You find online what is not only supported, but also rather nice for the price. You might then buy online
The problem with buying computer hardware online is the cost of shipping it back if you need to return it. And with manufacturers cutting costs by making silent changes to the chipset (e.g. from Atheros to Broadcom) within a model number, it is more likely than not that eventually you will need to return something.
or, if you really want to, go to local shop.
The problem with buying computer hardware in a local shop is that they likely do not carry the model you picked out when you browsed the HCL.
Yes.. but there is one major factor.. Developers for the Wii know everyone will have a Wiimote so the game designers that produce quality games start with how they can use the Wiimote to interact with the environment.. the PS3 move and MS's Natal.. Most games will be made to be played with the controller that everyone has.. and Support for Functionality of Move/Natal will be added to that.. Sure there will be a few games that will require Move/Natal but I am guessing that marketing will dominate and most games will work without them and take focus away from what you could do if there they knew everyone had a motion based controller.
This is correct, but should the government really exist to invade the privacy of ever human on earth? Is that the purpose?
Sure the government will have maximum security, and everyone individual will have minimal liberty and security. But hey at least we'll be able to fund health reform, and at least everyone is paying taxes and consuming.
At what point do you or we decide that we need some level of liberty just to maintain quality of life? Does the government really have a good track record of invading privacy and not completely exploiting people? How do you prevent the government from enslaving the people?
There are legit reasons why people might want to keep secrets from all entities including governments. And it's mainly because governments don't have a conscience, and don't respect life in some instances.
Actually, I would expect the futureman to respect my beliefs and not try to force his modern culture on me
You'll note how well that worked for Africa between, say, 1600 and 1900.
I would not try to block legislation that would,
Yes, but let's pick something you disagree with on a fundamental moral level- say, (let's presume you favour pro-choice) the futuremen think that abortion is a social wrong, and ban it. You wouldn't lobby to get that law changed? Or a law that says, since murder is property damage, rape is merely vandalism?
If you disagree with the views of a culture or subculture, I have no qualms. If you object to the influence they're having in politics as free agents in a democratic state, as long as they're allowed to speak, I have no qualms. But you seem to have objected to the rabbis' arguments on the basis of the tech level of their core books, not any particular ethical or logical element. I assume you don't disagree with the parts of their books you like, like "don't murder people" and "treat people well-" yet those parts come from the same era as the parts you object to.
What I mean to say is, you seem to be making the argument (in this and the other post I replied to) that being later in time, being scientifically advanced, and having a better grasp of ethics all go together. I don't imagine you mean to say that, since our internet-using society seems to manage plenty of evils, intolerance, and race camps despite having way more jet planes than Stalin or Hitler did.* You disagree with the rabbis, obviously, but why? Your argument is unclear to me.
*Not a Godwin. Not comparing you to Hitler. Just pointing out the disconnection between time, science, and ethics. See also the reduction in European learning between, e.g., 1250 and 1400.
Please note- I also disagree with the rabbis' interpretations of the state of death, and I think donors jumping the queue is a good idea. I think the rabbis are making the same kind of reading error that more recent groups have made about blood donations- being awfully literal about some passages that may not bear it well. But I don't disagree with them because their beliefs are old.
How is that fundamentally different to a) having the stuff already developed but keeping it sitting on a server and b) the 97 different versions of Vista?
I'm not saying anyone is innocent, just that there could be explanations
If it's necessary to protect society from them. Which IMHO would not apply here, since the chance of repeat is, well, 0.
Incorrect. He's already proven dangerously negligent once with a weapon, to the fatality of another human. Do we really think that 5, 10 years from now, after the impact's faded, and he's moved on (stepchild, remember, not his own kid) that he won't do something equally stupid? Or possibly willfully stupid? I'm sorry, but when it comes to lives and weapons, I don't really believe in second chances.
Absolutely. I am a conceal-carry holder and I have a number of handguns. I also have a one year-old and a seven year-old. I have an electronic safe which all my guns go in, as well as trigger locks. It's called being a responsible gun-owner.
You're missing the most important safety step of all: education.
Keys can be found, codes can be discovered
And you know what? Kids like guns, even before video game consoles.
But maybe, just maybe, they can be taught to respect them, even if their dad is criminally negligent.
Almost every time someone asks a question where they obviously have made an implementation decision that depends on "doing it differently than everyone else on the planet" while providing no information about what they are trying to actually accomplish, the problem can usually be solved in a much simpler way. While it is possible you are doing something exotic like trying to turn a hard drive platter into a meta-material by patterning high density magnetic patterns on it and so you really do need to be able to control the bits at the hardware level, odds are low.
You provided no information about what you are trying to do. There are pretty good odds that if you provide information about what you are trying to do instead of trying to get people to come up with a way for you to do it 'the hard way' you, will get an answer that will work for you.
I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best. -- Oscar Wilde