As I see it, overreactions like this happens because politicians, bureaucrats and the justice system, all want to appear like they are taking Steps to remove the crime of child abuse. A noble cause no doubt about that (which is why it is so easy to adopt for those wanting favourable attention); unfortunately combating child abuse is difficult. Difficult because in many cases all they can do is investigate and prosecute perpetrators after instances of abuse has already happened. Therefore they try to find other ways to scare would be criminals and to beat their own drum in the process; writing laws that are supposed to protect children from abuse. But sometimes, what seems good on paper ends up punishing the innocent along with the guilty.
Nope. When I got hold of my sister laptop I re-formated it, ran anti-virus and SpyBot from the start. No viruses, no HD damage, up-to-date drivers; in short; the works. Still it was absolutely horrendous to work with; slow, sluggish and over-all not a working product (in my mind). Though buying 1gb of RAM fixed all of those problems right up.
My sister bought a Windows XP laptop wtih 512mb Ram (shared). It ran horrible, it was hard to have a browser and open office open at the same time for instance. I purchased 1gb chip and that made everything fairly smooth. However I am still thinking Dell kind of ripped her (and others off) selling a computer with less RAM than it needs to run the OS shipped with it.
When it comes to "innocent until proven guilty" I am more in favour of a "sceptical until proven safe" in relation to Co2 or pollutants. And in a marginally capitalist society taxation is one of the tools available to regulate the level of such.
However, it should be noted, that for me it isn't as much a debate about climate (which I feel is affected by our waste); but about the build up of chemicals in the ecosystem. Many of these by-products of our industry and consumption are building up in water, air and most importantly (to me anyway) inside the human body. There is no doubt in my mind that the insufficient oversight of how industrial waste is handled is directly related to a range of health issues (like cancer and asthma). In short the accumulation of waste (industrial or otherwise) can have serious long-term negative consequences for us; simply saying "innocent until proven guilty" seems a bit simplistic to me.
Why is a person who is aware of and opposed to the large-scale destructive effects and massive alterations we are having on Earth's ecosystems and climate called a "nutter" (translation for US audience: "Crazy wackjob")
They aren't, well not by me anyway. However those that done the mantle of environmentalism and then go too far; using their cause as the ultimate justification for anything and shouts mindlessly at any thing, or any one, that is perceived to either disagree or be "one of them!". That goes for people in all groups, political, social, sports related, and so on.
It's disappointing that the common definition of science fiction has degenerated so much. In classic science fiction the technology or science plays a central role in the story; it's not just part of the backdrop. If you can take the story and, without losing the central theme, re-write it in an alternate setting without the science and tech aspects then it's not real science fiction.
I guess I both agree and disagree. I like good stories and I don't really care about what genre it is or is supposed to be. But I wouldn't mind calling it Speculative Fiction if that makes you feel more comfortable. Though I reckon, to me, Science Fiction will always be anything that involves Science either as a backdrop or as an intricate part of the story itself.
Saying that Star Wars (and other stories) shouldn't be called Science Fiction since they could be told in other settings, seems like unnecessary purism.
As for the degeneration of "the common definition" I guess that depends which of the common definitions you subscribe to. Dictionary.com for instance list (among the definitions) "Science fiction
n. A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background. Which leaves the definition pretty wide.
Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a liberal the liberal only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.
And how is this different from how a "conservative" deals with the same situation? There are dogmatic believers on both sides (and honestly there are far far more sides than just Liberal/Conservative). People that believe you have to chose between Liberal or Conservative are already taking a step into a world of Us Vs Them that instils in their followers a world view that scares me; and leaves many of them incapable of dealing with Reality in a reasonable and pragmatic manner.
People are people whatever party/faction/group they support. The Us Vs Them mentality is the death of debate, reason and democracy.
While I will wholeheartedly agree that there are dogmatic idiots on both sides of this issue. And while I have no personal experience or knowledge on how, what and why things happen the way they do; I feel that those supporting doing nothing and ignoring any potential problem related to global warming and increased pollution are sticking their heads in the sand.
This isn't just about Environmental Nutters (though there are plenty of those); it's about responsible use of our resources and how to dispose of any waste generated. Continually, and increasingly, dumping chemicals and pumping exhaust from cars and factories into the atmosphere is not a positive thing. Our planet is big, and the problems related to increased pollution builds up over time; but it is absolutely clear in my mind that we can't keep doing what we do; there are simply too many people on the planet for it to magically absorb and breakdown all our waste (especially at the level we now generate and discard it).
Basically my point is that investing and researching more energy efficient ways is a good thing. Cutting down on consumption, and perhaps thinking a bit more about the stability and continuity of our ecosystem is a good thing.
Once a person out of desperation, or greed, turns to crime to make money for the necessities of life; it is only natural that they use whatever skills they have to the task. An increase in unemployment among IT professionals, and a tough job-marked all around, this sort of development don't surprise me.
I agree. I reckon the movie industry will have to stop going by box-office sales soon enough. The DvD/Blue-Ray/Download market is becoming a giant in its own right. There are several friends of mine that almost never go to the cinema, even if there are movies they would enjoy. Instead they purchase movies to watch at home at, as you say, rather sweet home cinema setup. A setting were, they feel, that they can truly enjoy the movie to a degree beyond a "mere cinema".
Watching a movie in a cinema might provide excellent screen and sound for the most part; but watching a blue-ray at home on a 50inch HDTV with a good surround system is pretty much better for other reasons (like greatly increased comfort and greatly lowered price of candy).
Something that is not mentioned is that this movie was released to a financial market a lot more dampened than just a year, or two years ago. I find it hard to believe that the financial situation hasn't lessened somewhat peoples desire and capacity to go to the cinema.
Further more I would like to say that I think Hollywood wastes a lot of money on making movies; that is not to say that movies don't take money; or that certain movies don't deserve a big budget. However, I think that during the last years and decades, the budget for a movie has become bloated beyond restraint. Money is being wasted left and right on goods, services and people in a way that can not continue. Personally it is my belief that the price-tag on most mainstream movies these days is vastly more than it should be and that because of the current financial situation Hollywood, directors and actors, have to realise this and perhaps lower their requirements and desires just a bit.
IMNSHO, science fiction is not about spaceships, space battles, people killing each other in spaces, monsters killing people, and most variations thereof. Science fiction is about exploring possible technical advances and their implications, as well as human nature in extreme situations and the like.
Oh I did not mean to imply that Science Fiction can't be both. I also enjoy lots of science fiction literature that involves no, or only marginally, killing of any variation what so ever. For me Science Fiction means any narrative or story set in a world at a higher technological stage than us. I was just naming the battles and killing parts specifically since it tied into my thoughts about Battlestar Galactica.
As for the making you think part I like when stories makes me think new things. Unfortunately in this case I have read, watched and pondered about a lot of interesting or outright weird things for what begins to seem like a long time now; so BG didn't introduce me to anything new in that regard. However, if it did for others that is indeed great. A broadening of ones horizons is always a good thing in my opinion.
I watched every episode of Battlestar Galactic so, with a mix of interest and boredom. On one hand I really life science fiction. Lets be honest, I love spaceships, space battles, people killing each other in spaces, monsters killing people, and most variations thereof. But the "spiritual" aspects of Battlestar Galactica has been a bit of a yawn for me.
They got a decent production, good actors (for the most part), decent costumes and design, and plots and episodes ranging from very entertaining, to out right silliness and cheese.
That being said; I will enjoy seeing how they try to connect it all together and I probably will check out the spin-off series if/when it hit the stream.
By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?
Serious study and research into the evolution of man and origin of our planet and the cosmos is already being done. Getting creationism in line with "current scientific thought" would pretty much destroy the fundamentals behind it. The idea that the universe is 6000 years old does not fit and can not be made to fit without a leap of faith that usually discounts any research and knowledge gained as lies or Satanic propaganda.
In short, if you "cleared away all the religious baggage" from creationism you leave nothing. Creationism is by definition religious baggage.
I guess the paranoid mind could be forgiven for thinking that it looks like the leaders of AIG want to buy some major goodwill among their "high-end" employees. Perhaps so they will join them when they create a new company a little bit down the road.
Slashdot have a relatively behaved and intelligent average poster (at least compared to most other public forums); and this is a subject of great personal interest. Further more the forum structure maintained by Slashdot is good at ensuring the debate not get filled with rubbish (much). So all in all I say I find these types of "non-tech" news refreshing and stimulating.:)
I say to either let them die outright, or nationalize it for a period to reorganize the company; then sell it back to the private sector. Perhaps keep a large minority share until the company is firmly under rational control (if that is possible).
Every time I turn around I see another "flying car" that just can't get off the ground financially or technically.
This one could possibly be different, but I'm just not holding my breath.
I think it's a waste of time. The logistics involved with actually having a non-trivial number of these things up in the air over urban areas without mass casualties are just too difficult.
I reckon for flying personal vehicles to be actually feasible you need anti-gravity, a portal powersource capable of powering said anti-gravity-device, and some sort of master control network capable of automating and coordinating all such vehicles in the air to ensure they don't collide (among other things). So I would say the likelihood of personal air vehicles becoming feasible is rather slim at the moment.
2) All of western democracies have shown a sharp turn towards the police state in the last decade. Something they all used to stand up against and accuse non-democracies of being evil for the same polocies.
Oh this is nothing new. Western Democracies have a long tradition for demonizing nations that have a different ideology (or just plainly is a competitor for power and influence).
Desperately hoping to avoid invoking Godwin's Law I would argue that Churchill and Roosevelt (and their government's) presented WW2 as a war against Evil, Oppression and Tyranny (something most of us would agree with I am sure). However they also nicely danced around the fact that one of their major allies were responsible for actions and policies not that different from the Dictatorship they fought against. Or for that matter ignoring certain actions undertaken by themselves (like medical experiments on prisoners to develop a vaccine against malaria in case of a land invasion of Japan).
Point is through the internet it has (happily) become far easier to spot discrepancies between fact and presentation or claims by politicians. But that does not mean that propaganda, lies and hypocrisy is new (or wars for power, influence and resources for that matter).
It remains as important as ever that citizens try to gain information, news and input in general, from many different sources and use their reason to consider the material. To stay informed, to stay sceptical and to call their representatives on their lies and oppose legislation that would corrupt the ideals of many democracies; Freedom and Justice.
I'd say not having a 18+ rating on Video Games make them looking even sillier than that. Though I reckon one could argue that it is part of the same ideological perspective; as opposed to a pragmatic perspective. Being seen to be "Doing Something" has always been many politicians prime concern. However Doing Something Wrong (for whatever reason) is worse than Doing Nothing; it's just politicians think Doing Nothing makes them look weak so they become desperate for things to try even to the point where they close their ears to rational arguments until the entire thing explodes in their face (which unfortunately in most situations translations into "citizens suffer for stupid ideas implemented by their elected officials".)
In Norway, so far, they only DNS block sites connected to child abuse. I have yet to hear any report of sites beyond that being blocked. While it can be said to be a measure that is easy to bypass; at least it means that, in theory, those that they find in connection to these sites will have actively circumvented the mild barrier in place to get at such material.
While I am a strong advocate for free speech; I do not feel any particular resentment against my government for trying to reduce access to pornographic material that violates Norwegian law. However, if they take a step beyond that I will be among the first to argue for protest, civil disobedience, and further action should that prove to be insufficient. Though I reckon in any Democracy not voting for people that support further censorship is step One.
I guess it is high time proper behaviour in the digital landscape become a serious, and mandatory, course at all elementary and high schools. And perhaps send someone around to politicians, judges, teachers, and generally everyone above the age of twenty who do not know not to post stupid shit online.
"So, Johnathan, what did you do today?' Oh, nothing really. I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money!"
and
"Oh, and nobody buy Stoam. It's bad mojo, and they'll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is $12M lighter. http://www.stoam.com/ [stoam.com]."
Those comments pretty much makes it look like this guy should never have been a juror in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
As I see it, overreactions like this happens because politicians, bureaucrats and the justice system, all want to appear like they are taking Steps to remove the crime of child abuse. A noble cause no doubt about that (which is why it is so easy to adopt for those wanting favourable attention); unfortunately combating child abuse is difficult. Difficult because in many cases all they can do is investigate and prosecute perpetrators after instances of abuse has already happened. Therefore they try to find other ways to scare would be criminals and to beat their own drum in the process; writing laws that are supposed to protect children from abuse. But sometimes, what seems good on paper ends up punishing the innocent along with the guilty.
Experts predict Computers to get faster with time! News at eleven.
Nope. When I got hold of my sister laptop I re-formated it, ran anti-virus and SpyBot from the start. No viruses, no HD damage, up-to-date drivers; in short; the works. Still it was absolutely horrendous to work with; slow, sluggish and over-all not a working product (in my mind). Though buying 1gb of RAM fixed all of those problems right up.
My sister bought a Windows XP laptop wtih 512mb Ram (shared). It ran horrible, it was hard to have a browser and open office open at the same time for instance. I purchased 1gb chip and that made everything fairly smooth. However I am still thinking Dell kind of ripped her (and others off) selling a computer with less RAM than it needs to run the OS shipped with it.
When it comes to "innocent until proven guilty" I am more in favour of a "sceptical until proven safe" in relation to Co2 or pollutants. And in a marginally capitalist society taxation is one of the tools available to regulate the level of such.
However, it should be noted, that for me it isn't as much a debate about climate (which I feel is affected by our waste); but about the build up of chemicals in the ecosystem. Many of these by-products of our industry and consumption are building up in water, air and most importantly (to me anyway) inside the human body. There is no doubt in my mind that the insufficient oversight of how industrial waste is handled is directly related to a range of health issues (like cancer and asthma). In short the accumulation of waste (industrial or otherwise) can have serious long-term negative consequences for us; simply saying "innocent until proven guilty" seems a bit simplistic to me.
Why is a person who is aware of and opposed to the large-scale destructive effects and massive alterations we are having on Earth's ecosystems and climate called a "nutter" (translation for US audience: "Crazy wackjob")
They aren't, well not by me anyway.
However those that done the mantle of environmentalism and then go too far; using their cause as the ultimate justification for anything and shouts mindlessly at any thing, or any one, that is perceived to either disagree or be "one of them!". That goes for people in all groups, political, social, sports related, and so on.
It's disappointing that the common definition of science fiction has degenerated so much. In classic science fiction the technology or science plays a central role in the story; it's not just part of the backdrop. If you can take the story and, without losing the central theme, re-write it in an alternate setting without the science and tech aspects then it's not real science fiction.
I guess I both agree and disagree. I like good stories and I don't really care about what genre it is or is supposed to be. But I wouldn't mind calling it Speculative Fiction if that makes you feel more comfortable. Though I reckon, to me, Science Fiction will always be anything that involves Science either as a backdrop or as an intricate part of the story itself.
Saying that Star Wars (and other stories) shouldn't be called Science Fiction since they could be told in other settings, seems like unnecessary purism.
As for the degeneration of "the common definition" I guess that depends which of the common definitions you subscribe to. Dictionary.com for instance list (among the definitions)
"Science fiction n. A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
Which leaves the definition pretty wide.
Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a liberal the liberal only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.
And how is this different from how a "conservative" deals with the same situation? There are dogmatic believers on both sides (and honestly there are far far more sides than just Liberal/Conservative). People that believe you have to chose between Liberal or Conservative are already taking a step into a world of Us Vs Them that instils in their followers a world view that scares me; and leaves many of them incapable of dealing with Reality in a reasonable and pragmatic manner.
People are people whatever party/faction/group they support. The Us Vs Them mentality is the death of debate, reason and democracy.
While I will wholeheartedly agree that there are dogmatic idiots on both sides of this issue. And while I have no personal experience or knowledge on how, what and why things happen the way they do; I feel that those supporting doing nothing and ignoring any potential problem related to global warming and increased pollution are sticking their heads in the sand.
This isn't just about Environmental Nutters (though there are plenty of those); it's about responsible use of our resources and how to dispose of any waste generated. Continually, and increasingly, dumping chemicals and pumping exhaust from cars and factories into the atmosphere is not a positive thing. Our planet is big, and the problems related to increased pollution builds up over time; but it is absolutely clear in my mind that we can't keep doing what we do; there are simply too many people on the planet for it to magically absorb and breakdown all our waste (especially at the level we now generate and discard it).
Basically my point is that investing and researching more energy efficient ways is a good thing. Cutting down on consumption, and perhaps thinking a bit more about the stability and continuity of our ecosystem is a good thing.
Once a person out of desperation, or greed, turns to crime to make money for the necessities of life; it is only natural that they use whatever skills they have to the task. An increase in unemployment among IT professionals, and a tough job-marked all around, this sort of development don't surprise me.
I agree. I reckon the movie industry will have to stop going by box-office sales soon enough. The DvD/Blue-Ray/Download market is becoming a giant in its own right. There are several friends of mine that almost never go to the cinema, even if there are movies they would enjoy. Instead they purchase movies to watch at home at, as you say, rather sweet home cinema setup. A setting were, they feel, that they can truly enjoy the movie to a degree beyond a "mere cinema".
Watching a movie in a cinema might provide excellent screen and sound for the most part; but watching a blue-ray at home on a 50inch HDTV with a good surround system is pretty much better for other reasons (like greatly increased comfort and greatly lowered price of candy).
Something that is not mentioned is that this movie was released to a financial market a lot more dampened than just a year, or two years ago. I find it hard to believe that the financial situation hasn't lessened somewhat peoples desire and capacity to go to the cinema.
Further more I would like to say that I think Hollywood wastes a lot of money on making movies; that is not to say that movies don't take money; or that certain movies don't deserve a big budget. However, I think that during the last years and decades, the budget for a movie has become bloated beyond restraint. Money is being wasted left and right on goods, services and people in a way that can not continue. Personally it is my belief that the price-tag on most mainstream movies these days is vastly more than it should be and that because of the current financial situation Hollywood, directors and actors, have to realise this and perhaps lower their requirements and desires just a bit.
I mean that's why us SciFi fans are such continuity freaks, we want it all to fit, that's what makes it more real for us.
If you were a real SciFi fan you would have said something like "the paradigm needs to be self-contained within it's own continuum." ;)
IMNSHO, science fiction is not about spaceships, space battles, people killing each other in spaces, monsters killing people, and most variations thereof. Science fiction is about exploring possible technical advances and their implications, as well as human nature in extreme situations and the like.
Oh I did not mean to imply that Science Fiction can't be both. I also enjoy lots of science fiction literature that involves no, or only marginally, killing of any variation what so ever. For me Science Fiction means any narrative or story set in a world at a higher technological stage than us. I was just naming the battles and killing parts specifically since it tied into my thoughts about Battlestar Galactica.
As for the making you think part I like when stories makes me think new things. Unfortunately in this case I have read, watched and pondered about a lot of interesting or outright weird things for what begins to seem like a long time now; so BG didn't introduce me to anything new in that regard. However, if it did for others that is indeed great. A broadening of ones horizons is always a good thing in my opinion.
P.S. 2 min of furious shouting for Firefly.
I watched every episode of Battlestar Galactic so, with a mix of interest and boredom. On one hand I really life science fiction. Lets be honest, I love spaceships, space battles, people killing each other in spaces, monsters killing people, and most variations thereof. But the "spiritual" aspects of Battlestar Galactica has been a bit of a yawn for me.
They got a decent production, good actors (for the most part), decent costumes and design, and plots and episodes ranging from very entertaining, to out right silliness and cheese.
That being said; I will enjoy seeing how they try to connect it all together and I probably will check out the spin-off series if/when it hit the stream.
P.S. Bring back Firefly ffs!
By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?
Serious study and research into the evolution of man and origin of our planet and the cosmos is already being done. Getting creationism in line with "current scientific thought" would pretty much destroy the fundamentals behind it. The idea that the universe is 6000 years old does not fit and can not be made to fit without a leap of faith that usually discounts any research and knowledge gained as lies or Satanic propaganda.
In short, if you "cleared away all the religious baggage" from creationism you leave nothing. Creationism is by definition religious baggage.
I guess the paranoid mind could be forgiven for thinking that it looks like the leaders of AIG want to buy some major goodwill among their "high-end" employees. Perhaps so they will join them when they create a new company a little bit down the road.
Slashdot have a relatively behaved and intelligent average poster (at least compared to most other public forums); and this is a subject of great personal interest. Further more the forum structure maintained by Slashdot is good at ensuring the debate not get filled with rubbish (much). So all in all I say I find these types of "non-tech" news refreshing and stimulating. :)
I say to either let them die outright, or nationalize it for a period to reorganize the company; then sell it back to the private sector. Perhaps keep a large minority share until the company is firmly under rational control (if that is possible).
Every time I turn around I see another "flying car" that just can't get off the ground financially or technically.
This one could possibly be different, but I'm just not holding my breath.
I think it's a waste of time. The logistics involved with actually having a non-trivial number of these things up in the air over urban areas without mass casualties are just too difficult.
I reckon for flying personal vehicles to be actually feasible you need anti-gravity, a portal powersource capable of powering said anti-gravity-device, and some sort of master control network capable of automating and coordinating all such vehicles in the air to ensure they don't collide (among other things). So I would say the likelihood of personal air vehicles becoming feasible is rather slim at the moment.
Bye and thanks for all the insects?
2) All of western democracies have shown a sharp turn towards the police state in the last decade. Something they all used to stand up against and accuse non-democracies of being evil for the same polocies.
Oh this is nothing new. Western Democracies have a long tradition for demonizing nations that have a different ideology (or just plainly is a competitor for power and influence).
Desperately hoping to avoid invoking Godwin's Law I would argue that Churchill and Roosevelt (and their government's) presented WW2 as a war against Evil, Oppression and Tyranny (something most of us would agree with I am sure). However they also nicely danced around the fact that one of their major allies were responsible for actions and policies not that different from the Dictatorship they fought against. Or for that matter ignoring certain actions undertaken by themselves (like medical experiments on prisoners to develop a vaccine against malaria in case of a land invasion of Japan).
Point is through the internet it has (happily) become far easier to spot discrepancies between fact and presentation or claims by politicians. But that does not mean that propaganda, lies and hypocrisy is new (or wars for power, influence and resources for that matter).
It remains as important as ever that citizens try to gain information, news and input in general, from many different sources and use their reason to consider the material. To stay informed, to stay sceptical and to call their representatives on their lies and oppose legislation that would corrupt the ideals of many democracies; Freedom and Justice.
I'd say not having a 18+ rating on Video Games make them looking even sillier than that. Though I reckon one could argue that it is part of the same ideological perspective; as opposed to a pragmatic perspective. Being seen to be "Doing Something" has always been many politicians prime concern. However Doing Something Wrong (for whatever reason) is worse than Doing Nothing; it's just politicians think Doing Nothing makes them look weak so they become desperate for things to try even to the point where they close their ears to rational arguments until the entire thing explodes in their face (which unfortunately in most situations translations into "citizens suffer for stupid ideas implemented by their elected officials".)
In Norway, so far, they only DNS block sites connected to child abuse. I have yet to hear any report of sites beyond that being blocked. While it can be said to be a measure that is easy to bypass; at least it means that, in theory, those that they find in connection to these sites will have actively circumvented the mild barrier in place to get at such material.
While I am a strong advocate for free speech; I do not feel any particular resentment against my government for trying to reduce access to pornographic material that violates Norwegian law. However, if they take a step beyond that I will be among the first to argue for protest, civil disobedience, and further action should that prove to be insufficient. Though I reckon in any Democracy not voting for people that support further censorship is step One.
"So, Johnathan, what did you do today?' Oh, nothing really. I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money!" and "Oh, and nobody buy Stoam. It's bad mojo, and they'll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is $12M lighter. http://www.stoam.com/ [stoam.com]."
Those comments pretty much makes it look like this guy should never have been a juror in the first place.