I would say the British were better at music, but maybe I'm just biased.
i'd say that music popular in the uk and music that the uk exports to america is much better than what america exports back to the uk. but i certainly wouldn't consider the crap the us record companies export to the rest of the world to be in any way representative of american music as a whole
i concur. yeah sure, america does a lot of naughty things, but this isn't one of them. foreign countries aren't forced to route their internet traffic thru the us. there is absolutely nothing stopping them from buying american equipment and building their own networks. this is indeed exactly what the summary (read the article? psh) says is happening. so where's the problem?
I think we need to hold an international "Throw Out The Fascists Day". It would be celebrated whenever some democratic country comes to its senses and votes the bastards out of office in favour of somebody who remembers what civil liberties are, and why they're more important than security.
i'm sure many people would vote for such a candidate, but when was the last time a candidate actually ran on a civil liberties ticket? winning an election requires hundres of millions of dollars (at least for the last few american presidential races), and the big campaign contributors -- the finance sector, retail giants, big wall street law firms -- just won't go for a civil liberties candidate
it's not a matter of voting in a better candidate. the electoral systems of western "democracies" ensure that no such candidates can ever come close to winning. it's a matter of changing the electoral system to a more democratic one
Logic dictates that one of the resulting pictures would have to be of John Lennon kicking George W Bush in the nuts of course using that same logic, one of the resulting pictures would have to be goatse
Instead, the researchers are going to the nth degree of detail on a very specialized aspect, like some variant of bayesian inference that is optimal under these very particular circumstances, etc.
I don't know of any AI research other than Marvin Minsky who is even interested in or advocating a grand synthesis of current techniques to produce a first cut of general intelligence.
i would argue that this is true for many computer science-related fields. most of the research i've read lately is on optimising this or that or observing disk failure rates, but rarely coming up with some totally new idea of way of looking at things, and never bringing together many specific techniques into a general system
ps -- if anyone can think of some examples of nifty new research to prove me wrong, i'd love to have the urls
Does anybody have some insights on how this will affect those not using Linux kernels with this patch? Are the *BSDs and commercial Unices planning on similar work? Will support for modesetting eventually be dropped from X drivers? I was under the impression that Solaris already did this, to name one. solaris has its own x11 implementation -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xsun -- although x.org is an option for the i386 platform
They are taxed separately than the individuals they embody so shouldn't they be represented as well? Corporations are taxed in exchange for limited liability and other corporate perks. Corporations are already represented by the votes of its shareholders, board members, employees, &c.
And just who is going to bring charges against the Bush administration? If you'll think back to the Nixon administration, Nixon wasn't chased out of office for attacking a defenseless country, killing millions of innocent civilians, secret bombing, or any other of the War Crimes he committed. He was removed because of Watergate, which is small potatoes compared to all the other douchebaggery he had a hand in. The Democrats have been quite facilitating to Bush's crimes -- refusing to cut off war funding, approving whoever Bush tries to put on the bench or in a cabinet post, &c. It seems certain it will not be the Democrats putting the Bush administration behind bars. If anything, he'll be charged for something stupid and inconsequential.
As much as I hate to say it, I agree and would much rather take Nixon over Bush. Nixon was at least clever enough about waging his wars to at least try to keep the domestic population happy. For example, creating the Environmental Protection Agency, creating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and that thing he did to fix social security for inflation. Bush doesn't seem to care much for people abroad or at home. Not that I want Bush to be cleverer about waging wars or anything, but you know what I mean.
"D&D Fourth Edition Books All Releasing in June" is perfectly good english; the form of `to be' that would be in front of `releasing' is implied. A similar construction: "she [is] going to the doctor to-morrow". Leaving out the form of `to be' doesn't sound nearly as good in that sentence, but I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples where it would.
Second, you made it passive. "To Be Released". Not that there's anything wrong with the passive voice; the information that is in the active sentence is all still in the passive one. But it doesn't really fix anything.
Speaking of Asian (written) languages, don't a lot of them read top to bottom? It's not like the url data is stored on disk left to right. This is a ui problem, just turn the url box on its side.
Plus you can pretty much read and write asian languages in any direction you want, since the characters are square.
We didn't have enough bombs to level Japan, but we acted like we did and pretty much everyone turning blue in the face over 'the terrorists' these days would say it was a good thing (it probably did save millions of Japanese lives, you have to admit that- they weren't exactly ready to give up). If you study history, you'd know that in fact they were ready to give up. Some of the generals didn't want to give up, but the emperor did and was ready to surrender. The nuclear bombs were entirely unnecessary and just caused a large and needless loss of civilian life. I'll second that and point out that the reason we used the nukes on Japan was to send a message to Russia not to challenge the US militarily anytime soon.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything, but I think there are many others like me who think we should be addressing food before the Internet. The Internet and problems too and I want them fixed, but there is no public discussion about Real Problems, and the presidential candidates are more than happy to keep it that way. Candidates should be forcing anyone to give money to anybody, but the Real Problems certainly deserve more attention than they currently receive.
I haven't heard any Democratic Party candidates talk about ending The War. I've heard them talk about moving it to Afghanistan and Pakistan, "Fighting the Right Fight" and all that. I haven't heard them talking about housing, food, public transport, or seriously talking about health care either.
Human Need doesn't mean shit to the Democratic Party candidates.
I'm no law expert, but I don't believe Bill Clinton is eligible to run for a third term.
But it's not like you can tell who's black and who isn't sitting at your computer, now is it?
I for one would be more than happy to give up my Internet connexion so Iraqis/Haitians/everyone else can have some food on their table. Are any candidates actually addressing Human Needs?
... you basically seem to imply that CEOs, politicians, and other various in-charge types aren't actually people. No that's not what I mean. Of course they're people. And they should be involved in decision making too, but they wouldn't play the rôle of CEOs, politicians, or whatever. They would have no more say about things than regular people would. Authority wouldn't be delegated to them and they wouldn't make decisions for people, rather each individual retains their authority that they would otherwise delegate and make decisions with people.
Now, who decides what those needs are and how to fill them? And who does all the heavy lifting? Not the people who are currently making these decisions, that's for sure. The responsibility of making and carrying out these decisions should be with the people that are most affected by the decisions, namely the people. Not CEOs or board members, who are completely unaccountable to the general public (unless you're rich enough to own some stock), but the general public itself.
How do the logistics work, exactly? Well, the specific logistics of such a system could work out many different ways. But the way I personally prefer would be a town hall or city council type thing. Not the kind we currently have where politicians meet and talk and decide things, but a town hall with actual townspeople. They could meet every so often and talk about the issues that are affecting them, deliberate, vote, and make a decision about what action to take.
But that's just my personal preference. There are many alternatives.
NOTHING is better than what we've got.
... other forms of energy... will be inferior. Well, oil is killing the planet and is the cause for resource wars and is going to run out one day (not anytime soon though). Biofuels on the other hand, use energy from the sun, which will last a great deal longer than fossil fuels. Solar electricity is even better: it uses energy from the sun and is doesn't pollute (besides to manufacture the panels). I'd say there are a great deal of better option than what we've got now.
Economic growth will slow, and people will starve. Not everything should be ruled by the economic "law" of supply and demand. Why not decide what to do based upon human need? Maybe we could enable those presently starving to produce their own food with some renewable energy.
But that doesn't solve the problem of big agribusiness cutting down trees to grow such profitable cash crops. Like Brazilian agribusiness (not necessarily owned by Brazilians) chopping down the rain forest to grow soy. This new miracle crop will only make deforestation more economically appealing, unless it turns out to be completely unprofitable. Which is doubtful considering the ethanol-esque government subsidies it is likely to receive, should the technology pan out. Hell, it doesn't even have to pan out, ethanol sure hasn't.
That's exactly what I mean. The corporate media has every reason to maintain the status quo, so they marginalise dissent by ignoring dissenters. There will certainly be reporting, but it will be about that "legalise meth!" guy and it will ignore the issues that the protesters came to protest.
The Sydney Indymedia coverage is great, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say the British were better at music, but maybe I'm just biased.
i'd say that music popular in the uk and music that the uk exports to america is much better than what america exports back to the uk. but i certainly wouldn't consider the crap the us record companies export to the rest of the world to be in any way representative of american music as a whole
I got the information that broadband is a mess in the Us, do you think that is true?
yes, absolutely. and the same goes for every other manifestation of telecom infrastructure. cable, telephone, cell networks, satellite tv, &c
Moderation 0 50% Interesting 50% Flamebait
Why do TrollMods hate America?
i concur. yeah sure, america does a lot of naughty things, but this isn't one of them. foreign countries aren't forced to route their internet traffic thru the us. there is absolutely nothing stopping them from buying american equipment and building their own networks. this is indeed exactly what the summary (read the article? psh) says is happening. so where's the problem?
Whatever else he did, he knowingly accessed restricted computers whilst America was in a state of war.
isn't america always in a state of war?
Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 - 2007, Congressional Research Service. (google html cache of a pdf)
I think we need to hold an international "Throw Out The Fascists Day". It would be celebrated whenever some democratic country comes to its senses and votes the bastards out of office in favour of somebody who remembers what civil liberties are, and why they're more important than security.
i'm sure many people would vote for such a candidate, but when was the last time a candidate actually ran on a civil liberties ticket? winning an election requires hundres of millions of dollars (at least for the last few american presidential races), and the big campaign contributors -- the finance sector, retail giants, big wall street law firms -- just won't go for a civil liberties candidate
it's not a matter of voting in a better candidate. the electoral systems of western "democracies" ensure that no such candidates can ever come close to winning. it's a matter of changing the electoral system to a more democratic one
etc.
I don't know of any AI research other than Marvin Minsky who is even interested in or advocating a grand synthesis of current techniques to produce a first cut of general intelligence.
rob pike makes this same observation in the systems software field -- http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~ejones/writing/systemsresearch.htmli would argue that this is true for many computer science-related fields. most of the research i've read lately is on optimising this or that or observing disk failure rates, but rarely coming up with some totally new idea of way of looking at things, and never bringing together many specific techniques into a general system
ps -- if anyone can think of some examples of nifty new research to prove me wrong, i'd love to have the urls
Are the *BSDs and commercial Unices planning on similar work? Will support for modesetting eventually be dropped from X drivers? I was under the impression that Solaris already did this, to name one. solaris has its own x11 implementation -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xsun -- although x.org is an option for the i386 platform
And just who is going to bring charges against the Bush administration? If you'll think back to the Nixon administration, Nixon wasn't chased out of office for attacking a defenseless country, killing millions of innocent civilians, secret bombing, or any other of the War Crimes he committed. He was removed because of Watergate, which is small potatoes compared to all the other douchebaggery he had a hand in. The Democrats have been quite facilitating to Bush's crimes -- refusing to cut off war funding, approving whoever Bush tries to put on the bench or in a cabinet post, &c. It seems certain it will not be the Democrats putting the Bush administration behind bars. If anything, he'll be charged for something stupid and inconsequential.
As much as I hate to say it, I agree and would much rather take Nixon over Bush. Nixon was at least clever enough about waging his wars to at least try to keep the domestic population happy. For example, creating the Environmental Protection Agency, creating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and that thing he did to fix social security for inflation. Bush doesn't seem to care much for people abroad or at home. Not that I want Bush to be cleverer about waging wars or anything, but you know what I mean.
"D&D Fourth Edition Books All Releasing in June" is perfectly good english; the form of `to be' that would be in front of `releasing' is implied. A similar construction: "she [is] going to the doctor to-morrow". Leaving out the form of `to be' doesn't sound nearly as good in that sentence, but I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples where it would.
Second, you made it passive. "To Be Released". Not that there's anything wrong with the passive voice; the information that is in the active sentence is all still in the passive one. But it doesn't really fix anything.
Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_tense
This is exactly why everyone voted you into office! Keep up the good work!
I don't want to force anyone to do anything, but I think there are many others like me who think we should be addressing food before the Internet. The Internet and problems too and I want them fixed, but there is no public discussion about Real Problems, and the presidential candidates are more than happy to keep it that way. Candidates should be forcing anyone to give money to anybody, but the Real Problems certainly deserve more attention than they currently receive.
No one would have thought that because that's silly. The bottleneck is our backwards priorities.
I haven't heard any Democratic Party candidates talk about ending The War. I've heard them talk about moving it to Afghanistan and Pakistan, "Fighting the Right Fight" and all that. I haven't heard them talking about housing, food, public transport, or seriously talking about health care either.
Human Need doesn't mean shit to the Democratic Party candidates.
I'm no law expert, but I don't believe Bill Clinton is eligible to run for a third term. But it's not like you can tell who's black and who isn't sitting at your computer, now is it?
I for one would be more than happy to give up my Internet connexion so Iraqis/Haitians/everyone else can have some food on their table. Are any candidates actually addressing Human Needs?
But that's just my personal preference. There are many alternatives.
But that doesn't solve the problem of big agribusiness cutting down trees to grow such profitable cash crops. Like Brazilian agribusiness (not necessarily owned by Brazilians) chopping down the rain forest to grow soy. This new miracle crop will only make deforestation more economically appealing, unless it turns out to be completely unprofitable. Which is doubtful considering the ethanol-esque government subsidies it is likely to receive, should the technology pan out. Hell, it doesn't even have to pan out, ethanol sure hasn't.
That's exactly what I mean. The corporate media has every reason to maintain the status quo, so they marginalise dissent by ignoring dissenters. There will certainly be reporting, but it will be about that "legalise meth!" guy and it will ignore the issues that the protesters came to protest. The Sydney Indymedia coverage is great, by the way.