Hey, we don't care how many kids go blind from malnutrition then die or lives lived unfulfilled scratching in the dirt because they were doomed to subsistence living, as long as the evil CO2's are kept out of the air.
If all those CO2s stayed in the country of origin, you might have a point. However, the effects of CO2 affect every country on Earth, and the need to reduce it means... hey, maybe you don't give developing nation lots of money to use the use the very dirty energy sources you're working so hard to get off of.
The failure of the above is the biggest reason why the Kyoto Accords were a failure.
Parent makes an extremely valid point, liberal policies _ARE_ currently hurting these people, and yet you complain about what they intend to do, NOT what they're actually doing.
The GP argument was a strawman, the parent was pointing that out.
In fact, I think some of these devices are probably too advanced and that's why it's failing HDCP. What you really need is one that hard disconnects the pins when you're switched to the other output. I think the problem is that it tries to be a phantom monitor to prevent the device from thinking the screen was disconnected. Might cause the screen to flash a few times when you switch back to the input, but it would be purely mechanical and electrically equivalent to unplugging one cord and plugging in the other.
Mmm, except that's not the way the box works; with the matrix it's quite possible to route the same signal (playstation 3) to both the projector in the home theater room and the television in the other room at the same time. It works -- if the initial handshaking is successful.
Actually, economic impacts can be far more damning than a space shuttle with seven people on it exploding in a fireball. Taxes are up 1%? Some more people won't be able to afford medicine, heating, food. There will be a number of additionally infirm or unemployed, maybe a dozen, maybe a few tens of thousands. Through both direct and indirect effect, many people could die of disease or starvation.
Yes, but those are secondary effects which are hard to pin down. Your actions result in... a slight lessening of economic opportunity? That's difficult to quantify. Screw up the the shuttle and that's a primary effect, it's very easy to lay, say, 5 deaths at the feet of a specific team.
never heard of walter mondale, have you? senator and one time presidential candidate tried to kill apollo.
He was portrayed that way in From Earth to the Moon, but was that an accurate characterization? I'm trying to find evidence for it, but the best I can come up with is that he was pretty hard on NASA in hearings after the Apollo 1 disaster.
So the fact that they changed the original bill dozens of times to respond to Republican requests, effectively neutering much of the real reform that was in the bill, that equates to a "Fuck 'em" attitude now? Nevermind that the Republicans, who didn't actually care what the Dems cut and offered, refused to compromise and offer anything in return because they didn't want the bill to pass at all because it might make Obama look good?
Most of the neutering of the bill came to bring Democrats on board -- it certainly wasn't going to have strong democratic support otherwise. Single-payer was off the table due to the more conservative democratic factions.
Not to mention Medicare is funded through a Pyramid Scheme, just like Social Security. Yeah, Pyramid Schemes work great, until they inevitably and disastrously don't.
Just increase taxes to match the current costs. Problem solved. Some "pyramid scheme." A pyramid scheme that's still going strong after 78 years.
Ugh. Be careful with that. Those cheap Monoprice HDMI boxes can have some real problems managing HDCP through HDMI. I have one (and tried with more than one, so I know it wasn't just a broken box) and have to switch back and forth a few times sometimes before it will 'sync' with the display. I contacted their technical support and after trying a few things the support person admitted that each manufacturer handles HDMI handshaking in their own way, and it was impossible to maintain compatibility with all of then. He said "HDMI" but I'm convinced it was really the HDCP copy-protection that was failing.
Keep in mind these weren't esoteric devices either, this was an HD Tivo and a Playstation 3. When my HD Tivo died I replaced it with a Tivo Premiere, and most of the problems went away -- the premiere just handled that sort of a setup better.
Now, this was for an HD matrix, which has several HDMI inputs and two HDMI outputs. A more high-end device would almost certainly have handled this sort of thing better, but when you go cheap, you get what you pay for.:-)
Because of the DMCA and foreign counterparts. Not all of us can afford to move to a country where it's legal to rip BD movies.
I -believe- (IANAL) that technically it is legal in the United States to rip your BD discs. It is not, however, legal to distribute tools which rip the discs (and of course, it's not legal to distribute your ripped copies or keep said copies if you sell/give away the original disc).
So it's just as difficult to rip, but the end result is no one is going to arrest or sue you the end user until you start distributing copies.
PC gaming is subject to the same issues, though lately they've gotten better. I have a number of older games that I can't play even locally because they relied on online services that are now defunct, like Heat.com. Such games now require Hamachi (which is very finicky) or Gamespy (even more finicky and a bit shady). Online retro gaming is possible, but boy can it be tricky. >_>
It can be. But the big problem with the Playstation 3 streaming support is that it was....... picky is a very polite term to describe the types of codecs it supported. Which means that either you ripped your media to a PS3-compatible format, or you had your media server transcode, requiring a sometimes-unrealistic amount of processing power when using high-quality HD content. Maybe Sony didn't want to deal with that anymore, or perhaps they just want to keep the BIOS small at launch.
The problem could be two-fold: supporting every media server and not being interested in supporting all the formats out there as well. When the PS3 came out it was touted as being the centerpiece of your home theater, the box that could do it all. Sony doesn't seem interested in that angle anymore; they've refocused to putting out a gaming machine.
Could this functionality be provided by an app, the same way Netflix and Youtube released apps for the PS3 that allow for streaming with those services? Does the PS4 allow such apps?
If you're in the SF bay area, let me know, I'll meet you for a weekend ride and show you that there are cyclists that *do* follow laws as much as they expect cars to respect them.
There are (I follow the traffic laws fairly religiously), but I fully admit I'm in a small minority of bicycle riders. You cannot say that "some cyclists obey the law, some don't. Some car drivers obey the law, some don't" as if somehow both sides are equally at fault. The right-of-way laws are broken by a great majority of cyclists, and I can't say the same for cars. When a driver blows through a stop sign, that's a pretty big deal, and I'm struggling to remember the last time I saw that happen.
That's one of my biggest pet peeves - I can maintain a stopped trackstand for only a few seconds before i've got to unclip and put my feet down
I just preemptively unclip approaching every intersection now. It's so much safer anyway, since I can do a lot more (including hop off a bike that's falling over). Beside, I know if there's a cluster of veteran riders at an intersection I somehow won't unclip in time, and I'll fall over, and they'll laugh at me. Clips are purposefully designed to embarrass you, I'm certain of it.
when a car has the right of way at a stop sign, I wish they would just take it because then I can get through the intersection faster
They can't and they shouldn't. The only thing preventing dozens of deaths of bicyclists each day in every major city is most drivers assume that if they see a cyclist, that cyclist will not stop at the stop sign and will not obey right-of-way rules. It's a very safe assumption to make, and I see the confusion in a driver's face all the time when I stop. They feel like they've entered a bizarro world because it's the opposite of what usually happens. "A bicyclist stopped at a stop sign? Will wonders never cease!"
It depends on what you mean by rich. In absolute values of dollars, of course not. But if you're talking about standard of living, everything has gotten "richer" over the past century. The lower middle class now tends to have luxury items that were relegated to the rich decades ago.
2012? 236 billion was the most the Clinton budget surplus ever got to (2000). At the time the national debt was 5.6 trillion. I think you need to work on your math a bit.
Well, more than just budget surpluses go into reducing the size of the debt. Whether there's a budget deficit or surplus, interest and principle is still paid out on time. In fact, one of the biggest problems with the debt is that debt payments take away from any other spending we might want to do. Increase the debt faster than inflation and you'll have less money in the budget the next year, even if (inflation adjusted) the budget size remains the same, as debt payments will take a larger slice of the pie.
The problem with cutting military spending is that we will not stop spending that money
That shouldn't be an excuse to not cut military spending though. Otherwise it sounds like "we'll spend money anyway, so why not do it in the most wasteful manner?"
The fiscal cliff was bad but not because of any programs cut or spending reduced. It was the loss of credit rating and international trust that screw us over.
The debate surrounding immigration is a great example of this. If you are opposed to illegal immigration (that is, bypassing border controls, overstaying a visa, working without work permission, etc) you are increasingly labeled racist, presumably because you aren't really opposed to migrant labor, you're opposed to Latinos.
Even more moderate liberal voices fall for this: if you are in favor of, say, INS deportations, then you don't like "immigrants." Not illegal immigrants, just "immigrants." They very intentionally lump legal and illegal immigrants together in conversation.
I've heard exactly the opposite -- they don't particularly like being called a naming mistake. That name has no meaning other than they were mistaken for something else, and that's not exactly a source of cultural pride.
Time to relocate all humans to the exact part of Africa where the species first evolved, then. Everyone elsewhere is an undocumented immigrant who the native species did not welcome.
That is true. The only thing that really matters is who can take a territory, and who can hold it.
But that doesn't make illegal immigration wrong, or evil or bad
I think it makes it perfectly wrong and immoral. For one, it's the geopolitical equivalent of line-cutting -- pushing others out of the way because your own sense of entitlement makes you think it's ok. Or that somehow it's ok if it's done for your family, as if those others they cut ahead of didn't have families either. And breaking a country's laws by crossing its borders to settle is worlds more serious than speeding in a car. They aren't even comparable.
But finally, a country should have the right to decide who crosses its borders and who lives in that country. It should even have the right to decide that maybe it doesn't have the resources to comfortably support thousands or millions of illegal immigrants, and if it doesn't, those people aren't welcome, should be caught, and deported.
"Terrorism" is what we call a smaller force intelligently fighting back against a much stronger force without just getting pasted. It's the only method of fighting available with their resources at that point.
Because they ultimately failed. When your leader is reduced to hiding in a walled in compound, writing letters and watching porn, you're probably not on the path to success.
I'm not sure if it's that easy. It was not really what he could do, it was what he was able to make us do. That was the goal, and we played along, but probably not with the results that he expected.
I think you're giving too much credit to the terrorists here. 9/11 was just one of many attempts at flying planes into buildings, and the only one that worked. There was no long-con involved. They weren't thinking 3 steps ahead while anticipating our next moves. They just wanted to bring down one of the symbols of American capitalism with the added benefit of killing as many people as possible.
We screwed up after the fact, but the mistake was ours alone. Not some terrorist mastermind predicting the future.
Osama Bin Laden's stated goal, from his writings many years ago, was to bankrupt Western nations (the United States in particular) by forcing them to put resources into terrorism suppression, with the ultimate goal of getting Western troops out of Islamic countries.
He was trying to put in place a Xanatos Gambit, where one of his major aims would be achieved whichever path we chose. If we poured enough resources into anti-terrorism methods/wars we bankrupted ourselves, we'd have to pull out of the Islamic countries, which was his highest goal. If we stayed financially strong but got hit with terrorist attack after attack, eventually the political pressure would force us either to pull out (fulfilling Al Qaeda's demands) or else pour resources into anti-terrorism methods/wars, bankrupting ourselves. He wins again.
He didn't really anticipate the US would be able to successfully play the "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" game, nor that drone strikes, invasions, intelligence, et all, would be able to take out enough Al Qaeda command to cripple the organization (and similar organizations). If you listen to the Tea Party, we're bankrupting ourselves already, so who knows what the end result of all of this will be.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, we don't care how many kids go blind from malnutrition then die or lives lived unfulfilled scratching in the dirt because they were doomed to subsistence living, as long as the evil CO2's are kept out of the air.
If all those CO2s stayed in the country of origin, you might have a point. However, the effects of CO2 affect every country on Earth, and the need to reduce it means... hey, maybe you don't give developing nation lots of money to use the use the very dirty energy sources you're working so hard to get off of.
The failure of the above is the biggest reason why the Kyoto Accords were a failure.
Parent makes an extremely valid point, liberal policies _ARE_ currently hurting these people, and yet you complain about what they intend to do, NOT what they're actually doing.
The GP argument was a strawman, the parent was pointing that out.
In fact, I think some of these devices are probably too advanced and that's why it's failing HDCP. What you really need is one that hard disconnects the pins when you're switched to the other output. I think the problem is that it tries to be a phantom monitor to prevent the device from thinking the screen was disconnected. Might cause the screen to flash a few times when you switch back to the input, but it would be purely mechanical and electrically equivalent to unplugging one cord and plugging in the other.
Mmm, except that's not the way the box works; with the matrix it's quite possible to route the same signal (playstation 3) to both the projector in the home theater room and the television in the other room at the same time. It works -- if the initial handshaking is successful.
Actually, economic impacts can be far more damning than a space shuttle with seven people on it exploding in a fireball. Taxes are up 1%? Some more people won't be able to afford medicine, heating, food. There will be a number of additionally infirm or unemployed, maybe a dozen, maybe a few tens of thousands. Through both direct and indirect effect, many people could die of disease or starvation.
Yes, but those are secondary effects which are hard to pin down. Your actions result in ... a slight lessening of economic opportunity? That's difficult to quantify.
Screw up the the shuttle and that's a primary effect, it's very easy to lay, say, 5 deaths at the feet of a specific team.
never heard of walter mondale, have you? senator and one time presidential candidate tried to kill apollo.
He was portrayed that way in From Earth to the Moon, but was that an accurate characterization? I'm trying to find evidence for it, but the best I can come up with is that he was pretty hard on NASA in hearings after the Apollo 1 disaster.
So the fact that they changed the original bill dozens of times to respond to Republican requests, effectively neutering much of the real reform that was in the bill, that equates to a "Fuck 'em" attitude now? Nevermind that the Republicans, who didn't actually care what the Dems cut and offered, refused to compromise and offer anything in return because they didn't want the bill to pass at all because it might make Obama look good?
Most of the neutering of the bill came to bring Democrats on board -- it certainly wasn't going to have strong democratic support otherwise. Single-payer was off the table due to the more conservative democratic factions.
Not to mention Medicare is funded through a Pyramid Scheme, just like Social Security. Yeah, Pyramid Schemes work great, until they inevitably and disastrously don't.
Just increase taxes to match the current costs. Problem solved.
Some "pyramid scheme." A pyramid scheme that's still going strong after 78 years.
Ugh. Be careful with that. Those cheap Monoprice HDMI boxes can have some real problems managing HDCP through HDMI. I have one (and tried with more than one, so I know it wasn't just a broken box) and have to switch back and forth a few times sometimes before it will 'sync' with the display. I contacted their technical support and after trying a few things the support person admitted that each manufacturer handles HDMI handshaking in their own way, and it was impossible to maintain compatibility with all of then. He said "HDMI" but I'm convinced it was really the HDCP copy-protection that was failing.
Keep in mind these weren't esoteric devices either, this was an HD Tivo and a Playstation 3. When my HD Tivo died I replaced it with a Tivo Premiere, and most of the problems went away -- the premiere just handled that sort of a setup better.
Now, this was for an HD matrix, which has several HDMI inputs and two HDMI outputs. A more high-end device would almost certainly have handled this sort of thing better, but when you go cheap, you get what you pay for. :-)
Because of the DMCA and foreign counterparts. Not all of us can afford to move to a country where it's legal to rip BD movies.
I -believe- (IANAL) that technically it is legal in the United States to rip your BD discs. It is not, however, legal to distribute tools which rip the discs (and of course, it's not legal to distribute your ripped copies or keep said copies if you sell/give away the original disc).
So it's just as difficult to rip, but the end result is no one is going to arrest or sue you the end user until you start distributing copies.
Yet another win for PC gaming.
(Hi again!)
PC gaming is subject to the same issues, though lately they've gotten better. I have a number of older games that I can't play even locally because they relied on online services that are now defunct, like Heat.com. Such games now require Hamachi (which is very finicky) or Gamespy (even more finicky and a bit shady). Online retro gaming is possible, but boy can it be tricky. >_>
Is the standard that poorly defined?
It can be. But the big problem with the Playstation 3 streaming support is that it was....... picky is a very polite term to describe the types of codecs it supported. Which means that either you ripped your media to a PS3-compatible format, or you had your media server transcode, requiring a sometimes-unrealistic amount of processing power when using high-quality HD content. Maybe Sony didn't want to deal with that anymore, or perhaps they just want to keep the BIOS small at launch.
The problem could be two-fold: supporting every media server and not being interested in supporting all the formats out there as well. When the PS3 came out it was touted as being the centerpiece of your home theater, the box that could do it all. Sony doesn't seem interested in that angle anymore; they've refocused to putting out a gaming machine.
Could this functionality be provided by an app, the same way Netflix and Youtube released apps for the PS3 that allow for streaming with those services? Does the PS4 allow such apps?
If you're in the SF bay area, let me know, I'll meet you for a weekend ride and show you that there are cyclists that *do* follow laws as much as they expect cars to respect them.
There are (I follow the traffic laws fairly religiously), but I fully admit I'm in a small minority of bicycle riders. You cannot say that "some cyclists obey the law, some don't. Some car drivers obey the law, some don't" as if somehow both sides are equally at fault. The right-of-way laws are broken by a great majority of cyclists, and I can't say the same for cars. When a driver blows through a stop sign, that's a pretty big deal, and I'm struggling to remember the last time I saw that happen.
That's one of my biggest pet peeves - I can maintain a stopped trackstand for only a few seconds before i've got to unclip and put my feet down
I just preemptively unclip approaching every intersection now. It's so much safer anyway, since I can do a lot more (including hop off a bike that's falling over).
Beside, I know if there's a cluster of veteran riders at an intersection I somehow won't unclip in time, and I'll fall over, and they'll laugh at me. Clips are purposefully designed to embarrass you, I'm certain of it.
when a car has the right of way at a stop sign, I wish they would just take it because then I can get through the intersection faster
They can't and they shouldn't. The only thing preventing dozens of deaths of bicyclists each day in every major city is most drivers assume that if they see a cyclist, that cyclist will not stop at the stop sign and will not obey right-of-way rules. It's a very safe assumption to make, and I see the confusion in a driver's face all the time when I stop. They feel like they've entered a bizarro world because it's the opposite of what usually happens. "A bicyclist stopped at a stop sign? Will wonders never cease!"
By definition, most people cannot be rich.
It depends on what you mean by rich. In absolute values of dollars, of course not. But if you're talking about standard of living, everything has gotten "richer" over the past century. The lower middle class now tends to have luxury items that were relegated to the rich decades ago.
The American Dream (TM) is that anyone can make it, but the assumption is for one person to get rich others must remain poor
Erm... our entire economy, almost everything about it, is predicated on the notion that wealth is not a zero-sum game.
2012? 236 billion was the most the Clinton budget surplus ever got to (2000). At the time the national debt was 5.6 trillion. I think you need to work on your math a bit.
Well, more than just budget surpluses go into reducing the size of the debt. Whether there's a budget deficit or surplus, interest and principle is still paid out on time.
In fact, one of the biggest problems with the debt is that debt payments take away from any other spending we might want to do. Increase the debt faster than inflation and you'll have less money in the budget the next year, even if (inflation adjusted) the budget size remains the same, as debt payments will take a larger slice of the pie.
The problem with cutting military spending is that we will not stop spending that money
That shouldn't be an excuse to not cut military spending though. Otherwise it sounds like "we'll spend money anyway, so why not do it in the most wasteful manner?"
Yeah, the fiscal cliff really wasn't that bad
The fiscal cliff was bad but not because of any programs cut or spending reduced. It was the loss of credit rating and international trust that screw us over.
The debate surrounding immigration is a great example of this. If you are opposed to illegal immigration (that is, bypassing border controls, overstaying a visa, working without work permission, etc) you are increasingly labeled racist, presumably because you aren't really opposed to migrant labor, you're opposed to Latinos.
Even more moderate liberal voices fall for this: if you are in favor of, say, INS deportations, then you don't like "immigrants." Not illegal immigrants, just "immigrants." They very intentionally lump legal and illegal immigrants together in conversation.
BTW, most prefer to be called Indians
I've heard exactly the opposite -- they don't particularly like being called a naming mistake. That name has no meaning other than they were mistaken for something else, and that's not exactly a source of cultural pride.
Time to relocate all humans to the exact part of Africa where the species first evolved, then. Everyone elsewhere is an undocumented immigrant who the native species did not welcome.
That is true. The only thing that really matters is who can take a territory, and who can hold it.
But that doesn't make illegal immigration wrong, or evil or bad
I think it makes it perfectly wrong and immoral.
For one, it's the geopolitical equivalent of line-cutting -- pushing others out of the way because your own sense of entitlement makes you think it's ok. Or that somehow it's ok if it's done for your family, as if those others they cut ahead of didn't have families either. And breaking a country's laws by crossing its borders to settle is worlds more serious than speeding in a car. They aren't even comparable.
But finally, a country should have the right to decide who crosses its borders and who lives in that country. It should even have the right to decide that maybe it doesn't have the resources to comfortably support thousands or millions of illegal immigrants, and if it doesn't, those people aren't welcome, should be caught, and deported.
"Terrorism" is what we call a smaller force intelligently fighting back against a much stronger force without just getting pasted. It's the only method of fighting available with their resources at that point.
Because they ultimately failed. When your leader is reduced to hiding in a walled in compound, writing letters and watching porn, you're probably not on the path to success.
I'm not sure if it's that easy. It was not really what he could do, it was what he was able to make us do. That was the goal, and we played along, but probably not with the results that he expected.
I think you're giving too much credit to the terrorists here. 9/11 was just one of many attempts at flying planes into buildings, and the only one that worked. There was no long-con involved. They weren't thinking 3 steps ahead while anticipating our next moves. They just wanted to bring down one of the symbols of American capitalism with the added benefit of killing as many people as possible.
We screwed up after the fact, but the mistake was ours alone. Not some terrorist mastermind predicting the future.
Osama Bin Laden's stated goal, from his writings many years ago, was to bankrupt Western nations (the United States in particular) by forcing them to put resources into terrorism suppression, with the ultimate goal of getting Western troops out of Islamic countries.
He was trying to put in place a Xanatos Gambit, where one of his major aims would be achieved whichever path we chose. If we poured enough resources into anti-terrorism methods/wars we bankrupted ourselves, we'd have to pull out of the Islamic countries, which was his highest goal. If we stayed financially strong but got hit with terrorist attack after attack, eventually the political pressure would force us either to pull out (fulfilling Al Qaeda's demands) or else pour resources into anti-terrorism methods/wars, bankrupting ourselves. He wins again.
He didn't really anticipate the US would be able to successfully play the "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" game, nor that drone strikes, invasions, intelligence, et all, would be able to take out enough Al Qaeda command to cripple the organization (and similar organizations). If you listen to the Tea Party, we're bankrupting ourselves already, so who knows what the end result of all of this will be.
so-called attack by al Qaeda
Eh?
Am I feeding a truther?