the cultural revolution more a revolution against inequality, with intellectuals enjoying a priveleged, and thus ultimatly precarious position?
I don't know about Hong Kong, to be honest, but I heard that the chineese government hasn't been too polite with foriegn investors once they're so invested that it's hard to withdraw. They've gotten something of a bad reputation. I'm not sure what the motives of the chineese governement are for this or whether they extend to Hong Kong.
I realize that this probably wasn't what he meant, but perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be;
"if you were constantly fed information from only a single viewpoint or bias then you may not appreciate the subjective nature of truth which is illustrated through dialouge"
kindof like Alexander the great getting his ministers together and showing them people from around the world with 'strange' cultural practices to prove to his ministers that there was more than just one way to do things.
If I go to the store to buy bread, I'll stop when I have enough bread, when the price gets too high or somthing. People may pay too much for bread, just as the government can make some really dumb decisions about what to purchase with their resouces, but they still have the capacity a cost benefit model based on the benifit gained by both parties.
This above model cannot be applied to the american legal system for several reasons.
1. Unlike other professions, where there is an impetus to make information available to people without a professional background, law has generally not followed that trend. It often seems to go out of it's way to remain 'profesionalized' which means, in part, inaccessible to the lay person. Exclusivity is helpful to practitioners of law because in helps keep the value of their labor high.
2. Perhaps even more significantly, the cost benefit analysis of the use of legal services done by a person considering bringing a suit only considers the person's own benefit, unlike a normal free maket which takes into account the cost vs. benefit of all parties. . A very rough analogy would be a person going into a hunting store with the intention of killing off his business competitors. In this cost benefit analysis, he would weigh the cost of bullets vs. the benefit gained from the elimination/woudning of his competition and maybe from crossfire. The Businessman would not have to consider the price his competition put on his own welfare, as it often wouldn't in the american legal system.
You know that there are such things as harrassment lawsuits. You know that 'protecting "rightful" property' is not the only use that businesses have for the american legal system. In biotechnology, these 'property rights' were extended to the patenting of living, preexisiting genes which were discovered by non-unique methods. An excellent example of the mallebility and injustice of existing patent laws which counters the idea that the american legal system is the equivalent of justice. No law was passed to allow living genes to become patentable and it isn't covered under existing patent law. These 'rights' cannot honestly be called democratic or an interpertation of existing law.
3. The third point ties the other two together. A company with more assets often has a benefit in bringing a suit against a smaller company since the smaller company may not be able to afford the legal fees if it loses or needs to appeal. As long as there is competition between businesses, businesses will use the legal system to harass their competition. UCITA is just one example, which will force smaller companies to expend large amounts of money to correct this 'bug' in the american legal code. The current system often only forces businesses to consider their own costs v. benefits without considering their 'victims' costs- an unplesant and often wasteful situation in a free market. This is particularly relevant in the technology sector when a company can appeal a suit long enough to outlive their competition and make the suit irrelevant. In short, the company with more assets can and often does use those assets through the american legal system to stifle it's competiton.
So to tie things together;
1.Lawyers are interested in keeping law complex so that they can continue to be well paid for their services. Thus, legal defense is more available to the wealthy. While this distribution of resources is justifiable for goods, it is not justifiable for justice.
2. Those attempting and succeeding in abusing the American legal system have only their own benefit in mind. Law should not automaticaly be considered synonymous with justice.
3. Because business to business lawsuits ( I'm talking non-injury based lawsuits) often favors those with more wealth, representation in American law is less than democratic.
In short, there isn't an ethical basis for having the american legal system exist as a purchasable resource in a free market. People who earn more money may deserve more bread or better cars, but there is no ethical basis for giving them better legal representation. I'm not a socialist by any means, but if there's one part of America that needs to be socialized it's the legal system.
I agree completly. The conflict in politics, and even in American life in general has changed drasticaly.
Polititians shun debates. Lincon and Douglas carreid on 7 debates, admittedly before television. The modern 'discussion' is a bunch of people sitting around saying "this is what I think " rather than people defining standards of evidence, contending points etc.
The only way to stop politics is by instituting a totalitarian state.
While I don't see it as a conspiricy, it worries me that kids these days are becoming more and more involved in 'organized sports', (sports organized by adults or a park district) and less capable of organizing themselves.
The basic structures underlying democracy- organized confilct and debate, the ability of the people to organize into independant groups, even a basic knowledge of history or the ability to make a cogent, logical argument
are being whittled away for the bulk of the population. There are exceptions, of course, but these skills need to be mainstream for democracy to function.
Katz touched on this lack of conflict, but strangly passed over the insidiousness of it.
Strange, since he seems to gravitate towards and embellish insidiousness like a kitten to warm milk.
C'mon now.
What kind of intelligence would you test? Verbal? Spatial? Mathematical? Motor coordination? Musical ability?
Most of the programs out there are used by business people or artists who really don't have the same time or abilities that most geeks do, but they do have other very valid skills and abilities. And after all, tools are supposed to be as easy to use as possible.
One of the key tenants of object oriented programming is data hiding. Programming in assembly when you don't have to is not a virtue and neither is making things more complex than is necessary. Mark me off topic if you want, but I've seen this attitude a lot on slashdot and sometimes it's valid, but often it's not. You don't have to know mechanics to drive a car. You don't have to understand physics to fly an airplane. And you don't necessarily have to know how to program in order to use a computer.
Hell, once you think about it, we wouldn't be in this predicament if it weren't for all those dang blasted 'intelligent people.' Heck no, we'd be out on the farm drinking our whiskey, shooting injuns and bopping our first cousins. And by golly, we'd like it. Of course, I can't say the same for my first cousin.
Ahh, ya probably complained that Bill Cosby wasn't a real doctor.;p
Re:Are we sure of all the health ramifications?
on
Wearable Computers
·
· Score: 2
When I was in High school they wouldn't let the teachers use a cathode ray tube because of the EM radiation, despite the fact that every day most of the kids went home and watched TVs filled with cathode ray tubes. There have been a lot of tests that have shown that non-ionizing radiation (photons from soft ultraviolet on down) has to literally be powerfull enough to cook tissue in order to cause damage.
The thing that scares me is how a while ago in Taos new mexico lots of people were hearing a noise that wasn't detectable by an occiliscope.
I don't think it was ever figured out just what was going on, but it was hypothesized that some form of radiaiton was acting directly on people's brains. I'm not sure if there's any evidence that all this electrical noise can't interfere with mental processes.
I do think it was interesting that when they send astronauts up in the shuttle, the electrical equipment operates on the same frequency as earth's 'natural heartbeat.' I can't remember the exact frequency, but the planet has a natural frequency and they figured they ought to keep it just in case our bodies were used to it.
If anyone can find any hard evidence that our bodies are better off exposed to this frequency, I'd be glad to hear about it.
Wiserd@angelfire.com
Of course you can buy intellegence...
on
Wearable Computers
·
· Score: 1
just go to a tech temp agency and you can buy all the intellegence ( or at least tech know how) that you can afford at $50 an hour.
...Just as long as you aren't looking to have sex with the temps or anything, of course.
If you had an eyepiece that manipulated the light rays correctly, adjusting to where your pupil was looking and how it was focusing you could have a fully functional 3d world. (much like they had in Snow Crash). Kindof like those optical illusion toys that they have where you put a penny between two curved mirrors and it projects a 3d image of the penny above the device.
Slashdot Mirror
When this article askes if the internet has 'peaked' it seems to be making three statements.
1. That the internet is now a mature rather than an emerging market.
AND
2. That people Have a pretty good idea of what the internet is all about and what it can offer.
3. That people are increasingly beginning to see (the internet's) limitations and shortcomings.
I agree with the third statement. I strongly disagree with the first two.
As the article mentioned, the web is no longer universally hyped.
But the web is still an emerging market. One way of judging the rate of progress in a particular market is by looking at the obsolescence curve that a particular product has. How big is the gap between the time a product is invented and the time it becomes obsolete. The gap is huge in some areas; soap making, textiles etc. These products try and differentiate themselves through advertising and brand loyalty and similar techniques, or else they try and carve out a particular price niche.
The gap from cradle to grave is still quite small in relation to 'the web/internet' (whichever you choose). Companies are judged on the basis of their merits ( or at least their perceived merits), and innovation is a constant requirement.
Businesses are beginning to learn the web's limitations. And yes, venture capital has trickled off.
But I find it difficult to believe that anyone really has a firm grasp on the possibilities of the internet. Hardware continues to improve. Bandwith continues to increase, particularly for high end applications. (look at Ohionet, which is going to be putting gigabytes of satelite information online). Likewise, tracking of individuals and their habits will no doubt improve. I don't believe the possibilities of distributed computing have even begun to be truly explored, and artificial intellegence is as yet in its infancy.
This article reads like an IBM executive turning down the possibility of producing the first Xerox machines because 'we already have carbon paper'. There were a lot of people out there who wanted the web to become a brighter shinier version of somthing that they already owned; TV. Instead, it is becomeing somthing quite different. The fact that the web is not becoming TV does not mean that the internet has stopped evolving. But the possibility of obsolesence for anyone in the tech field is still a looming threat, which means that the web will continue to buck many of the trends displayed by a mature market like coke and pepsi trying to differentiate nearly identical products through brand loyalty.
My comment should have said; average=mean statisitic that describes the most number of people=mode i.e. 'the average family has 2.5 children'. I think the artilce is unsubstantiated as hell but If you wanted to flame there were better places to do it.
average=mean statisitic that describes the most number of people=mode i.e. 'the average family has 2.5 children'. I think the artilce is unsubstantiated as hell but If you wanted to flame there were better places to do it.
I wonder what would happen if you used some of the stolen credit card numbers to send large amounts of stuff to someone that you didn't like.
Would they get arrested?
Or would they just get a whole bunch of free stuff. Of course, I'm sure that someone could have fun with this. Lets see, what could you send; live animals? pornographic material? software that forces all sorts of horrible binding conditions on the user as soon as he breaks the shrinkwrap liscense. The possibilities are endless.
If people don't have many friends, I think that they'd be more likely to play solitaire.
I can't speak for D&D, but having done roleplaying throughout my youth my grip on reality is just peachy. I can explain the citric acid cycle or the effect of merchantilistic culture on Darwin's theory of evolution. That matches the sociologically accepted definition of 'having a grip on reality', right?
Perhaps you'd like to provide just a little of the documentation which shows that "D&D is designed to immerse insecure people who probably don't have many friends into a fantasy world and cause them to lose their grip on reality" . Honesty is 9/10th cynicsm, after all.
And just for the record, a troll, according to the dictonary of computer and internet terms is definded as; "a message that is posted solely in order to stir up as many replies as possible. Trolls often contain deliberate misinformation or insults. Naturally, the person doing the trolling looks foolish, but some of them don't mind. (from troll, a fishing term.)
If the term fits...
It's a bit more than that. Most people buy things based as much on emotion as price. (I imagine a lot of techie types might be different, but geeks still have emotions. The point is that the employer shows respect. Having to say 'yes sir' all the time and be subservient isn't the best feeling, but some employers don't consider this viewpoint. If people are going to spend lots of money to find happiness and respect when they're not at work, then they should also consider an employer that provides a respectful, enjoyable workplace to be an asset. Also, think in terms of convenience. It's a bitch to change health plans etc. Any benefit which either offers convenience or creates inconvenience if withdrawn is going to be worth more than it's simple dollar value in terms of staying power. Besides, if the company gives the benefits, the employee dosen't pay taxes on them.
But technology is being used for both research and education. Of course, if you'd like to pay for me to go back to school, I won't object. ... but seriously, keep in mind that the 3D graphics engine that was developed for video games can be very useful in both research and education. I'm willing to bet that money from the video game industry will also give a very real push to the development of artificial intellegence. And the novelty seeking aspect of the entertainment industry means that it will continue to provide much needed venture capital to help give these new technologies the initial boost that they need.
I'll be able to telnet into my toaster and hack into other people's refrigerators late at night to see what there is to eat.
hmmm... pavlov ... pavlov... I can't remember what he did but the name rings a bell.
Tell me if anyone else has noticed this trend;
You; I don't think that this particular business practice is right or ethical and may not buy this company's products.
Them; (totally out of the blue) Business people/artists/software programmers have a right to be compensated!
This isn't the first time where I've heard someone launch into a rant about a creators need for compensation when that wasn't even what the conversation was _about_. The fact that so many people make this mistake so often makes me wonder how this particular response became so conditioned .
Incidentaly, I know that authors wrote to be compensated. I think much of Dicken's writing would have been a blessed bit more breif if he wasn't being paid by the word.
How do you finish a 10 chapter book you can only get
Write to the publishers. Ask them for another CD.
Thank you for puchasing legal defense for dummies. By breaking the seal on this book and reading the contents, the consumer of information, forwith refered to as the customer, signifies consent to a non-disclosure agreement whereby they will not discuss the contents of this book. If the customer chooses to do so, they will recognize that they have purchased the right to rent the ideas contained whithin the book, and will forwith pay the authors $500 remuneration for said rental. Failure to do so may result in confiscation of all media, biological or otherwise, within which this information is stored....
One advantage of the microsoft monopoly in terms of efficiency that you never hear mentioned is that Microsoft can have massive internal reuse of code- somthing that can be difficult in a closed source environment.
I'll be glad to see microsoft split up, even though it'll probably mean some loss of tax revenues for the USA as overseas companies pick up some of the slack. But it's not the end of the world.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the cultural revolution more a revolution against inequality, with intellectuals enjoying a priveleged, and thus ultimatly precarious position?
I don't know about Hong Kong, to be honest, but I heard that the chineese government hasn't been too polite with foriegn investors once they're so invested that it's hard to withdraw. They've gotten something of a bad reputation. I'm not sure what the motives of the chineese governement are for this or whether they extend to Hong Kong.
... a while back there was a guy going around asking various watchdog institutions to condemn him so that he could get free publicity.
can't remember the name.
I realize that this probably wasn't what he meant, but perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be;
"if you were constantly fed information from only a single viewpoint or bias then you may not appreciate the subjective nature of truth which is illustrated through dialouge"
kindof like Alexander the great getting his ministers together and showing them people from around the world with 'strange' cultural practices to prove to his ministers that there was more than just one way to do things.
I knew this one chick that worked at NSA (Air Force girl) that had her labia pierced.....
... and that information is accessed on a need-to-know basis.
Look at it this way.
If I go to the store to buy bread, I'll stop when I have enough bread, when the price gets too high or somthing. People may pay too much for bread, just as the government can make some really dumb decisions about what to purchase with their resouces, but they still have the capacity a cost benefit model based on the benifit gained by both parties.
This above model cannot be applied to the american legal system for several reasons.
1. Unlike other professions, where there is an impetus to make information available to people without a professional background, law has generally not followed that trend. It often seems to go out of it's way to remain 'profesionalized' which means, in part, inaccessible to the lay person. Exclusivity is helpful to practitioners of law because in helps keep the value of their labor high.
2. Perhaps even more significantly, the cost benefit analysis of the use of legal services done by a person considering bringing a suit only considers the person's own benefit, unlike a normal free maket which takes into account the cost vs. benefit of all parties. . A very rough analogy would be a person going into a hunting store with the intention of killing off his business competitors. In this cost benefit analysis, he would weigh the cost of bullets vs. the benefit gained from the elimination/woudning of his competition and maybe from crossfire. The Businessman would not have to consider the price his competition put on his own welfare, as it often wouldn't in the american legal system.
You know that there are such things as harrassment lawsuits. You know that 'protecting "rightful" property' is not the only use that businesses have for the american legal system. In biotechnology, these 'property rights' were extended to the patenting of living, preexisiting genes which were discovered by non-unique methods. An excellent example of the mallebility and injustice of existing patent laws which counters the idea that the american legal system is the equivalent of justice. No law was passed to allow living genes to become patentable and it isn't covered under existing patent law. These 'rights' cannot honestly be called democratic or an interpertation of existing law.
3. The third point ties the other two together. A company with more assets often has a benefit in bringing a suit against a smaller company since the smaller company may not be able to afford the legal fees if it loses or needs to appeal. As long as there is competition between businesses, businesses will use the legal system to harass their competition. UCITA is just one example, which will force smaller companies to expend large amounts of money to correct this 'bug' in the american legal code. The current system often only forces businesses to consider their own costs v. benefits without considering their 'victims' costs- an unplesant and often wasteful situation in a free market. This is particularly relevant in the technology sector when a company can appeal a suit long enough to outlive their competition and make the suit irrelevant. In short, the company with more assets can and often does use those assets through the american legal system to stifle it's competiton.
So to tie things together;
1.Lawyers are interested in keeping law complex so that they can continue to be well paid for their services. Thus, legal defense is more available to the wealthy. While this distribution of resources is justifiable for goods, it is not justifiable for justice.
2. Those attempting and succeeding in abusing the American legal system have only their own benefit in mind. Law should not automaticaly be considered synonymous with justice.
3. Because business to business lawsuits ( I'm talking non-injury based lawsuits) often favors those with more wealth, representation in American law is less than democratic.
In short, there isn't an ethical basis for having the american legal system exist as a purchasable resource in a free market. People who earn more money may deserve more bread or better cars, but there is no ethical basis for giving them better legal representation. I'm not a socialist by any means, but if there's one part of America that needs to be socialized it's the legal system.
I agree completly. The conflict in politics, and even in American life in general has changed drasticaly.
Polititians shun debates. Lincon and Douglas carreid on 7 debates, admittedly before television. The modern 'discussion' is a bunch of people sitting around saying "this is what I think " rather than people defining standards of evidence, contending points etc.
The only way to stop politics is by instituting a totalitarian state.
While I don't see it as a conspiricy, it worries me that kids these days are becoming more and more involved in 'organized sports', (sports organized by adults or a park district) and less capable of organizing themselves.
The basic structures underlying democracy- organized confilct and debate, the ability of the people to organize into independant groups, even a basic knowledge of history or the ability to make a cogent, logical argument are being whittled away for the bulk of the population. There are exceptions, of course, but these skills need to be mainstream for democracy to function.
Katz touched on this lack of conflict, but strangly passed over the insidiousness of it. Strange, since he seems to gravitate towards and embellish insidiousness like a kitten to warm milk.
C'mon now.
What kind of intelligence would you test? Verbal? Spatial? Mathematical? Motor coordination? Musical ability?
Most of the programs out there are used by business people or artists who really don't have the same time or abilities that most geeks do, but they do have other very valid skills and abilities. And after all, tools are supposed to be as easy to use as possible.
One of the key tenants of object oriented programming is data hiding. Programming in assembly when you don't have to is not a virtue and neither is making things more complex than is necessary. Mark me off topic if you want, but I've seen this attitude a lot on slashdot and sometimes it's valid, but often it's not. You don't have to know mechanics to drive a car. You don't have to understand physics to fly an airplane. And you don't necessarily have to know how to program in order to use a computer.
Hell, once you think about it, we wouldn't be in this predicament if it weren't for all those dang blasted 'intelligent people.' Heck no, we'd be out on the farm drinking our whiskey, shooting injuns and bopping our first cousins. And by golly, we'd like it. Of course, I can't say the same for my first cousin.
Ahh, ya probably complained that Bill Cosby wasn't a real doctor. ;p
When I was in High school they wouldn't let the teachers use a cathode ray tube because of the EM radiation, despite the fact that every day most of the kids went home and watched TVs filled with cathode ray tubes. There have been a lot of tests that have shown that non-ionizing radiation (photons from soft ultraviolet on down) has to literally be powerfull enough to cook tissue in order to cause damage.
The thing that scares me is how a while ago in Taos new mexico lots of people were hearing a noise that wasn't detectable by an occiliscope.
I don't think it was ever figured out just what was going on, but it was hypothesized that some form of radiaiton was acting directly on people's brains. I'm not sure if there's any evidence that all this electrical noise can't interfere with mental processes.
I do think it was interesting that when they send astronauts up in the shuttle, the electrical equipment operates on the same frequency as earth's 'natural heartbeat.' I can't remember the exact frequency, but the planet has a natural frequency and they figured they ought to keep it just in case our bodies were used to it.
If anyone can find any hard evidence that our bodies are better off exposed to this frequency, I'd be glad to hear about it.
Wiserd@angelfire.com
just go to a tech temp agency and you can buy all the intellegence ( or at least tech know how) that you can afford at $50 an hour.
...Just as long as you aren't looking to have sex with the temps or anything, of course.
Yes, and I'm not buying a computer until they're made by yamaha
Why on the inside of the eye?
If you had an eyepiece that manipulated the light rays correctly, adjusting to where your pupil was looking and how it was focusing you could have a fully functional 3d world. (much like they had in Snow Crash). Kindof like those optical illusion toys that they have where you put a penny between two curved mirrors and it projects a 3d image of the penny above the device.