As I replied above, yes: technology is supposed to improve our lives and make tasks simpler.
How, exactly does a non-mechanical ignition system (that apparently can be broken by proximity to a cellphone) achieve either or both of those goals, over a good, old-fashioned metal, essentially fail-proof key?
When I lived in DC, I did exactly that. Where I'm at now, there is no reliable public transportation and my job requires me to carry large amounts of heavy, fragile equipment thereby requiring a car.
When I'm not working, or my kit is light I walk whenever possible. When walking's not possible I do try to carpool to save energy.
I appreciate that people got by for thousands of years without cars. I also appreciate the advantages that technology affords us. Cars are not inherently bad. , nor is driving them. The problem is they (among other products) lose their functionality at the hands of "over-teching".
A good solution is one that is firstly functional, then simple, then elegant.
This is precisely why, at least where I live, the cars you most commonly see are more than 15 years old OR are less than three years old.
The relative simplicity of cars even from the early 1990's, nevermind the 60's and 70's, is what allows them to stay on the road so long. They're easier to work on (no super-expensive diagnostic equipment needed in most cases), the parts are made of stronger metals (steel and iron instead of aluminum and plastic) and the electrical systems are more independent of eachother than in today's cars.
The electrical mess that is today's cars is probably the single largest contributing factor to people's desire to replace a car instead of repairing it. Electrical gremlins are one of the hardest problems to chase down in today's cars because everything is sensor this and computer that. The systems are not redundant in most cases, and the parts and skills necessary to fix the problem once its diagnosed can be cost-prohibitive.
In an age when everyone is rightfully concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency, why are we building cars that are very complicated, have a high energy cost to produce and go straight to the junkyard, on average, in less than 10 years?
The worst problem is that, with the exception of some of the more advanced engine control systems allowing better fuel economy, very few of these electronic 'improvements' actually make driving safer, better or more enjoyable.
I mean, as cool as it looks to wave an electronic key and have the car start, have we gotten to the point where a mechanical lock and tumbler are too hard to turn?
People got along for more than 100 years in cars without GPS systems telling them (in some cases incorrectly) to "turn right in 300 yards".
Even hybrid gas-electric cars are based on 80+-year-old tech. Diesel-electric submarines were built and operated with very little, and early on no computer support systems.
As with a great many things, I think it's time we take a good hard look at what we have, and attempt to simplify instead of further complicate.
It really blows ass that a company like Best Buy pulls shit like this, but what, exactly are they going to learn from this?
The lawyers trying the case on both sides will get filthy, filthy richer and according to the likely outcome of the likely class-action suit, anyone who shopped at a Best Buy in some geographic area between date x and date y is entitled to a free $10 gift card for store credit only.
The same monkeys that got overcharged the first time around will be those going straight to Best Buy with their $10 gift cards to use towards the purchase of something else they probably don't need, can't afford, and will be financing through Best Buy.
Yeah, I'm sure this will hurt Best Buy real bad.
In cases such as this, what the state of Fed needs to do is step in, find out who ordered and/or carried out this bait-and-switch/scam and CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME. Like, maybe, theft, fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, etc.
Otherwise, big companies will continue to get little slaps on the wrist, and the lawyers are the only ones who will benefit.
Jail and money are the only things these guys understand, but it's often looked at in reverse from the perspective of the judicial system:
Let's say I work for Enron. I'm 30 years old, and decide to steal millions. I'll likely be out of jail in 5-15 years, in which time, assuming I hid the money properly (which is probably a safe assumption for anyone 'smart' enough to embezzle millions from a public company), the smaller pile of money will have grown into a bigger pile of money. I'll also have the time to catch up on my sleep and write my memoirs in a comfy, Fed min-security prison in Connecticut.
In cases where tons of money are actually stolen by single individuals at the corporation, punish them by TAKING THE MONEY AWAY. It's worth it for them to steal millions mid-career, because they'll still be able to enjoy it after prison.
Now look at situations where it's corporations stealing the money via false ads and fraud:
They charge everyone a few bucks extra and it quickly turns into millions. In this case, it's a team of bad apples, but likely they're not keeping the extra money. It's people acting illegally on BEHALF of the corporation. Find the ones that orchestrated it and throw them in JAIL, since there's no money to take, and they weren't even smart enough to steal for personal gain.
I was on assignment in Washington DC for the spring and summer months of 2004. The last time I had been there prior to 2004 was when I was about 8.
In what time off work I could find, I went to the Smithsonians (except the portrait museum, as it was closed, and the Native American museum, because it had not yet opened), and was rather disappointed by all but one.
The Air and Space museum, although home to a lot of really cool planes, was filthy. Dust everywhere, stained floors, etc. Also, from what I do remember about my visit now nearly 20 years later, much of the museum's public collection was the same. In fact, I didn't find much to look at there beyond the planes themselves. There were no interesting placards that I can recall, no interesting multimedia, and seemingly no information newer than about 1991.
The same goes for the American History museum. It seemed very propaganda-y. Major cultural divides throughout US history were glossed over or ignored completely. I remember specifically reading about how something to the effect of "some native peoples were unhappy about the country's expansion across the Great Plains." Yeah, I bet at least a few were unhappy.
What saddens me the most is that while I was there, the Natural History museum was the best one. Their displays were modernized, they had exhibits about current issues, the IMAX I went to was great, the facility was clean and the placards with the exhibits, although were somewhat simplified, were appropriate for a somewhat educated audience.
The Smithsonian Institution really is one of America's treasures. When people visit London, they hit the British Museum. In Paris, it's the Louvre. DC has the Smithsonian(s). Those facilities are home to much of the physical historical record of this country. They see millions of visitors per year.
Why not put politics aside, at least mostly, and let them be run as well as they deserve to be?
By my math, she's sending a bit over 220 text messages a day (30-day period), or roughly 9/hour for a 24-hour span of time. Now assuming this snot-nosed little brat actually eats, sleeps and showers, she's sending in the ballpark of 20 texts PER WAKING HOUR. That's a text message SENT every three minutes (unless they're charging for received messages as well).
The money aside, what have her parents failed to do for her that she has that amount of freetime? Maybe it's time to tell her to get a fucking job and earn her luxuries the same way the rest of us have to.
Why does a teen need a 'family' phone anyway? Children have survived society for millennia without the option for 'instant' communications with their parents anyway. Besides, if you're turning your kid loose on the malls, parks, parking lots, etc. all day every day anyway, and you feel that they're immature enough to have a need to get in touch with mommy and daddy all the time, they probably have too much freedom or too much unsupervised time.
Being a parent is not only a matter of setting limits, but rigidly enforcing them. You are the head of the family. You 'run' the kids. Not the other way around.
But I just don't see Google as being able to prevent their current tools (or at least most of them, anyway) from turning into crappy ad-driven bloatware over the next decade. Look at their search engine. It's not nearly as good at filtering the ads as it once was, and part of me suspects they like it that way.
I have a server at home. RAID-5 and over 1.5TB of storage. I still use Google. You know why? Because even though I don't think their search engine is as good as it could be, I'm not talented enough to write a better one, and then install and maintain it on my server.
An extraordinary number of folks won't have a giant 'computer-cop' in their house to handle all their appliances. People inherently want things to be simple and easy; especially those who are not power users. In the next 10 years, the only thing that's going to happen is that companies like Google, for as good as they are, will have to avoid dot-bombing, while keeping their products fresh, interesting and, well, in demand.
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear
I wasn't talking at all about sustaining the lifestyle, but rather getting to the point of having that lifestyle, however untenable, without the assistance of a record company.
Let's say a band can make $20,000 for performing at a 5,000 seat venue as a self-promoted event without record labels getting involved. Now, if said band were signed to a label and had to pay to play (or had to sell even more to get the record company the profits they want), the band may very well have to play a 30,000 seat arena to see the same $20,000.
They get the same amount of money either way, but since they're paying out less in scenario A, they don't need to worry about selling more seats. Then when they do get to the point of having the draw to fill Shea on their own (or have Shea approach them to do the show) they do get the super-mega-huge bucks.
I would totally expect that what you say is correct for rockstars as much as it is for anyone else: lose the market and lose your shirt.
What I'm saying is that bands are in a position now to be masters of their own destiny. The smart ones who understand the business will do very well for themselves, and those who have ten minutes of 'flash-in-the-pan' fame will be gone as quickly as they arrived.
A band puts out their music for their fans to mess around with electronically, in a common format for very inexpensive software. Pretty neat shit.
A band can sell/giveaway/whatever their music through Apple iTMS (seriously, check out The Cells; a really kickass band, not mine.) or various other people with enough bandwidth and code to be able to sell or giveaway electronic tracks.
T-shirts, posters and other merchandise can be bought on-demand from certain sites and can be made in bulk cheaper than ever before.
Remind me again: Why do we need traditional record labels anymore? I mean, sure a band might not as easily book a night at Shea Stadium without Sony, but if smaller bands were able to keep more of their money (via not having to hand 80% of it over to the label), they don't need to play places as big as Shea Stadium regularly to still live the 'rockstar' lifestyle.
I think it's very funny that a Nine Inch Nail is helping to drive The Nail into the coffin of the record industry.
I did benefit from my education. I went to a shithole schools all the way up to my university years. There I learned that the system wouldn't teach me anything other than the fact that my education and my future were entirely up to me because most of the teachers, other kids and parents simply didn't give a shit.
I spent much of my formative years outside of the classroom in the local library. Sure I played sports and videogames. I was a pretty well-rounded kid. No thanks to the schools I went to.
Fuckin' a, buddy. I'm all in favor of helping humanity, that is other humans, in any way possible, but every time someone looks to take on a humanitarian aid project they look to do it overseas.
Our schools here in the US are total shitboxes (most of them, and not as bad as those in some other countries), we have starving people just like everywhere else, homelessness is on the rise, New Orleans is still somewhere between the stone age and the 21st century, etc., etc., etc.
Keeping stuff like this out of the hands of American kids who need a little help, just to watch it all go overseas is kinda stupid. What's the worst that's going to happen? Kids will benefit from having the technology and people will realize that they don't need $2,000 laptops (with expensive operating systems and productivity suites) to look at porn and read emails, or maybe do a little homework?
Let people do whatever they want ON THEIR OWN BANDWIDTH.
Even when I was in college (in the Napster heyday) our connections sucked due to the amount of bandwidth wasted on Napster, online gaming (I realize it's fairly low bandwidth, but a lot of it adds up) and on other non-academic, network uses.
The primary function of a university is not to serve as a playground for spoiled kids with tons of tech and too much freetime to screw around all night on the Internet downloading movies and music (often illegally at that) or playing computer games. If universities have so much excess bandwidth that they don't notice or are not impacted by very high amount of P2P traffic, I suggest that they have too much bandwidth and would be wise to pare down their connection and direct any resultant financial savings towards more academic ventures, assuring that their students are better prepared for the real world.
Yes, there are legitimate (as in non-illegal) uses for Bittorrent and other P2P apps, but come on. What percentage of bandwidth used for file sharing is used for legitimate, legal activities? Certainly not a majority and probably not a significant minority.
Now mod me down because I said that downloading copies of movies and music is exactly that: illegal (it probably shouldn't be, but the law as it stands currently is after all the law). Oh, and also because I said that it's ok for one entity to set rules and policies for how a separate entity uses its network resources.
Download 1000+ free smiley icons for AOL, ICQ and Windows Messenger by clicking on this link and also by sending me your name, Social Security number, address, and a pair of your wife's panties (but only if she's hot).
Also, we have v1@grA and C1ALIS sof-tabs and gelcaps!!!11!!!11!
I am, despite what happened on Monday, entirely in favor of an individual's rights to procure and keep firearms within some limitations. For example, I agree with waiting periods, no-sales to convicted felons and those with documented mental illnesses that could cause them to be dangerous, etc.
And speaking of Monday (and here's where this relates to assault rifles), it's interesting to note that the shooter used a.22 pistol and a 9mm commonly employed by law enforcement. He managed to inflict TONS of damage with the kind of weapons commonly used for stop=and-rob style crimes.
In fact, I would conjecture that the clear and vast majority of crimes committed with firearms involve what used to be known as "Saturday Night Special" guns and cheap, easily available shotguns.
Aside from that really famous LA bank robbery involving 2 heavily armed and armored perpetrators a couple of years back, I'm hard pressed to think of a common crime committed with assault rifles. Besides, M-16s, AK-47s, MP5s and the like are somewhat difficult to find on the market (can't get 'em at walmart or most other sporting goods stores), and are typically considerably more expensive than the cheap eastern European-made 9mm whatevers or Sears-stocked shotguns.
California recently outlawed any.50 Cal rifle or handgun, despite the fact that there is NO CRIME ON RECORD ever committed with one of those weapons in the state of California. Never mind the fact that a.50 Cal rifle is about as concealable as a 14 foot canoe and nearly as portable. Prices start at around $1000 to boot. Even the.50 Cal Desert Eagle handgun is an expensive beast, with very expensive (well over $1/round) and hard to find ammo. Why spend a few thousand dollars on a gun to commit a random act of violence, when a cheapie, more readily available and easily obtained gun is an option, and will get the job done as well?
I really believe that the government clamps down on assault rifles not because they care if the neighborhood 7-11 gets robbed with an Uzi instead of a common.38 revolver. If you're the cashier in front of either one of those, you're every bit as likely to get killed. They're concerned about assault rifles because that puts their military and police in a position of risk. It is perceived (true or not) that it would be much easier to put down a rebellion or militia/terrorist group armed with bolt-action.30-06s than the exact same assault rifle issued to the everyman GI. Although, insurgencies and revolutions throughout modern history have been quite successful with older and even antique weapons.
Finally, I doubt an appreciable number of people use assault rifles to hunt. Some perfectly harmless people like to haul an old fridge out into the back 40 acres and put 600 rounds per minute into it. Call it redneck, call it juvenile, but in most places, you can also call it legal.
I object not because I think little kids should be exposed to the extreme violence in a lot of videogames, but rather because this is another piece of legislation that gives the bad parents out there a false sense of security. "Surely little unsupervised Johnny can't be playing Death-Death-Kill 6, because it's illegal for him to buy it. Another drinky-poo, dear?"
Even beyond the false sense of security, one of my very best friends has raised two great kids. They play sports, do well in school and will be going to college in one and three years, respectively. In their mid-to-late teens, he puts very few restrictions on what they can do, because they are very self-regulating. Insofar as I know, their only real 'rules' are an 11pm curfew on school nights and a no-girls-behind-closed-doors policy.
If his kids want to play Death-Death-Kill 6, and he feels they're ready, let that be his choice. I realize this law won't (likely) make it illegal to PLAY the game, only to buy it, but it's just kinda stupid. IF mom and dad or mom/dad watched what their kids were doing, (TV, Internet, videogames, etc.) we wouldn't have these issues.
Parents need to parent their fucking kids. Not the government, not the schools, not the malls, not the housekeeper, etc...
And I as a journalist have a hard time wrapping my head around it. Indeed, mass-violence predates videogames and even mass-media.
Recently, the hype surrounding the business favorite pair of double-d's (death and destruction) has gone up monumentally, it would seem.
Most news outlets have restrictions on publishing news about suicides that don't involve anyone else. This is so, because mass dissemination of information on suicides has been clinically linked to an increase in suicides in the community. Likely, if this guy had offed himself in his dorm/apartment/car, it never would have been seen or heard. Now, looking at a story about some nutjob taking 32 people with him, it can't be avoided.
This guy has made a name for himself that will be remembered for a long time. Since he wanted to die anyway (presumably), this was an easy way to do it. It's much harder to become famous by inventing a longer lasting lightbulb, or by taking pictures (trust me) than it is by doing something really 'out there'. In this guy's head, fame and infamy are the same thing.
I wonder how we should be treating mass tragedy in the news? Part of me wants to let it go entirely. Certainly not ostrich syndrome-style, but as a means of not making it glamorous and copy-cat worthy.
I think if all news outlets in general tried harder to present the full perspective on life, not just DD sensationalism, we'd all be in a better place.
So let me answer your question with another question (and I don't mean this to be snarky or rude):
If the general population of Japan is prohibited from carrying firearms, then why do the police have them?
I bet the police carry weapons because those they attempt to prevent from committing crimes, or capture following the commission of a crime, likely, even if not all the time, have guns.
I'll go one step further. In Japan you can only be assured that the LAW ABIDING folks aren't carrying guns. Thereby, you enjoy the illusion of safety.
Now here's my return question for you: why should I, as an American, GIVE UP my right to keep and bear arms, having never used one in a crime, having never committed a felony, and having taken all the necessary steps to purchase and register the guns and obtain a concealed carry permit? By the way, in my state it is perfectly legal to walk down the street with a loaded firearm (of any legal model/style) so long as it is in the plain view of others. A permit and training (as a prerequisite for the permit) is required to carry the weapon out of the view of others.
Although as the years go by it becomes less common, I still see people with pocket-cannons tucked into holsters under their arms or in their belts at the grocery store, convenience store and even some restaurants. I am not afraid of it, nor have I ever been afraid of it. I am a firm subscriber to the theory that people kill people and the weapon involved only depends on how messy the scene is.
And finally, here is a reason why MANY rural areas allow open carry. It has little to do with shooting badguys at high noon and riding off into the sunset. If you work around animals, especially if you ride horses, it is a great idea to carry a handgun. If the horse throws you, and you become entangled in the stirrup and get dragged, you have two options: 1) shoot the horse or 2) die. Have you ever seen a rabid coyote? That's a good reason for a gun too. Also, sometimes when an animal is giving birth, there are complications from the pregnancy requiring the animal to be destroyed. We're not all veterinarians, so when the calf goes breech and the doc ain't around (put that way for effect), the mom usually gets one in the back of the head.
For the record, there is also a great difference in law between OWNING firearms and CARRYING firearms (for reasons other than transport).
Security cameras would do little to stop such crimes. From a technical standpoint, it's VERY easy to conceal a weapon. I myself have a concealed carry permit and when I carry, do so in such a way that the weapon is undetectable to the eye, and even in casual, brushing contact.
Instead of security and legislation, we need to look at ways to prevent these kinds of things from happening at all. Why would someone, even suicidal, decide to take 30+ other people with him?
What have we done as a society that drives certain people to these completely senseless acts of violence?
How can we design public buildings in such a way that it would make it difficult for a madman to get access to multiple parts of a building?
Is it a family thing? Do we as a culture need to look at what values we hold dear and what we can do to help each other create a healthy and happy community?
It is my fear that fear will become the solution. Massive lawsuits will be filed because of this, and likely, many bills will be put forth to limit the rights and freedoms of many in the hopes of stopping the madness of a very few.
I remember reading the autobiography of a former Secret Service officer, and in it he disclosed that it is nearly impossible to stop these kinds of crimes. There is no true 'profile' for the shooter, and anyone who is willing to die to do something will likely get away with it.
I too have seen machines go wonky as a result of corrupted fonts. All the same, I've never seen it as solely Apple's fault. Quark's font reserve is piss poor (Quark in general is piss poor, IMHO) and Adobe's is not much better.
Downtime? I'm on fucking Cox Cable, now with more ass, and I still have less than 5 hours of downtime PER YEAR. It's gotten to the point that my home network is more stable than the network at many of the companies I've worked for. A couple years ago, their service would drop almost daily.
But, you know, they may be right. I mean, if there's a chance something could break, maybe we shouldn't do it. After all, no truck has ever crashed, no plane has ever failed to land safely and no business has ever operated less than flawlessly. We should expect the same perfect performance out of our global networking infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I think you copy-catting Limeys took that from us Yanks. Give us our 'screw-the-consumer-as-hard-as-you-can' free market back!
*wink*
As I replied above, yes: technology is supposed to improve our lives and make tasks simpler.
How, exactly does a non-mechanical ignition system (that apparently can be broken by proximity to a cellphone) achieve either or both of those goals, over a good, old-fashioned metal, essentially fail-proof key?
When I lived in DC, I did exactly that. Where I'm at now, there is no reliable public transportation and my job requires me to carry large amounts of heavy, fragile equipment thereby requiring a car.
When I'm not working, or my kit is light I walk whenever possible. When walking's not possible I do try to carpool to save energy.
I appreciate that people got by for thousands of years without cars. I also appreciate the advantages that technology affords us. Cars are not inherently bad. , nor is driving them. The problem is they (among other products) lose their functionality at the hands of "over-teching".
A good solution is one that is firstly functional, then simple, then elegant.
This is precisely why, at least where I live, the cars you most commonly see are more than 15 years old OR are less than three years old.
The relative simplicity of cars even from the early 1990's, nevermind the 60's and 70's, is what allows them to stay on the road so long. They're easier to work on (no super-expensive diagnostic equipment needed in most cases), the parts are made of stronger metals (steel and iron instead of aluminum and plastic) and the electrical systems are more independent of eachother than in today's cars.
The electrical mess that is today's cars is probably the single largest contributing factor to people's desire to replace a car instead of repairing it. Electrical gremlins are one of the hardest problems to chase down in today's cars because everything is sensor this and computer that. The systems are not redundant in most cases, and the parts and skills necessary to fix the problem once its diagnosed can be cost-prohibitive.
In an age when everyone is rightfully concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency, why are we building cars that are very complicated, have a high energy cost to produce and go straight to the junkyard, on average, in less than 10 years?
The worst problem is that, with the exception of some of the more advanced engine control systems allowing better fuel economy, very few of these electronic 'improvements' actually make driving safer, better or more enjoyable.
I mean, as cool as it looks to wave an electronic key and have the car start, have we gotten to the point where a mechanical lock and tumbler are too hard to turn?
People got along for more than 100 years in cars without GPS systems telling them (in some cases incorrectly) to "turn right in 300 yards".
Even hybrid gas-electric cars are based on 80+-year-old tech. Diesel-electric submarines were built and operated with very little, and early on no computer support systems.
As with a great many things, I think it's time we take a good hard look at what we have, and attempt to simplify instead of further complicate.
It really blows ass that a company like Best Buy pulls shit like this, but what, exactly are they going to learn from this?
The lawyers trying the case on both sides will get filthy, filthy richer and according to the likely outcome of the likely class-action suit, anyone who shopped at a Best Buy in some geographic area between date x and date y is entitled to a free $10 gift card for store credit only.
The same monkeys that got overcharged the first time around will be those going straight to Best Buy with their $10 gift cards to use towards the purchase of something else they probably don't need, can't afford, and will be financing through Best Buy.
Yeah, I'm sure this will hurt Best Buy real bad.
In cases such as this, what the state of Fed needs to do is step in, find out who ordered and/or carried out this bait-and-switch/scam and CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME. Like, maybe, theft, fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, etc.
Otherwise, big companies will continue to get little slaps on the wrist, and the lawyers are the only ones who will benefit.
Jail and money are the only things these guys understand, but it's often looked at in reverse from the perspective of the judicial system:
Let's say I work for Enron. I'm 30 years old, and decide to steal millions. I'll likely be out of jail in 5-15 years, in which time, assuming I hid the money properly (which is probably a safe assumption for anyone 'smart' enough to embezzle millions from a public company), the smaller pile of money will have grown into a bigger pile of money. I'll also have the time to catch up on my sleep and write my memoirs in a comfy, Fed min-security prison in Connecticut.
In cases where tons of money are actually stolen by single individuals at the corporation, punish them by TAKING THE MONEY AWAY. It's worth it for them to steal millions mid-career, because they'll still be able to enjoy it after prison.
Now look at situations where it's corporations stealing the money via false ads and fraud:
They charge everyone a few bucks extra and it quickly turns into millions. In this case, it's a team of bad apples, but likely they're not keeping the extra money. It's people acting illegally on BEHALF of the corporation. Find the ones that orchestrated it and throw them in JAIL, since there's no money to take, and they weren't even smart enough to steal for personal gain.
I was on assignment in Washington DC for the spring and summer months of 2004. The last time I had been there prior to 2004 was when I was about 8.
In what time off work I could find, I went to the Smithsonians (except the portrait museum, as it was closed, and the Native American museum, because it had not yet opened), and was rather disappointed by all but one.
The Air and Space museum, although home to a lot of really cool planes, was filthy. Dust everywhere, stained floors, etc. Also, from what I do remember about my visit now nearly 20 years later, much of the museum's public collection was the same. In fact, I didn't find much to look at there beyond the planes themselves. There were no interesting placards that I can recall, no interesting multimedia, and seemingly no information newer than about 1991.
The same goes for the American History museum. It seemed very propaganda-y. Major cultural divides throughout US history were glossed over or ignored completely. I remember specifically reading about how something to the effect of "some native peoples were unhappy about the country's expansion across the Great Plains." Yeah, I bet at least a few were unhappy.
What saddens me the most is that while I was there, the Natural History museum was the best one. Their displays were modernized, they had exhibits about current issues, the IMAX I went to was great, the facility was clean and the placards with the exhibits, although were somewhat simplified, were appropriate for a somewhat educated audience.
The Smithsonian Institution really is one of America's treasures. When people visit London, they hit the British Museum. In Paris, it's the Louvre. DC has the Smithsonian(s). Those facilities are home to much of the physical historical record of this country. They see millions of visitors per year.
Why not put politics aside, at least mostly, and let them be run as well as they deserve to be?
Sadly, I suspect I already know the answer.
By my math, she's sending a bit over 220 text messages a day (30-day period), or roughly 9/hour for a 24-hour span of time. Now assuming this snot-nosed little brat actually eats, sleeps and showers, she's sending in the ballpark of 20 texts PER WAKING HOUR. That's a text message SENT every three minutes (unless they're charging for received messages as well).
The money aside, what have her parents failed to do for her that she has that amount of freetime? Maybe it's time to tell her to get a fucking job and earn her luxuries the same way the rest of us have to.
Why does a teen need a 'family' phone anyway? Children have survived society for millennia without the option for 'instant' communications with their parents anyway. Besides, if you're turning your kid loose on the malls, parks, parking lots, etc. all day every day anyway, and you feel that they're immature enough to have a need to get in touch with mommy and daddy all the time, they probably have too much freedom or too much unsupervised time.
Being a parent is not only a matter of setting limits, but rigidly enforcing them. You are the head of the family. You 'run' the kids. Not the other way around.
But I just don't see Google as being able to prevent their current tools (or at least most of them, anyway) from turning into crappy ad-driven bloatware over the next decade. Look at their search engine. It's not nearly as good at filtering the ads as it once was, and part of me suspects they like it that way.
I have a server at home. RAID-5 and over 1.5TB of storage. I still use Google. You know why? Because even though I don't think their search engine is as good as it could be, I'm not talented enough to write a better one, and then install and maintain it on my server.
An extraordinary number of folks won't have a giant 'computer-cop' in their house to handle all their appliances. People inherently want things to be simple and easy; especially those who are not power users. In the next 10 years, the only thing that's going to happen is that companies like Google, for as good as they are, will have to avoid dot-bombing, while keeping their products fresh, interesting and, well, in demand.
As to .Mac, does anyone actually use .Mac?
Probably been said already, but it sounds like its time to look for a new job.
Best of luck.
"America, what is wrong with you?"
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear
In NeoCon America, Fear lives YOU!
The above, but graphically: enjoy!
PS: Is Digg down? Digg-dotted? Plug pulled by lawyers?
I wasn't talking at all about sustaining the lifestyle, but rather getting to the point of having that lifestyle, however untenable, without the assistance of a record company.
Let's say a band can make $20,000 for performing at a 5,000 seat venue as a self-promoted event without record labels getting involved. Now, if said band were signed to a label and had to pay to play (or had to sell even more to get the record company the profits they want), the band may very well have to play a 30,000 seat arena to see the same $20,000.
They get the same amount of money either way, but since they're paying out less in scenario A, they don't need to worry about selling more seats. Then when they do get to the point of having the draw to fill Shea on their own (or have Shea approach them to do the show) they do get the super-mega-huge bucks.
I would totally expect that what you say is correct for rockstars as much as it is for anyone else: lose the market and lose your shirt.
What I'm saying is that bands are in a position now to be masters of their own destiny. The smart ones who understand the business will do very well for themselves, and those who have ten minutes of 'flash-in-the-pan' fame will be gone as quickly as they arrived.
A band puts out their music for their fans to mess around with electronically, in a common format for very inexpensive software. Pretty neat shit.
A band can sell/giveaway/whatever their music through Apple iTMS (seriously, check out The Cells; a really kickass band, not mine.) or various other people with enough bandwidth and code to be able to sell or giveaway electronic tracks.
T-shirts, posters and other merchandise can be bought on-demand from certain sites and can be made in bulk cheaper than ever before.
Remind me again: Why do we need traditional record labels anymore? I mean, sure a band might not as easily book a night at Shea Stadium without Sony, but if smaller bands were able to keep more of their money (via not having to hand 80% of it over to the label), they don't need to play places as big as Shea Stadium regularly to still live the 'rockstar' lifestyle.
I think it's very funny that a Nine Inch Nail is helping to drive The Nail into the coffin of the record industry.
I did benefit from my education. I went to a shithole schools all the way up to my university years. There I learned that the system wouldn't teach me anything other than the fact that my education and my future were entirely up to me because most of the teachers, other kids and parents simply didn't give a shit.
I spent much of my formative years outside of the classroom in the local library. Sure I played sports and videogames. I was a pretty well-rounded kid. No thanks to the schools I went to.
Fuckin' a, buddy. I'm all in favor of helping humanity, that is other humans, in any way possible, but every time someone looks to take on a humanitarian aid project they look to do it overseas.
Our schools here in the US are total shitboxes (most of them, and not as bad as those in some other countries), we have starving people just like everywhere else, homelessness is on the rise, New Orleans is still somewhere between the stone age and the 21st century, etc., etc., etc.
Keeping stuff like this out of the hands of American kids who need a little help, just to watch it all go overseas is kinda stupid. What's the worst that's going to happen? Kids will benefit from having the technology and people will realize that they don't need $2,000 laptops (with expensive operating systems and productivity suites) to look at porn and read emails, or maybe do a little homework?
Let people do whatever they want ON THEIR OWN BANDWIDTH.
Even when I was in college (in the Napster heyday) our connections sucked due to the amount of bandwidth wasted on Napster, online gaming (I realize it's fairly low bandwidth, but a lot of it adds up) and on other non-academic, network uses.
The primary function of a university is not to serve as a playground for spoiled kids with tons of tech and too much freetime to screw around all night on the Internet downloading movies and music (often illegally at that) or playing computer games. If universities have so much excess bandwidth that they don't notice or are not impacted by very high amount of P2P traffic, I suggest that they have too much bandwidth and would be wise to pare down their connection and direct any resultant financial savings towards more academic ventures, assuring that their students are better prepared for the real world.
Yes, there are legitimate (as in non-illegal) uses for Bittorrent and other P2P apps, but come on. What percentage of bandwidth used for file sharing is used for legitimate, legal activities? Certainly not a majority and probably not a significant minority.
Now mod me down because I said that downloading copies of movies and music is exactly that: illegal (it probably shouldn't be, but the law as it stands currently is after all the law). Oh, and also because I said that it's ok for one entity to set rules and policies for how a separate entity uses its network resources.
Download 1000+ free smiley icons for AOL, ICQ and Windows Messenger by clicking on this link and also by sending me your name, Social Security number, address, and a pair of your wife's panties (but only if she's hot).
Also, we have v1@grA and C1ALIS sof-tabs and gelcaps!!!11!!!11!
I am, despite what happened on Monday, entirely in favor of an individual's rights to procure and keep firearms within some limitations. For example, I agree with waiting periods, no-sales to convicted felons and those with documented mental illnesses that could cause them to be dangerous, etc.
And speaking of Monday (and here's where this relates to assault rifles), it's interesting to note that the shooter used a .22 pistol and a 9mm commonly employed by law enforcement. He managed to inflict TONS of damage with the kind of weapons commonly used for stop=and-rob style crimes.
In fact, I would conjecture that the clear and vast majority of crimes committed with firearms involve what used to be known as "Saturday Night Special" guns and cheap, easily available shotguns.
Aside from that really famous LA bank robbery involving 2 heavily armed and armored perpetrators a couple of years back, I'm hard pressed to think of a common crime committed with assault rifles. Besides, M-16s, AK-47s, MP5s and the like are somewhat difficult to find on the market (can't get 'em at walmart or most other sporting goods stores), and are typically considerably more expensive than the cheap eastern European-made 9mm whatevers or Sears-stocked shotguns.
California recently outlawed any .50 Cal rifle or handgun, despite the fact that there is NO CRIME ON RECORD ever committed with one of those weapons in the state of California. Never mind the fact that a .50 Cal rifle is about as concealable as a 14 foot canoe and nearly as portable. Prices start at around $1000 to boot. Even the .50 Cal Desert Eagle handgun is an expensive beast, with very expensive (well over $1/round) and hard to find ammo. Why spend a few thousand dollars on a gun to commit a random act of violence, when a cheapie, more readily available and easily obtained gun is an option, and will get the job done as well?
I really believe that the government clamps down on assault rifles not because they care if the neighborhood 7-11 gets robbed with an Uzi instead of a common .38 revolver. If you're the cashier in front of either one of those, you're every bit as likely to get killed. They're concerned about assault rifles because that puts their military and police in a position of risk. It is perceived (true or not) that it would be much easier to put down a rebellion or militia/terrorist group armed with bolt-action .30-06s than the exact same assault rifle issued to the everyman GI. Although, insurgencies and revolutions throughout modern history have been quite successful with older and even antique weapons.
Finally, I doubt an appreciable number of people use assault rifles to hunt. Some perfectly harmless people like to haul an old fridge out into the back 40 acres and put 600 rounds per minute into it. Call it redneck, call it juvenile, but in most places, you can also call it legal.
I object not because I think little kids should be exposed to the extreme violence in a lot of videogames, but rather because this is another piece of legislation that gives the bad parents out there a false sense of security. "Surely little unsupervised Johnny can't be playing Death-Death-Kill 6, because it's illegal for him to buy it. Another drinky-poo, dear?"
Even beyond the false sense of security, one of my very best friends has raised two great kids. They play sports, do well in school and will be going to college in one and three years, respectively. In their mid-to-late teens, he puts very few restrictions on what they can do, because they are very self-regulating. Insofar as I know, their only real 'rules' are an 11pm curfew on school nights and a no-girls-behind-closed-doors policy.
If his kids want to play Death-Death-Kill 6, and he feels they're ready, let that be his choice. I realize this law won't (likely) make it illegal to PLAY the game, only to buy it, but it's just kinda stupid. IF mom and dad or mom/dad watched what their kids were doing, (TV, Internet, videogames, etc.) we wouldn't have these issues.
Parents need to parent their fucking kids. Not the government, not the schools, not the malls, not the housekeeper, etc...
And I as a journalist have a hard time wrapping my head around it. Indeed, mass-violence predates videogames and even mass-media.
Recently, the hype surrounding the business favorite pair of double-d's (death and destruction) has gone up monumentally, it would seem.
Most news outlets have restrictions on publishing news about suicides that don't involve anyone else. This is so, because mass dissemination of information on suicides has been clinically linked to an increase in suicides in the community. Likely, if this guy had offed himself in his dorm/apartment/car, it never would have been seen or heard. Now, looking at a story about some nutjob taking 32 people with him, it can't be avoided.
This guy has made a name for himself that will be remembered for a long time. Since he wanted to die anyway (presumably), this was an easy way to do it. It's much harder to become famous by inventing a longer lasting lightbulb, or by taking pictures (trust me) than it is by doing something really 'out there'. In this guy's head, fame and infamy are the same thing.
I wonder how we should be treating mass tragedy in the news? Part of me wants to let it go entirely. Certainly not ostrich syndrome-style, but as a means of not making it glamorous and copy-cat worthy.
I think if all news outlets in general tried harder to present the full perspective on life, not just DD sensationalism, we'd all be in a better place.
But maybe I'm wrong. What do I know?
So let me answer your question with another question (and I don't mean this to be snarky or rude):
If the general population of Japan is prohibited from carrying firearms, then why do the police have them?
I bet the police carry weapons because those they attempt to prevent from committing crimes, or capture following the commission of a crime, likely, even if not all the time, have guns.
I'll go one step further. In Japan you can only be assured that the LAW ABIDING folks aren't carrying guns. Thereby, you enjoy the illusion of safety.
Now here's my return question for you: why should I, as an American, GIVE UP my right to keep and bear arms, having never used one in a crime, having never committed a felony, and having taken all the necessary steps to purchase and register the guns and obtain a concealed carry permit? By the way, in my state it is perfectly legal to walk down the street with a loaded firearm (of any legal model/style) so long as it is in the plain view of others. A permit and training (as a prerequisite for the permit) is required to carry the weapon out of the view of others.
Although as the years go by it becomes less common, I still see people with pocket-cannons tucked into holsters under their arms or in their belts at the grocery store, convenience store and even some restaurants. I am not afraid of it, nor have I ever been afraid of it. I am a firm subscriber to the theory that people kill people and the weapon involved only depends on how messy the scene is.
And finally, here is a reason why MANY rural areas allow open carry. It has little to do with shooting badguys at high noon and riding off into the sunset. If you work around animals, especially if you ride horses, it is a great idea to carry a handgun. If the horse throws you, and you become entangled in the stirrup and get dragged, you have two options: 1) shoot the horse or 2) die. Have you ever seen a rabid coyote? That's a good reason for a gun too. Also, sometimes when an animal is giving birth, there are complications from the pregnancy requiring the animal to be destroyed. We're not all veterinarians, so when the calf goes breech and the doc ain't around (put that way for effect), the mom usually gets one in the back of the head.
For the record, there is also a great difference in law between OWNING firearms and CARRYING firearms (for reasons other than transport).
Security cameras would do little to stop such crimes. From a technical standpoint, it's VERY easy to conceal a weapon. I myself have a concealed carry permit and when I carry, do so in such a way that the weapon is undetectable to the eye, and even in casual, brushing contact.
Instead of security and legislation, we need to look at ways to prevent these kinds of things from happening at all. Why would someone, even suicidal, decide to take 30+ other people with him?
What have we done as a society that drives certain people to these completely senseless acts of violence?
How can we design public buildings in such a way that it would make it difficult for a madman to get access to multiple parts of a building?
Is it a family thing? Do we as a culture need to look at what values we hold dear and what we can do to help each other create a healthy and happy community?
It is my fear that fear will become the solution. Massive lawsuits will be filed because of this, and likely, many bills will be put forth to limit the rights and freedoms of many in the hopes of stopping the madness of a very few.
I remember reading the autobiography of a former Secret Service officer, and in it he disclosed that it is nearly impossible to stop these kinds of crimes. There is no true 'profile' for the shooter, and anyone who is willing to die to do something will likely get away with it.
I was at the University of Arizona Nursing School shootings in 2001, and know what the folks over at VTech are going through.
My thoughts are with you, your loved ones and for this world, which every day seems to spin more out of control.
I too have seen machines go wonky as a result of corrupted fonts. All the same, I've never seen it as solely Apple's fault. Quark's font reserve is piss poor (Quark in general is piss poor, IMHO) and Adobe's is not much better.
I blame the poor software much more than the OS.
Downtime? I'm on fucking Cox Cable, now with more ass, and I still have less than 5 hours of downtime PER YEAR. It's gotten to the point that my home network is more stable than the network at many of the companies I've worked for. A couple years ago, their service would drop almost daily.
But, you know, they may be right. I mean, if there's a chance something could break, maybe we shouldn't do it. After all, no truck has ever crashed, no plane has ever failed to land safely and no business has ever operated less than flawlessly. We should expect the same perfect performance out of our global networking infrastructure.