Slashdot Mirror

It is one thing to give the Disney spin to something that is as fun to read as Treasure Island" (even if they give it a poor treatment). I have a problem with the fact that they will probably turn around and try to sell the fact that they put so much technical merit into the film that they should recieve some kind of recognition. That is just wrong. (Recognition they will then use as, "Print Spin" on their DVD marketing.) This is why we are behind the TIMES!!! I cannot wait until they give Beyond Good and EviltheDisney spin.

It is one thing to give the Disney spin to something that is as fun to read as Treasure Island" (even if they give it a poor treatment). I have a problem with the fact that they will probably turn around and try to sell the fact that they put so much technical merit into the film that they should recieve some kind of recognition. That is just wrong. (Recognition they will then use as, "Print Spin" on their DVD marketing.) This is why we are behind the TIMES!!! I cannot wait until they give Beyond Good and EviltheDisney spin.

Sun needs it.
According to this article they wrote down there highest loss (partly due to exeptional costs, but hey, still a loss).

That's what you get when you liberals vote for tax and spend Democrats

Yeah, it's too bad we put all those damn tax and spend Democrats in charge. They're sure to foul everything up.

Being a cheap bastard, I'm borrowing this from ABC.com's FAQ.

Benefit: Picture Resolution
Resolution is a measure of picture sharpness. Current analog television contains about 480 active scanning lines resulting in a picture resolution of about 330 lines of resolution. By comparison today's VHS VCR's have about 240 lines of resolution which is why VHS recordings don't look as sharp as the original picture. DVD's offer higher resolution typically on the order of 400-480 lines of resolution. (Note the number of scanning lines does not equal resolution. For example, both the VHS and DVD formats have 480 active scanning lines but have different resolutions.) HDTV offers resolution that is at least twice that of analog television. You can expect razor sharp images from HDTV.

I have heard that there are two HDTV formats -- 720p and 1080i. Is there a difference between these formats and can my television receive both these formats?
Regardless of the HDTV format being broadcast, all new HDTV receivers can receive both formats. New HDTV televisions will convert any received signal to a format that is compatible with your new display. The 720p format uses progressive scanning, which is just like your computer monitor. Progressive scan offers crystal clear images that virtually eliminates those scanning lines that are visible on most large screen televisions. ABC broadcasts all of its programming using the 720p format except in Dallas, where the ABC station broadcasts in 1080i. Many new flat panel displays use progressive scan. The 1080i format uses interlace scanning just like today's analog televisions. Scanning lines are less visible on big screens due to the number of lines. Most currently available projection HDTV's use 1080i.

The network also received recognition for providing the "Best DTV Sporting Event" for its HD broadcast of the 2001 Superbowl.

Read more about this revelationhere

Cheers,
W00t

Last time I checked, Microsoft was losing money except for two areas dependent on monopoly rents. Not only that, "adjustments" to their financial statements seem to put them $18 billion into the red, that during a time when sales were good compared to recent years.

If nothing else, Microsoft's behavior has been like they do not expect to be around in 12 months. The recent treatment of Sendo and similar treatment of past partners, extortion of customers using the Business Software Alliance, unfavorable licensing 6, and even the faked video testimonies in federal court are not what you'd expect from a company that plans to stay in business. Rather it seems that Microsoft is just another dot-com that is now beginning re-entry.

Free as in market.

Seriously, Microsoft's behavior does not seem to be that of a company that expects to be around in 12 months. The treatment of Sendo & co., extortion of customers using the Business Software Alliance, unfavorable licensing 6, and even the faked video testimonies in the federal trials are not what you'd expect from a company that plans to stay in business. Rather it seems that Microsoft is just another dot-com that is now beginning re-entry.

Either that, or they will teach programmers how to include cheat keys! (read down to item 3.)

Today is the anniversary of Jimmy Carter's UFO sighting.

Nah you are confusing them with Bill Frist who has admitted taking cats from shelters in Boston and then using them for vivisection.

I could not see anything in the presentation that told me anything I did not know already. Microsoft has told everyone that they do not like the viral clauses in the GPL.

The same information is available on the Microsoft Web site. So forget the cloak and dagger stuff folks, the presentation may well have been made outside Microsoft. Looks to me as if the JPGs are simply scans of a leave behind.

Microsoft is scared of open source the same way the US is frightened of an imminent invasion by Cuba. Cuba may have embarrassed the US in the past and the US may spend a ridiculous amount of time and effort railing aginst Cuba but that does not mean they are frightened of Cuba. All it really means is that the US is understandably concerned when a bunch of crazys are getting drunk on their self inflated rhetoric.

On the freedom side I find the discussion frankly appauling. The chopped logic sounds very similar to the propaganda the Communists used to put out. Once people claim the right to define freedom for you you can tell that they are really about ramming some ideologically driven bullshit down your throat.

i pose this question:
why do we need them to carry cargo??? so the unemployment rate skyrockets?? now, army transport i can understand, but domestic air freight??? why??? Remember, people, these things cost $25 million a pop.

Well, maybe not *that* big, but ABC News is reporting that he actually worked for a digital IMAGING company that was contracted out by the law firm to create digital copies of these sensitive docs. Adjust arguments appropriately knowing that he didn't work for the law firm.

Sometimes it helps to search for alternative versions of the story.

this may hurt anyone under the age of 25 trying to get a job outside the .gov that deals with sensitive info.

Way to plagiarize ESPN.com's Tuesday Morning Quarterback. The football gods will not look kindly upon you.

It was Mazor, i'm wondering who's playing him in the movie.

I'm no Clinton cheerleader, but I'm fairly sure every single one of your attributions to him is false. Also bear in mind that the President cannot single-handedly enact every policy.

* Torpedoing any serious effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the 1997 Kyoto agreement (thanks, Bill Clinton).

Bush torpedoed Kyoto immediately after taking office.

* Failing to tackle arsenic pollution in its own drinking water (currently at levels way above those that would be illegal in Europe and elsewhere) until 2004 (thanks again, Bill).

* Attempting to reverse that legislation, only to have it blow up in his face (thanks again, Dubya).

President Bush deserves the blame for repudiating action on arsenic permanently, Clinton for leaving it until the 11th hour. At least Clinton put it on the table -- Bush never will because of the mining interests.

* Reversing an age-old bi-partisan policy of demanding more fuel effieciency from car makers (Bill again).

Age-old? CAFE has been essentially frozen since President Reagan. Clinton might have failed to raise it, but in face of a very hostile Congress.

* Exempting SUVs from having to meet the same minimum mileage requirements of other cars (Bill again).

No. The "exemption" (lower standard actually) was practically why SUV's and minivans were invented in the eighties, not the other way around. Notice how station wagons, subject to car standards, disappeared long ago? The lax standard was intended to favor pickups in rural areas and the like, not a fleet of urban vehicles. Cheap fuel prices and style perferences have accelerated adoption of SUV's.

Read the Greenwood dissent, Justices Marshall and Brennan agreed with you, and mention the mailbox analogy. Now, they're both dead, the decision was 6-2, and the Court is now more conservative. You can see the chances of the decision being reversed are zero.

The modern Court does not always rule against the 4th A. (as in the Kyllo thermal imaging case -- see this proposal to use satellite surveillance!) but it has given it a pretty hard time.

Note even without Greenwood, a workaround would not be difficult. Most trash collection and landfills are handled by the gov't; they could require you to sign off any property rights as a condition of collection or disposal. You also need to draw a line somewhere that abandonment has occurred even without the consent of the owner -- for example, in most places that car of yours if left parked more than a certain amount of time (48 hours in Boston) could be ticketed, towed and impounded as abandoned (no, this doesn't mean you've lost ownership, but they can search it for inventory pursuant to impoundment to guard against claims of theft. They would then notify you, and if you don't claim it your ownership right would lapse.) Do you expect your ownership right in the garbage in the dump to persist forever? That could have some unexpected consequences, like if it becomes a Superfund site.

Oh yeah, they could always try to get a warrant, too... But showing probable cause is a drag.

Your disagreement is not with me but the SC! And perhaps with your state, for not imposing greater privacy standards which would at least restrict state actors.

Still no evidence of weapons export to Iraq.

The US exported chemical and biological agents, machine tools and ammo to Iraq in the mid- to late-1980s. See, for example here, here, and here. The third link is especially relevant to this topic because it claims that supercomputers were given to Iraq.

Incidentally, this is all in the public record in the States. You shouldn't even need to FOIA for the information.

Oh wait, we were talking about Chicago.

It will be an interesting debate, because on the one hand the data will be useful (enough so that the automakers think they can make money off of it) and on the other it could cost the auto owner money, either by telling the truth or lying. Yes, these boxes could err, but I would expect that to be just another factor in court. Regardless, the ramifications will be extensive.

Of course, don't forget that a tamperproof box might very well save you in court. We would all benefit from less fraud in court, as it drives up insurance. And then there are the harder to quantify but likely benefits of incorporating lots of real-world data into safety design of brakes and such.

I think it should obviously be up to the driver whether to participate. Some rental car companies might decide to use the boxes to protect their property against illegal misuse -- indeed it may be their insurers that require it; perhaps a discount could be offered to those who want to opt-out, calibrated tp the differential in insurance claims between people who use the boxes and those who do not. Monitoring is not novel: for many years I've seen speed recording devices on some long-distance buses.

All of this can be argued up or down, but I don't think a flat ban on the boxes is appropriate or likely.

... Barnes&Noble sued Amazon: "The day before Amazon.com launched its Initial Public Offering on the NASDAQ exchange, Barnes and Noble filed suit to stop Amazon from billing itself as "Earth's Biggest Bookstore." Barnes and Noble, which bills itself as the "World's Biggest Bookseller Online" on its new Web site, claims in its lawsuit that Amazon.com is not a bookseller but a broker for distributors." There's a good use of the courts.

I don't worry a whole lot about the corporations jostling for control. Amazon has in many ways been the innovator and gold standard in online commerce; most of its competitors launched as wannabes, which is great. As B&N illustrates, mindlessness is not Amazon's monopoly. It's when a company does go monopoly and anticompetitive (or is on the verge of same) that I recommend walking, as with a certain software company called -- well, if you're using IE to read this, you're not with me. :)

All that said and done, I think it's great to hunt down smaller sellers that offer specialized selections or benefit a cause you care about, even if the price is not less. Also try to use the Amazon Associates feature to channel some $ to useful groups.

from abcnews:

-----
Thinking Back

Study Finds Infants Don't Encode Long-Term Memories Until Second Year

Chances are if you think your earliest memory dates from your first year or even early in your second year, it's not real -- or at least not one you formed from the actual experience.
Researchers have learned that the area of the brain thought to play a key role in encoding long-term memory matures in spurts. And a study published this week in the journal Nature demonstrates that a major spurt happens after a person's first year and then takes a second year to fully mature.

"Components of early memories may be accurate," says Conor Liston, a graduate student who conducted the Nature study while at Harvard University. "But memories recalled from the first or second year of life are probably not that reliable."

Cleaning Up and Making a Rattle

To test young children's ability to remember, Liston taught three groups of children sequences that were prompted by specific toys and sounds. A call for "Clean Up Time," for example, was followed by wiping a table with a paper towel and then throwing the towel into a basket. "Make a Rattle" was followed by the motion of inserting a ring into a slot in a bottle and then shaking the bottle.

Liston taught 9-, 17- and 24-month-old babies three to five different sequences so that each child could do the actions after prompting. He then waited four months and tested each child's ability to re-enact each sequence following the same prompts.

The differences between the youngest group and the two older ones were striking. Both groups of older children were quickly able to repeat the sequences while the youngest group had a near-zero score.

"We know that neurons are beginning to grow at the frontal lobe around 8, 9 months," says Jerome Kagan, a Harvard University professor of psychology, Liston's adviser and co-author of the study. "This bolsters the work of others that has shown most memories from at least the first nine months become lost."

Kagan explains that one hint that a child is starting to develop memory begins at the age of 9 months when children become less willing to leave their parent. Missing one's mother, he says, is a sign that the child has a clear memory of his or her mother just being there and so the child notices when she leaves.

"If you're 5 months old, it's out of sight, out of mind. You're less likely to cry because you just forgot that your mother was ever there, so it's not as frightening," he says.

Tests of older children reveal they can form memories, but later they don't always realize they have them.

Sweaty Recognition

Nora Newcombe, a psychologist at Temple University in Philadelphia, recently tested the ability of 11-year-olds to recognize pictures of former classmates from their preschool years. She showed them a series of pictures of 3- and 4-year-old children, including some images of children they knew seven years earlier.

Most 11-year-olds claimed not to recognize any of their former classmates. But when Newcombe wired up their hands to measure sweating -- also called a galvanic skin response -- the children showed biological signs of remembering the faces of those with whom they'd attended preschool.

As they looked at pictures of children they had never known, the instrument measured no sweating responses.

"It was like an unconscious emotional memory existed even when there is no conscious memory," says Newcombe.

Newcombe and her colleagues are now working with 3- and 4-year-old children and testing their ability to remember scenes. She's finding that most children at this age are good at remembering central figures in picture scenes, like an elephant in a jungle, but they're not adept at remembering secondary details, such as the green jungle around the elephant.

"I think what happens after nine months is a growth in the ability to form explicit, conscious memories," she says. "It's clear that this is a step by step process that takes years to develop."

Early Trauma Erased?

Endel Tulving, a psychologist at the University of Toronto, believes that children develop different forms of memory at different phases. First, he says, they encode primitive memories, such as sights and sounds. Then comes semantic memory, the accumulation of general knowledge, such as concepts and language. The final kinds of absorbed memories are episodic, or autobiographical memories, which are recollections of personal experiences.

Understanding when and how memories form has implications beyond neuroscience. Kagan points out that knowing when children start to retain long-term memories could be useful in courtroom cases where a child's memories are used as evidence. Also, knowing that children younger than 9 months are poor at retaining memories could be a comfort to some adopting parents who might worry about early traumatic experiences in their adopted children's lives.

"Some people have argued that a child's first six to seven months can have a profound influence," he says. "But if experience recorded before the frontal lobe matures can't even be retrieved later, this is unlikely."

The recent studies fill in a long-standing gap in understanding of children's brain development since until recent years, most work had focused on adult brains and memory. Liston says after finishing these studies, he started to understand why.

"Babies' schedules aren't as reliable -- it's not like working with adults," he says. "So I couldn't count on them always showing up at the lab on time. They get sick sometimes and then there's always nap time."

ABCNEWS: In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

GENESIS: Operation Northwood "The US economy is in deep, deep trouble. It is in fact galloping headlong towards an economic abyss, and it's going to drag the rest of us over the edge with it."

Strictly speaking Bill Gates IS a convicted felon.

However if I personally chose not to associate with convicted felons there would be alot fewer people I could associate with.

That and the simple fact that life being what it is in West Virginia would also leave me with few family members to associate with, or TX where I live now for that matter... :)

This bill sets a dangerous precedent where laws are being passed for technology that doesn't even exist yet. Proponents of the bill say that this will saves the lives of children who are killed in gun accidents involving their parent's guns. Well, what if I don't have any children in my house? And what if I keep my guns in a safe? Why should I be punished for the acts of a miniscule number of irresponsible parents? In the years 1998, and 1999, (the two most recent years that data is available for) there were ZERO childern killed accidentally by their parents handguns.

I am not against gun safety, but this law will not help anyone. This technology has so far proven to be very ineffective. If there is a 1 in a million chance that my gun will not fire when I need it to - that's 1 time too many. And, what if I am not home when an intruder enters my home? My wife will be left with an unusable gun since the gun can only be fired by my hand. This law will not prevent criminals from using guns as they don't buy their guns legally in the first place.

It's funny how police officers will be exempt from this law. Why? Do they not have childern in their homes? Or is it that the technology is so flawed that it is not reliable enough for law-enforcement to use? So, why should it be reliable enough for me to protect myself and my family in my own home?

And what about gun stores? Gun store owners will be devestated by the fact that they will only be allowed to sell one or two models of handguns in the first couple of years that this law is in effect.

This is the same state that recently passed a law limiting G forces on roller coasters even though the medical community does not agree that G force is a cause of brain injuries.

My advice to anyone thinking about moving to the state of New Jersey... DON'T DO IT! Besides being overcrowded, this state has more laws on the books than you can think of, more toll roads than most states, more pollution, and the highest auto insurance rates in the nation.

I encourage all residents of the state of NJ to contact Governor McGreevey and voice your opinions.

Governor Jim McGreevey
125 W State St PO Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: (609) 292-6000
Fax: (609) 292-3454
http://www.state.nj.us/governor/govmail.html

Here's a link about a test launch a few months before Sputnik. The US was testing Vanguards at the same time, though, and there were other ballistic missiles on both sides.

Come on, someone must know the answer!

Don't forget, they do this with p0rn.
After all, it may be illegal for persons younger than 18, 21 in some localities, to view material presented on this website. If you are underage or do not consent to viewing such material, please click here.

Read this article at ABC News ABC News about the FBI pressured to NOT investigate before 911.

Sincerely,
W00t

90% of Iraq's oil is sold to the U.S. and is more profitable than other sources. Imagine how much more profitable it will be if the U.S. can just seize it.

It is entirely possible that our eyes require very similar forms of calibration, but that we have not even theorized the existence(sp?) of such a problem b/c we don't spend nearly as much time watching lossily encoded images as we spend listening to lossily encoded sounds.

Interestingly, consider this (lifted from here but you can find it mentioned in many places via Google):

Another example of the brain coming up with better algorithms for doing things, thus showing that many basic brain functions are not hard-wired, involves the use of prism lenses. In an experiment, people are made to wear, for long periods of time, lenses that cause their field of vision to be turned upside down. After a while, the person reports that things have become right side up again. Then, taking off the glasses makes everything upside down. It seems that even this basic fact of how we perceive what is around us is not hard-wired into the brain. Maybe we see right side up because it simplifies the calculations that we need to make in order to perform everyday tasks. Seeing upside down is actually the default, in a certain sense, because the lenses in our eyes turn the received light into an upside down image on our retina. It is the brain that causes the perceived objects to be right side up. The evidence that even this is not hard-wired into the brain is rather interesting, as it indicates that everyone's brain independently and without our conscious knowledge comes to the decision that seeing right side up is the most efficient way to allow performance of daily tasks.

Fun eh? Makes you think. Possibly calibration of the ears works in a similar way. Presumably if the 'lossy' audio ever became a problem (this is assuming you don't speak to anyone, or make/hear any natural noise for most of the day, of course) then you'd just listen to 'normal' sounds. That's what calibration is, after all.

By the way, out of interest, here's another interesting write-up about the experiment being done in Japan. I'm curious to see it was done 'recently', as I remember this experiment being mentioned on TV about 15-20 years ago*.

Tim

* Johnny Ball's 'Think of a Number' for you UK geeks :)

I find it sad that the Terrorist's have accomplished what they set out to do. by attacking us on american soil they managed to start a process that is slowly stripping our freedoms ( what they hate us for )...

I agree with the rest of your post, but I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the Arab world gives a rat's ass about our "freedom", much as we like to tell ourselves that this is what offends them.

As far as I can tell, it has more to do with our foreign policy. Specifically, they don't like what they see as our one-sided support of Israel and our habit of propping up unpopular and oppressive regimes in other places such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our reputation for "freedom" in this country probably isn't that impressive to them either.

"They hate us for our freedom", huh? Sure.

Oh my Gawd! Look at these fucking geeks.
Check out the slide show, Ha aaaaaaaaah.

I like the article better when it looked like this...
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmer ica/GMA011203Stay_awake_pill.html

more likely he would have acted on his plan to attack Al Qaeda:

The Bush administration sat on a Clinton-era plan to attack al-Qaida in Afghanistan for eight months because of political hostility to the outgoing president and competing priorities, it was reported yesterday.

Rather than sit on it.

Meanwhile, Clinton, with the Legislature spending most of their time sniffing blue dresses for presidental spunk, lacked the support necessary to invade Afghanistan and take out Bin Laden.

Bush's team thus has two major mistakes to answer for: not listening when Berger and Mr Clarke outlined the threat in briefings they provided for Condoleezza Rice and, when they did get around to taking action, letting Bin Laden escape.

However, I agree that one can't really fault Bush for not giving the order to blow civilian airliners out of the sky on 9/11, I don't think even Jack Ryan would have been that on the ball.

While slashdot talks about games on obsolete gamess consoles which no body gives a FLYING DOG SHIT ABOUT! Here are some REAL NEWS! From better news sources like google news and fark(!).

yet another linux migration story
More security holes in open sores software!

Nasa to look at snow flakes!

DRM to be used on water supplies

Jackasses are dumbasses

I am 371673R than j00!

Can't say that I take all this at face value, but for the most part, tin-foil hats are not required at this site. If nothing else, the Bush/Skull and Bones connection is an interesting read.

TIA won't save us. If everyone had access to it, maybe. There will always be someone who can buy/legislate their way out.

"All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others." - Animal Farm (required reading for our present administration)

Read this story about the former Alabama coach who left his team in the lurch when he bolted schools. It seems the school is stuch with 1000's of bobble heads of him.

One populat idea what to charge a few bucks and give people a 3-wood and tee off on his head. That was dismissed as being too mean spirited...

While you also ignore a few facts of your own...

1. Animal experiments are very expensive. If there is really a way to do an experiment without animals, it will be done. With animals, you have to keep them comfortable, fed, watered, and pay staff to care for them.
2. All animal experiments have to have special approval. You cannot proceed without it.
3. There are very tight regulations related to the treatment of animals in experiments. Pretty much any procedure more invasive than a simple injection requires anesthesia.
4. No one does these experiments to be cruel or evil. Experiments are done with the intention of learning something important. This is not the laboratory equivalent of a 7 year-old pulling the wings off flies.

Neurological experiments absolutely cannot be performed on anything other than a living biological organism. The idea here isn't just to create remote controlled rats, but to discover how we can advance new technologies related to the brain. Modern probes that can monitor the firing patterns of 4 individual neurons simultaneously? The idea that we can now partially enable the blind to see? Do you think that the experiments required to pull this off were performed on neurons in a petri dish? Of course not, and it wouldn't even be possible. Perhaps one day in the future if, heaven forbid!, you are ever tragically paralyzed in an accident, you will perhaps thank the researchers who come up with remote control technology. I know if it were to happen to me, I'd be very glad to have a way to communicate with my family, or take care of myself instead of being a complete burden.

Especially since there's no critical look at whether full-fledged robots could be developed to perform these functions.

Many researchers devote their time to developing small-scale robotics, but nothing is close to being anywhere near as agile as a biological organism. But again, the research isn't just about controlling rats; it's also a way to figure out how to interface with the brain. Given the paralysis scenario, what good would a robotic "supplemental" body be if you couldn't control the damn thing? When that kind of technology comes about for general use, you'll have researchers, rats, and monkeys to thank for it.

The sad thing is that I'm probably going to be modded down for raising these concerns.

Well, I've got one point left, but I chose to reply instead. Besides, I don't mod down. ;)

Remember, when stadiums had cool names, like "Candlestick", or "Ebbet's", or "Joe Robbie", or "Municipal" (well, okay, not "Municipal")? Or when bowl games were called "Rose" and "Orange"? Now our stadiums are called "Comerica" and "Pro Player" and "Gilette" and "Tampax" or whatever! And our bowls are called "Tostitos" and "Chic-Fil-A"(!)! Corporate influences have destroyed sports in America.

Anyway, there once was a park called Pac Bell. Granted, the name indicated that it was one of those "corporately defiled" stadiums, but it had a nice ring to it. But now we're going to have to call it SBC?!?! They have gone too far...

Comapnies need to 1) Stop being so schizophrenic, and 2) go away.

Okay, you can mod me -1: Offtopic now

And I know that the loggers will thank you for not messing with them and they might just like the company

Especially when it's one of those naked Girl anti-logging displays. Check here for what I am talking about.

Ah, what do the critics know?

It's tough with something like science fiction. If, like most big-name critics, you are slightly suspicious the genre is tricked-up low-brow, then you come in with an attitude that make it harder to enjoy the movie or understand the willingness of those who do like it to view minor deficiencies in, ahem, plot for the larger vision of the film.

I'm sure books and scads of boring dissertations have been written on this question of how the critic is culturally situated. :)

More to the point, if you really like a scorecard of critics more than the well-argued view of an individual critic you trust (or perhaps just the recommendation of a friend with discriminating tatse), this site continually tallies and links to new reviews. Looks pretty evenly divided at the moment. Check elsewhere for tabulation of all current films.

Ah, what do the critics know?

It's tough with something like science fiction. If, like most big-name critics, you are slightly suspicious the genre is tricked-up low-brow, then you come in with an attitude that make it harder to enjoy the movie or understand the willingness of those who do like it to view minor deficiencies in, ahem, plot for the larger vision of the film.

I'm sure books and scads of boring dissertations have been written on this question of how the critic is culturally situated. :)

More to the point, if you really like a scorecard of critics more than the well-argued view of an individual critic you trust (or perhaps just the recommendation of a friend with discriminating tatse), this site continually tallies and links to new reviews. Looks pretty evenly divided at the moment. Check elsewhere for tabulation of all current films.

There was that one Texas town where someone went and castrated the mayor...

1) China
2) North Korea
3) Iraq
4) Iran
5) The United States of America

As someone else above noted this deals with concealed carry (CC) laws not general gun ownership. In many parts of this (US) country it is quite difficult to get a CC permit. You are selecting your sample by nature of CC requirements. Beyond that there are statistical issues regarding relatively small samples. John Allen Paulos who authored the "Innumeracy" books discusses this at greater length.

I swear I saw these 6 years ago.
hmmm...

"Silver started his own company, called Adaptive Eyecare in 1996 to manufacture and market the glasses."
-Seeing Is Believing

Used to be a common misconception, though. Try here.

One of the many ways terrorists and their cells/hierarchy communicate is through the net as briefly touched on here. Even CyberCafes are probably going to be hit with new regulations from HomeLand Security and they're all pretty much landline.
It's a "War on Terrorism" and however terrorists use the net and access it, we all have to sacrifice a little right now so maybe we save lives or even end the "war" sooner, rather than later... "war" inconveniences everyone, bitching won't help. Don't get your undies all in a wad over it. The sacrifices made by our parents and grandparents during WWII was certainly at least as bad as anything we can foresee for ourselves. This too is a global war because terrorism is global. Whatever it takes is just enough, so suck it up. Besides, there's no reason most if not all the "inconvenient" new regulations can't be lifted or adjusted if and when this war ends. We have the Democrats making sure of this as much as they can before they even begin fully debating new legislation and implementing it. Republicans are onboard with that philosophy as well, for the most part. But we'll all have to cross that bridge when we get to it.