Actually, I saw a study recently (on something innane like AIM Today or msn.com courtesy of a fresh IE install) that found that people who sleep more than 8 or 9 hours have as many sleep problems as those that sleep less, in other words, they're just as sleepy, likely to doze off, feeling fatigued, unmotivated, etc, as someone who is sleep deprived.
The article's conclusion was that 7-8 hours is ideal.... I also have to agree with this from personal experience. My weekends are more productive if I don't swallow the bait that is 12 hours of sleep.
Of course... never can be 100% sure how much of that is caused by body being confused from getting up at a much different time, ie, jet lag without moving. Who knows.
I have found that almost every place I've worked, bypassing security is a joke. I mean, think about it. How many times have people "swiped you in", or what have you, when you forgot your badge? Even without really knowing you? And if you should have a fake badge that just "isn't working", you're in like Flynn. For me, the only exception was where they kept actual classified data. It would take some amount of serious spying (e.g., returning on multiple days, shoulder surfing, maybe even key swiping) to get in. But the fact is, most people just won't assume that you're doing something evil. So... easy! Far easier than trying to crack the software and such, if you ask me. And that's as an introverted geek. (on the flip side, I'm also "unassuming"; I don't look like I have a hidden agenda.
Of course, the other side is that, hey, why don't we use computers to see what remains unseen by people? They're better at spotting "suspicious" behavior anyway. And if people actually were willing to accept that the computer IS right and the policy that so-and-so can't get in without a badge must be enforced... you could have a very secure system.
For instance, take protecting classified data. If you're generic spy X, you're gonna want to sit down, and just start copying all that stuff on to the nearest media you can find. That kind of behavior is almost always not what a regular person would do... There are all sorts of patterns which can register as suspicious. Most security systems are smart enough to note these things, and alert people who, I would assume, should always be the second check on such a system, because some people are just eccentric.
(I at one point was designing a security control system, and my boss was always asking me to add such things. It's amazing, but pretty obvious. If somebody needs to get a new password every other day, something is probably wrong. If somebody brand new is supposed to be given full access to every system in the place (happened! Managers just found it easier to check every box!), something is wrong).
You can't sign away a legal right to overtime. You can't sign away legal rights, period. Otherwise, why not (as an employer) simply always tell your employees, no overtime, any time? Obviously, the law prohibits that.
As an aside to the parent, as an intern, nothing is more maddening than the vague effects of budgeting from higher up. They can basically love my work and beg me to come back next summer, only to have the intern program get axed in the interim and force me to move on.
It might not be radiation but the tremendous heat the reactor core had.... it would definitely glow (a la black body radiation). Wouldn't be green, of course...
As for radiation itself, well, I'm sure if it was intense enough it would cause a glow by the same effect, just from the heat. As for it possibly colliding with things and spitting out lower intensity EM emissions (ie, light), it's certainly possible. You know, like when you shine a UV light on things... Maybe the better versed can prove me wrong, but gamma radiation is just at the extreme high end of the spectrum.
Don't know for sure, but I doubt your bio prof ever had a huge nuclear meltdown worth of radioactive material, so...
Well, for that matter, why don't they just move out of California. They can pay a programmer half as much if he lives on the other end of the country. A quiick peek at The Salary Calculator reveals that making $100K in Palo Alto, CA is the same as making $47 K here in (relatively affluent, close in DC suburb) Vienna, VA. And it only gets cheaper as one gets further out from downtown. Out where AOL is (What I would call Ashburn) the number is $37K. I'm sure if you looked at more undeveloped locations that number would be lower still.
Moral is, they should be relocating OUT OF CALIFORNIA, where taxes are absurd, and land values are worse. They used to say, for people moving out there, half the house for twice the price. Seems to be only a slight exaggeration.
Yeah well realize their money is also your money - highers costs for them means it costs more for them to fly which means you pay more to fly, simple as that.
I'm going to have to join with those who disagree on this one. Well, ADHD, that's somewhat debatable. ADD, I know exists, because I have it. I definitely think there's a rather out of control trend to just say "kid is acting up, here, have some ritalin, it'll calm him down". That's just ridiculous. A kid behaving badly isn't going to suddenly behave better because he can focus more. In my experience (as with many geeks with caffeine, I would presume) the amphetamine I take makes me a lot more foucsed, but it can just as easily lead me to focus on the bad things as the good.
I think you're mistaking your level of knowledge for that of a real doctors. You may not see psychiatric abnormalities, you might not notice how easily they get distracted, but that doesn't mean they don't.
Tthe most obvious illustration I have personally of this working is when it comes to getting to some place on time. Without meds, I will ALWAYS be late, often ridiculously so. While that's somewhat my personality, most if it is that while I'm looking for my shoes, I see the paper. So I start reading an article on the front page... then see another article I want. Then I wonder who won the game last night... Then I'm thirsty. I know I really should leave, but I just want to check my e-mail real quick. Ahh, someone replied to this comment... Next thing you know, it's half an hour later. Sure something like this has happened to everyone, but it's far worse in my case - and if I take my medication it's not.
Of course the dark flipside to this is if I'm, say, playing Vice City after taking my medication, nothing can tear me away from it. Maybe I can physically walk away but the game stays in my mind. And side effects there definitely are. I swear, it seems like it never gets out of my system. But all things considered, both at work and school, it vastly improves my performance.
Of course I also dont' have a problem with the drug being legally available OTC - I think it could help a lot of people, even those who typically don't have "ADD" symptoms. Sometimes you need to concentrate more than others... I don't see why people are so afraid of performance-enhancing drugs which don't cause problems if handled correctly. Sure you have to protect the dumbass from OD'ing, but why not let everyone enjoy the benefits?
Also I have a hard time believing this is all patent driven, after all, these drugs are VERY old - pre WWII in some cases. It's hard to believe those patents are current. I know adderall is the latest and greatest and I'm sure it costs an arm and a leg. And they have some new (non-amphetamine) ADD drug out now - which acts totally different, it doesn't stimulate dopamine receptors. Though on the other hand, I must admit, my shrink's office IS covered with crap the drug "lobbyists" left around - you know, an ambien pen, a Zoloft pad, what have you.
Wow, is it just me, or is this article really down on genetic engineering? It seems like it has one paragraph on what was done, then the bulk of it is various people saying why it was bad, how it wouldn't be allowed in the UK, etc. Why isn't there any "This is a great step forward" commentary? Or at least, more explanation of why it was done? To hear the article say it, it sounds as though infertility was a mere excuse to violate the "germline"; but since when is the germline sacred? Personally, though, I'm proud to hear about this; I hope that in the future, we can see more people doing more with genetics to make us all better suited to our environments (which, after all, is radically different from the one we evolved in).
I must confess, I recently ordered all the parts to assemble a new box with a 1.33 GHz Athlon, DDR, etc, just for the game. It does run on my PII-400. It runs pretty well on the first couple lands, even. The third land, especially towards the end, is chop city. Even when minimizing the number of things needing rendering (IE, not zooming in on a village), I'm getting 2-3 FPS. I have 256 MBs of RAM, a 32 MB Radeon LE with the Z-Buffer turned on, etc. It was killer enough for me;). I'll admit, though, I was looking for a good excuse for some time. And the excuse I have for using an Athlon 800 on my 'nix box was for the purpose of DivX. I dunno if it was a video card or what, but my PII-450 couldn't manage it. Of course that processor fried which is what really got me out there;).
Black and White really could be the game, if it didn't have a lot of gameplay issues, and if only the programmers had taken the time to add more to it - much more visual variety in villages, say, or perhaps even war among villagers. (The idea of an army of villagers doing battle with gods clashing with lightning above them is just so cool. It's also very processor intensive). All in all, as a game, it now gives me a somewhat empty feeling - like it could have been an amazing game, if only they hadn't rushed to release and left out so many features/documentation. Oh, no, wait, this game was like 2 years late, wasn't it? It was cool enough for me - desperately looking for an excuse - to upgrade, but will it be for the common man? Nah.
But to get back on topic. I doubt the games are gonna be made unless there's some reason to use that extra hardware, and now, there isn't. I mean, what can you do with all your hardware? Improved 3d rendering? Bah. I think we've beat that one as far as it'll go. I'll admit, it was a huge leap from a side-scroller to Wolfenstein. But since then, each seemed less. Perhaps Doom was almost as big a difference. But the quake games... I think people aren't gonna notice any more. So it's time for you game coders out there to write some SERIOUS AI! RTS writers might write code for some AI which actually learns how to play against YOU. Or maybe even an AI which is smart enough to know that sending a long line of troops at a target is INCREDIBLY stupid. I mean, an AI which can do more than amazing resource management;). Or for B&W, a creature AI which has a memory of what it was doing 15 seconds ago. So when you slap it, it might realize that what it was doing just a moment ago earned the slap. Maybe even it could go so far as to figure out - on its own in a decent fashion - what you were slapping it for - for instance, even though what it was doing at the time changes, it realizes that if it eats a human, and God finds out, the smackdown comes. Maybe decent villager AI would be nice to - perhaps even go so far as to have them expand on their own! Yes, without deciple craftsmen and YOU there to drag scaffolds around. Perhaps even villages could learn which areas were ok to chop down trees in, or how much to expand before you get cranky. I'd be happy enough to see a switch which allows them to expand on their own. But maybe, just maybe, they could be born with common sense - or maybe you should be able to smack it into them. The kind of common sense that says "If you cut down each and every tree in sight, you aren't going to find any more wood. But if you leave a few, it might grow back!". At first really complex AI for enemies, villages, etc, seems like it would be a processing/memory nightmare. It is. But isn't that the whole point? Hell, as regards black and white, if you had good villager AI, you could even leave out the direct numbering of belief. Villagers who believe in you would go to your temple. They realize that doing so, makes you do good things for them (or not do bad, depending on your alignment). They might later learn that worshipping you makes God Joe rain down vengence. Or whatever; but it'd be much more fun if that's how it was rather than how it is now;). That way, you could also do something along the lines of "God helps those who help themselves". Like, say, villagers are hard at work in the fields, and bring in a good crop. You could reward them by adding miracle food in with their crop. Currently, that carries a big risk of the villagers becoming "Disillusioned", which in the game means "lazy". Laying the smack down does eliminate disillusionment somewhat. But you shouldn't have to keep going back and forth. The people should be smart enough to figure out god rewards hard work in the fields. Rather than, say, "Oh, god gave us something nice. He'll always be there. Let's get lazy." and also, you could get rid of desciples too, by rewarding villagers in certain acts. If the range of miracles was wider (and more easy to focus), this would be easy.
In looking at the responses, I noticed a lot of people saying things to the effect of "evil, money grubbing corporate America", and, generally implying that they are pushing for these laws simply with the goal of making more money. In essence, capitalism is to blame, or so the other posters seem to imply; if we were more communist (IE, if everyone who was an "artist" got paid the same, and the "distributors" the same), we wouldn't have this problem; we could "open source" everything since the gov't would take care of the artists and a good time would be had by all. Or, if only people weren't so greedy. Or, other suggested solutions rely on keeping some IP protections and not others. But personally, I think, the true capatalist way is not protecting IP - but the exact opposite - having no protections at all. It'd be better for authors and the public alike, also. I think the reason why companies are whining is that, with the internet, the "distributor" role is becoming nominal - anyway can put music on Napster, so why sign with a label? - which really has nothing to do with IP.
You see, when there is no IP law, the classic problem is that everyone would go out, make copies, and the authors/distributors get squat. In fact, though, capitalism prevents this. Under capitalism, people pay for want they want. If the content is only worth getting a copy - they do that. But if they want more content, they pay more. Thus greed motivates good content: people who make "cheap" or low-quality content, won't get paid. Perhaps paying beforehand is more desirable in this case; but either way, if people are only willing to copy a work, and not pay, obviously they do not consider it of much value. This requires authors to produce good content - if their new CD sucks, nobody will buy it. People pay for something on the premise of future works; or they also pay as a token of appreciation (see below). Any person can pay the amount they feel something is "worth". This is great for people, too, since those who might not otherwise be able to afford to benefit from a work can get a free copy; while those more financially able carry the burden of financing. Of course, they also get to choose which works continue (by paying), but that is the capitalist way.
Of course the problem is if people are overly individualistic, and take an attitude like they do for voting - "What I do, won't matter" - they'd all wind up not paying, and we'd have no content creation. But I find that unlikely. It seems to me that the "Tip Jar" model has been at least modestly successful, and I think, if people really like something, they'll be willing to cough up a lot of money to get more of it. People regularly organize petitions to try to get a work published (take anime, for instance - the people signing the petitions, etc, are not generally those who have no access to the work, but those who've seen it alreaday) - if the people also cared about their artist, they could just as easily organize the money. If the artist feels nobody pays him/her, they can quit - and people who benefitted from that work, now feel the pain. And what's even better, you can actually *choose* how much to contribute - how much you want to see more. With current IP, you can buy or not buy. A mess of regulations is not what we need; it just forces people to buying CDs with songs they hate, sending money to record companies they dislike, and keeps them from communicating data with friends and family. People lose one of the most important parts of capitalism - choice. People don't want that (see below). People are uncomfortable - they often wind up paying more than something is "worth" to them - or less. Neither are good. As an added penalty, they have to "buy" the work before they've been able to fully use it, and evaluate its benefit. The current system - of "test drives", etc, are only a very limited substitute. After all, something which appears good at first could fade rapidly. But in the current model, there's no allowance - you've already paid. Of course, this applies to patents too. Granted, the argument is weaker here, but again - if people really care about getting more exceptional products in the future, they'd buy "legit" (produced by/to benefit the creator) content. It also prevents people from milking patents to their end - just because YOU got the patent to SDRAM, doesn't mean the people will acknowledge, and send money to you. Of course, if your research labs spent years designing some revolutionary new device, people will love it, and send you money - so you can go on working. But if instead you make only one thing, and sit on it forever - the people will stop paying. Royalties will not continue forever.
Practically, the best example of success here is radio. Initially, record companies wanted to shut down radio - free music - until they realized it improved sales! Why would people buy CDs[records when this was first an issue] they could hear on the radio? - The common IP-supporting answer is that they want the "ease" that comes with owning a CD - you don't have to wait for a good song to be on the radio. But we have had casette tapes for some time, which could just as easily copy content off the air for playing at leisure; or we have things like TiVo that allow us to view a program on TV whenever we like (in this case, instead of buying or renting a movie). Still, we buy CDs. The reason is probably partially an "ease-of-use" issue - copying can be a pain - but it is far cheaper to copy. Myself, I've bought several CDs from bands to which I had most of the songs already from Napster -- in fact, nearly every CD I've bought has gone that way. The reason here is that people want to "own" part of the content - to say "I am legit" (though not for fear of legal reprise). In my case, for instance - the more I like a band, the more of their CDs I buy - even if I already have most of the songs in MP3 format, which I could easily enough burn (in less time than it takes me to go to the record store). But still, that sense of contribution or ownership is one which, I think, people will continue to pay for. Further, you are voting your approval of the work. If a group of people deside to be miserly and not pay - their voice does not get heard. In fact, they give a negative tone - discouraging the author from future work, and discouraging others from improving the work, etc.
Of course, I think record companies are doomed. Take the failure of Divx (the DVD-esque format) as an example. All this encryption, pay-as-you-go methods - the people didn't want it, they won't pay. I think that as more artists move to publishing on the net and allowing people to pay as they wish - people will be happier. The music will be better. The record companies are out of the picture - except to set things up for individuals, which is a minor role. The days when there was no practical method for an individual to distribute are over.
Of course, many other people have posted "IP bad, open source good". But the implication is that "open source" protects the rights of the consumer; that the companies are infringing on these rights for their own benefit. That the old IP laws were good; the new ones revoke too many rights. I think, though, that the grounding for demolishing IP is not in helping the common man - it's in the fundamental ideas of capitalism. It's all about people being greedy bastards. After all, if I really care about my money, I won't just dump another CD on the market and hope some poor sap will buy it - since I realize I won't get paid. And I don't think ANY IP should be allowed to continue. The exception, though, is trademark; but only so as people can clearly differentiate the "legit" from the "copy". This information is not content, though - just a label.
I left out the fact that my school is TJ (www.tjhsst.edu), which is one of the geekiest schools in the country, perhaps the world. I never felt at all out of place as a lover of computers, and a geek; and although it was perhaps, not as well respected, I never caught much of any flak for being an otaku, and currently sit with a group of 20+ every day for lunch. Sorry about that.
Well said, but reading this article raises some questions. First off, when we look at the first few things you mention, we see this: the adults in the parents life are spending more time working, less time dealing with the kids. Ok, well, that's a bad thing, true. But is this a new thing? In fact, I saw in a recent MSNBC article That people are, in fact, working more, and giving up things for it. Why, in this age of prosperity? I'll get back to that in a moment. The next two items talk about an electronic environment for the kid; suggesting that TV and Computer Games give the kid an idea of the world. Of course, I have interesting note about the 4th point, but I'll save that for later. For now, though, suffice it to say, it seems like you're say: people aren't raising people, electronics are raising people. Is this not what you're saying?
Now, I'm not just trying to say "The parents aren't watching the kids, so they watch bad TV and it makes a bad influence"; and I don't think you were either. I think that the role of parents (and teachers) is huge; but not nearly the whole of it. Why, pray tell, do we now work more, sleep less, and cut back on leisure time? Why do we, as the MSNBC article says, "live to work" rather than "work to live"?
I'm sure Katz would put the finger at Big Business, evil corporations, something like that. But greed, ambition, even big corporations (Standard Oil?) aren't new.
I think, that, really, the problem is in electronics; but more importantly, they're really changing the way we CAN live our lives. And we're further than ever from the way, genetically, we SHOULD be living our lives. Take for instance (an old example, but still), indoor lighting. With this amazing invention, we can now work, play, or whatever, nearly all night. Sure, we still need our 8 hours - but did ancient humans only sleep 8 hours? Almost certainly not; light was pretty hard to come by; you certainly didn't do your work (food gathering) at night, you didn't go places, nothing. And food gathering has changed too; we see obese people, people who don't exercise, because, well, we don't have to any more. Recently, the advent of easily accessible PCs has caused Carpal Tunnel - we weren't built to spend 8 hours a day typical. Technology taking care of the "need" to hunt, many males feel a need (I know I do; my shrink said it wasn't that rare) to engage in some kind of battle; part of the problem we are discussing. More importantly, though, new electronics, are replacing not just the physical things (after all, food, light, transport - these burdens were lifted from us decades ago), but social things.
It's becoming easier and easier to detach from the world. In fact, I'd be interested in seeing that "Sleep less, work more" article as applied by profession; probably the more wired the profession, the less sleep. Because, well, it seems like, as you become more wired, you spend less time physically engaged, especially with other people. This would make sense for the social problems kids face, also; they desire to detach and return to their "online" world, as I'd suspect many geeks can/wish to do. And there, they don't learn how to interact as people; at least with others outside of their group. Now, what does that have to do with working more? Well, if you're not the social type, you can very easily latch on to your work. It gives you something to do. Did you see what other activity they said had gone down? Sex... of course, a very physical, very social activity. Myself, as a very detached person, know how good being at work can feel - since you don't have to deal with people (depending on your job, of course; as a programmer, I don't have much, but as a salesman, you would obviously). Less time spent doing leisure activities means less social life. Plus, the more you can get the chance to detach from the world, the less you learn to "Deal with" people you don't like; you can "ignore", "block", or whatever them, which you can't do as much in a "normal" life. Most people who work with you are probably peers to you; you don't work with the boss that much. Parents can escape the kids by shipping them off to day care (which wasn't nearly the accepted option now that it was before). People can isolate themselves from things they hate, by being at work; minimal true social interaction. (You can have a social life at work, of course. But that's not your purpose for being there, and you can get out of it. After all, spending a night with friends is far more social than working late).
So, then, what do we do? Force people outside? No, of course not. It seems odd that technology, which should make life easier and happier, has made life worse for people. People who can do more in less time wind up spending more time at work and less time asleep. They aren't in tune with their physical bodies, but with their work. But trying to get people do things just doesn't work. Peoplpe we always shirk; that's part of ancestry, too. It's pointless to burn extra calories, in fact, the problem with that should be obvious (in a society where food is limited). Although many exercise programs tout increased energy (which is altogether believable), we won't enjoy doing it; since, burning calories for the sake of burning calories is something that, genetically, is a no-no. So what do we do? We've already begun to create alternate sources of interaction, thigns like video games, to fill the need. For instance, again, the role of the male hunter - let's be honest, there aren't that many female gamers. Socially, we can keep kids from coming into contact with people they dislike as much; creating more schools like mine, and for other focuses also. But ultimately, the only real solution is in genetic engineering. Our world has changed - for better or worse, nobody is going to rid the world of lights. We can do some things to adept mentally, but ultimately, I think, physical changes are the only way for us to continue peacably.
This is slighlty OT, but, I'm on RoadRunner in Fairfax county also. I put up with Media General (and now Cox's) god awful Cable TV service, and now I have them as an ISP. They do the same crap they did as a TV provider. Promising upgrades (To the board of supervisors, for instance), failing to roll them out, and so on.
But you have to admit that their service isn't really that bad. I mean, 100kBps down is excellent for most connection types, and even though we have the ocassional downtime (and mail server issues), it's relatively reliable. I mean, my boss used to use Verizon DSL, and it was prepetually down.
But what really blows is the upstream. 192 kbps. No options to pay more or anything. End of story, that's what you get. My personal conspiracy theory is that, Road Runner being owned by Time Warner, they wanted to limit upstream as much as possible to keep things like Napster down. Of course, you could buy the excuse that they don't want you running a server - but what's it to them if all the users use up all their upstream? Non server-running customers wouldn't be that affected, since the downstream wopuld be ok. DSL service isn't that asymmetric, for instance.
Incidentally, I'm told that the reason they can't offer other packages has something to do with rolling out fiber and DOCSIS 1.1 (vs. 1.0). They claim that they'll have other packages available in a year or two, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Oh yeah, and I've run traces whenever my connection sux. Almost always, it has nothing to do with my node being overloaded (what DSL providers typically tout as the problem with cable). It's always where RR links up to the backbone. They're short on bandwidth there, their excuse, last I checked, was Verizon was being slow and evil about hooking up new OC lines. Not surprising since Time Warner is their main competitor, but it could just be Time Warner dumping on Verizon. Sometimes, though, the delay is in Carolina, or the links after, but that's just when their routers die.
When I see this, I don't worry about people being tattletales, but why there is even a law saying you can't say such things in the first place. After all, aren't we protected by the First Amendment to free speech? Why should it be wrong to say that I'm going to "kill X"? It's a blurry line to say when it's "serious" and not. The entire idea of such a law seems unconstitutional to me. It's like saying discussing a criminal act is illegal, if you're "serious" about it. Who decides "serious"? Should you be guilty of a crime before you've even done it? I remember once in 8th grade, I got detention, because a girl had hit me with a poster, and I was "about to hit her back". I wasn't, but that didn't matter. This is clearly not a good idea.
I do not think the need for people be protected justifies the need for jailing people for threats. That sounds like a 1984 police state to me. Definitely not free speech.
Furthermore, I just don't like the fact that the girl's family had to spend $40,000. We need a legal system that doesn't cost a winner so much, although this isn't as big an issue.
Yeah, naturally. We learned about this in AP Government a few weeks ago. Essentially, parties have to be centrist to get support, since most americans are moderates with decreasing numbers as you go away from moderation. If a party was at the end - such as the Liberterians - they won't get many votes. Of course, the parties have to try to look like different, and they do somewhat, even if in action they are similar. But I'd suspect that most technology issues won't even make it on the "agenda" - IE, Bush won't even concern himself. Issues will continue to get dominated by corporate interests with powerful lobbies that influence senate/house committees and sub-committees, which is where important stuff like the actual text of bills gets made (I think). Bush will just check off on things that his party tells him to. Since he's the party's biggest official, he has to do stuff that looks important to most people, since they watch him.
Some people have already vaugely mentioned there might be a way to get gravity to accomplish a similar thing... and there is, the slingshot. At first, I was very uncomfortable with it, since it seemed like the ship gains energy and momentum (since it's velocity increases) "magically". However, what it in fact does is absorb momentum/energy from the body it slingshots around. Of course, a spaceship has far less mass than a planet, so the orbit isn't really effected. To me, I don't really see any innovation at all here - if I understand correctly, he's saying you could use a magnetic field - and a screwy one - to push the ship away or attract it. But why bother when gravity is already there? After all, that method of accelration has already worked quite well for all those satelites we send to the outer solar system. Plus, iirc, force decreases with the square of distance, so he'd have to have one hell of a magnet for it to work anyway.
I've noticed that recently it seems like the Judicial branch of the government is pratically making laws. This is another example where, because the Legislative Branch hasn't said anything specifically, that one appointed (not elected) judge gets to make the law.
Anybody else see a problem with this?
Probably the best site for info, reviews, release dates, etc, is www.animeondvd.com. Plus, they even have a page that's exactly what you're looking for: check out their Essential Anime. I don't necessarily agree with all their opinions, but they usually have multiple reviews for each show, and their essential page has explanations. Users can even submit their own reviews. Check it out if you like anime on DVD.
Although many arguments can be made that guns cause crime, or stop crime; that the Second Amendment should let us have all we want, or only certain ones, or whatever; much of the gun legislation (and anti-gun sentiment) has been due to an apparent rise of viloent crime in the country recently... Things like the Columbine shootings, Postal Workers... going postal... and other things... Does anyone know if this happened in the 50s too and we didn't know about it? Because my parents (far from statistics; anybody have some?) said when they were kids, people had guns, they even had gun clubs at school, and yet nobody ever got shot.
If this is true, than, why do we suddenly see all this new violence now? It's not that the new guns are any more lethal than those of before. Why do we need gun control at all? Why weren't there school shootings in the 50s? Perhaps the areas where gun crime is worse - the inner-city ghettoes - was there as much violence there then as now? What has changed, to cause all this extra crime, that cause laws like the Brady Bill to be passed? Or rather, are people just more aware of it now because of mass-media hype?
I'm anti-gun control, personally. But I'm wondering, how this country got by for 200 years without any gun control laws, and now they seem necessary. If violence really has gone up... Guns haven't gotten better or more plentiful in the past 20 years... So what IS it then? Drugs? A shift away from family values? Sharpening class divide? I'd really like to know.
You could also say, "More nukes, less war"... I mean... no World Wars since nukes came out, and can you think of any war between two nuclear powers? Nobody would ever do it for fear of "Mutually assured destruction"... We'd all be dead... I'd suspect this book really covers the same thing... that theives, attackers, whatever, are very reluctant to attack when they know people are armed... I mean, seriously, wouldn't you think twice about doing a hold-up if you knew that not only the clerk, but the other people in the store also, are armed?
Or we could take the liberal approach and not let facts muddle the issue, and just say guns kill people. So I guess it's a good thing the FBI computers went down and saved us all from a few days of killing.
In my philosophy class, we use the Matrix a LOT for examples to compare to various people's Philosophy... Like Plato's, who thought that what people saw our tasted or heard was merely a reflection (or shadow) of the true object. It's ok to use the Matrix (since we've all seen it) as a source in this case, but I wonder why nobody, especially nobody making a whole course on it, doesn't show things from what it was largely based on, anime? I didn't real the whole article, so I'm not 100% sure, but there a lot of anime films out there with as much, if not more, philosophy... like Serial Experiments:Lain (possible source for the matrix), or maybe Akira? There ar a lot of others. If you have the DVD version, you can clearly hear the two creator bros in one of the "Creation" clips saying something like "We took an anime, and said 'We want to this in real life'". At any rate, it seems to me to be annoying that everyone talks about the Matrix, ignoring the real depth there is throughout anime... (The end ov Evangelion, anyone?) I guess that's becaue it's not a mainstream American thing.
That's what I do, too. The only time my writs ever hurt was when I had my watch too tight, and junk over the tabe. I adapted it, though. I use the part of my arm that's not exactly my elbows, but a few inches closer to my hands to rest. Also, I lean really close to my 19" screen. I don't think that has anything to do with it, but it keeps the monitor nice and close where it belongs;)
This, to me, seems like a great international blunder. Delegates from other countries are trapped, or even being attacked by protesters, and the conference can't go on. Clinton should be apologizing, and trying to restore order as quickly as possible. Instead, he's sympathizing with the protestors and saying their voices must be heard. What is he trying to do, anger the world? Make it seem like our citizens are free to be disruptive, riot, and block an international conference?
Re:It's not just the programs, or the layout...
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
It's not about writing... I hate writing, typing is much better... But typewriters have been around for 100 years, so they are boring. Couldn't you think a lot faster than you can type?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I saw a study recently (on something innane like AIM Today or msn.com courtesy of a fresh IE install) that found that people who sleep more than 8 or 9 hours have as many sleep problems as those that sleep less, in other words, they're just as sleepy, likely to doze off, feeling fatigued, unmotivated, etc, as someone who is sleep deprived.
The article's conclusion was that 7-8 hours is ideal.... I also have to agree with this from personal experience. My weekends are more productive if I don't swallow the bait that is 12 hours of sleep.
Of course... never can be 100% sure how much of that is caused by body being confused from getting up at a much different time, ie, jet lag without moving. Who knows.
Well, there's two ways to look at this:
I have found that almost every place I've worked, bypassing security is a joke. I mean, think about it. How many times have people "swiped you in", or what have you, when you forgot your badge? Even without really knowing you? And if you should have a fake badge that just "isn't working", you're in like Flynn. For me, the only exception was where they kept actual classified data. It would take some amount of serious spying (e.g., returning on multiple days, shoulder surfing, maybe even key swiping) to get in. But the fact is, most people just won't assume that you're doing something evil. So... easy! Far easier than trying to crack the software and such, if you ask me. And that's as an introverted geek. (on the flip side, I'm also "unassuming"; I don't look like I have a hidden agenda.
Of course, the other side is that, hey, why don't we use computers to see what remains unseen by people? They're better at spotting "suspicious" behavior anyway. And if people actually were willing to accept that the computer IS right and the policy that so-and-so can't get in without a badge must be enforced... you could have a very secure system.
For instance, take protecting classified data. If you're generic spy X, you're gonna want to sit down, and just start copying all that stuff on to the nearest media you can find. That kind of behavior is almost always not what a regular person would do...
There are all sorts of patterns which can register as suspicious. Most security systems are smart enough to note these things, and alert people who, I would assume, should always be the second check on such a system, because some people are just eccentric.
(I at one point was designing a security control system, and my boss was always asking me to add such things. It's amazing, but pretty obvious. If somebody needs to get a new password every other day, something is probably wrong. If somebody brand new is supposed to be given full access to every system in the place (happened! Managers just found it easier to check every box!), something is wrong).
Anyway, that's just my $.02
You can't sign away a legal right to overtime. You can't sign away legal rights, period. Otherwise, why not (as an employer) simply always tell your employees, no overtime, any time? Obviously, the law prohibits that.
As an aside to the parent, as an intern, nothing is more maddening than the vague effects of budgeting from higher up. They can basically love my work and beg me to come back next summer, only to have the intern program get axed in the interim and force me to move on.
It might not be radiation but the tremendous heat the reactor core had.... it would definitely glow (a la black body radiation). Wouldn't be green, of course...
As for radiation itself, well, I'm sure if it was intense enough it would cause a glow by the same effect, just from the heat. As for it possibly colliding with things and spitting out lower intensity EM emissions (ie, light), it's certainly possible. You know, like when you shine a UV light on things... Maybe the better versed can prove me wrong, but gamma radiation is just at the extreme high end of the spectrum.
Don't know for sure, but I doubt your bio prof ever had a huge nuclear meltdown worth of radioactive material, so...
Well, for that matter, why don't they just move out of California. They can pay a programmer half as much if he lives on the other end of the country. A quiick peek at The Salary Calculator reveals that making $100K in Palo Alto, CA is the same as making $47 K here in (relatively affluent, close in DC suburb) Vienna, VA. And it only gets cheaper as one gets further out from downtown. Out where AOL is (What I would call Ashburn) the number is $37K. I'm sure if you looked at more undeveloped locations that number would be lower still. Moral is, they should be relocating OUT OF CALIFORNIA, where taxes are absurd, and land values are worse. They used to say, for people moving out there, half the house for twice the price. Seems to be only a slight exaggeration.
Yeah well realize their money is also your money - highers costs for them means it costs more for them to fly which means you pay more to fly, simple as that.
I'm going to have to join with those who disagree on this one. Well, ADHD, that's somewhat debatable. ADD, I know exists, because I have it. I definitely think there's a rather out of control trend to just say "kid is acting up, here, have some ritalin, it'll calm him down". That's just ridiculous. A kid behaving badly isn't going to suddenly behave better because he can focus more. In my experience (as with many geeks with caffeine, I would presume) the amphetamine I take makes me a lot more foucsed, but it can just as easily lead me to focus on the bad things as the good.
I think you're mistaking your level of knowledge for that of a real doctors. You may not see psychiatric abnormalities, you might not notice how easily they get distracted, but that doesn't mean they don't.
Tthe most obvious illustration I have personally of this working is when it comes to getting to some place on time. Without meds, I will ALWAYS be late, often ridiculously so. While that's somewhat my personality, most if it is that while I'm looking for my shoes, I see the paper. So I start reading an article on the front page... then see another article I want. Then I wonder who won the game last night... Then I'm thirsty. I know I really should leave, but I just want to check my e-mail real quick. Ahh, someone replied to this comment... Next thing you know, it's half an hour later. Sure something like this has happened to everyone, but it's far worse in my case - and if I take my medication it's not.
Of course the dark flipside to this is if I'm, say, playing Vice City after taking my medication, nothing can tear me away from it. Maybe I can physically walk away but the game stays in my mind. And side effects there definitely are. I swear, it seems like it never gets out of my system. But all things considered, both at work and school, it vastly improves my performance.
Of course I also dont' have a problem with the drug being legally available OTC - I think it could help a lot of people, even those who typically don't have "ADD" symptoms. Sometimes you need to concentrate more than others... I don't see why people are so afraid of performance-enhancing drugs which don't cause problems if handled correctly. Sure you have to protect the dumbass from OD'ing, but why not let everyone enjoy the benefits?
Also I have a hard time believing this is all patent driven, after all, these drugs are VERY old - pre WWII in some cases. It's hard to believe those patents are current. I know adderall is the latest and greatest and I'm sure it costs an arm and a leg. And they have some new (non-amphetamine) ADD drug out now - which acts totally different, it doesn't stimulate dopamine receptors. Though on the other hand, I must admit, my shrink's office IS covered with crap the drug "lobbyists" left around - you know, an ambien pen, a Zoloft pad, what have you.
Wow, is it just me, or is this article really down on genetic engineering? It seems like it has one paragraph on what was done, then the bulk of it is various people saying why it was bad, how it wouldn't be allowed in the UK, etc. Why isn't there any "This is a great step forward" commentary? Or at least, more explanation of why it was done? To hear the article say it, it sounds as though infertility was a mere excuse to violate the "germline"; but since when is the germline sacred? Personally, though, I'm proud to hear about this; I hope that in the future, we can see more people doing more with genetics to make us all better suited to our environments (which, after all, is radically different from the one we evolved in).
I must confess, I recently ordered all the parts to assemble a new box with a 1.33 GHz Athlon, DDR, etc, just for the game. It does run on my PII-400. It runs pretty well on the first couple lands, even. The third land, especially towards the end, is chop city. Even when minimizing the number of things needing rendering (IE, not zooming in on a village), I'm getting 2-3 FPS. I have 256 MBs of RAM, a 32 MB Radeon LE with the Z-Buffer turned on, etc. It was killer enough for me ;). I'll admit, though, I was looking for a good excuse for some time. And the excuse I have for using an Athlon 800 on my 'nix box was for the purpose of DivX. I dunno if it was a video card or what, but my PII-450 couldn't manage it. Of course that processor fried which is what really got me out there ;).
Black and White really could be the game, if it didn't have a lot of gameplay issues, and if only the programmers had taken the time to add more to it - much more visual variety in villages, say, or perhaps even war among villagers. (The idea of an army of villagers doing battle with gods clashing with lightning above them is just so cool. It's also very processor intensive). All in all, as a game, it now gives me a somewhat empty feeling - like it could have been an amazing game, if only they hadn't rushed to release and left out so many features/documentation. Oh, no, wait, this game was like 2 years late, wasn't it? It was cool enough for me - desperately looking for an excuse - to upgrade, but will it be for the common man? Nah.
But to get back on topic. I doubt the games are gonna be made unless there's some reason to use that extra hardware, and now, there isn't. I mean, what can you do with all your hardware? Improved 3d rendering? Bah. I think we've beat that one as far as it'll go. I'll admit, it was a huge leap from a side-scroller to Wolfenstein. But since then, each seemed less. Perhaps Doom was almost as big a difference. But the quake games... I think people aren't gonna notice any more. So it's time for you game coders out there to write some SERIOUS AI! RTS writers might write code for some AI which actually learns how to play against YOU. Or maybe even an AI which is smart enough to know that sending a long line of troops at a target is INCREDIBLY stupid. I mean, an AI which can do more than amazing resource management ;). Or for B&W, a creature AI which has a memory of what it was doing 15 seconds ago. So when you slap it, it might realize that what it was doing just a moment ago earned the slap. Maybe even it could go so far as to figure out - on its own in a decent fashion - what you were slapping it for - for instance, even though what it was doing at the time changes, it realizes that if it eats a human, and God finds out, the smackdown comes. Maybe decent villager AI would be nice to - perhaps even go so far as to have them expand on their own! Yes, without deciple craftsmen and YOU there to drag scaffolds around. Perhaps even villages could learn which areas were ok to chop down trees in, or how much to expand before you get cranky. I'd be happy enough to see a switch which allows them to expand on their own. But maybe, just maybe, they could be born with common sense - or maybe you should be able to smack it into them. The kind of common sense that says "If you cut down each and every tree in sight, you aren't going to find any more wood. But if you leave a few, it might grow back!". At first really complex AI for enemies, villages, etc, seems like it would be a processing/memory nightmare. It is. But isn't that the whole point? Hell, as regards black and white, if you had good villager AI, you could even leave out the direct numbering of belief. Villagers who believe in you would go to your temple. They realize that doing so, makes you do good things for them (or not do bad, depending on your alignment). They might later learn that worshipping you makes God Joe rain down vengence. Or whatever; but it'd be much more fun if that's how it was rather than how it is now ;). That way, you could also do something along the lines of "God helps those who help themselves". Like, say, villagers are hard at work in the fields, and bring in a good crop. You could reward them by adding miracle food in with their crop. Currently, that carries a big risk of the villagers becoming "Disillusioned", which in the game means "lazy". Laying the smack down does eliminate disillusionment somewhat. But you shouldn't have to keep going back and forth. The people should be smart enough to figure out god rewards hard work in the fields. Rather than, say, "Oh, god gave us something nice. He'll always be there. Let's get lazy." and also, you could get rid of desciples too, by rewarding villagers in certain acts. If the range of miracles was wider (and more easy to focus), this would be easy.
In looking at the responses, I noticed a lot of people saying things to the effect of "evil, money grubbing corporate America", and, generally implying that they are pushing for these laws simply with the goal of making more money. In essence, capitalism is to blame, or so the other posters seem to imply; if we were more communist (IE, if everyone who was an "artist" got paid the same, and the "distributors" the same), we wouldn't have this problem; we could "open source" everything since the gov't would take care of the artists and a good time would be had by all. Or, if only people weren't so greedy. Or, other suggested solutions rely on keeping some IP protections and not others. But personally, I think, the true capatalist way is not protecting IP - but the exact opposite - having no protections at all. It'd be better for authors and the public alike, also. I think the reason why companies are whining is that, with the internet, the "distributor" role is becoming nominal - anyway can put music on Napster, so why sign with a label? - which really has nothing to do with IP.
You see, when there is no IP law, the classic problem is that everyone would go out, make copies, and the authors/distributors get squat. In fact, though, capitalism prevents this. Under capitalism, people pay for want they want. If the content is only worth getting a copy - they do that. But if they want more content, they pay more. Thus greed motivates good content: people who make "cheap" or low-quality content, won't get paid. Perhaps paying beforehand is more desirable in this case; but either way, if people are only willing to copy a work, and not pay, obviously they do not consider it of much value. This requires authors to produce good content - if their new CD sucks, nobody will buy it. People pay for something on the premise of future works; or they also pay as a token of appreciation (see below). Any person can pay the amount they feel something is "worth". This is great for people, too, since those who might not otherwise be able to afford to benefit from a work can get a free copy; while those more financially able carry the burden of financing. Of course, they also get to choose which works continue (by paying), but that is the capitalist way.
Of course the problem is if people are overly individualistic, and take an attitude like they do for voting - "What I do, won't matter" - they'd all wind up not paying, and we'd have no content creation. But I find that unlikely. It seems to me that the "Tip Jar" model has been at least modestly successful, and I think, if people really like something, they'll be willing to cough up a lot of money to get more of it. People regularly organize petitions to try to get a work published (take anime, for instance - the people signing the petitions, etc, are not generally those who have no access to the work, but those who've seen it alreaday) - if the people also cared about their artist, they could just as easily organize the money. If the artist feels nobody pays him/her, they can quit - and people who benefitted from that work, now feel the pain. And what's even better, you can actually *choose* how much to contribute - how much you want to see more. With current IP, you can buy or not buy. A mess of regulations is not what we need; it just forces people to buying CDs with songs they hate, sending money to record companies they dislike, and keeps them from communicating data with friends and family. People lose one of the most important parts of capitalism - choice. People don't want that (see below). People are uncomfortable - they often wind up paying more than something is "worth" to them - or less. Neither are good. As an added penalty, they have to "buy" the work before they've been able to fully use it, and evaluate its benefit. The current system - of "test drives", etc, are only a very limited substitute. After all, something which appears good at first could fade rapidly. But in the current model, there's no allowance - you've already paid. Of course, this applies to patents too. Granted, the argument is weaker here, but again - if people really care about getting more exceptional products in the future, they'd buy "legit" (produced by/to benefit the creator) content. It also prevents people from milking patents to their end - just because YOU got the patent to SDRAM, doesn't mean the people will acknowledge, and send money to you. Of course, if your research labs spent years designing some revolutionary new device, people will love it, and send you money - so you can go on working. But if instead you make only one thing, and sit on it forever - the people will stop paying. Royalties will not continue forever.
Practically, the best example of success here is radio. Initially, record companies wanted to shut down radio - free music - until they realized it improved sales! Why would people buy CDs[records when this was first an issue] they could hear on the radio? - The common IP-supporting answer is that they want the "ease" that comes with owning a CD - you don't have to wait for a good song to be on the radio. But we have had casette tapes for some time, which could just as easily copy content off the air for playing at leisure; or we have things like TiVo that allow us to view a program on TV whenever we like (in this case, instead of buying or renting a movie). Still, we buy CDs. The reason is probably partially an "ease-of-use" issue - copying can be a pain - but it is far cheaper to copy. Myself, I've bought several CDs from bands to which I had most of the songs already from Napster -- in fact, nearly every CD I've bought has gone that way. The reason here is that people want to "own" part of the content - to say "I am legit" (though not for fear of legal reprise). In my case, for instance - the more I like a band, the more of their CDs I buy - even if I already have most of the songs in MP3 format, which I could easily enough burn (in less time than it takes me to go to the record store). But still, that sense of contribution or ownership is one which, I think, people will continue to pay for. Further, you are voting your approval of the work. If a group of people deside to be miserly and not pay - their voice does not get heard. In fact, they give a negative tone - discouraging the author from future work, and discouraging others from improving the work, etc.
Of course, I think record companies are doomed. Take the failure of Divx (the DVD-esque format) as an example. All this encryption, pay-as-you-go methods - the people didn't want it, they won't pay. I think that as more artists move to publishing on the net and allowing people to pay as they wish - people will be happier. The music will be better. The record companies are out of the picture - except to set things up for individuals, which is a minor role. The days when there was no practical method for an individual to distribute are over.
Of course, many other people have posted "IP bad, open source good". But the implication is that "open source" protects the rights of the consumer; that the companies are infringing on these rights for their own benefit. That the old IP laws were good; the new ones revoke too many rights. I think, though, that the grounding for demolishing IP is not in helping the common man - it's in the fundamental ideas of capitalism. It's all about people being greedy bastards. After all, if I really care about my money, I won't just dump another CD on the market and hope some poor sap will buy it - since I realize I won't get paid. And I don't think ANY IP should be allowed to continue. The exception, though, is trademark; but only so as people can clearly differentiate the "legit" from the "copy". This information is not content, though - just a label.
I left out the fact that my school is TJ (www.tjhsst.edu), which is one of the geekiest schools in the country, perhaps the world. I never felt at all out of place as a lover of computers, and a geek; and although it was perhaps, not as well respected, I never caught much of any flak for being an otaku, and currently sit with a group of 20+ every day for lunch. Sorry about that.
Now, I'm not just trying to say "The parents aren't watching the kids, so they watch bad TV and it makes a bad influence"; and I don't think you were either. I think that the role of parents (and teachers) is huge; but not nearly the whole of it. Why, pray tell, do we now work more, sleep less, and cut back on leisure time? Why do we, as the MSNBC article says, "live to work" rather than "work to live"?
I'm sure Katz would put the finger at Big Business, evil corporations, something like that. But greed, ambition, even big corporations (Standard Oil?) aren't new.
I think, that, really, the problem is in electronics; but more importantly, they're really changing the way we CAN live our lives. And we're further than ever from the way, genetically, we SHOULD be living our lives. Take for instance (an old example, but still), indoor lighting. With this amazing invention, we can now work, play, or whatever, nearly all night. Sure, we still need our 8 hours - but did ancient humans only sleep 8 hours? Almost certainly not; light was pretty hard to come by; you certainly didn't do your work (food gathering) at night, you didn't go places, nothing. And food gathering has changed too; we see obese people, people who don't exercise, because, well, we don't have to any more. Recently, the advent of easily accessible PCs has caused Carpal Tunnel - we weren't built to spend 8 hours a day typical. Technology taking care of the "need" to hunt, many males feel a need (I know I do; my shrink said it wasn't that rare) to engage in some kind of battle; part of the problem we are discussing. More importantly, though, new electronics, are replacing not just the physical things (after all, food, light, transport - these burdens were lifted from us decades ago), but social things.
It's becoming easier and easier to detach from the world. In fact, I'd be interested in seeing that "Sleep less, work more" article as applied by profession; probably the more wired the profession, the less sleep. Because, well, it seems like, as you become more wired, you spend less time physically engaged, especially with other people. This would make sense for the social problems kids face, also; they desire to detach and return to their "online" world, as I'd suspect many geeks can/wish to do. And there, they don't learn how to interact as people; at least with others outside of their group. Now, what does that have to do with working more? Well, if you're not the social type, you can very easily latch on to your work. It gives you something to do. Did you see what other activity they said had gone down? Sex... of course, a very physical, very social activity. Myself, as a very detached person, know how good being at work can feel - since you don't have to deal with people (depending on your job, of course; as a programmer, I don't have much, but as a salesman, you would obviously). Less time spent doing leisure activities means less social life. Plus, the more you can get the chance to detach from the world, the less you learn to "Deal with" people you don't like; you can "ignore", "block", or whatever them, which you can't do as much in a "normal" life. Most people who work with you are probably peers to you; you don't work with the boss that much. Parents can escape the kids by shipping them off to day care (which wasn't nearly the accepted option now that it was before). People can isolate themselves from things they hate, by being at work; minimal true social interaction. (You can have a social life at work, of course. But that's not your purpose for being there, and you can get out of it. After all, spending a night with friends is far more social than working late).
So, then, what do we do? Force people outside? No, of course not. It seems odd that technology, which should make life easier and happier, has made life worse for people. People who can do more in less time wind up spending more time at work and less time asleep. They aren't in tune with their physical bodies, but with their work. But trying to get people do things just doesn't work. Peoplpe we always shirk; that's part of ancestry, too. It's pointless to burn extra calories, in fact, the problem with that should be obvious (in a society where food is limited). Although many exercise programs tout increased energy (which is altogether believable), we won't enjoy doing it; since, burning calories for the sake of burning calories is something that, genetically, is a no-no. So what do we do? We've already begun to create alternate sources of interaction, thigns like video games, to fill the need. For instance, again, the role of the male hunter - let's be honest, there aren't that many female gamers. Socially, we can keep kids from coming into contact with people they dislike as much; creating more schools like mine, and for other focuses also. But ultimately, the only real solution is in genetic engineering. Our world has changed - for better or worse, nobody is going to rid the world of lights. We can do some things to adept mentally, but ultimately, I think, physical changes are the only way for us to continue peacably.
This is slighlty OT, but, I'm on RoadRunner in Fairfax county also. I put up with Media General (and now Cox's) god awful Cable TV service, and now I have them as an ISP. They do the same crap they did as a TV provider. Promising upgrades (To the board of supervisors, for instance), failing to roll them out, and so on.
But you have to admit that their service isn't really that bad. I mean, 100kBps down is excellent for most connection types, and even though we have the ocassional downtime (and mail server issues), it's relatively reliable. I mean, my boss used to use Verizon DSL, and it was prepetually down.
But what really blows is the upstream. 192 kbps. No options to pay more or anything. End of story, that's what you get. My personal conspiracy theory is that, Road Runner being owned by Time Warner, they wanted to limit upstream as much as possible to keep things like Napster down. Of course, you could buy the excuse that they don't want you running a server - but what's it to them if all the users use up all their upstream? Non server-running customers wouldn't be that affected, since the downstream wopuld be ok. DSL service isn't that asymmetric, for instance.
Incidentally, I'm told that the reason they can't offer other packages has something to do with rolling out fiber and DOCSIS 1.1 (vs. 1.0). They claim that they'll have other packages available in a year or two, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Oh yeah, and I've run traces whenever my connection sux. Almost always, it has nothing to do with my node being overloaded (what DSL providers typically tout as the problem with cable). It's always where RR links up to the backbone. They're short on bandwidth there, their excuse, last I checked, was Verizon was being slow and evil about hooking up new OC lines. Not surprising since Time Warner is their main competitor, but it could just be Time Warner dumping on Verizon. Sometimes, though, the delay is in Carolina, or the links after, but that's just when their routers die.
When I see this, I don't worry about people being tattletales, but why there is even a law saying you can't say such things in the first place. After all, aren't we protected by the First Amendment to free speech? Why should it be wrong to say that I'm going to "kill X"? It's a blurry line to say when it's "serious" and not. The entire idea of such a law seems unconstitutional to me. It's like saying discussing a criminal act is illegal, if you're "serious" about it. Who decides "serious"? Should you be guilty of a crime before you've even done it? I remember once in 8th grade, I got detention, because a girl had hit me with a poster, and I was "about to hit her back". I wasn't, but that didn't matter. This is clearly not a good idea.
I do not think the need for people be protected justifies the need for jailing people for threats. That sounds like a 1984 police state to me. Definitely not free speech.
Furthermore, I just don't like the fact that the girl's family had to spend $40,000. We need a legal system that doesn't cost a winner so much, although this isn't as big an issue.
Yeah, naturally. We learned about this in AP Government a few weeks ago. Essentially, parties have to be centrist to get support, since most americans are moderates with decreasing numbers as you go away from moderation. If a party was at the end - such as the Liberterians - they won't get many votes. Of course, the parties have to try to look like different, and they do somewhat, even if in action they are similar. But I'd suspect that most technology issues won't even make it on the "agenda" - IE, Bush won't even concern himself. Issues will continue to get dominated by corporate interests with powerful lobbies that influence senate/house committees and sub-committees, which is where important stuff like the actual text of bills gets made (I think). Bush will just check off on things that his party tells him to. Since he's the party's biggest official, he has to do stuff that looks important to most people, since they watch him.
Some people have already vaugely mentioned there might be a way to get gravity to accomplish a similar thing... and there is, the slingshot. At first, I was very uncomfortable with it, since it seemed like the ship gains energy and momentum (since it's velocity increases) "magically". However, what it in fact does is absorb momentum/energy from the body it slingshots around. Of course, a spaceship has far less mass than a planet, so the orbit isn't really effected.
To me, I don't really see any innovation at all here - if I understand correctly, he's saying you could use a magnetic field - and a screwy one - to push the ship away or attract it. But why bother when gravity is already there? After all, that method of accelration has already worked quite well for all those satelites we send to the outer solar system. Plus, iirc, force decreases with the square of distance, so he'd have to have one hell of a magnet for it to work anyway.
I've noticed that recently it seems like the Judicial branch of the government is pratically making laws. This is another example where, because the Legislative Branch hasn't said anything specifically, that one appointed (not elected) judge gets to make the law.
Anybody else see a problem with this?
You can actually get direct access to DOS... at least, you can get a command prompt. Try typing cmd from the "run" window.
Probably the best site for info, reviews, release dates, etc, is www.animeondvd.com. Plus, they even have a page that's exactly what you're looking for: check out their Essential Anime. I don't necessarily agree with all their opinions, but they usually have multiple reviews for each show, and their essential page has explanations. Users can even submit their own reviews. Check it out if you like anime on DVD.
Although many arguments can be made that guns cause crime, or stop crime; that the Second Amendment should let us have all we want, or only certain ones, or whatever; much of the gun legislation (and anti-gun sentiment) has been due to an apparent rise of viloent crime in the country recently... Things like the Columbine shootings, Postal Workers... going postal... and other things... Does anyone know if this happened in the 50s too and we didn't know about it? Because my parents (far from statistics; anybody have some?) said when they were kids, people had guns, they even had gun clubs at school, and yet nobody ever got shot.
If this is true, than, why do we suddenly see all this new violence now? It's not that the new guns are any more lethal than those of before. Why do we need gun control at all? Why weren't there school shootings in the 50s? Perhaps the areas where gun crime is worse - the inner-city ghettoes - was there as much violence there then as now? What has changed, to cause all this extra crime, that cause laws like the Brady Bill to be passed? Or rather, are people just more aware of it now because of mass-media hype?
I'm anti-gun control, personally. But I'm wondering, how this country got by for 200 years without any gun control laws, and now they seem necessary. If violence really has gone up... Guns haven't gotten better or more plentiful in the past 20 years... So what IS it then? Drugs? A shift away from family values? Sharpening class divide? I'd really like to know.
You could also say, "More nukes, less war"... I mean... no World Wars since nukes came out, and can you think of any war between two nuclear powers? Nobody would ever do it for fear of "Mutually assured destruction"... We'd all be dead... I'd suspect this book really covers the same thing... that theives, attackers, whatever, are very reluctant to attack when they know people are armed... I mean, seriously, wouldn't you think twice about doing a hold-up if you knew that not only the clerk, but the other people in the store also, are armed?
Or we could take the liberal approach and not let facts muddle the issue, and just say guns kill people. So I guess it's a good thing the FBI computers went down and saved us all from a few days of killing.In my philosophy class, we use the Matrix a LOT for examples to compare to various people's Philosophy... Like Plato's, who thought that what people saw our tasted or heard was merely a reflection (or shadow) of the true object. It's ok to use the Matrix (since we've all seen it) as a source in this case, but I wonder why nobody, especially nobody making a whole course on it, doesn't show things from what it was largely based on, anime? I didn't real the whole article, so I'm not 100% sure, but there a lot of anime films out there with as much, if not more, philosophy... like Serial Experiments:Lain (possible source for the matrix), or maybe Akira? There ar a lot of others. If you have the DVD version, you can clearly hear the two creator bros in one of the "Creation" clips saying something like "We took an anime, and said 'We want to this in real life'". At any rate, it seems to me to be annoying that everyone talks about the Matrix, ignoring the real depth there is throughout anime... (The end ov Evangelion, anyone?) I guess that's becaue it's not a mainstream American thing.
That's what I do, too. The only time my writs ever hurt was when I had my watch too tight, and junk over the tabe. I adapted it, though. I use the part of my arm that's not exactly my elbows, but a few inches closer to my hands to rest. Also, I lean really close to my 19" screen. I don't think that has anything to do with it, but it keeps the monitor nice and close where it belongs ;)
This, to me, seems like a great international blunder. Delegates from other countries are trapped, or even being attacked by protesters, and the conference can't go on. Clinton should be apologizing, and trying to restore order as quickly as possible. Instead, he's sympathizing with the protestors and saying their voices must be heard. What is he trying to do, anger the world? Make it seem like our citizens are free to be disruptive, riot, and block an international conference?
It's not about writing... I hate writing, typing is much better... But typewriters have been around for 100 years, so they are boring. Couldn't you think a lot faster than you can type?