Funny, I was unaware that Northrop Grumman were a scion of the free market. Could you name some of their non-government customers that provide more than 1% of their total revenue? It's called a Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex for a reason. But thanks for playing the strawman game.
i don't know, but it reminds me of the scene from Idiocracy where the "Doctor" tells the protagonist to put one probe in his mouth and the other in his rear, then realizes he made a mistake and asks him to switch them.
my point is that it's not just the "right wing" media or voices that are attacking or trying to marginalize Greenwald. Obama's own team refer to Greenwald (indirectly so as not to stoop to admitting he in particular is a nettle (and thus give him power by that admission)) as "left wing" and "far left". the establishment is rotten and corrupt. not the right wing of it. the whole thing.
i'm "on the right" fiscally, being a right-of-center libertarian, and I value Greenwald. You might note that all the figures in the linked-to article i posted above are about Obama's press secretary Gibbs (who i presume is also a Democrat, not a member of the Right.) So I don't think it's the Right exclusively who hate Greenwald. I think that is a strawman you're in love with. I think a better estimation is that corrupt people of all alleged political ideologies hate Greenwald because he tells it like it is, cites unambiguous sources, and is non-partisan with respect to holding those in power to account, no matter whether he agrees with them or not. He is a *national* treasure, not a treasure of the Left. Too bad our immigration policies force him to live overseas in order for him to remain true to himself. Too bad Obama hasn't done much to fulfill campaign promises in that regard either. And to claim that he has not got vast power and *influence* to make good on some of his promises is extremely naive. Or disingenuous. Your pick.
imo keeping a few campaign promises (like restoring the rule of law, rather than the past (and current) decidership) would have increased his chances of getting reelected.
and Obama/Holder could have chosen to prosecute. Guess what they chose not to do. Making them accomplices after the fact. I guess it's worth it to keep all that newly minted executive power intact.
people in the "civilized" blue states elected the current president who is doing the same thing the last president did, but worse. see for reference TFA regarding *Obama* chasing after wikileaks for exposing war crimes. The same Obama who committed to transparency and legitimate criticism of policies during the election. Also, read some Greenwald. Here's a representative sample: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs/index.html
How's that self-righteousness working out for you?
As much as I don't like Steele's neocon politics, he is a legitimate power broker in the Republican party. Please can your racism and exchange it for facts.
As usual, Glenn Greenwald has several interesting things to say, even though he's not that technical and ascribes far too much credence to the technical prowess and savvy of high-level government officials with "cyber" or some variant in their name.
That's exactly the point... it's too close to the hardware. Yes, it gives you really fine-grained control over what happens, and you can tweak it to make it as fast as possible. With the speed of today's computers, though, you shouldn't (usually) need that amount of optimization. Plus, the compiler should be robust enough to optimize the program nearly as well as you could anyway.
umm... did you miss the part where the guy also bitched that interpreted languages are "too slow"?
so which is it? where on this stone are you going to squeeze the blood from? it's a tradeoff and the menu of available programming language choices is already comprehensive. this guy expresses it better and more comprehensively than i care to in a/. comment:
and compiler researchers concede that a competent human will outperform a compiler for the foreseeable future. so your statement about compilers is total hand-waving away of facts inconvenient to your argument.
true, but if you make something idiot-proof, then they'll just build a better idiot. i blame the lawyers. it's sad: when Shakespeare wrote the line in Julius Caesar "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" it was a villain's line (Brutus, iirc). Today it would nearly be a hero's line.
not to mention that it, like almost all sociology, neurology, etc. are essentially hedge wizards pushing pseudo science.
i think true understanding of how our brains work will come from bottom-up (atomic-to-molecule-to-cellular-to-organ-to-organism) modeling and/or from advances in human computer interaction for the disabled -- computer-brain interfacing.
some of these studies used animals, sometimes unto their deaths, but at least there is a credible research direction rather than trying to support simpleton broad generalizations of "what people are like".
and all that is driving this tripe is big pharma looking to push more drugs that we don't properly understand -- or even can make credible claims of therapeutic value about.
i'm glad you had fun. i didn't. it was civ 3 with some window dressing. and i don't care whether you believe that i played it. i hope the next game is better than the first four, but i don't expect it. people will shell out for it on branding alone, so why bother making its AI make reasonable decisions, like surrendering in the face of overwhelming odds.
i did play civ 4. it seemed identical to civ 3 but with slightly better graphics. in fact the only reason i bought it was on the hope that the AI was better. i was disappointed.
by intimidation i meant diplomacy mostly. i surrounded an ancillary enemy city with both culture and units and the AI still refused to give it to me. my military easily took the city the next turn with no losses. at that point i stopped using diplomacy because there was no point.
like the same crappy AI as the last one. and the one before that. ad nauseam.
i quit Civ after realizing that it was impossible to win using diplomacy, culture, or intimidation. The only thing that works is military expansion and the space race.
because most people on/. are CS or IT and don't know much about modulation schemes or the physical layer other than the recommended max cable lengths for Ethernet.
and also because the marketing idiots for modems back in the day did their fair share of confusing the situation. kinda like the disk drive people did, necessitating the language distinction between megabytes and mebibytes. how many people use megabyte (or its abbreviation MB) when they mean MiB? (or GB for GiB)
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I was unaware that Northrop Grumman were a scion of the free market. Could you name some of their non-government customers that provide more than 1% of their total revenue? It's called a Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex for a reason. But thanks for playing the strawman game.
thank you for ruining everything the GP said. captain obvious.
Turn into a jet (like a boss)
Bomb the Russians (like a boss)
Crash into the sun (like a boss)
Now I'm dead (like a boss)
Uh huh. So that's an average day for you then?
No doubt
You chop your balls off and die?
Hell yeah.
Remember: the only good mime is a dead mime.
deadmime.org: ridding the world of the pantomime menace. One mime at a time.
i don't know, but it reminds me of the scene from Idiocracy where the "Doctor" tells the protagonist to put one probe in his mouth and the other in his rear, then realizes he made a mistake and asks him to switch them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CHY41trBFQ&feature=search
about 0:40 into the trailer.
my point is that it's not just the "right wing" media or voices that are attacking or trying to marginalize Greenwald. Obama's own team refer to Greenwald (indirectly so as not to stoop to admitting he in particular is a nettle (and thus give him power by that admission)) as "left wing" and "far left". the establishment is rotten and corrupt. not the right wing of it. the whole thing.
i'm "on the right" fiscally, being a right-of-center libertarian, and I value Greenwald. You might note that all the figures in the linked-to article i posted above are about Obama's press secretary Gibbs (who i presume is also a Democrat, not a member of the Right.) So I don't think it's the Right exclusively who hate Greenwald. I think that is a strawman you're in love with. I think a better estimation is that corrupt people of all alleged political ideologies hate Greenwald because he tells it like it is, cites unambiguous sources, and is non-partisan with respect to holding those in power to account, no matter whether he agrees with them or not. He is a *national* treasure, not a treasure of the Left. Too bad our immigration policies force him to live overseas in order for him to remain true to himself. Too bad Obama hasn't done much to fulfill campaign promises in that regard either. And to claim that he has not got vast power and *influence* to make good on some of his promises is extremely naive. Or disingenuous. Your pick.
imo keeping a few campaign promises (like restoring the rule of law, rather than the past (and current) decidership) would have increased his chances of getting reelected.
and Obama/Holder could have chosen to prosecute. Guess what they chose not to do. Making them accomplices after the fact. I guess it's worth it to keep all that newly minted executive power intact.
people in the "civilized" blue states elected the current president who is doing the same thing the last president did, but worse. see for reference TFA regarding *Obama* chasing after wikileaks for exposing war crimes. The same Obama who committed to transparency and legitimate criticism of policies during the election. Also, read some Greenwald. Here's a representative sample: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs/index.html
How's that self-righteousness working out for you?
Maybe not, but there is a preponderance of other evidence supporting that claim.
As much as I don't like Steele's neocon politics, he is a legitimate power broker in the Republican party. Please can your racism and exchange it for facts.
As usual, Glenn Greenwald has several interesting things to say, even though he's not that technical and ascribes far too much credence to the technical prowess and savvy of high-level government officials with "cyber" or some variant in their name.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/02/privacy/index.html
umm... did you miss the part where the guy also bitched that interpreted languages are "too slow"?
so which is it? where on this stone are you going to squeeze the blood from? it's a tradeoff and the menu of available programming language choices is already comprehensive. this guy expresses it better and more comprehensively than i care to in a /. comment:
http://eatthedots.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-is-c-faster-than-python.html
and compiler research has only yielded 4% annual improvement in performance per Proebsting's law
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/toddpro/papers/law.htm
http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2006/cmsc430/lec18.4p.pdf
and compiler researchers concede that a competent human will outperform a compiler for the foreseeable future. so your statement about compilers is total hand-waving away of facts inconvenient to your argument.
C) Philanthropically funded media e.g. propublica.org
http://www.propublica.org/about/
D) Micro-philanthropically funded media: please start one.
cool. thanks for the correction.
true, but if you make something idiot-proof, then they'll just build a better idiot. i blame the lawyers. it's sad: when Shakespeare wrote the line in Julius Caesar "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" it was a villain's line (Brutus, iirc). Today it would nearly be a hero's line.
some relevant links
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/09/transparency/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/07/transparency/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/30/media/index.html
not to mention that it, like almost all sociology, neurology, etc. are essentially hedge wizards pushing pseudo science.
i think true understanding of how our brains work will come from bottom-up (atomic-to-molecule-to-cellular-to-organ-to-organism) modeling and/or from advances in human computer interaction for the disabled -- computer-brain interfacing.
http://www.hpcwire.com/features/17882844.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.118.9017&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface
some of these studies used animals, sometimes unto their deaths, but at least there is a credible research direction rather than trying to support simpleton broad generalizations of "what people are like".
and all that is driving this tripe is big pharma looking to push more drugs that we don't properly understand -- or even can make credible claims of therapeutic value about.
uggh.
seriously, i've never had the AI offer anything, despite overwhelming odds against it. i'm glad you have.
i'm glad you had fun. i didn't. it was civ 3 with some window dressing. and i don't care whether you believe that i played it. i hope the next game is better than the first four, but i don't expect it. people will shell out for it on branding alone, so why bother making its AI make reasonable decisions, like surrendering in the face of overwhelming odds.
i did play civ 4. it seemed identical to civ 3 but with slightly better graphics. in fact the only reason i bought it was on the hope that the AI was better. i was disappointed.
by intimidation i meant diplomacy mostly. i surrounded an ancillary enemy city with both culture and units and the AI still refused to give it to me. my military easily took the city the next turn with no losses. at that point i stopped using diplomacy because there was no point.
like the same crappy AI as the last one. and the one before that. ad nauseam.
i quit Civ after realizing that it was impossible to win using diplomacy, culture, or intimidation. The only thing that works is military expansion and the space race.
because most people on /. are CS or IT and don't know much about modulation schemes or the physical layer other than the recommended max cable lengths for Ethernet.
and also because the marketing idiots for modems back in the day did their fair share of confusing the situation. kinda like the disk drive people did, necessitating the language distinction between megabytes and mebibytes. how many people use megabyte (or its abbreviation MB) when they mean MiB? (or GB for GiB)
cut them some slack, jack.