So is the violence necessary or not? I would say that a credible threat of violence is necessary, as a deterrent to those that would simply harm you for their own benefit. So long as there is one person on this planet that would commit violence against another, all the rest must remain capable responding in kind, even if they never actually have to.
Today's world is every bit as dangerous and violent as the ancient one First, I doubt very much this (there are no circuses any more). Let's see: rapists, killers, assorted maniacs - check; random crime, organized crime, gangs - check; racial intolerance, ideological conflict, hate crimes - check; ignorance, stupidity, greed, and selfishness in places of power - check; ignorance, greed, stupidity, and selfishness in the general population - check; abject poverty, disease, desperation - check; despotic regimes, aggressive regimes, deranged foreign policies, weak countries that can't defend themselves - check. You do realize that the perfect first-world suburb or small town is not representitive of the world at large, and that those little islands of peace can easily disintegrate due to shifting economics, crime, or even (in some parts of the world) foreign invasion, don't you?
Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely against locking everything down or building a wall to keep the nasty world out because it's a scarry place. I just think we need to face it and learn, from an early age, that people do maliciously hurt each other every day and that we need to watch out for ourselves as much as possible, rather than assuming that the nice man in uniform will do it for us.
Saddam was moving away from accepting US dollars for his oil. Had he done so others (Iran, Venesuela) may have followed. That would have dropped the value of the US dollar (though, when it comes to devaluing the dollar, it turns out the US didn't need a hand from its enemies after all).
To set up an even stronger military presence in the Middle East.
Because large American oil companies absolutely love having access (if not outright control - we have yet to see if the word "preferential" in that new treaty-in-all-but-name Bush just signed with Maliki actually means "exclusive") to one of the world's largest oil reserves.
Because the industrial side of the military-industrial complex is making a fortune. And so is Blackwater.
Because nobody in the government gives a damn what we, or the Iraqis, or anyone but themselves thinks about it.
Heck, even "Black Friday", other than that particular meaning, was applied to massacres, riots, major financial scandals, you get the idea.
So I can't help wonder what kind of idiot chose "Black Friday" to mean "we're selling lots of stuff". I mean, gee, it must be such a dark and depressing thing. It makes perfect sense to every retail chain sales drone that's had to work on a busy holiday.
Have you considered using relocatable handles to your in-memory assets rather than a slot system? Handles allow you to compact memory to eliminate fragmentation and it sounds like just the sort of thing you could use. That's not usually an option. Most games embed some sort of middleware like physics or scripting engines which account for a huge amount of fragmentation. I've heard stories about projects where the fragmentation caused by the script runtime alone was orders of magnitude greater than that caused by the rest of the engine (and it's damn near impossible to train designers to write script that doesn't create thousands of temporary objects). Usually fragmentation in those components is dealt with by giving them a private heap that's written to deal with their specific allocation patterns, which is as simple as replacing their calls to malloc/free (or new/delete). Rewriting these components to use relocatable memory is another matter altogether, and is hardly ever feasible.
Besides that you have the overhead of constantly locking/unlocking the handle to get at the actual pointer. And the odd stutter whenever you have to compact memory (which is completely unacceptable in certain game types - platformers for example are extremely frustrating if they stutter in the middle of some precisely timed maneuver).
And on top of that you often have to deal with multi-threaded systems where the locking/unlocking mechanism gets really interesting, and expensive - and forces you to attach some extra "locked" bits to each allocation. On top of this, if the compactor has to deal with locked memory blocks, then you either have to control what can be locked and when at a very fine level, or you essentially re-introduce the fragmentation problem. Fixed addresses mean you only have to ensure that other threads don't free some data that's still in use which is much easier to deal with.
If they have no reason to suspect me, why should they search/track/fingerprint/whatever me? I really, really, really wish that this answer would work. Sadly, it's based around right and wrong and that's way too abstract for the idiots that actually try to give this argument in the first place.
Like I said in my reply to the parent, the only way I've found to get through to these people is to remind them that the the corporation or political party that the person asking most hates and fears might get access to the data, and that it's easy to make a stamp that can leave someone else's fingerprints - all you need's a picture of said fingerprint and a 3D printer, all of which will now exist.
And every time I go through this I die a little, because saying that it's wrong to invade people's privacy like this should be enough. People depress me so much...
When talking to Americans, I generally exploit the fact that their political parties have been attacking each other in the most ridiculously stupid, malicious, partisan ways for years. It's pretty sad, but the name calling and scaremongering are not only expected but pretty much a part of American culture (kind of depressing seeing them there, juxtaposed with the dying values of the previous generation).
I'm not a <latest bogeyman> so why should I care? If this person's a Republican, I say "Yes, but what happens if Hillary is elected and gets access to that database?". If it's a Democrat, I say "But would you trust George Bush or Dick Cheney with that database? How about Rudy and his favorite police chief (or whatever that guy he suggested for DHS director was)?"
As for the people that don't fit into either camp I've found that they're either libertarians (in which case they already know the answer but were just trying to prove a point), are displeased with both parties (in which case either answer will do), or are intelligent enough that I don't have to stoop to the level of the extreme left/right media to prove my point anyway.
However, I am Canadian, and my exposure to Americans is thus limited to people I converse with on the internet and those I meet while travelling so, naturally, YMMV.
As for what I tell my fellow Canadians, well, none has actually said that to me yet. I imagine I'd point out that the information would almost certainly be shared with (and here I am, fearmongering again, because the average attention span is so goddamn short) the US government.
It's either the fingerprint routine or you get to become the 51st state and pay taxes. I'd stick with the fingerprints. We already pay taxes. And if our government doesn't stop trying to "harmonize" our international commerce laws and keeps making noise about privatizing everything we'll be the 51st state in all but name pretty soon. And we'll have the fingerprint thing.
Looks like Slashdot's going a bit far protecting this dude's copyright. I tried to swear at him using the Cyrillic alphabet, and the characters were edited right out of the comment! So much for clever loopholes...
And yes, pedantic jerk that didn't get the (admitadely lame) joke, I did check the page source, it's not my browser.
This is impossible. The port won't disappear - and the workers will still arrive for work. If China owned the port and tried this, the US would take it over that day and carry on operations.
If you own a port, you have no choice but play by the rules. It's not quite that simple.
While they run the port, they have the power to change operating procedures in ways that impact security (in the interests of "efficiency", of course). Yes, regulation is tight, but they still have some leeway here. They also have some political clout, as they can pressure the government to change regulations by laying off workers and telling their families and communities that it's because of harsh regulations (which the evil government never bothered to enforce against the old owners - extra points for pointing out government hypocracy, people love that sort of thing).
They can also, over a period of time, corrupt or replace the workers so that they won't arrive for work if the US government takes it over (and if you're wondering where they'd find such a work force, it'd be as simple as hiring those that rabidly oppose the current administration). They can also change many of the operating procedures so that any replacement work force will have to waste a lot of time fixing things before they can resume normal operations. You don't even need sinister motives to see this sort of thing happen - it's basic job security.
Also, if the government has to intervene, they can play the whole thing off as some sort of economic attack, resulting in all sorts of trade disruptions when the nice folks in their home government decide to play the nationalistic sentiment card against you. Anyone remember the Chinese reaction when NATO forces accidentally blew up their embassy in Belgrade? How far back were western trade interests set back when the CCP decided to demagogue that event?
On top of that, if the government ever has to nationalize an industry, it sets a bad precedent and makes any future owners nervous about running the port. This can lead to either a CYA culture in the new port administration or a "make as much money as possible before they throw us out" type environment. Ask big oil how they feel about doing work in China, Russia, or Venezuela. And think about what it means to those countries - they're now charged much more than the going rate whenever they want to bring in some new technology, or expertise, or equipment, or anything from abroad because oil companies (quite rightly) rate any work done in those countries as an extremely high risk investment.
Ultimately, you're right, they can't really do any permanent damage (unless they blow up the port or something, but that's another issue altogether). They can, however, cause enough of a disruption that it's simply better to keep control local and avoid the worst case scenario.
Wow. Didn't even notice this reply till I saw you'd marked me as a foe while reading another comment on another story. I mean, OK, I was being sarcastic (what, with the cheesy "" tag and all) but ye gods, talk about an overreaction. If I hadn't seen some of your other posts I'd think you're just some random troll and wouldn't even bother replying.
Just to warn you, I am going to be somewhat sarcastic here because all the random insults you threw into that post just seem to beg for it. Try not to let your blood pressure rise too much as you read on.
The very idea that the success of a country is dictated solely by it's culture (language, traditions, etc) is so bigotted I'm at a loss for words.
Let's see, my post said "are in many ways a consequence". As has already been pointed out, the phrase I used is significantly different from "dictated solely". Ignoring the random insult you tacked onto that sentence, I'll elaborate on what I meant, so that you can either see what I meant or maybe attack an actual point that I'm making, rather than one you just made up.
There is going to be a difference between a culture that values economic freedom, innovation, and those that build their own fortunes, and a culture that always defers to existing authority, maintains the status-quo, or avoids innovating into certain areas due to religious or political reasons. You seem to claim that you're familliar with history, so you can fill in the names of the actual nations/empires/societies I'm talking about yourself.
Tell that to Switzerland, or hell, most of the rest of Europe, which is currently outpacing the US economically (or did you not notice the plummeting US dollar?).
Oh, I've noticed. Have you noticed how almost every explanation for this boils down to "it's not so much [country] doing better as it is the USA doing worse" (and that this is only a recent development)? Have you noticed the price tag on the Iraq war? Have you noticed the divisive, demoralizing effect said war is having on US society? Have you noticed how, er, unfortunate foreign policy decisions are making the US dollar look unstable, and are thus lowering demand? Have you noticed Iran and Venuzuela talking about selling oil in Euros instead of US dollars? Have you noticed the mountain of external pressures that explain the recent trend but don't say anything, either for or against, to the argument that culture has an impact on economic performance?
Apparently you are unaware that Russia was once a superpower, just as China is, today.
Correction, in several parts:
The USSR, a geopolitical entity much larger and more populous than present-day Russia, was a superpower.
It was primarily a military superpower: In Soviet Russia, power would often be diverted away from the cities at night and sent to various military-orriented industrial facilities. Yes, the USSR had an impressive army, but they built it at the cost of pretty much everything else - sometimes even including food production. The US had a military that could match the USSR's, and they still managed to build massive cities and fill them with nice things. And this despite the fact that the USSR had a much bigger land mass with vast energy and mineral reserves within its borders, while the USA was importing a lot of oil.
China's recent rise to power coincides rather suspiciously with the CCP's decision to take the shinier bits of Western Capitalism and bolt them onto their economy. China's had its billion people for a long time yet it's funny how they never quite achieved much on the world stage until they stopped indoctrinating their people to believe that the only productive activity is that which the government calls for.
And this is just a non-sequitor... I'm dumbfounded why you even included it.
It's in there because I've heard religion (or lack thereof) credited for all sorts of things
Speaking of money, there might be some money changing hands from major software vendors to support anti-piracy measures. Heh. I can see the headlines now: "Microsoft Funding Gulag", shortly followed by "China Opens Laogai System to Foreign Investment". Cue the flying chair jokes...
If this were true, which I doubt, then it came with a very high price - the permanent breakup of the USSR and the loss of 14 Soviet Republics (Republic no. 15 is Russia - there were 15 Republics in the USSR), some of which aren't interested at all in being vassals to Mother Russia. Meh. The Russians annexed that land once, they probably think they can do it again.
Although, on second thought, I don't know why they'd even bother declaring a new USSR when they can just as easily control their puppet states through other means, like economic pressure (Russia now supplies a third of Europe's oil and natural gas), "diplomacy" (like the recently ratified withdrawal from the CFE treaty and other scare tactics), and covert means (the KGB always was good at bribing and blackmailing others into doing their bidding). And leaving those people "independent" helps reduce internal and international tensions so, if anything, I'd say breaking up the USSR was a net win - if this is indeed true.
Given the fact that the better quality of life and greater opportunities are in many ways a consequence of US culture, yes, it is hard to understand. It's like saying, "I want to live in the rich country, but I'm going to insist that it adopt the culture that makes mine poor/corrupt/whatever-it-is-I-don't-like-about-it, or at the very least dilute its own ways enough that I don't feel quite so homesick." Honestly, cry some more.
The US economy was built by free, inventive, industrious people working with, as opposed to merely beside each other. That implies a common language and similar values (because anything else would hamper communication and lead to infighting). It sure as hell isn't natural resources (Russia beats the US there), or population (see India and China), or even religion (see most of Europe) that make the USA what it is. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept...
This is absurd. Next thing you know they'll be going after people that like Chinese cooking on the grounds that they're probably Communists. Oh, that's right, most people that leave China (you know, the ones that open up Chinese ethnic food shops/restaurants) do so to get away from the communists. Has it dawned on these people that a large number of Middle-Easterners might have the same sentiments regarding the religeous extremeism, tyrranical regimes and terrorist groups that are common in their home lands?
Next month's headlines:
People who eat French cuisine profiled as likely supporters of socialized medicine. Names posted, extreme-right-wingers encouraged to kill them on sight.
People eating Mexican food deemed lazy. Fired en mass.
FBI struggles to find uniquely Canadian food: "How else will we know where they all are?" Says spokesperson.
but I wouldn't be surprised if it was about as educational to me as playing with Legos was. I agree. I never played the original - I got into the series starting with Sim City 2000 - but that pretty sums up my impression of it.
Heck, they could even put SC2K on the XO, or at least make it available. If it runs on my four year old 32 MB pocket PC, it can fit on the XO.
Video games might see a small speed up from a multicore, but not that much of one- it doesn't break down into equally weighted threads. Not at all true. Most of the heavy physics and graphics processing is extremely parallelizable. I've even seen AI computations parallelized. Taking advantage of multi-core is a very hot topic in the game industry right now and I assure you we're far from lacking ideas.
Is it odd for me to want a president who is more intelligent than the average American? In terms of "sane" and "reasonable", no it's not odd at all.
<irony> In terms of deviating from the norm, then yes, since evidently most voters don't want an intelligent president when a people-pleaser (or I guess these days it's people-scarer) will do. </irony>
I just don't think a science focused debate would be a useful metric for those judging presidential candidates. As has been noted in other posts, it would almost certainly devolve into even more repetition of the same old talking points (and I'd hate to see politicized bullshit connected even more firmly with science in the public mind). Either that or a public display of ignorance, and I don't know what would be more painful to watch: them spout errors that a fifth grader should be able to correct, or the audience nodding along and clapping.
Now, if the candidates had to send their choice for science adviser or head of some science/technology based department to such a debate, then I'd be interested. Then people might get an intelligent debate and the opportunity to judge the candidate's ability to delegate wisely.
Yeah. This would just be painful to watch. Can you imagine? We'd probably end up calling the debate "Son of the Intertubes".
And in an election that's going to be dominated by the Iraq debate (unless, you know, a bullshit issue like gay marriage rears its ugly head...again [rolls eyes]) it's rather pointless. All I want to hear out of the candidates regarding science is something along the lines of, "Yeah, I like science, sure I'd fund it." Anything more is just a waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely against locking everything down or building a wall to keep the nasty world out because it's a scarry place. I just think we need to face it and learn, from an early age, that people do maliciously hurt each other every day and that we need to watch out for ourselves as much as possible, rather than assuming that the nice man in uniform will do it for us.
So I can't help wonder what kind of idiot chose "Black Friday" to mean "we're selling lots of stuff". I mean, gee, it must be such a dark and depressing thing. It makes perfect sense to every retail chain sales drone that's had to work on a busy holiday.
More like "we didn't have an unlimited amount of time and money with which to write the engine, so what can we do?"
But I'm going to stop writing now since this heading into off-topic territory.
Besides that you have the overhead of constantly locking/unlocking the handle to get at the actual pointer. And the odd stutter whenever you have to compact memory (which is completely unacceptable in certain game types - platformers for example are extremely frustrating if they stutter in the middle of some precisely timed maneuver).
And on top of that you often have to deal with multi-threaded systems where the locking/unlocking mechanism gets really interesting, and expensive - and forces you to attach some extra "locked" bits to each allocation. On top of this, if the compactor has to deal with locked memory blocks, then you either have to control what can be locked and when at a very fine level, or you essentially re-introduce the fragmentation problem. Fixed addresses mean you only have to ensure that other threads don't free some data that's still in use which is much easier to deal with.
Like I said in my reply to the parent, the only way I've found to get through to these people is to remind them that the the corporation or political party that the person asking most hates and fears might get access to the data, and that it's easy to make a stamp that can leave someone else's fingerprints - all you need's a picture of said fingerprint and a 3D printer, all of which will now exist.
And every time I go through this I die a little, because saying that it's wrong to invade people's privacy like this should be enough. People depress me so much...
As for the people that don't fit into either camp I've found that they're either libertarians (in which case they already know the answer but were just trying to prove a point), are displeased with both parties (in which case either answer will do), or are intelligent enough that I don't have to stoop to the level of the extreme left/right media to prove my point anyway.
However, I am Canadian, and my exposure to Americans is thus limited to people I converse with on the internet and those I meet while travelling so, naturally, YMMV.
As for what I tell my fellow Canadians, well, none has actually said that to me yet. I imagine I'd point out that the information would almost certainly be shared with (and here I am, fearmongering again, because the average attention span is so goddamn short) the US government.
...that Comcast is apparently in charge of Gundam.
Looks like Slashdot's going a bit far protecting this dude's copyright. I tried to swear at him using the Cyrillic alphabet, and the characters were edited right out of the comment! So much for clever loopholes...
And yes, pedantic jerk that didn't get the (admitadely lame) joke, I did check the page source, it's not my browser.
If you own a port, you have no choice but play by the rules. It's not quite that simple.
While they run the port, they have the power to change operating procedures in ways that impact security (in the interests of "efficiency", of course). Yes, regulation is tight, but they still have some leeway here. They also have some political clout, as they can pressure the government to change regulations by laying off workers and telling their families and communities that it's because of harsh regulations (which the evil government never bothered to enforce against the old owners - extra points for pointing out government hypocracy, people love that sort of thing).
They can also, over a period of time, corrupt or replace the workers so that they won't arrive for work if the US government takes it over (and if you're wondering where they'd find such a work force, it'd be as simple as hiring those that rabidly oppose the current administration). They can also change many of the operating procedures so that any replacement work force will have to waste a lot of time fixing things before they can resume normal operations. You don't even need sinister motives to see this sort of thing happen - it's basic job security.
Also, if the government has to intervene, they can play the whole thing off as some sort of economic attack, resulting in all sorts of trade disruptions when the nice folks in their home government decide to play the nationalistic sentiment card against you. Anyone remember the Chinese reaction when NATO forces accidentally blew up their embassy in Belgrade? How far back were western trade interests set back when the CCP decided to demagogue that event?
On top of that, if the government ever has to nationalize an industry, it sets a bad precedent and makes any future owners nervous about running the port. This can lead to either a CYA culture in the new port administration or a "make as much money as possible before they throw us out" type environment. Ask big oil how they feel about doing work in China, Russia, or Venezuela. And think about what it means to those countries - they're now charged much more than the going rate whenever they want to bring in some new technology, or expertise, or equipment, or anything from abroad because oil companies (quite rightly) rate any work done in those countries as an extremely high risk investment.
Ultimately, you're right, they can't really do any permanent damage (unless they blow up the port or something, but that's another issue altogether). They can, however, cause enough of a disruption that it's simply better to keep control local and avoid the worst case scenario.
Just to warn you, I am going to be somewhat sarcastic here because all the random insults you threw into that post just seem to beg for it. Try not to let your blood pressure rise too much as you read on.
The very idea that the success of a country is dictated solely by it's culture (language, traditions, etc) is so bigotted I'm at a loss for words.
Let's see, my post said "are in many ways a consequence". As has already been pointed out, the phrase I used is significantly different from "dictated solely". Ignoring the random insult you tacked onto that sentence, I'll elaborate on what I meant, so that you can either see what I meant or maybe attack an actual point that I'm making, rather than one you just made up.
There is going to be a difference between a culture that values economic freedom, innovation, and those that build their own fortunes, and a culture that always defers to existing authority, maintains the status-quo, or avoids innovating into certain areas due to religious or political reasons. You seem to claim that you're familliar with history, so you can fill in the names of the actual nations/empires/societies I'm talking about yourself.
Tell that to Switzerland, or hell, most of the rest of Europe, which is currently outpacing the US economically (or did you not notice the plummeting US dollar?).
Oh, I've noticed. Have you noticed how almost every explanation for this boils down to "it's not so much [country] doing better as it is the USA doing worse" (and that this is only a recent development)? Have you noticed the price tag on the Iraq war? Have you noticed the divisive, demoralizing effect said war is having on US society? Have you noticed how, er, unfortunate foreign policy decisions are making the US dollar look unstable, and are thus lowering demand? Have you noticed Iran and Venuzuela talking about selling oil in Euros instead of US dollars? Have you noticed the mountain of external pressures that explain the recent trend but don't say anything, either for or against, to the argument that culture has an impact on economic performance?
Apparently you are unaware that Russia was once a superpower, just as China is, today.
Correction, in several parts:
And this is just a non-sequitor... I'm dumbfounded why you even included it.
It's in there because I've heard religion (or lack thereof) credited for all sorts of things
Although, on second thought, I don't know why they'd even bother declaring a new USSR when they can just as easily control their puppet states through other means, like economic pressure (Russia now supplies a third of Europe's oil and natural gas), "diplomacy" (like the recently ratified withdrawal from the CFE treaty and other scare tactics), and covert means (the KGB always was good at bribing and blackmailing others into doing their bidding). And leaving those people "independent" helps reduce internal and international tensions so, if anything, I'd say breaking up the USSR was a net win - if this is indeed true.
Given the fact that the better quality of life and greater opportunities are in many ways a consequence of US culture, yes, it is hard to understand. It's like saying, "I want to live in the rich country, but I'm going to insist that it adopt the culture that makes mine poor/corrupt/whatever-it-is-I-don't-like-about-it, or at the very least dilute its own ways enough that I don't feel quite so homesick." Honestly, cry some more.
The US economy was built by free, inventive, industrious people working with, as opposed to merely beside each other. That implies a common language and similar values (because anything else would hamper communication and lead to infighting). It sure as hell isn't natural resources (Russia beats the US there), or population (see India and China), or even religion (see most of Europe) that make the USA what it is. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept...
</rant>
This just in: irony gains new meaning as 8 out of 10 terrorists say "freedom fries" better than falafels. All this and more at 11.
Next month's headlines:
Heck, they could even put SC2K on the XO, or at least make it available. If it runs on my four year old 32 MB pocket PC, it can fit on the XO.
Subscribe...newsletter...must...intrigued...
Thank you for that. I needed a good laugh.
<irony>
In terms of deviating from the norm, then yes, since evidently most voters don't want an intelligent president when a people-pleaser (or I guess these days it's people-scarer) will do.
</irony>
I just don't think a science focused debate would be a useful metric for those judging presidential candidates. As has been noted in other posts, it would almost certainly devolve into even more repetition of the same old talking points (and I'd hate to see politicized bullshit connected even more firmly with science in the public mind). Either that or a public display of ignorance, and I don't know what would be more painful to watch: them spout errors that a fifth grader should be able to correct, or the audience nodding along and clapping.
Now, if the candidates had to send their choice for science adviser or head of some science/technology based department to such a debate, then I'd be interested. Then people might get an intelligent debate and the opportunity to judge the candidate's ability to delegate wisely.
Yeah. This would just be painful to watch. Can you imagine? We'd probably end up calling the debate "Son of the Intertubes".
And in an election that's going to be dominated by the Iraq debate (unless, you know, a bullshit issue like gay marriage rears its ugly head...again [rolls eyes]) it's rather pointless. All I want to hear out of the candidates regarding science is something along the lines of, "Yeah, I like science, sure I'd fund it." Anything more is just a waste of time.