Actually, at the current currency rates, it's about 60,000 yen ($508 US dollars) for a PS3 that sells for $600+tax in the US. In essence, the Japanese are getting the console for about $100 cheaper; depending on what the sales tax is in your home state.
Whoa whoa whoa there cowboy; he's not talking about the illegal immigrants from Mexico who take all the "good jobs" such as lawn care, janitorial work and construction. He's talking about skilled LEGAL immigrants from a variety of countries, who will make as much as you and I. He's not talking about moving jobs overseas, he's talking about getting skilled workers here in the US. Believe it or not, computer science is still a growing industry with unfilled jobs every year, it's just changing very rapidly and many can't keep up; granted, tech support jobs are going overseas often, but we're also starting seeing the reverse occur (Dell, for example, moved their tech support back to America after customers complained). And truth be told, most tech support jobs aren't really skilled labor, anybody who can speak English can work at tech support (save in the upper levels); a little training and tech support knows the company's products, tech support is just customer service. Now, mind you, I agree that tech support jobs should stay here in the US; but this isn't about exporting jobs overseas, this is about filling jobs here in the US.
Except, again, the 9/11 terrorists had VALID, LEGAL IDs; they weren't fraudulent, they didn't lie about who they were. The 9/11 terrorists were here on perfectly valid visas, and all their IDs were obtained through perfectly legal means; which means, even if the "Real ID" system flies, it still won't stop terrorists from getting a valid ID. Somehow people have gotten it into their head that the 9/11 terrorists did things illegally before they attacked us, but this simply isn't the case; the 9/11 terrorists were normal, law-abiding individuals until their actions on 9/11.
I generate some 200 Watts while I'm on the exercise bike at the gym, using that excess energy to power the lights of the gym (and/or more) is a great idea.
Just don't plug the kid's Wii into the internet. Wow...that was difficult, wasn't it? And hey, if you aren't paying good enough attention to your kids to check in on what they are doing every now and again; you shouldn't be a parent.
Yes, but this is basically an official announcement that the Gamecube is dead. I've considered it to be a dead console for the last year or year and a half, but now we have Nintendo itself essentially dropping support aside from customer support. There won't be any new Gamecubes made according to this statement or any new games made by Nintendo for the system; considering how heavily the Gamecube relied on Nintendo to produce games for it, this is basically the death certificate for the system. I'd only consider one system of the "previous generation" of systems to be alive now, and that's the PS2 (which still has some big name titles coming out for it). The Wii hardware update kinda makes me think I'll wait a bit before purchasing, at least long enough to find out what the updated Wii hardware will do.
PC gaming is still huge, and the majority of upcoming big titles this year are for *ding ding ding* PC! Crysis, Alone in the Dark, Assasin's Creed just to name a few; not to mention a bunch of major titles have recently hit the PC. Anytime new consoles hit the market, a bunch of people say "PC gaming is dead" and then PC's blow all the new console's crap out of the water. I like consoles too (I'm picking up a PS3 and Wii this summer, most likely) but the idea that PC gaming is dying is ridiculous.
He kind of has a point in that, even if it isn't a "true" quantum computer and it simply uses some quantum processes, it doesn't matter a whole lot to the people interested in buying it. They're more interested in the power to do stuff they can't right now.
That being said, the fact that they aren't willing to show the machine to scientists makes me question whether this machine actually uses quantum processes.
That's because federal courts can strike down a bill as unconstitutional. It's that whole...checks and balances thing; I'm sure you've heard of it? No? Oh...well you see, there's three "branches" of government, and they are...well you know what, just go back to high school and pay attention this time, they'll teach you all about it.
He does actually have a point though, the TRENDS show that Blu-Ray is steadily gaining on its HD-DVD counterpart; and most likely will overtake it if HD-DVD doesn't do something to turn the trends around (the article mentions this in part). Considering Blu-Ray hit the market second, it's not terribly surprising that HD-DVD outsold Blu-Ray overall, so far.
...and I listened to Rush Limbaugh for five minutes. This blogger (no, I don't consider him a journalist) won't turn over the tape to the grand jury to determine what, if any crimes were committed..but he's fine with another judge seeing it? This isn't even a stand on any sort of morals or journalistic integrity (again, don't consider him a journalist); this is just some idiot not being willing to turn over a movie to one court, while saying he's fine with another judge seeing it.
And yes, believe it or not, if you don't give testimony when subpoened you will go to jail, journalist or not. A small riot started (from what I saw fo the video) by a bunch of anarchists and he thinks that he has no obligation to turn evidence over to the courts? A crime happened right in front of him, on camera; this is completely normal and likely the judge gave him such a sentence because of his flippant attitude.
What's laughable is that people here seem to think this is due to some "secret" court; which is not what a grand jury is. A grand jury simply is a panel of judges that examines the evidence presented by the prosecution when they attempt to bring charges in order to determine if the prosecution's case holds any water. There's a chance that the prosecution's case WON'T hold water; and in either case, any journalist protection laws don't apply in cases where crimes occur in front of the camera and all the grand jury wants to do is determine IF a crime occured; which is PRECISELY why it's not good enough that the judge who handed down the sentence sees the video, the grand jury has to see it FIRST.
Now if you'll excuse me, thinking about this makes my head hurt, I need some ibuprofen.
Okay, I'm not sure why that didn't have my lines seperated as when I wrote out the post, or why the quote isn't in blockquotes, but it appears that didn't happen for some reason.
I don't care where it is. The original post still stands. Free speech is unconditional, or it isn't free. Claiming to have free speech when you don't is fraudulent. There is no "a little pregnant".
Comparing free speech to pregnancy is like comparing an orange to a 747; they aren't alike at all. "Free Speech" is a vital write in the US, sure, but it doesn't trump the rights of others. When you impinge upon another's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in your free speech, your right to free speech goes right out the window. And that's exactly why COMMERCIAL speech is seperated from NORMAL speech; commercial speech is telling people about a product, which could have a major impact on their life.
Examing the law above, let's say that, due to one of those sparkling reviews that the author (or publisher, more likely) themselves wrote, someone buys a book. They then read the book, discover that the review was BS; they are subsequently out of a sum of money, possibly some time and probably pretty pissed off. In short, the buyer has been conned out of their hard-earned money and their right to the pursuit of happiness has been curtailed by the review poster's deception; sure it's not a major infringement, but it is an infringement.
That's why COMMERCIAL speech is not FREE speech; if we didn't have these types of protections, then advertisers could say whatever they want, with extremely serious consequences. Take a more serious example, the old snake oil sellers, they sold tonics and elixirs said to cure every from the common cold to sore backs to malaria; they didn't test their products, and there were no false advertising laws at the time, so they could say whatever they wanted. This (though we have no records to prove it, since people simply didn't realize it at the time) led to many deaths as these cure-alls were often filled with harmful materials (cocaine was often the primary ingredient). It would be the rough equivalent to seeing an ad for a drug on TV that claimed to cure cancer, but the drug really didn't do anything to cure cancer and was actually anthrax. Sure, fake reviews are a minor example of violation of truth in advertising laws, but clamping down on deceptive advertising practices is always a good thing for the consumer (you and me).
Should we panic? Or spend trillions trying to "fix it"? Not yet.
Wouldn't it be on the safer side to take relatively minor steps to try and slow the effects, just in case they really are right that global climate change is as serious as some say it is? Steps such as raising required fuel efficiency for cars and trying to consume where possible are relatively simple and small things we can do in order to slow the rate we are putting carbon diaoxide and other chemicals into the atmosphere. That wouldn't cost us trillions, just a minor inconvenience. And despite what American car makers are saying; non-American car makers are killing American car makers precisely because they make fuel-efficient cars at lower prices. At worst, we'd (horror of horrors) no longer see abominations like Hummers on the road (who needs an assault vehicle to pick up their kids from soccer anyway?).
How is this news? This is not a new argument in the literature world, it's just Structuralism; which is pretty damn absurd. The idea that there nobody ever makes anything new or exciting is, I think, an insult to everyone who is an artist; sure, art isn't developed in a bubble, but it does have (at the least) some originality in it. If art doesn't have originality in it of any sort, we call it plagiarism; or at the very best, a hack.
I'm a pretty open-minded guy, but when the best proof that somebody can come up with for ESP is that every 2 or 3 in 10,000 outcomes can be changed, I'm not impressed. Those are pretty basically standard statistical anomalies, and to say that they are definate proof of ESP is a very far stretch. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."; I can't recall who said it, but it's pretty much how science does (and should) examine things like this. When you can find someone who can levitate a car anytime, anywhere, I'll believe you.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, at the current currency rates, it's about 60,000 yen ($508 US dollars) for a PS3 that sells for $600+tax in the US. In essence, the Japanese are getting the console for about $100 cheaper; depending on what the sales tax is in your home state.
Whoa whoa whoa there cowboy; he's not talking about the illegal immigrants from Mexico who take all the "good jobs" such as lawn care, janitorial work and construction. He's talking about skilled LEGAL immigrants from a variety of countries, who will make as much as you and I. He's not talking about moving jobs overseas, he's talking about getting skilled workers here in the US. Believe it or not, computer science is still a growing industry with unfilled jobs every year, it's just changing very rapidly and many can't keep up; granted, tech support jobs are going overseas often, but we're also starting seeing the reverse occur (Dell, for example, moved their tech support back to America after customers complained). And truth be told, most tech support jobs aren't really skilled labor, anybody who can speak English can work at tech support (save in the upper levels); a little training and tech support knows the company's products, tech support is just customer service. Now, mind you, I agree that tech support jobs should stay here in the US; but this isn't about exporting jobs overseas, this is about filling jobs here in the US.
Except, again, the 9/11 terrorists had VALID, LEGAL IDs; they weren't fraudulent, they didn't lie about who they were. The 9/11 terrorists were here on perfectly valid visas, and all their IDs were obtained through perfectly legal means; which means, even if the "Real ID" system flies, it still won't stop terrorists from getting a valid ID. Somehow people have gotten it into their head that the 9/11 terrorists did things illegally before they attacked us, but this simply isn't the case; the 9/11 terrorists were normal, law-abiding individuals until their actions on 9/11.
...to never shop at Best Buy.
I generate some 200 Watts while I'm on the exercise bike at the gym, using that excess energy to power the lights of the gym (and/or more) is a great idea.
Just don't plug the kid's Wii into the internet. Wow...that was difficult, wasn't it? And hey, if you aren't paying good enough attention to your kids to check in on what they are doing every now and again; you shouldn't be a parent.
Yes, but this is basically an official announcement that the Gamecube is dead. I've considered it to be a dead console for the last year or year and a half, but now we have Nintendo itself essentially dropping support aside from customer support. There won't be any new Gamecubes made according to this statement or any new games made by Nintendo for the system; considering how heavily the Gamecube relied on Nintendo to produce games for it, this is basically the death certificate for the system. I'd only consider one system of the "previous generation" of systems to be alive now, and that's the PS2 (which still has some big name titles coming out for it). The Wii hardware update kinda makes me think I'll wait a bit before purchasing, at least long enough to find out what the updated Wii hardware will do.
PC gaming is still huge, and the majority of upcoming big titles this year are for *ding ding ding* PC! Crysis, Alone in the Dark, Assasin's Creed just to name a few; not to mention a bunch of major titles have recently hit the PC. Anytime new consoles hit the market, a bunch of people say "PC gaming is dead" and then PC's blow all the new console's crap out of the water. I like consoles too (I'm picking up a PS3 and Wii this summer, most likely) but the idea that PC gaming is dying is ridiculous.
He kind of has a point in that, even if it isn't a "true" quantum computer and it simply uses some quantum processes, it doesn't matter a whole lot to the people interested in buying it. They're more interested in the power to do stuff they can't right now. That being said, the fact that they aren't willing to show the machine to scientists makes me question whether this machine actually uses quantum processes.
That's because federal courts can strike down a bill as unconstitutional. It's that whole...checks and balances thing; I'm sure you've heard of it? No? Oh...well you see, there's three "branches" of government, and they are...well you know what, just go back to high school and pay attention this time, they'll teach you all about it.
He does actually have a point though, the TRENDS show that Blu-Ray is steadily gaining on its HD-DVD counterpart; and most likely will overtake it if HD-DVD doesn't do something to turn the trends around (the article mentions this in part). Considering Blu-Ray hit the market second, it's not terribly surprising that HD-DVD outsold Blu-Ray overall, so far.
...and I listened to Rush Limbaugh for five minutes. This blogger (no, I don't consider him a journalist) won't turn over the tape to the grand jury to determine what, if any crimes were committed..but he's fine with another judge seeing it? This isn't even a stand on any sort of morals or journalistic integrity (again, don't consider him a journalist); this is just some idiot not being willing to turn over a movie to one court, while saying he's fine with another judge seeing it. And yes, believe it or not, if you don't give testimony when subpoened you will go to jail, journalist or not. A small riot started (from what I saw fo the video) by a bunch of anarchists and he thinks that he has no obligation to turn evidence over to the courts? A crime happened right in front of him, on camera; this is completely normal and likely the judge gave him such a sentence because of his flippant attitude. What's laughable is that people here seem to think this is due to some "secret" court; which is not what a grand jury is. A grand jury simply is a panel of judges that examines the evidence presented by the prosecution when they attempt to bring charges in order to determine if the prosecution's case holds any water. There's a chance that the prosecution's case WON'T hold water; and in either case, any journalist protection laws don't apply in cases where crimes occur in front of the camera and all the grand jury wants to do is determine IF a crime occured; which is PRECISELY why it's not good enough that the judge who handed down the sentence sees the video, the grand jury has to see it FIRST. Now if you'll excuse me, thinking about this makes my head hurt, I need some ibuprofen.
Okay, I'm not sure why that didn't have my lines seperated as when I wrote out the post, or why the quote isn't in blockquotes, but it appears that didn't happen for some reason.
I don't care where it is. The original post still stands. Free speech is unconditional, or it isn't free. Claiming to have free speech when you don't is fraudulent. There is no "a little pregnant". Comparing free speech to pregnancy is like comparing an orange to a 747; they aren't alike at all. "Free Speech" is a vital write in the US, sure, but it doesn't trump the rights of others. When you impinge upon another's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in your free speech, your right to free speech goes right out the window. And that's exactly why COMMERCIAL speech is seperated from NORMAL speech; commercial speech is telling people about a product, which could have a major impact on their life. Examing the law above, let's say that, due to one of those sparkling reviews that the author (or publisher, more likely) themselves wrote, someone buys a book. They then read the book, discover that the review was BS; they are subsequently out of a sum of money, possibly some time and probably pretty pissed off. In short, the buyer has been conned out of their hard-earned money and their right to the pursuit of happiness has been curtailed by the review poster's deception; sure it's not a major infringement, but it is an infringement. That's why COMMERCIAL speech is not FREE speech; if we didn't have these types of protections, then advertisers could say whatever they want, with extremely serious consequences. Take a more serious example, the old snake oil sellers, they sold tonics and elixirs said to cure every from the common cold to sore backs to malaria; they didn't test their products, and there were no false advertising laws at the time, so they could say whatever they wanted. This (though we have no records to prove it, since people simply didn't realize it at the time) led to many deaths as these cure-alls were often filled with harmful materials (cocaine was often the primary ingredient). It would be the rough equivalent to seeing an ad for a drug on TV that claimed to cure cancer, but the drug really didn't do anything to cure cancer and was actually anthrax. Sure, fake reviews are a minor example of violation of truth in advertising laws, but clamping down on deceptive advertising practices is always a good thing for the consumer (you and me).
How is this news? This is not a new argument in the literature world, it's just Structuralism; which is pretty damn absurd. The idea that there nobody ever makes anything new or exciting is, I think, an insult to everyone who is an artist; sure, art isn't developed in a bubble, but it does have (at the least) some originality in it. If art doesn't have originality in it of any sort, we call it plagiarism; or at the very best, a hack.
Would YouTube have pulled this video before Google owned it? It's worth considering...
Anytime I hear the line that something will "make life easier" I grow rather suspicious. Easier for who? The government or you?
I'm a pretty open-minded guy, but when the best proof that somebody can come up with for ESP is that every 2 or 3 in 10,000 outcomes can be changed, I'm not impressed. Those are pretty basically standard statistical anomalies, and to say that they are definate proof of ESP is a very far stretch. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."; I can't recall who said it, but it's pretty much how science does (and should) examine things like this. When you can find someone who can levitate a car anytime, anywhere, I'll believe you.