Hundreds of millions of OECD inhabitants were slowly seeing their freedom of movement comprimised by the progression of lawsuits aimed, in the aggregate, at reducing the Internet to something as dull and profitable as a supermarket. To the early 21st century governments, creating laws in favor of their multinational blackmailers/financiers, the decentralized mass of individualistic hedonists were easy to isolate and sue on a individual basis. No collective of internet users ever rose up to claim their rights. No collective of internet consumers even attempted to try and push for historical changes to the way mankind handeled copyright licences on culture/information/art.
It was only in hindsight, somewhere around 2040 AD that children asked their (formerly slashdotting (grand)parents) why they had had, in their hands, the opportunity to change the world for the better, yet resigned to waiting until the MPAA knocked on their door.
...now ain't the downward social comparison always the one that makes you feel better about yourself?...woe North Koreans?
ya! and what's more. for every 2 years of education, a woman is likely to have one child less over the course of her life, so getting smart is really dumb!
?
Departing from evolutionary logic presented in this article, my best bet for human evolution is a slight mutation which makes bones stronger and bigger, so better to carry the bulk of fastfood consumed.. homo sapiens extra lard
the Chinese would hurry up with their new internet already!
In my opinion totalitarian states judge fairer than capitalist powerhouse judicial systems
Don't Yanks ever get fed up with the way in which their legal system transforms society into a mechanical, 'i can't do that because it would make me liable', stilted, joke of a community? I cannot imagine what its like to live in a country where inhabitants cling tightly to nationalist ideals on the one hand, and on the other hand so desperately try to sue eachother out of having a normal life. Its a dead giveaway of a nation spoiled beyond comparison..
I work for a knowledge institute concerning itself with fossil fuels. I have to say that the stuff i read in this discussion forum is regurgitation of every conceivable argument or debate i have ever followed on the peak oil theorem.
you have:
a) a small minority of people who can get their heads around the fact that the world's oil and gas reserves will not be here come 2100, and that it will thus take roughly the span of two intellectual generations to change our entire (think about this for a second) way of life or at least (yes, sceptics) that part of out lives which is centered around fossil energy use, but how do these two differ?
b) sceptics, usually the large majority of people. They break down into freshmen-year economists (the famous "price goes up, substitution will take place" theorem). Techno optimists, such as the Malthusian "technology continued to feed our expanding population" (e.g the cooky jar is infinitely full) theorem, or the hydrogyn optimists, solar panels, nuclear energy, etc.
I personally believe that technological barriers are there to be broken, and that another form (most likely solar) will in the long-term replace our current fossil fuel usage (but probably not before we light up and smoke every cubic inch of vile material such as nuclear, coal, lignite, etc - freshman year economics, remember?). In that sense, the idea of energy shortage is very much that, an idea.
what worries me most is the notion that each country can solve its problems for itsel. People, the biggest challenge mankind faces in the 21st century is not "when and how will technology aid us" but rather, "will the transition be smooth, or will large groups of (poor)people miss out?".
don't forget oil and gas are the most energy-intensive substance on this planet, this means CHEAP energy. This is the driving force behind, for instance, the process of economic globalization (the fact that it is cheaper to ship stuff over thousands of kilometres), but it is also represented in our status symbols: big cars, big tvs, airconditioned cities right in the middle of the desert and high-tech energy guzzling military machines. What we are up against is not technology or econmics, it's mentality, its asking people if they would mind their economy NOT growing, it's ethics.
on a closing note i must say it seriously offends me that a story on North Korea's nuke draws approximately 3-4 times as many comments as something as paramount as this. But perhaps that largely betrays our inclination towards the short-term, the very mechanism that got us in this mess in the first place.;)
George the II and his cabinet even adopted an attack plan stating that if any Americans charged with warcrimes are ever held in The Hague, the US military is allowed to go in and 'rescue' them.
eehhm... just to clarify things a bit: nuclear waste, or U238 is commonly referred to as plutonium. Not that I am an expert in that field, but i dare say a few grammes of that stuff could destroy most macro-organisms populating this planet.
Japanese people's obsession/fascination with robots does indeed root in its history. To avoid going into detail: Lord Oda (anyone ever play shogun total war?) introduced the practice of using arquebuses in warfare at the battle of Nagashino http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nagashino/ they were therafter used with great succes in battle until the victory of Tokugawa (who succesfully scared his enemies into joining him through the use of firearms, in mid-battle) at the battle of Sekigahara.
Tokugawa then proceeded to ban the use of firearms from battle, considering them to be an unfair advantage, dishonorable, etc. However, guns had become extremely popular in japanese warfare, giving rise to a large caste of gunsmiths, all of whom lost their job due to this imperial decree.
These gunsmiths then proceeded to turn their attention away from crafting firearms, instead focussing on mainly technological gadgets (we're talking 17th century here) like clockworks. Herein we find the roots of Japan's culture of small and intricate parts.
I learned all of this during my travels to the country, while assembling what felt like a few-thousand piece gundam with a Japanese friend of mine, asking myself the very same question "what the hell is up with all these microscopic parts?"
is the way in which technological innovation (i.e. a cellphone) allows countries to 'skip' older technology and move straight on to the newer ones, thus catching up quicker.
Even though my knowledge of cellular biology, or actually biology as a whole, doesnt extend beyond highschool I'm hardly surprised.
The human body consists of clusters of cells working together; from the very microscopic glands to the organs that make up our body, it's the process of cooperation and placing that makes it an organism. Thus, the added extra little bit of information, translating to slightly more genes, could simply be the 'manual' of where in our body and how, the cell should function.
i think you have a point. I never played WoW, but I've seen friends play it and from the looks of it i don't like it. it says somewhere along this thread that in the game you 'kill quickly'.... Kill quickly? ever played Diablo II (a 6 year old game, max 8 players per server.. repetative insanity) with a level 70 Lance Barbarian? watch your character Plow through 600 beasties per second on Whirlwind mode! Don't like hack n slash characters? No Problem! build your own level 60 Sorceress (max her spellcasting speed out with the increadibly huge amount of items available) and lob frozen orbs at literally HORDES of bots.. still not satisfied? Try a Bowazon.. see how you can SPRAY the entire screen full of arrows while the Cows are being Pushed ever backwards by your Knockback bow...
Dudes!.. you've been had, WoW sucks!; sure, it looks neat-o-rama in a Disney kind of way, but this better be one pretty looking game if that keeps you going for long (a-la DS2 graphics perhaps?), the map is big (so was the Ascii map of Medevia = large mud server, but these things do not compensate for having to wait 10 seconds before you can shoot your icebolt (or whatever its called) off at a monster for a lousy 1400 max damage(and ONLY if you've not been given the order to 'sheep'). I want a 5800-6200 damage whirlwind attack through a line of 30+ halberd-wielding Goats!!
so where then, lies the real attraction of WoW, you ask?
i think that the answer must lie in the (now much researched) pseudo-real social interaction that people engage in while playing. Not only in a normative way (i.e. 18.000 people play on this server over 5 horus a day, and i'm only at 4 so whats the big deal, an example of such reinforcing mechanisms), I feel that the gratification to ones social desires that comes with playing such a game are very much underestimated.
but that's just my humble opinion
It's interesting to see how the aspect of a rat-race always prevail so many of these mutual cooperation or mutual non-cooperation problems.
on the one hand there is indeed now a threat and a weapon where there was none before, on the other hand you never know what the governments of other nations have in store for you or rather what the future will bring.
in my opinion it's one of the greatest social problems humankind will face during the process of globalization; should we all commit to the ratrace?(i.e. should we lower wages in order to prevent jobs being moved abroad?, should we build weapons in anticipation of future dilemmas?) and if i choose not to, then what will the consequences be if everyone else does?
Slashdot Mirror
It was only in hindsight, somewhere around 2040 AD that children asked their (formerly slashdotting (grand)parents) why they had had, in their hands, the opportunity to change the world for the better, yet resigned to waiting until the MPAA knocked on their door.
?
Departing from evolutionary logic presented in this article, my best bet for human evolution is a slight mutation which makes bones stronger and bigger, so better to carry the bulk of fastfood consumed.. homo sapiens extra lard
In my opinion totalitarian states judge fairer than capitalist powerhouse judicial systems
Don't Yanks ever get fed up with the way in which their legal system transforms society into a mechanical, 'i can't do that because it would make me liable', stilted, joke of a community? I cannot imagine what its like to live in a country where inhabitants cling tightly to nationalist ideals on the one hand, and on the other hand so desperately try to sue eachother out of having a normal life. Its a dead giveaway of a nation spoiled beyond comparison..
err.. dude.. perhaps there is a causal connection between the amount of typos and the fact that they DO NOT LIVE IN AN ANGLOSAXON COUNTRY?
I work for a knowledge institute concerning itself with fossil fuels. I have to say that the stuff i read in this discussion forum is regurgitation of every conceivable argument or debate i have ever followed on the peak oil theorem.
you have:
a) a small minority of people who can get their heads around the fact that the world's oil and gas reserves will not be here come 2100, and that it will thus take roughly the span of two intellectual generations to change our entire (think about this for a second) way of life or at least (yes, sceptics) that part of out lives which is centered around fossil energy use, but how do these two differ?
b) sceptics, usually the large majority of people. They break down into freshmen-year economists (the famous "price goes up, substitution will take place" theorem). Techno optimists, such as the Malthusian "technology continued to feed our expanding population" (e.g the cooky jar is infinitely full) theorem, or the hydrogyn optimists, solar panels, nuclear energy, etc.
I personally believe that technological barriers are there to be broken, and that another form (most likely solar) will in the long-term replace our current fossil fuel usage (but probably not before we light up and smoke every cubic inch of vile material such as nuclear, coal, lignite, etc - freshman year economics, remember?). In that sense, the idea of energy shortage is very much that, an idea.
what worries me most is the notion that each country can solve its problems for itsel. People, the biggest challenge mankind faces in the 21st century is not "when and how will technology aid us" but rather, "will the transition be smooth, or will large groups of (poor)people miss out?".
don't forget oil and gas are the most energy-intensive substance on this planet, this means CHEAP energy. This is the driving force behind, for instance, the process of economic globalization (the fact that it is cheaper to ship stuff over thousands of kilometres), but it is also represented in our status symbols: big cars, big tvs, airconditioned cities right in the middle of the desert and high-tech energy guzzling military machines. What we are up against is not technology or econmics, it's mentality, its asking people if they would mind their economy NOT growing, it's ethics.
on a closing note i must say it seriously offends me that a story on North Korea's nuke draws approximately 3-4 times as many comments as something as paramount as this. But perhaps that largely betrays our inclination towards the short-term, the very mechanism that got us in this mess in the first place. ;)
George the II and his cabinet even adopted an attack plan stating that if any Americans charged with warcrimes are ever held in The Hague, the US military is allowed to go in and 'rescue' them.
that in turn reminds me of that book Snow Crash, the hyperinflation storyline
Seeing how Youtube has never in its history turned any profits, and still gets bought for 1.3 million dollars.
I Heard em say on the radio this morning that the yield was estimated at about 2 Kilotons.
eehhm... just to clarify things a bit: nuclear waste, or U238 is commonly referred to as plutonium. Not that I am an expert in that field, but i dare say a few grammes of that stuff could destroy most macro-organisms populating this planet.
verily.. how strange..
To avoid going into detail: Lord Oda (anyone ever play shogun total war?) introduced the practice of using arquebuses in warfare at the battle of Nagashino http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nagashino/ they were therafter used with great succes in battle until the victory of Tokugawa (who succesfully scared his enemies into joining him through the use of firearms, in mid-battle) at the battle of Sekigahara.
Tokugawa then proceeded to ban the use of firearms from battle, considering them to be an unfair advantage, dishonorable, etc. However, guns had become extremely popular in japanese warfare, giving rise to a large caste of gunsmiths, all of whom lost their job due to this imperial decree.
These gunsmiths then proceeded to turn their attention away from crafting firearms, instead focussing on mainly technological gadgets (we're talking 17th century here) like clockworks. Herein we find the roots of Japan's culture of small and intricate parts.
I learned all of this during my travels to the country, while assembling what felt like a few-thousand piece gundam with a Japanese friend of mine, asking myself the very same question "what the hell is up with all these microscopic parts?"
and with that game on there, it might as well have been a top 1 all-time-games list!
is the way in which technological innovation (i.e. a cellphone) allows countries to 'skip' older technology and move straight on to the newer ones, thus catching up quicker.
Even though my knowledge of cellular biology, or actually biology as a whole, doesnt extend beyond highschool I'm hardly surprised.
The human body consists of clusters of cells working together; from the very microscopic glands to the organs that make up our body, it's the process of cooperation and placing that makes it an organism. Thus, the added extra little bit of information, translating to slightly more genes, could simply be the 'manual' of where in our body and how, the cell should function.
i think you have a point. I never played WoW, but I've seen friends play it and from the looks of it i don't like it. it says somewhere along this thread that in the game you 'kill quickly' .... Kill quickly? ever played Diablo II (a 6 year old game, max 8 players per server.. repetative insanity) with a level 70 Lance Barbarian? watch your character Plow through 600 beasties per second on Whirlwind mode! Don't like hack n slash characters? No Problem! build your own level 60 Sorceress (max her spellcasting speed out with the increadibly huge amount of items available) and lob frozen orbs at literally HORDES of bots.. still not satisfied? Try a Bowazon .. see how you can SPRAY the entire screen full of arrows while the Cows are being Pushed ever backwards by your Knockback bow...
Dudes!.. you've been had, WoW sucks!; sure, it looks neat-o-rama in a Disney kind of way, but this better be one pretty looking game if that keeps you going for long (a-la DS2 graphics perhaps?), the map is big (so was the Ascii map of Medevia = large mud server, but these things do not compensate for having to wait 10 seconds before you can shoot your icebolt (or whatever its called) off at a monster for a lousy 1400 max damage(and ONLY if you've not been given the order to 'sheep'). I want a 5800-6200 damage whirlwind attack through a line of 30+ halberd-wielding Goats!!
so where then, lies the real attraction of WoW, you ask?
i think that the answer must lie in the (now much researched) pseudo-real social interaction that people engage in while playing. Not only in a normative way (i.e. 18.000 people play on this server over 5 horus a day, and i'm only at 4 so whats the big deal, an example of such reinforcing mechanisms), I feel that the gratification to ones social desires that comes with playing such a game are very much underestimated.
but that's just my humble opinion
It's interesting to see how the aspect of a rat-race always prevail so many of these mutual cooperation or mutual non-cooperation problems.
on the one hand there is indeed now a threat and a weapon where there was none before, on the other hand you never know what the governments of other nations have in store for you or rather what the future will bring.
in my opinion it's one of the greatest social problems humankind will face during the process of globalization; should we all commit to the ratrace?(i.e. should we lower wages in order to prevent jobs being moved abroad?, should we build weapons in anticipation of future dilemmas?) and if i choose not to, then what will the consequences be if everyone else does?