I don't think it's right that you got modded to flamebait, but I also don't agree with anything that you said.
I was struck by Fahrenheit 9/11, and while I can't quote it to you line and verse, I could relate probably 80% of the accusations levied in the film. (And I personally believe the majority of the film is literal truth - I've read a lot of substantiating evidence since I've seen the movie, and the counter-arguments against most of it are weak at best in my opinion. I mean, debate the meanings and interpretations of those facts all you want, but they're facts. Moore goes overboard with his interpretations, sure, but level-headedness is not something that we Americans are known for, when it comes to discussing politics.)
I also disagree with your assesment that radical Islamic fundamentalists want a weaker US military presence in the world. I think they got exactly what they wanted - the biggest possible "hate the US" campaign that the Middle East has ever seen - all paid for with your tax dollars.
The Bush Administration (and a lot of the military) thought that they would welcome us with open arms, in Iraq, thanking us for getting rid of their oppressor. That's how freakishly poorly they understood the situation, going into it. And now you think they've somehow been right all along in predicting outcomes and security for us? We clearly did not understand the situation; our military was put into a more dangerous situation than our leaders realized.
Do you honestly think that there's any way in the world that President Bush would have gotten anywhere near a "Mission Accomplished" sign, if he had any idea what was to come? It's obvious that they thought that things would only get better in Iraq.
Well, they haven't.
In August, attacks on US forces were up to 2,700 from around 1,000 the previous month. In other words, even with terrorism, any publicity is good publicity. We're really giving every child in Iraq a reason to hate us. (Think how you would feel if Chinese tanks rolled through your neighborhood, restoring "order" to the United States. I mean really honestly think about what that would mean to you. You would literally shake with hatred.)
I hope it all turns out well. I hope that our money and US lives were worth it, and that peace prevails. But violence begets violence, and most analysts are saying that we won't disengage from Iraq for four to five years. How much will attacks on our forces increase in that time? It's a scary prospect.
It's kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario, but I think that radical Islamic fundamentalist don't really care how big the US military is. It's not like it's going to get bigger than being the number one world power that it is today. We spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world combined.
Our military power didn't save one single US citizen on September 11th, and I honestly don't believe that our military is going to stop the next terrorist attack either. Our spy agencies might, but it's not going to take stealth bombers - it's going to take wire taps. Clinging on to useless military systems as if our lives depended on it (when they clearly don't) is just a huge, huge waste of money. I'm personally kind of pissed at how Democrats are blamed for spending us into national debt - it's simply not true. Reagan tripled the debt, and our current Republican leaders are working hard to double it again, for the sake of what?
I mean, the very idea that a national military power would directly attack us through conventional means (the only one our military is useful against) is almost nuts, at this point (unless we spread ourselves too thin by engaging in too many voluntary wars abroad at the same time). And your apparent belief that the military could do anything to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in a major US population center is almost pitifully childish. It's a new kind of war, an
Okay, so this has been really bugging me, ever since I first read it. In "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson, he talks about making tiny little diamonds that are lighter than air. They have vaccuum inside, and they're diamond, so they're strong enough to handle the pressure. So, they end up being diamonds that float in our atmosphere.
Is that possible, or is there something fundamentally flawed about it?
Well, I really, really think that you're wrong when you say that "OTP isn't harder... but it isn't easier, either."
I hardly know anything about cryptosystems, but I know for certain, as though my life depended on it, that I could develop a completely secure OTP-based communications channel with a second, trusted party. As long as the physical computers aren't compromised, the system would be secure.
You're absolutely right. Except for the "very hard" part.
It costs about a hundred bucks to buy a good (secure) random number generator. Noisy diodes, for instance, work great. Hell, taking photos of lava lamps works, too.
Assemble a team of smart people, and get obstacles out of their way.
It sounds like your organization was working, and they overloaded you with process. That's too bad. Glass doesn't even mention CMM, I don't think - so don't blame it on him.
We had a Book Club at my job, where we reviewed one to four Facts or Fallacies at each meeting, once a week. We collected comments and suggestions about how to change how we worked. It was really interesting, and it was good to engage more people in the discussion, because while I might really care about this stuff and have strong opinions, other people in our organization did not have strong opinions and actually started to think about this stuff as a result of our meetings.
Unfortunately, our suggestions didn't really get anywhere as a Massive Reorganization (TM) of the department took place. *grumble*
We're thinking of doing another Book Club, talking about the "Dynamics of Software Development" by Jim McCarthy.
Well, I agree with you that 16 bits per channel should be good enough for output (maybe not intermediate processing) for a long time. Even the experimental High Dynamic Range monitors aren't running at that, right?
But I absolutely disagree with your statement about 30f/s being the edge of human perception. Sure, you get diminishing returns, but clearly people appreciate differences up to 75 Hz, and I've heard that professional atheletes can discriminate down to 1/200 of a second.
HD is the end of resolution increase in a 2-dimensional display for the consumer.
My LCD pulls down higher resolution than HD, so I disagree.
Well, really, online games have me doing my best performance of attack, while the monster does their best performance of attack. I will switch tactics only if something goes radically off script, like if I've lost too many hit-points, or if a friend starts running away, or if another monster starts hitting me with a wet noodle. But those events are fairly rare - they happen maybe 1 in 10 - more likely 1 in 30 combats, in most of the games I've played. That's because non-suicidal players are very careful to control the fighting environment as much as possible, to arrange for success. They attack monsters that they can pull back to a safer fighting position, and are cautious and aware of randomly aggressive monsters in the area, and typically games are designed to not be too hard. (Hard meaning, you have a 90% chance of surviving a good experience-awarding combat, not a 50% chance.)
So, my point is that, if I'm essentially just playing typing tutor, it sucks that I can't just type a little faster to queue up my never-changing performance, so that I can then socialize when things are changing. Like when we go off script, because I've lost too many hitpoints, someone runs away, or another monster starts hitting me with a loaf of bread. Get it?
So, I guess what I'm really saying is that I wish that MMO games were "interesting" enough that combat can't be totally scripted, but designed such that socializing about those dramatic events wasn't either impossible or totally boring. {Hit 4 for "Help", Hit 5 for "Run", etc.)
No, you make an interesting point. The problem is that simply being on the internet gives people that illusion of anonymity. Meaning, even if I had to use my real name in a game - who the hell knows me? Nobody. So - I can kind of do what I want to, because even though my avatar's T-shirt says my name, I'm still just a random face in the crowd...
Now, if you played a game with your peers, maybe that would be different...
anyone who can pay, can play, regardless of their social deficiencies
I have another way to describe your sentiment:
The problem with online games is that you, and everybody else online, are a jerk.
I can complain about how bad everyone online is, but then I realize that honestly, I'm doing the same stuff. I slowly started to realize that it's the games, it's not just me. The games require just enough twitch to make socializing difficult. You have to type the key to swing your axe at the spider at the same time that you're trying to type "Help! A spider is attacking me!" So, everyone macros the things that they need most often like "Help!" and "Incoming!" and "Add!" and "RUN!" Well a single-player game could easily emulate that kind of behavior.
I keep thinking that the games need to have a queue for commands, much like The Sims. I can tell the program, "attack, parry, dodge, thrust, heal self," and then I can type "Aaah! I'm getting attacked over here!"
I guess fundamentally, roleplaying, graphics, and typing don't mix very well.
No way. All of the differences you point out are completely masked by the JPG differences. (Those "cubes" you refered to are DCT 8x8 boundary artifacts.)
I look at computer-generated image quality differences all day long at my job, and comparing these two images, there basically aren't any. I've additionally used a JPG Artifact removal tool on the two images, and then done the image differencing trick, and you have to turn gamma up by about 1.5 before you see *any* differences, and I believe all of those are positional differences. Turning the gamma up by about 2.5 is even more revealing: the differences between the images are hugely dominated by JPG differences.
Look again.
We'd both need better source images to make any strong claims about one card being better or worse than the other. From where I'm sitting, they're nearly identical.
It's the authors. Just like people line up to read the next J.K. Rowlings novel, before there have been any reviews out, people line up to buy the next John Carmack game.
It could be called "The Facts of Life: Tuti versus Natalie" and people would line up around the block for it.
That said, have you read a bad J.K. Rowlings novel?
Translating this all back into the world of technology, it's just the Next Big Thing. I've been waiting since, what, 1999 for this? For me, it's kind of like, Return of the King. I really liked Fellowship of the Ring, and The Two Towers, and I just knew that ROTK was going to be great. I just knew it! Granted, I pretty much felt the same way about Star Wars I and Matrix II and Matrix III. But, people are optimists about entertainment, and the act of being optomistic about it is honestly almost as much fun as the thing itself. I *crave* Doom 3.
And that's my Doom3 box! If there's no difference between having 1G and 2G of RAM (big "if"), I should (theoretically) be getting 71.2 FPS at 1024x768 High Quality NoAA 8XAF. Bring. It. On.
Wow, thanks. Mentioning ASUS to me reminded me of the capacitor trouble that I had with ABIT before... My cousin is actually helping me pick out the stuff (I have a Masters in Computer Science, but I acknowledge that a 20 year old kid who goes to LAN parties all the time probably knows more about gaming boxes than I do!) I'm a little wary of the 64-bit stuff right now, but I know that's more just a matter of taste. And yeah, this goes over $2k, but I told him "somewhere between $2k and $2.5k". So, this is what we've discussed so far... Any comments?
Okay, so who wants to help me build the best possible box for Doom 3 for $2000? *GRIN*
How about if people post URLs to their NewEgg wishlists, here?
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
You obviously know nothing of the rules of Jeapordy!
The defending champion can only use their current-day winnings to wager. It's not like the other two contestants have "$0" and Ken has "$1,006,384" at the beginning of the show. They all start at zero, at the beginning of each show.
I kind of like this idea. I'm actually reminded of the laws of psychohistory in Asimov - the oldest text was displayed in blue, and the newest text was displayed in red. How about if Wikipedia text went from one color range to another, as it got "older"? (Reasoning being that older text has been viewed by more eyes, and is therefore more likely to have had mistakes corrected.) Or maybe this could just be a "view age" option for logged-in viewers.
Nichelle Nichols: "It's about that rip in space-time that you saw!" Stephen Hawking: "I call it a Hawking Hole." Fry: "No fair! I saw it first!" Stephen Hawking: "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?"
Yes, I've read Hardy before, and I skimmed through it again at your bequest. Have you actually read any of Michael Moore's rebuttals?
A "documentary film" is best defined by people who are experts on film. The AMPAS is a group of experts on film, and they say it's a documentary. They know more about movies than you do, so I'm just going to go ahead and side with them here, okay?
Look, I'm just going to pull out one example of where Hardy is lying, and we'll start from that, okay?
Why the clock indicates six o'clock, when Moore is specific that he showed up for the interview at 8:30 AM, will have to await another investigation!
Moore clearly shows in Bowling for Columbine that he returned the following day, just as Heston asked him to, over his intercom system, as he waits at the front gates.
Hardy is lying, and he knows it, and is constructing conspiracies where none exist. He's fabricating, he's lying, he's dishonest.
Prove me wrong on this point, and I'll not only appologize to you, and promise to read every single word that Hardy said in his article and in all of his links, but I will also donate $100 to Hardy's "real documentary" as he asks at the bottom of his page.
Thanks for playing. Or won't you let the facts get in your way?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's right that you got modded to flamebait, but I also don't agree with anything that you said.
I was struck by Fahrenheit 9/11, and while I can't quote it to you line and verse, I could relate probably 80% of the accusations levied in the film. (And I personally believe the majority of the film is literal truth - I've read a lot of substantiating evidence since I've seen the movie, and the counter-arguments against most of it are weak at best in my opinion. I mean, debate the meanings and interpretations of those facts all you want, but they're facts. Moore goes overboard with his interpretations, sure, but level-headedness is not something that we Americans are known for, when it comes to discussing politics.)
I also disagree with your assesment that radical Islamic fundamentalists want a weaker US military presence in the world. I think they got exactly what they wanted - the biggest possible "hate the US" campaign that the Middle East has ever seen - all paid for with your tax dollars.
The Bush Administration (and a lot of the military) thought that they would welcome us with open arms, in Iraq, thanking us for getting rid of their oppressor. That's how freakishly poorly they understood the situation, going into it. And now you think they've somehow been right all along in predicting outcomes and security for us? We clearly did not understand the situation; our military was put into a more dangerous situation than our leaders realized.
Do you honestly think that there's any way in the world that President Bush would have gotten anywhere near a "Mission Accomplished" sign, if he had any idea what was to come? It's obvious that they thought that things would only get better in Iraq.
Well, they haven't.
In August, attacks on US forces were up to 2,700 from around 1,000 the previous month. In other words, even with terrorism, any publicity is good publicity. We're really giving every child in Iraq a reason to hate us. (Think how you would feel if Chinese tanks rolled through your neighborhood, restoring "order" to the United States. I mean really honestly think about what that would mean to you. You would literally shake with hatred.)
I hope it all turns out well. I hope that our money and US lives were worth it, and that peace prevails. But violence begets violence, and most analysts are saying that we won't disengage from Iraq for four to five years. How much will attacks on our forces increase in that time? It's a scary prospect.
It's kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario, but I think that radical Islamic fundamentalist don't really care how big the US military is. It's not like it's going to get bigger than being the number one world power that it is today. We spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world combined.
Our military power didn't save one single US citizen on September 11th, and I honestly don't believe that our military is going to stop the next terrorist attack either. Our spy agencies might, but it's not going to take stealth bombers - it's going to take wire taps. Clinging on to useless military systems as if our lives depended on it (when they clearly don't) is just a huge, huge waste of money. I'm personally kind of pissed at how Democrats are blamed for spending us into national debt - it's simply not true. Reagan tripled the debt, and our current Republican leaders are working hard to double it again, for the sake of what?
I mean, the very idea that a national military power would directly attack us through conventional means (the only one our military is useful against) is almost nuts, at this point (unless we spread ourselves too thin by engaging in too many voluntary wars abroad at the same time). And your apparent belief that the military could do anything to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in a major US population center is almost pitifully childish. It's a new kind of war, an
Start quoting some sources for those things you think liberals say.
I'll match you punch for punch.
The right says ridiculous things about the left, like Preisdent Clinton murders people who get in his way.
It's all nuts.
Okay, so this has been really bugging me, ever since I first read it. In "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson, he talks about making tiny little diamonds that are lighter than air. They have vaccuum inside, and they're diamond, so they're strong enough to handle the pressure. So, they end up being diamonds that float in our atmosphere.
Is that possible, or is there something fundamentally flawed about it?
Well, I really, really think that you're wrong when you say that "OTP isn't harder... but it isn't easier, either."
I hardly know anything about cryptosystems, but I know for certain, as though my life depended on it, that I could develop a completely secure OTP-based communications channel with a second, trusted party. As long as the physical computers aren't compromised, the system would be secure.
You're absolutely right. Except for the "very hard" part.
It costs about a hundred bucks to buy a good (secure) random number generator. Noisy diodes, for instance, work great. Hell, taking photos of lava lamps works, too.
QRNG
SafeXcel
VIA C3 RNG
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Assemble a team of smart people, and get obstacles out of their way.
It sounds like your organization was working, and they overloaded you with process. That's too bad. Glass doesn't even mention CMM, I don't think - so don't blame it on him.
We had a Book Club at my job, where we reviewed one to four Facts or Fallacies at each meeting, once a week. We collected comments and suggestions about how to change how we worked. It was really interesting, and it was good to engage more people in the discussion, because while I might really care about this stuff and have strong opinions, other people in our organization did not have strong opinions and actually started to think about this stuff as a result of our meetings.
Unfortunately, our suggestions didn't really get anywhere as a Massive Reorganization (TM) of the department took place. *grumble*
We're thinking of doing another Book Club, talking about the "Dynamics of Software Development" by Jim McCarthy.
Nelson Muntz: "Ha ha."
Well, I agree with you that 16 bits per channel should be good enough for output (maybe not intermediate processing) for a long time. Even the experimental High Dynamic Range monitors aren't running at that, right?
But I absolutely disagree with your statement about 30f/s being the edge of human perception. Sure, you get diminishing returns, but clearly people appreciate differences up to 75 Hz, and I've heard that professional atheletes can discriminate down to 1/200 of a second.
HD is the end of resolution increase in a 2-dimensional display for the consumer.
My LCD pulls down higher resolution than HD, so I disagree.
After 4K scanned movies, there won't be any more increases in resolution. We can finally stop the new media dance...
Yeah right. Something something 640K should be enough for something something... =)
What about 70mm film? That's four times as much data.
And that doesn't even account for higher framerates producing more data. Or more bits per channel producing even more data.
Yeah, it's fairly safe to use the old addage, "data expands to fill the available storage space." Video is no different.
It got a 9.6, but that's a really subjective opinion.... [emphasis added]
Well, I for one welcome our new electric coral overlords.
The originals are supposed to go into the public domain within a "limited time".
YOU ROCK. Thanks for saying that! (Mod parent up!)
I was about to try to counter the grandparent post on a completely different point, but you're absolutely right!!!
Well, really, online games have me doing my best performance of attack, while the monster does their best performance of attack. I will switch tactics only if something goes radically off script, like if I've lost too many hit-points, or if a friend starts running away, or if another monster starts hitting me with a wet noodle. But those events are fairly rare - they happen maybe 1 in 10 - more likely 1 in 30 combats, in most of the games I've played. That's because non-suicidal players are very careful to control the fighting environment as much as possible, to arrange for success. They attack monsters that they can pull back to a safer fighting position, and are cautious and aware of randomly aggressive monsters in the area, and typically games are designed to not be too hard. (Hard meaning, you have a 90% chance of surviving a good experience-awarding combat, not a 50% chance.)
So, my point is that, if I'm essentially just playing typing tutor, it sucks that I can't just type a little faster to queue up my never-changing performance, so that I can then socialize when things are changing. Like when we go off script, because I've lost too many hitpoints, someone runs away, or another monster starts hitting me with a loaf of bread. Get it?
So, I guess what I'm really saying is that I wish that MMO games were "interesting" enough that combat can't be totally scripted, but designed such that socializing about those dramatic events wasn't either impossible or totally boring. {Hit 4 for "Help", Hit 5 for "Run", etc.)
'Course, I'm just thinking out-loud here.
No, you make an interesting point. The problem is that simply being on the internet gives people that illusion of anonymity. Meaning, even if I had to use my real name in a game - who the hell knows me? Nobody. So - I can kind of do what I want to, because even though my avatar's T-shirt says my name, I'm still just a random face in the crowd...
Now, if you played a game with your peers, maybe that would be different...
anyone who can pay, can play, regardless of their social deficiencies
I have another way to describe your sentiment:
The problem with online games is that you, and everybody else online, are a jerk.
I can complain about how bad everyone online is, but then I realize that honestly, I'm doing the same stuff. I slowly started to realize that it's the games, it's not just me. The games require just enough twitch to make socializing difficult. You have to type the key to swing your axe at the spider at the same time that you're trying to type "Help! A spider is attacking me!" So, everyone macros the things that they need most often like "Help!" and "Incoming!" and "Add!" and "RUN!" Well a single-player game could easily emulate that kind of behavior.
I keep thinking that the games need to have a queue for commands, much like The Sims. I can tell the program, "attack, parry, dodge, thrust, heal self," and then I can type "Aaah! I'm getting attacked over here!"
I guess fundamentally, roleplaying, graphics, and typing don't mix very well.
No way. All of the differences you point out are completely masked by the JPG differences. (Those "cubes" you refered to are DCT 8x8 boundary artifacts.)
I look at computer-generated image quality differences all day long at my job, and comparing these two images, there basically aren't any. I've additionally used a JPG Artifact removal tool on the two images, and then done the image differencing trick, and you have to turn gamma up by about 1.5 before you see *any* differences, and I believe all of those are positional differences. Turning the gamma up by about 2.5 is even more revealing: the differences between the images are hugely dominated by JPG differences.
Look again.
We'd both need better source images to make any strong claims about one card being better or worse than the other. From where I'm sitting, they're nearly identical.
It's the authors. Just like people line up to read the next J.K. Rowlings novel, before there have been any reviews out, people line up to buy the next John Carmack game.
It could be called "The Facts of Life: Tuti versus Natalie" and people would line up around the block for it.
That said, have you read a bad J.K. Rowlings novel?
Translating this all back into the world of technology, it's just the Next Big Thing. I've been waiting since, what, 1999 for this? For me, it's kind of like, Return of the King. I really liked Fellowship of the Ring, and The Two Towers, and I just knew that ROTK was going to be great. I just knew it! Granted, I pretty much felt the same way about Star Wars I and Matrix II and Matrix III. But, people are optimists about entertainment, and the act of being optomistic about it is honestly almost as much fun as the thing itself. I *crave* Doom 3.
Alright, I just finished ordering. I got a few things different from above:
HDD: Hitachi 160 GB SATA 7200RPM 8BM Cache [93.49]
OPTICAL: Lite-On 12X DVD+/-RW Burner [90.99]
And that's my Doom3 box! If there's no difference between having 1G and 2G of RAM (big "if"), I should (theoretically) be getting 71.2 FPS at 1024x768 High Quality NoAA 8XAF. Bring. It. On.
Wow, thanks. Mentioning ASUS to me reminded me of the capacitor trouble that I had with ABIT before... My cousin is actually helping me pick out the stuff (I have a Masters in Computer Science, but I acknowledge that a 20 year old kid who goes to LAN parties all the time probably knows more about gaming boxes than I do!) I'm a little wary of the 64-bit stuff right now, but I know that's more just a matter of taste. And yeah, this goes over $2k, but I told him "somewhere between $2k and $2.5k". So, this is what we've discussed so far... Any comments?
OS: XP Pro sp1 [141.00]
CPU: P4 3.2E (1MB L2 Cache, Prescott) [279.00]
Motherboard: Abit IC7-MAX3 i875 chipset (has active cooling on MOSFETS) [176.00]
RAM: 1 GB(2x512) PC3200 OCZ EL [260.00]
GPU: BFG GeForce 6800GT 256MB AGP8 [499.00]
Soundcard: Audigy2 ZS [87.99]
HDD: Seagate 120 GB Serial ATA 7200RPM 8MB Cache [95.75]
OPTICAL: Sony 12X DVD+/-RW Burner [130.00]
Monitor: Viewsonic E90f+ 19" PerfectFlat CRT [199.00]
Case: Chenming Aluminum Full Tower (Green, they made older alienware cases) [50.00]
Speakers: Logitech z-680 5.1 Dolby Digital [259.00]
PSU: Thermaltake 420W 'Silent PurePower' [39.99]
COOLING: Zalman CNPS7000A Aluminum + Copper CPU cooler [35.99]
FANS: 3 Speeze 80mm fans [3.87 total]
Okay, so who wants to help me build the best possible box for Doom 3 for $2000? *GRIN*
How about if people post URLs to their NewEgg wishlists, here?
You obviously know nothing of the rules of Jeapordy!
The defending champion can only use their current-day winnings to wager. It's not like the other two contestants have "$0" and Ken has "$1,006,384" at the beginning of the show. They all start at zero, at the beginning of each show.
I kind of like this idea. I'm actually reminded of the laws of psychohistory in Asimov - the oldest text was displayed in blue, and the newest text was displayed in red. How about if Wikipedia text went from one color range to another, as it got "older"? (Reasoning being that older text has been viewed by more eyes, and is therefore more likely to have had mistakes corrected.) Or maybe this could just be a "view age" option for logged-in viewers.
Nichelle Nichols: "It's about that rip in space-time that you saw!"
Stephen Hawking: "I call it a Hawking Hole."
Fry: "No fair! I saw it first!"
Stephen Hawking: "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?"
(And then here's the MP3 of this great quote.)
Yes, I've read Hardy before, and I skimmed through it again at your bequest. Have you actually read any of Michael Moore's rebuttals?
A "documentary film" is best defined by people who are experts on film. The AMPAS is a group of experts on film, and they say it's a documentary. They know more about movies than you do, so I'm just going to go ahead and side with them here, okay?
Look, I'm just going to pull out one example of where Hardy is lying, and we'll start from that, okay?
Why the clock indicates six o'clock, when Moore is specific that he showed up for the interview at 8:30 AM, will have to await another investigation!
Moore clearly shows in Bowling for Columbine that he returned the following day, just as Heston asked him to, over his intercom system, as he waits at the front gates.
Hardy is lying, and he knows it, and is constructing conspiracies where none exist. He's fabricating, he's lying, he's dishonest.
Prove me wrong on this point, and I'll not only appologize to you, and promise to read every single word that Hardy said in his article and in all of his links, but I will also donate $100 to Hardy's "real documentary" as he asks at the bottom of his page.
Thanks for playing. Or won't you let the facts get in your way?