Personally I want to use this to create a temporary wormhole at the bottom of the bar's tap. Now this would be a partial wormhole (perhaps by size or perhaps find some way to having it have a very low mass threshold) Basically the other end would be at the bottom of my mug (to prevent over foaming). Perhaps by creating several of these across the bar I could siphon off of many sources. I would have a literal bottomless mug. (unless they switched locations on the tap I suppose...). Man, that would be a great way to make a black and tan. On the other hand, why put the entrance point on a tap, just put it in the keg. That way I don't depend on both my activation of my end, and the barkeep filling (not really) some other customers brew up.
silly thing is.. there is theory and then reality. I have often wondered why people would say the NAZI'ism was right winged while Communism/socialism was left. I guess with a magnifying glass they are. But they are like identical twins... both only being able to be differentiated by those VERY familiar with them.
Seems like when socialism is brought up, people get very nasty. The point is, regardless of what you call it, it is socialism. Just because you switch some special interest group with a corporation doesn't really matter as far as results go. When government has the power to dictate to teh people how to live, what to like, what to dislike, how to think, who they should hire, etc... that is socialism and history has shown it does more harm than good.
The AC that said that it is conservatism and the line about GWB is not actually correct. First (and this is another example of fact overrulling theory), it should be noted that in the US, the majority of censoring/filtering and things like the ratings system for various forms of entertainment have been children of Democrats and their spouses. Just look at what the Clinton administration handed down, then look at what he signed, then look at bills author's or at the committe sponsors. What you find is a paper trail of dem's restricting your rights. If you just point at Republican's and especially if you take blame from the real culprits and put it on the Republicans to make it easier for you, you are dooming yourself.
I for one don't trust either of them and NEVER have. But I do observe reality and notice the dem's stripping away all my rights at a much higer rate than the republicans have. Hopefully GWB won't follow the dem's lead in that, but who knows.
Again, like you said... labels seem to be very misleading... just like political parties. I see Democrats who sell out land to be destroyed by developers, then not only looking the other way, but helping them (and themselves) to the profits it generates. Democrats that claim to be 'for the people' but only those people that will give them power. Democrats that spread lies and deceit instead of educating the public with facts. Then I see the army of supporters that not only defend them, but actually place blame on the Republican's. Just call it like it is, don't let the media or little angry men tell you how and what to think.
To the AC, I believe you need to get your facts straight on what the Republicans and Democrats have really been doing. If you choose to label it as conservatism, yet ignore the socialism inherent in it, that is your right. Whatever you choose to call it, it is control. If you excuse one sort of control because it doesn't 'effect' you yet, or because it only effects those whom you do not LIKE or AGREE with,then you are no different then the evil that you rage against. Put down the picket sign, and grap your phone or computer. Call the idiots that put this into place (in this case if you are an Australian) and make a difference. Don't rally to replace one evil with an even more intrusive and historically proven inneffective one.
spelled like that, it would be interesting to create a company that specializes in identity protection and PR. Then you could sue everyone who claimed they were 'copyrighted' because they were not Copyrighted by you. (basically an accredidation or authentication scheme). Just like someone could get in trouble for saying they were 'Good Housekeeping Approved' if they were not.
Keep in mind this is a joke, so please don't over analyze this
Yes, it is called "SOCIALISM", and history has granted us with a bit of scientific proof that this is exactly what happens when government is given the power to legislate what is appropriate for the peasants. More importantly, the lesson that history teaches us, is that this over-reach of power often is just a bastardization of what was initially intended perform other 'protective acts'. Many well-meaning folks backed up by their supported 'Power Hungry, but aware of the impact of telling fools what they want to hear' politicians push through laws and regulations intended to 'help save us from ourselves', yet when it backfires later (I am actually saying backfire in the sense of what the law evolves into, not the fact that said laws and regulations are innefective at their primary task and actually cause more problems by their very nature)... when it backfires later, the institutors that created/backed it do a number of interesting things:
Blame the original opponents, especially if what has happened is exactly what was predicted by said opponents
Ignore it (or many aspects of it) due to both ego and willful ignorance of reality
Pile even more fluff on top of the existing law/regulation in attempt to 'put out fires with fuel'
Act suprised that this happened, and forms a multimillion dollar 'Task Force' to look into the matter, usually ending with results that resemble the other results listed above
I for one, think I am able to protect myself and my family from what I consider not appropriate. If my government wants to assist me, then they should provide access to education (the enemy of ignorance and bigotry) and access (not to be confused with forcing companies to provide said service) to methods/products to perform said protection... but then again, that is what the founding fathers of the United States would want. And through misquoting and misrepresentation and hidden agendas of hate and personal vendetas, this country is NOT very free anymore. It would be solved however, if everyone would stop with the feuding behavior and look at the common denominators of problems, not the superficial instances of it, and then hypocritically attacking only those things that it is trendy to attack.
it would seem that Canada is on the fast track to folliwing suit with Australia, following close behind is the UK, with America closing on the inside lane hoping to pass them all. France is coming up behind them all to lap them, with China still several laps ahead but showing signs of slowing, probably due to the extra weight of properity and wealth that all of its citizens are beginning to enjoy from earlier slow downs. In the pit are the Soviet Union as well as its puppet nations of Europe and Asia, many are gassing back up to enter the race full speed, even Russia seems to believe that this event would benefit from a Tag-Team Wrestling method, so Russia is veering over to consider subing out with Soviet Union.
Over in the winners circle, the winners of past races wait with eager anticipation of crowing this races winner, even thought it is a continous race with Vigilance always being the spoiler for an individual racer. Nazi Germany smiles benevolently with its confiscated gun in one hand, and its murdered politically declared "unclean" in the other... both will be awarded to this race's winner.
No one is that foolish and willfully ignorant of facts. Lets start from the bottom and work our way up... OK, your last statement about violence as an answer to violence and such... that is very correct. History, in addition to sociological and psychological studies show that hypocritical 'solutions' like violence for violence end up causing not only the criminal to become more violent, but the victim as well (this includes family and associates of both as well). A logical extension of this is that through media, the extended public becomes more violent in nature. Next, abolish death penalty. I agree, while people get emotionally and racially biased in many cases where it has been proven several dozen times that the person was guilty... the fact remains that there are those cases where it was later proven that the executed criminal was actually innocent (whether completely or partially to the extent of not justifying capital punishment). To put people's lives in the hands of a group of 'well meaning' people is foolish, as history shows. Other times and places (Europe is a famous for its "for the People" slaughters) it has been shown that it can be suprisingly simple to 'upgrade' capital crimes to include political crimes.
Change the President of the US, yadda yadda... FIrst of all, that just proves how biased and hypocritically one-sided the media is that you would spout this out. Texas is NOT the state with the most death sentences.. it is the one with the most recent EXECUTIONS. The difference is two-fold. One, the number of death row inmates is greater in other states, and two, the number of actual executions is only greater in Texas if you go back Ten years I think... might be greater. Another interesting FACT is that Al Gore was not only for the death penalty, but his state has one of the largest populations of death row inmates. OK, another bout of logic and reasoning is this... BUSH did not execute these people. They were all sentenced before he even ran for governor... the majority were sentenced (along with the initial appeals and the requests for stays and further appeals by the governor being denied) during the tenure of a woman by the name of Ann Richards... a DEMOCRAT. These people were proven to be guilty, many after more than 30 appeals.
Educated TV, yadda yadda yadda. I agree... I only watch History, Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, SciFi, etc... but I am not arrogant, illogical, irrational, foolish, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, or elitist enough to deny others their stupid mindless entertainment.... to do so is to be a Tyrant.
now for the biggy!!! Forbid weapons... Now could you explain first of all how this is to be done in reality. Sure, like socialism it sounds great... but it fails in practice because it must not only be enforced with violence, but only targets the lawful section of society that would not be the problem anyway. History has proven that criminals love disarmament strategies... many of the criminals move up to governmental positions then, thus dropping what little responsibility and accountability they had previously in favor of total (as in totalitarian) control and power over the peasants. That is called Tyranny, and whether it is Marxist socialism or National socialism it is all the same in the end. Power, corruption, terror and violence on the populations.
Another fact is one that you can EASILY research on your own. Look up the facts involving crimes and violent acts commited with guns, then look up those caused by other weapons (that includes objects not classified as weapons but put to violent use, like cars). Not only will you find (even with the recent problems) that gun violence ranks lower than the rest, but that in almost 99% of cases involving guns... the person obtained the gun illegally. Whether he 'borrowed' it from a lawful gun owner, or simply had an illegal gun... it proves that laws against law abiding citizens do not work and are an inneficent waste of time, effort and tax payers' money. Plus if you research some more you will find that the existing laws are NOT BEING ENFORCED. So that only compounds the issue, and begs the question, "Why would we logically add to a suite of programs that are not in use and have proven to be inneffective when actually used?"
Now on the other hand, if you wish to control your neighbor... if you do not like what he thinks, says or does. If you want to make sure that everyone lives by the standards that you set forth, regardless of the fact that it does not effect you and claim to create and "equal playing field" yet end up dividing the gap between the 'haves and have nots' even further, showering yourself and your supporters (party) with lavish wealth and benefits while stripping those others of any chance to improve by their own initiative... if you desire that, then go right on ahead and forbid guns. Historically weapons banning has never been the FIRST phase of tyranny, it is one of the later (but still towards the beginning) phases that serves to castrate the will and the ability of the people to defend themselves, thus making your goal of control over them simpler. Hitler, Musilini, Stalin, Ho Chi Min... the list goes on and on and on and on. You have a lot of shoulders to stand on good sir/maam, so go right on and make us proud.
because now we can finally attack stupid policies and inneficient methods. This 'games and TV cause violence' mentality has got to undergo a serious bout of logical reasoning. Before, no one wanted to analyze the issue due to emotional bias, but now we have a real chance to provide a unified front. What we need to do, however, is provide empirical evidence showing not only does fictional violence in media not produce criminal behavior in children, but that we must focus on the real causes.
While bullies often falls under the category of 'boys will be boys', what has failed to be noticed is that the level of abuse has not only increased in quantity but in its quality as well. Now children are not just taunted by a bully, maybe beat up once... or the high school version, being alienated and ridiculed by clic'ish (I honestly don't know how to spell that)... rather it has evolved into a situation mimicking many prisons.
Ridicule has been replaced with emotional terrorism and a total innexcapable environment of verbal abuse and death threats. (often not only by peers but staff as well) Pranks and minor physical abuse (noogies and frogs) has been replaced with 'many on one' beatings, and weekly torture sessions. What is worse, is that both parents and staff, when confronted with this, excuse it as boys play... or then follow up by saying that 'life is a bitch' and you gotta learn to deal with problems on your own. I knew some staff that would say that the only solution was for the tortured student to 'deal with it' on his own. While the rule of thumb for bully mentality is that they are weak pathetic morons that are easily frightened when stood up to (or just defeated), that does not take into account ego. If the nerdy kid has the gall to stand up to the 'bullies' they are then seen as week and potential future victims of other bullies.
Because of this, I have seen my share of kids have the stuffing beat out of them. Although, to be honest, the majority of them were race related as the victim was white and the race-slur slinging bullies were black or hispanic. But then it is all the same as far as results go.
I do not plan on having kids anytime soon, but when I do, I want them to feel safe. Martial arts helps a lot, but what about other kids. What happens when this continues to worsen, while the politicians and 'well meaning' parents attack the wrong thing? What about accountability and responsibility? If these "Kids" are victimizing others, then they should face the consequences for their actions. No, not juvy... I am talking the county jail with the other scumbag predators. Boot camp (if done just like a real military branches (I know of one, maybe two) boot camp) has worked wonders in many cases... well who knows. This is waaaay too long and I don't care about spelling so THERE!
looking into my crystal ball, I can see that soon, so many fans and developers will get sick of this that they will work together and create executive-less companies devoted to CREATING games not selling assembly line POS. Later after this establishes itself as a fad and most forget its underlying reason and purpose... there will be such a paranoid mass exidos in the industry that the non-corporate method will become the new paradigm. Then there will be so much crap out there that is incomplete and unplayable and as shallow as possible that interest will drop for a time. Then two things will happen simultaneously.
Some of the more successfully financed companies will survive and bob along with the float-som
New "innovative" groups will emerge that work hard once again to tell a story, not make money or just put crap out because they can.
Later you will see both groups get bigger and bigger, gobbling each other up to the point that competition becomes so fierce that market analyzers and enterprise level management experts will be needed to keep up. Later, these marketers and executives will become so powerful as to drown out the developers and fans to the point that the reason for their sole existence is lost to the 'bottom line'
Now, lather, rinse and repeat.
Damn, my crystal ball is broken, it was actually focusing on my monitor screen with its text distorting program that is apparently taking input from historical documents and changing the times and names to another set. oh well, sorry for the false alarm!
Garriot has shown that either A) he does not care about story or quality anymore when balanced against the 'quick buck' or B) he does not know how to manage a project properly to insure quality and tell the marketroids to piss off.
Either way, the Ultima series has been dead since 7, so it doesn't matter. Any company that produces such shallow pieces of crud don't deserve any money. Well, not my money at any rate.
Then again, I can easily imagine on U9 at least, Garriot trying to make a quality game but taking so much crap from marketing and executive weanies that he gives up... and quits! On the other hand, U8 showed everyone what NOT to do, but they went ahead and made super-U8 with Ascension. I agreed with the tons of people that called Ascension, "Super Avatar Bros." because of its simplistic and absolutely linear plot, pathetic story, and non-existant combat. (Why train or use tactics when your first 'moves' and a Bo can easily defeat anyone)
As a slight aside, check out this link for info on fan made patches and add-ons to U9. In addition, many other of the Ultima series are undergoing revivals, from complete redo's to overlays and patches. Of course, EA will probably sue these folk if it turns out to be good... why compete with quality when you can sue, destory or maybe buy it out... the M$ way.
Either way, I will give Garriot a vote of confidence in that I think he was a victim of his own naivety and short sidedness (ok, that sounds odd, but I won't change it). I imagine he learned his lesson and his hopefully looking to tell a story and create an experience, not sell a gimick. One can only hope.
Now about Chris Carter... I really miss AutoDuel. From what I read, Loose Cannon looked more like a driving game with some shooting, not the great story and experience within the Car-Wars universe like with AutoDuel. But then again, Loose Cannon seems still wanting for a publisher last I heard. (a good prospective is on the tables though)
I agree. But like so many things that involve more complexity than just the buzz-words and reactions tied to them, this entire process should be analyzed. I am thinking right now of someone in my office who made the comment the other day that, "...people have become so worried about every little 'right' that they MUST HAVE that they forget about the greater good and the effects of the long term."
In response to that I told him my opinion... that I agree with some of what he said, but only the underlying sentiment, not the added parts like 'every little right'. I told him about the inherent problems in that methodology. First of all, everyone's right is just that... a right, as per the First Amendment in this case. I brought up the subject of rights versus privileges, and how those are often confused and swapped. I gave him some facts about how many of these filters end up filtering out the 'good with the bad'. I also mentioned Franklin's quote:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
thus adding that this sort of filtering goes against the very foundation of what our Founding Fathers wanted.
In the end, after telling him that I did indeed share his concerns and giving him facts in order to make a decision based on logic and reason... well he began to see the light. The moral of the story is this: If you really want to change society for the better, it is more effective to do so by pointing out facts that are founded in truth and tempered by compassion. If you resort to how many on/. and other places (online or not) react... the key there is RE-act, emotionally and become aggressive and whiney you will NEVER win support. Furthermore, if your stances on issues are chaotic and paradoxical then you should yourself take a step back and figure out what kind of person you are. Regardless of the political crap, when you force your views on others or censor others ideas and thoughts you are a tyrant. It doesn't matter in the slightest if your censoring a Neo-nazi or a Gay rights activist.... to close my little rant / diatribe:
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
since Diablo is Spanish for Devil (at least thats what I think) then I think there should be a public trial between Blizzard and Satan. But then, since all lawyers work for Satan anyway, why would Satan pit his own lawyers against each other. Oh yeah, its like a sparring match (does that have one or two 'R's cause I am too lazy to check)
Now somewhere I seem to remember an old book or something titled 'Diablo'. I mean, its not like its an original name, but most intelligent people realize that. I really wish I had something witty to say about this... but I find myself just staring at the screen in stunned silence. (serious for a second now) The fact that the lawsuit was even mentioned in the first place outside of a joke is rediculous enough... but that the exec's and lawyers actually are wasting the taxpayers time and money (and their personel, all the judiciary folks involved in filing and presenting the case) in a serious attempt to win makes me rather ill. Or it could be the funky burrito I ate, who knows. Either way, if I was the judge overseeing the initial mediation (I assume they started with that) I don't think I could have refrained from laughing in the face of the lawyers from Blizzard. What hosers... hmmm, I need to go watch Strange Brew, anyone know why its so hard to find that sucker in any video rental stores?
back when nVidia first announced theier GPU, they touted it as good, not just because it had such amazing rendering capability but also because it took more proceser intensive operations off the CPU. The line I remember both from them and from proponents was "from the CPU to the GPU, freeing up the CPU for things such as AI and physics"
Well, I for one would really like to see that become a reality. Now I know every one who has ever touched a compiler (and often many who don't even know what a compiler does) will give a different opinion on how this is possible, how it has been done, or how it will never be done, etc. And most say that now programmers need to step up and use the features. (I agree with this one) But my question is, are API's keeping up with it. How is DirectX handling more advanced features (not just is it 'supported' but is it clean and efficient) How about OpenGL? How are the projects for middle ware coming like WINE with DirectX and so forth?
I am really impressed with the graphics detail and performance out there right now. I personally want to see more stability. While I am aware of the argument (and it does hold some water I admit) about a higher fps giving better all around performance, it is still common for intense graphics scenes to chug on your machine. I wouldn't mind seeing the ability to average out the fps better, as set by the user. Some method on the hardware to reduce the quality or certain methods only if it detects a forrest of high quality polygons and its own slow speed.
And I would REALLY like to see some better AI, and maybe some api's that make use of hardware driven ai... ok just kidding on that one, but perhaps a set of advanced ai libs with an API isn't too far out there. Tie these in with any of the methods for network distributed processing and you have an amazing LAN party set up. Throw some together on your home server farm and now you have your game server set to go... ahhh. Soon it will be like the old BBS days... but with better graphics and real time interaction.
Well, end of wish list... maybe the internet fairy will bless this if it is seen and make it real.
it definitely is trying to be one, and THAT is the real problem. While the computer industry bears the largest blame for this, many within have attempted to divert their own guilt like they initially did their responsibility by blaming the end users or M$ itself. Well, they are partly right, M$ is trying to take over the world, but since that has always been a given it does not admonish their own behavior and lack of ethics when they would sell out (whether actually selling their company or just breaking down and going M$ only).
Perhaps if these smaller companies would stop selling out, the problem would go away. Competition is definitely needed, and while Linux and BSD are slowly creeping into the general publics awareness, they do not have the marketing clout (nor, fortunately, the complete lack of soul) that M$ does. I think we all know how M$ likes to take the R&D of others and steal it. Sometimes they actually buy out the company. Sometimes they actually copy the innovation of the other company thus drowning the market once again (forcing the company to go out of business and then buying them). Or they just lock out the protocol, API, application, etc. with their latest patch (keeping in mind that I consider 95 part 2, 98 and 98SE to be mere patches to the original 95). This forces the other company to go out of business (then M$ buys the patents and such) or just sells out to M$. Then we have Neanderthal Technology (NT or NoT) at ummm, well I wanted to say at work but it just doesn't fit. NT is great for outsourced network engineers, on call ALL the time for the constant problems with NT.
Back to the central point, since M$ likes to use other's work and research for themselves, perhaps the Open source community should allow ourselves to partake in that bit of market strategy. I don't mean copy work, but if you notice a movement that is working (people seem to be adopting it and it spreads like wildfire) then by all means let Linux et al. jump on the bandwagon. I don't understand why people HATE m$ to the degree that anything even remotely associated with them is automatically shut out. That is childish behavior that is in essence self destructive (most illogical and emotional behavior is).
I also think that the software industry needs to mature and develop a steady professional association both on the individual and market level. If done right, and it is done so in many other areas, then if any one group like M$ tries their crap like before, I will specifically target the guerilla marketing and intimidation, then I believe that the threatened companies should be able to safely tell M$ to blow it out its respective arse. Some might say this is already the case with the open source movement, but remember that the open source movement has all the signs of being a fad. Which means that many "supporters" will all drop out when it becomes trendy to leave. On the other hand, since more businesses everyday are adopting Linux and BSD for mission critical systems (I personally and bucking for some more DoD servers running on SecureBSD and Linux) I think that this might not happen soon. People are fickle and very silly, but maybe we can hold off the stampede until later. I could be (I hope I am) wrong, and maybe this is just my cynicism rearing its ugly head.
To summarize my rant, we need to police ourselves. Dont adopt the same unethical tactics, however we should keep our eyes open to things that work. Like Balmer goofily admitted (as if we didn't already know) M$ is commited to closing protocols and locking down ideas to only run on their systems. That pisses everyone off, even many traditional M$ supporters. If we give them what they want, CHOICE we win no matter what.
You are missing the underlying point
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
it is NOT about (at least not to me) keeping kids from accessing pr0n and such... it is about abusing a filtering system, examples follow. First, many of the filtering systems incorrectly block legitimate research material (I'll get to your comment on that in a second). This can be anything from science sites mentioning mating habits of the frog, to Psychological sites giving advice on how to handle depression and prevent suicide. Second, the issue of information being tracked and then sold/traded about kids seems to me, to be violating the very "protection" that the software is there for.
Now as for your comment about 'what is required, etc.' I have to ask how do you define that? In a perfect setup, anytime a student or teacher was doing research of any school related type, and then went to the school IT person and requested it be unblocked... and then it WAS in a timely manner, this would work. (sorry for the run on, but I am tired) As for the comment about researching at the library, that seems to clash with the idea of learning at schools. Schools have libraries, therefor it seems to follow that research is conducted there. And short of setting up two different networks or firewalls/filtering there is really no way to get around using school access to research. Last (and tying it all in) is this. When these are public schools, it means that kids are going to schools already payed for through taxes (and taxes of those who will never use said schools). Just like you have taxes that feed the library system, these funds from taxes are supposed to be there for the purpose of education of our children. So, I believe that school is the number one place a kid should go to in order to research. Also, since the filtering rules apply to libraries the same way as schools in most communities it creates a gulf of information for the kids. If my kids research at home, then I should pay less taxes. If they attend private school or are home schooled (Obviously not in grammer or spelling) then I should pay no school taxes at all. Now a private school is another matter, since there is a choice for the parents and students whether or not to attend that school.
So to me, it is really an issue of efficiency more than rights or liberties. Of course, if you look at our rights and liberties closely, you find that the protections all seem to follow the reasoning for efficiency as well. Hmmph, maybe its just a coincidence.
First of all, when people advocate exercising their 'freedom of speech' yet shout down and violently attack anyone who does not agree with them, they are hypocrites and evil (by their own definition) Second, saying that the bush administration is 'fanatics and technologically incompetent individuals' shows both a failure to reason and to research... but it also shows a great lack of maturity. Like the signs that say "Impeach Bush", it shows that you don't understand the terms you are throwing about, only you are wanting to cause a stir and get a reaction. Like I asked a protester, "How can you impeach someone who A) has committed no impeachable offense and B) is not even in office yet?" He used a string of profanity and slogans then began shouting and walking off.
Hypocritical attacks and one sided judgments of reality will not help anything but makers of wooden pickets. Education is the key. Use FACTS, not lies, deceit, misrepresentations, technicalities, and ommisions. Plus, if you want to gain trust, you must stop acting like wild animals. If your cause is just, then you will not need to resort to terrorism in order to spread the word about your cause.
Also, remember that if you so painfully judge a non liberal or any other non-extremist as evil, then you must give facts. Then you must use this same list of facts to judge: A) Yourself B) Your organization C) Your 'leaders'
If you fail to do this, you are not just as bad as those whom you label as evil... you are much worse, for you are your own worst enemy (by your definition).
Like many others like you (read your editorial) you mention that you are tired of being labled, yet say it is because you know more than they do, and then go on to label and slander them. Arrogance, hypocracy and a complete lack of care or empathy for others. You will never be more than an annoying insect if you continue with that tactic.
As for "fight the power!"... well lets open up our history books and learn about Communism and other revolutions like it. People being oppressed by the elite. The elite who have everything, yet demand more, and fight to the death to preserve their "right" to have it. They kill and starve anyone who is not like them. Understandably, the commoners do not like this, and they tire of being oppressed and held back to serve the elite. They tire of the fact that the very laws and policies set forth by the elite do not apply to said elite. (See Federal Taxes) Plus they tire of not being able to speak out against it without being censored or silenced (imprisoned or worse)
Now, here comes along Comrade Joe, he rallies all the public in his favor promising reform and 'changes' and that he will 'level the playing ground'. He whips them into a frenzy of blood-lust by playing on their hate and violence, promising to "Make them pay!". What happens next is bloody and painful. Later (months, years, and decades even) you notice that the "party" that reformed the country enjoys amazing wealth and priveledge, they are above the laws they set forth, and are considered the only patriots of the country. Any one who notices this and tries to bring it up is usually imprisoned or shot.
So, you basically end up with the very same thing as before, but with even fewer rights and liberties. The moral of the story is that you must use tactics that have been proven to work, and more importantly you must not replace one evil with another one.
And if you think people like me aren't constantly labeled, judged, and snubbed... think again! It is most often by the very same people along side you with their pickets. The rest of the time, it is by those who you are protesting against. That is OK, I suppose, as our founding fathers had the very same problem... stuck in the middle between two extremist sides, watching each side hypocritically attack the other for the very same reasons that they defend (although of a different flavor)
As for your fear of violence arrupting, I share that fear. However, I realize that (like I said above) I must not advocate a replacement for one evil for another. I believe that policing your self and your organizations is the FIRST and most important step in any cause, as most problems in the world are usually a result of internal problems spilling outward. You obviously hate republicans and the current administration, but your listed reasons are the very same things that Democrats and Green party people do or advocate. To help reduce the risk of violence erupting, try reasoning with people. Don't be them but in your body. Don't attack them or even their beliefs. Like environmentalism, if you attack others as not caring or being nazis, yet hypocritally shout them down and advocate oppresive (and proven inneffective) measures, then you will alienate them from your cause, which SHOULD be protecting the environment. But from observation, I personally believe that the VAST majority of protesters are only concerned about the protests themselves, not the underlying 'cause'. Plus, many people out there are ignorant (not a bad word, btw) and merely require education. Angry, violent, swearing, rioting monkeys do not inspire a will to learn and grow, they inspire fear, anger, mistrust, and contempt.
Be a part of the solution to our problems, not the PROBLEM. Good day and end of long rant
The first, of course, is the commercials (specifically cold-piss [American Beer] commercials) *Horrible taste, but great commercials*
My second reason of course, would be to simply watch for this little knick-knack in use. Hmmmm, 3D huh?... "uhhh, Bob, get a couple of angle shots on those cheerleaders."
Of course, maybe some day pro athletes will stop being such pathetic pansies, bleeding and crying over this or that (when they are not raping or killing), and protesting their tiny 50 Million dollar salaries. Pathetic... well I guess I am being naive, but who knows... things change.
Actually, I think this should be implemented for Soccer in England. That way you could get the 3D shots of beetings and stampedes by the fans, now THAT would be entertaining!
you are right about what is 'supposed' to be defined as RIGHT and LEFT. The problem is that it gets very murky due to ignorance. For example, someone who defends the right of others to practice their religion in peace are labeled (if it is Christianity) Right. However, if a different person then says that my kid can't pray on his own time in school, or wear a cross, etc. they are considered Left. Looking at what each is proposing it becomes obvious that only the later is enforcing/restricting the rights and liberties of anyone, and is in FACT legislating morality. The factor of hypocrisy is the most blatant problem IMHO with society. Tolerance is not defined as "Open mindedness to all, except for those we disagree with".
One other thing, specific to Christianity. Christ would definitely have been a Libertarian if he was around today. On many occasion he stated that he did not want to get into the politics of the time, and was there to lead people spiritually not politically (or militarily). According to the bible, you must remove the plank from your own eye BEFORE you point out the speck in your brother's.
I also agree that the Christian Coalition is out of order, both for religious reasons (see, hypocrisy again) and political ones (which are actually one and the same). I am on the front lines when it comes to legislating morality, I just wish others would do the same, instead of picking their favorite 'side' and then blindly charging the enemy... thus totally disregarding the fact that they are by their own definition, oppressive.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
Why on earth do I want the freedom to live in fear of loonies with firearms? I could do with a lot less of your "liberties".
The very problem is the loonies not the law abiding citizens, therefore it is illogical to attack the tool of the criminal and protect the criminal. Without getting into details, if you look up crime records, mortality statistics and records of abuse of power (executive or legislative, law enforcement or law enacting), and do this for every state... you will find that in areas that have conceal and carry laws, the crimes are not only lower, but have actually dropped from before the conceal carry laws were enacted. (This is in the US btw) Also, if you look at crimes involving firearms, the VAST majority of times, the firearm was obtained illegally. Next you find that current gun control laws are not being enforced and that waiting periods show no improvement. What has proven to work was education, restriction of gun sales (rights) to criminals, and prosecuting criminals that use firearms in crimes. What you have currently is politicians on all levels falling over each other trying to enact regulations, laws, etc. that they can sign their name to and say, "I made that, Look at me everyone" It matters not, to them, the media, or the public, that these are not worth the paper they are printed on. Using any sort of scientific study to gather data on the effectiveness of such laws is scoffed at for costing to much, yet the same scoffers OK the giving of billions of dollars to countries that use it for weapons (often against us and our allies, see Iran and Iraq)
FUD and scare tactics work with most people, because unfortunately most people are talking monkeys that refuse to use logic and reason. They are more comfortable reacting emotionally to situations and having someone else tell them what opinions they should have. All the world over, we need to start attacking problems at the sources, not blindly chasing the symptoms. And like with a good doctor, if a treatment fails to work, or causes a deadly reaction with a patient, then we need to divorce ourselves from our bigotry and arrogance and act in an ethical manner to change the 'treatment'.
Its not really that hard to do. There is a saying here, however "Vigilance is the price of liberty" And then there is "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve and lose both"
as is usually the case, I find myself not in the middle, but on the side of this. I approach programming in this respect much like cooking. I have developed my own personal style, but upon examining it, I find that it is actually just a standard style with a tiny bit of my own flare thrown in. There are a lot of chef's styles out there, and many classify them in a generalized manner in order to help themselves and others relate and learn. Furthermore, in the kitchen whether you are cooking a big meal or just like making some of the parts of meals used frequently ahead of time... well, you find that the method and tools you use, along with the finished product, are often very similar. If you have specialized cooking tools and utinsils that don't go together you end up being innefficient (and a bad speller:)
The point of all this, is that there is a different method for programming but that still evolves (like adding to your cooking equipment, etc) over time faster than the older one, at least IMHO. Now, I like both. I like to use different styles and tools for different tasks. But I find it both disturbing and strangely amusing that there is such a large contingent of snooty, self promoted elitists out there who think that by snubbing the newer method they are afforded some extra degree of credibility and recognition than they would gather from good work and assistance to others. Perhaps I just see them as the snobs that fall all over themselves trying to prove that they have been doing what you do, longer, more, or their father/mother did it, making them l33t.
As for OOP vs. Procedural and all... ahh, what are ya gonna do? I have heard a lot of the talk about OOP being bad because it has more overhead (compiler or pilot error?), larger file size (see above), and the ol familiar, how can you reuse code when the method to reuse keeps changing? (well, that sounds like the upgrade argument, its gonna happen for awhile, so get used to it!). If you don't like it, or are stuck in the Procedural world, fine. I am sure you can do the very same thing (or very close at the very least) as an OOP program. But if you take someone with 20 years procedural experience and habit who then writes an OOP, then bitches about it and the results... well I'll let you finish this.
cheers
nice theory, but like all theories it has a very large achilles heel... FACTS.
Facts show us that government is a corporation with no limits, period. Now picture two people with baseball bats coming towards you but you aren't sure if he is coming at you, or at your neighbor to protect you. One you can choose to avoid, but loose out on the benifits he gives you (consumer choice and boycotting) the other (government) is absolute. You must accept what he is going to do regardless.
As history shows, it is the people who were beaten who mistrust the second one worse. The guy next to them trusts government more. However, it is the intelligent third person who recognizes patterns and that he too may be next. He might even actually care about others and try to disarm both the men with bats.
Furthermore, it is also he who seems to be the only one who noticed that the corporate guy supplied the bat to the government guy, and the government guy supplied the liscense to the corporate guy (or as is usually the case, just looked the other way and played favorites)
Remember, government is the person that will Break both your legs, then hand you a pair of crutches and expect you to pay him and give him thanks for helping you walk
Denial, the enemy of every sentient life form
on
Racism At Microsoft?
·
· Score: 1
if someone is descriminated against, then keep it at that. Why must we set up differing standards. One person is descriminated against because they are a white male, that is OK, but a black gay female is triple bad, right?
In response to this fact... just ask around and do some research on your own, and you find all the places that enforce the racist affirmative action quotas and are proud of it. Many will one of two things:
1. Well, its about time that whitey got whats coming to him
2. Poor white-boy, I don't see this, and if I did.. see number (1)
Well, lets break this down. First, number one implies that revenge is acceptable. It also implies that the person seeking revenge does not have to be the person wronged and the person that the revenge is aimed at does not have to be the person who wronged the individual. Second, the denial that reverse descrimination exists is hypocritial when applied by the same person, or in the same instance as one who is attempting to prove that racism BY whites is apparent. Also, it degrades the person in the very same degree of loss of dignity and lack of credibility that every self-claimed victim of racism uses as the hallmark of their 'cause'.
So perhaps the biggest point of all of this is simply to back up and analyze things on their own merit, not from our emotional reactions and biases. Descrimination is descrimination, period. You cannot justify one, deny another, then hope to have credibility when claiming that only racism by whites is a problem. BTW, I have on many occasions had black people tell me that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be racist and non-white.
Like in so many other experiences in life, this one should teach us that integrity is the most important aspect of human life. Whether it is racism, rape, politics, you name it... when it comes down to the point that there are seperate standards for different people and issues, and when (usually this is the cause) large flocks of people consistently abuse the claim, like in "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'" all suffer, but the oppressed suffer the most. People in an office who see only coworkers will judge by competency and skill. If race or some other sensitive PC issue is thrown in, they will see those people as different. If they see this long enough, especially if the claim is obviously bogus and the 'victimized' worker is incompetent and below the level of good workers but with better pay, benefits, and enjoys a larger margin for error (basically they are babied and always appeased) then the coworkers will see the other people as weaker, lesser, and naturally inable to operate on the same playing field as everyone else.
The liberal rationalization is based on emotional reaction and pays no attention to facts and past performance. It refuses to look at the long term and the big picture, and misses the common sense of the issue. If you push others around they will eventually push back. Having worked with some very talented people of all backgrounds, I can tell you that to everyone I have ever known, race is NEVER an issue unless the person brings it up themselves and begins to play the victim. However, I have NEVER known any talented person who has done this... in fact, they would refuse it if the possibility existed to gain from the claim because it is not dignified or honorable.
Don't try to cure the disease by shooting the patient, please!
corporations are groups of PEOPLE. Therefore if they wrong us they are held just as accountable as an individual would be. The government will not make this better... at least a big government. Judicially, yes, the government is an answer to what happens. If I shoot you, I am tried, if found guilty I am taken off the street in order to prevent me from doing it again. If a corporation does something wrong, they merely pay off a politician. They don't do this with soft money, hard money, etc. It is just the old familiar under the table bribe. The "campaign finance reform" is doomed to failure both because it ignores the problem and focuses on the symptom, but also because it sets up a legal system of what is acceptable money, with all its loopholes and exploits.
Don't elect politicians who destroy the constitution (especially if they are then labled 'Defenders' of said Constitution.
When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'. -Bakunin
Defang corporations of their power over citizens, vote to reduce government
anyway, it seems more and more that the very ideas and 'innovations' to protect people are doing the very opposite. Witness the very idea of censorware in Public Schools et al. Sure it may block goat sex sites, but it also seems to block a whole plethora of legitimate research sites... so much for the use of the internet (and technology in general) to promote societal growth and knowledge.
When you think about it, in terms of seeking a cause not the symptoms, you notice that the NOW's political PC movement is at the very heart of all this nonsense. The primary problem is not that people get offended easily, nor is it that many do not care how others are effected. Because those are merely attitudes that shape but do not make our actions. The end result is what is important. I could be a warm caring person looking out for others, trying to prevent victims of drunk driving. But if I then go and blow up all alcohol manufacturers and distributers, then place curfues on people being out (to 'stop' people from getting drunk) and arrest children who play to near the street, etc. I will cause much more harm, as history shows us so very clearly. Here on/. many people become livid at the mention of censorware, but take away the computer and the problem still persists. That problem is unequality and multiple standards. First, it comes down to ethics. If society believes in curing a disease by killing the patient then they should not be suprised when the patient suddenly dies, nor should they sue, blame, accuse, shift responsibility onto others (especially if the scape-goated individuals were against the very thing that caused or worsened the problem).
Why aren't there more leaders out there who are teaching the merits of personal responsibility? (Well for one, I notice that those few that do exist are not given air time, remember that sensationalism and rabble rousing gets ratings, not sensible reasoning and logical idealism) If we could make a magical wish about this, would it be to simply end the existence or use of censorware, or would it be to apply a fair system of personal responsibility and accountability, that applies to ALL people, not just the ones who shout the loudest/hire the loudest lawyers/ get the most sensational air time? Most people will agree that there are many things they would give up, or do in private as to not cause an uproar. However, if they have people shoving morals and regulations down their throats for some things, but not all (thus limiting their freedom of speach and expression, but giving an unequal reign of offense to others) they will not see the ones offended nor the law protecting them as good. Sit any group of white kids down and push on them: affirmative action, accusations of racism and bigotry, films of riots, and interviews with people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Sistah Souljah, etc. Maybe add some people (of any race) to come in and give them 'sensitivity training' and chastise and judge them if they say something that someone somewhere might take offense to, yet say nothing about violence (physical and verbal), censoring, restrictions, etc aimed at them. What you will get after a while is a group of very racist, hateful, bigoted and small minded kids... you will have tomorrow's killers and rapists.
However, teach them reasoning and logic, positive and safe ways to deal with conflict, and self reliance... you will have tomorrow's leaders and teachers. What we as a society need to learn is to not apply multiple standards to what we do. To avoid hypocracy and complacency. The lackadaisical (sp?) attitudes of the masses generaly gets translated into the passing of stupid laws and regulations.
I just wish for the day that Americans (actually everyone) stop trying to control their neighbors and respect others equally.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I want to use this to create a temporary wormhole at the bottom of the bar's tap. Now this would be a partial wormhole (perhaps by size or perhaps find some way to having it have a very low mass threshold) Basically the other end would be at the bottom of my mug (to prevent over foaming). Perhaps by creating several of these across the bar I could siphon off of many sources. I would have a literal bottomless mug. (unless they switched locations on the tap I suppose...). Man, that would be a great way to make a black and tan. On the other hand, why put the entrance point on a tap, just put it in the keg. That way I don't depend on both my activation of my end, and the barkeep filling (not really) some other customers brew up.
Seems like when socialism is brought up, people get very nasty. The point is, regardless of what you call it, it is socialism. Just because you switch some special interest group with a corporation doesn't really matter as far as results go. When government has the power to dictate to teh people how to live, what to like, what to dislike, how to think, who they should hire, etc... that is socialism and history has shown it does more harm than good.
The AC that said that it is conservatism and the line about GWB is not actually correct. First (and this is another example of fact overrulling theory), it should be noted that in the US, the majority of censoring/filtering and things like the ratings system for various forms of entertainment have been children of Democrats and their spouses. Just look at what the Clinton administration handed down, then look at what he signed, then look at bills author's or at the committe sponsors. What you find is a paper trail of dem's restricting your rights. If you just point at Republican's and especially if you take blame from the real culprits and put it on the Republicans to make it easier for you, you are dooming yourself.
I for one don't trust either of them and NEVER have. But I do observe reality and notice the dem's stripping away all my rights at a much higer rate than the republicans have. Hopefully GWB won't follow the dem's lead in that, but who knows.
Again, like you said... labels seem to be very misleading... just like political parties. I see Democrats who sell out land to be destroyed by developers, then not only looking the other way, but helping them (and themselves) to the profits it generates. Democrats that claim to be 'for the people' but only those people that will give them power. Democrats that spread lies and deceit instead of educating the public with facts. Then I see the army of supporters that not only defend them, but actually place blame on the Republican's. Just call it like it is, don't let the media or little angry men tell you how and what to think.
To the AC, I believe you need to get your facts straight on what the Republicans and Democrats have really been doing. If you choose to label it as conservatism, yet ignore the socialism inherent in it, that is your right. Whatever you choose to call it, it is control. If you excuse one sort of control because it doesn't 'effect' you yet, or because it only effects those whom you do not LIKE or AGREE with,then you are no different then the evil that you rage against. Put down the picket sign, and grap your phone or computer. Call the idiots that put this into place (in this case if you are an Australian) and make a difference. Don't rally to replace one evil with an even more intrusive and historically proven inneffective one.
Keep in mind this is a joke, so please don't over analyze this
Blame the original opponents, especially if what has happened is exactly what was predicted by said opponents
Ignore it (or many aspects of it) due to both ego and willful ignorance of reality
Pile even more fluff on top of the existing law/regulation in attempt to 'put out fires with fuel'
Act suprised that this happened, and forms a multimillion dollar 'Task Force' to look into the matter, usually ending with results that resemble the other results listed above
I for one, think I am able to protect myself and my family from what I consider not appropriate. If my government wants to assist me, then they should provide access to education (the enemy of ignorance and bigotry) and access (not to be confused with forcing companies to provide said service) to methods/products to perform said protection... but then again, that is what the founding fathers of the United States would want. And through misquoting and misrepresentation and hidden agendas of hate and personal vendetas, this country is NOT very free anymore. It would be solved however, if everyone would stop with the feuding behavior and look at the common denominators of problems, not the superficial instances of it, and then hypocritically attacking only those things that it is trendy to attack.
it would seem that Canada is on the fast track to folliwing suit with Australia, following close behind is the UK, with America closing on the inside lane hoping to pass them all. France is coming up behind them all to lap them, with China still several laps ahead but showing signs of slowing, probably due to the extra weight of properity and wealth that all of its citizens are beginning to enjoy from earlier slow downs. In the pit are the Soviet Union as well as its puppet nations of Europe and Asia, many are gassing back up to enter the race full speed, even Russia seems to believe that this event would benefit from a Tag-Team Wrestling method, so Russia is veering over to consider subing out with Soviet Union.
Over in the winners circle, the winners of past races wait with eager anticipation of crowing this races winner, even thought it is a continous race with Vigilance always being the spoiler for an individual racer. Nazi Germany smiles benevolently with its confiscated gun in one hand, and its murdered politically declared "unclean" in the other... both will be awarded to this race's winner.
No one is that foolish and willfully ignorant of facts. Lets start from the bottom and work our way up...
OK, your last statement about violence as an answer to violence and such... that is very correct. History, in addition to sociological and psychological studies show that hypocritical 'solutions' like violence for violence end up causing not only the criminal to become more violent, but the victim as well (this includes family and associates of both as well). A logical extension of this is that through media, the extended public becomes more violent in nature.
Next, abolish death penalty. I agree, while people get emotionally and racially biased in many cases where it has been proven several dozen times that the person was guilty... the fact remains that there are those cases where it was later proven that the executed criminal was actually innocent (whether completely or partially to the extent of not justifying capital punishment). To put people's lives in the hands of a group of 'well meaning' people is foolish, as history shows. Other times and places (Europe is a famous for its "for the People" slaughters) it has been shown that it can be suprisingly simple to 'upgrade' capital crimes to include political crimes.
Change the President of the US, yadda yadda... FIrst of all, that just proves how biased and hypocritically one-sided the media is that you would spout this out. Texas is NOT the state with the most death sentences.. it is the one with the most recent EXECUTIONS. The difference is two-fold. One, the number of death row inmates is greater in other states, and two, the number of actual executions is only greater in Texas if you go back Ten years I think... might be greater. Another interesting FACT is that Al Gore was not only for the death penalty, but his state has one of the largest populations of death row inmates.
OK, another bout of logic and reasoning is this... BUSH did not execute these people. They were all sentenced before he even ran for governor... the majority were sentenced (along with the initial appeals and the requests for stays and further appeals by the governor being denied) during the tenure of a woman by the name of Ann Richards... a DEMOCRAT. These people were proven to be guilty, many after more than 30 appeals.
Educated TV, yadda yadda yadda. I agree... I only watch History, Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, SciFi, etc... but I am not arrogant, illogical, irrational, foolish, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, or elitist enough to deny others their stupid mindless entertainment.... to do so is to be a Tyrant.
now for the biggy!!! Forbid weapons... Now could you explain first of all how this is to be done in reality. Sure, like socialism it sounds great... but it fails in practice because it must not only be enforced with violence, but only targets the lawful section of society that would not be the problem anyway. History has proven that criminals love disarmament strategies... many of the criminals move up to governmental positions then, thus dropping what little responsibility and accountability they had previously in favor of total (as in totalitarian) control and power over the peasants. That is called Tyranny, and whether it is Marxist socialism or National socialism it is all the same in the end. Power, corruption, terror and violence on the populations.
Another fact is one that you can EASILY research on your own. Look up the facts involving crimes and violent acts commited with guns, then look up those caused by other weapons (that includes objects not classified as weapons but put to violent use, like cars). Not only will you find (even with the recent problems) that gun violence ranks lower than the rest, but that in almost 99% of cases involving guns... the person obtained the gun illegally. Whether he 'borrowed' it from a lawful gun owner, or simply had an illegal gun... it proves that laws against law abiding citizens do not work and are an inneficent waste of time, effort and tax payers' money. Plus if you research some more you will find that the existing laws are NOT BEING ENFORCED. So that only compounds the issue, and begs the question, "Why would we logically add to a suite of programs that are not in use and have proven to be inneffective when actually used?"
Now on the other hand, if you wish to control your neighbor... if you do not like what he thinks, says or does. If you want to make sure that everyone lives by the standards that you set forth, regardless of the fact that it does not effect you and claim to create and "equal playing field" yet end up dividing the gap between the 'haves and have nots' even further, showering yourself and your supporters (party) with lavish wealth and benefits while stripping those others of any chance to improve by their own initiative... if you desire that, then go right on ahead and forbid guns. Historically weapons banning has never been the FIRST phase of tyranny, it is one of the later (but still towards the beginning) phases that serves to castrate the will and the ability of the people to defend themselves, thus making your goal of control over them simpler. Hitler, Musilini, Stalin, Ho Chi Min... the list goes on and on and on and on. You have a lot of shoulders to stand on good sir/maam, so go right on and make us proud.
While bullies often falls under the category of 'boys will be boys', what has failed to be noticed is that the level of abuse has not only increased in quantity but in its quality as well. Now children are not just taunted by a bully, maybe beat up once... or the high school version, being alienated and ridiculed by clic'ish (I honestly don't know how to spell that)... rather it has evolved into a situation mimicking many prisons.
Ridicule has been replaced with emotional terrorism and a total innexcapable environment of verbal abuse and death threats. (often not only by peers but staff as well) Pranks and minor physical abuse (noogies and frogs) has been replaced with 'many on one' beatings, and weekly torture sessions. What is worse, is that both parents and staff, when confronted with this, excuse it as boys play... or then follow up by saying that 'life is a bitch' and you gotta learn to deal with problems on your own. I knew some staff that would say that the only solution was for the tortured student to 'deal with it' on his own. While the rule of thumb for bully mentality is that they are weak pathetic morons that are easily frightened when stood up to (or just defeated), that does not take into account ego. If the nerdy kid has the gall to stand up to the 'bullies' they are then seen as week and potential future victims of other bullies.
Because of this, I have seen my share of kids have the stuffing beat out of them. Although, to be honest, the majority of them were race related as the victim was white and the race-slur slinging bullies were black or hispanic. But then it is all the same as far as results go.
I do not plan on having kids anytime soon, but when I do, I want them to feel safe. Martial arts helps a lot, but what about other kids. What happens when this continues to worsen, while the politicians and 'well meaning' parents attack the wrong thing? What about accountability and responsibility? If these "Kids" are victimizing others, then they should face the consequences for their actions. No, not juvy... I am talking the county jail with the other scumbag predators. Boot camp (if done just like a real military branches (I know of one, maybe two) boot camp) has worked wonders in many cases... well who knows. This is waaaay too long and I don't care about spelling so THERE!
Some of the more successfully financed companies will survive and bob along with the float-som
New "innovative" groups will emerge that work hard once again to tell a story, not make money or just put crap out because they can.
Later you will see both groups get bigger and bigger, gobbling each other up to the point that competition becomes so fierce that market analyzers and enterprise level management experts will be needed to keep up. Later, these marketers and executives will become so powerful as to drown out the developers and fans to the point that the reason for their sole existence is lost to the 'bottom line'
Now, lather, rinse and repeat.
Damn, my crystal ball is broken, it was actually focusing on my monitor screen with its text distorting program that is apparently taking input from historical documents and changing the times and names to another set. oh well, sorry for the false alarm!
Either way, the Ultima series has been dead since 7, so it doesn't matter. Any company that produces such shallow pieces of crud don't deserve any money. Well, not my money at any rate.
Then again, I can easily imagine on U9 at least, Garriot trying to make a quality game but taking so much crap from marketing and executive weanies that he gives up... and quits! On the other hand, U8 showed everyone what NOT to do, but they went ahead and made super-U8 with Ascension. I agreed with the tons of people that called Ascension, "Super Avatar Bros." because of its simplistic and absolutely linear plot, pathetic story, and non-existant combat. (Why train or use tactics when your first 'moves' and a Bo can easily defeat anyone)
As a slight aside, check out this link for info on fan made patches and add-ons to U9. In addition, many other of the Ultima series are undergoing revivals, from complete redo's to overlays and patches. Of course, EA will probably sue these folk if it turns out to be good... why compete with quality when you can sue, destory or maybe buy it out... the M$ way.
Either way, I will give Garriot a vote of confidence in that I think he was a victim of his own naivety and short sidedness (ok, that sounds odd, but I won't change it). I imagine he learned his lesson and his hopefully looking to tell a story and create an experience, not sell a gimick. One can only hope.
Now about Chris Carter... I really miss AutoDuel. From what I read, Loose Cannon looked more like a driving game with some shooting, not the great story and experience within the Car-Wars universe like with AutoDuel. But then again, Loose Cannon seems still wanting for a publisher last I heard. (a good prospective is on the tables though)
In response to that I told him my opinion... that I agree with some of what he said, but only the underlying sentiment, not the added parts like 'every little right'. I told him about the inherent problems in that methodology. First of all, everyone's right is just that... a right, as per the First Amendment in this case. I brought up the subject of rights versus privileges, and how those are often confused and swapped. I gave him some facts about how many of these filters end up filtering out the 'good with the bad'. I also mentioned Franklin's quote:
thus adding that this sort of filtering goes against the very foundation of what our Founding Fathers wanted.In the end, after telling him that I did indeed share his concerns and giving him facts in order to make a decision based on logic and reason... well he began to see the light. The moral of the story is this: If you really want to change society for the better, it is more effective to do so by pointing out facts that are founded in truth and tempered by compassion. If you resort to how many on /. and other places (online or not) react... the key there is RE-act, emotionally and become aggressive and whiney you will NEVER win support. Furthermore, if your stances on issues are chaotic and paradoxical then you should yourself take a step back and figure out what kind of person you are. Regardless of the political crap, when you force your views on others or censor others ideas and thoughts you are a tyrant. It doesn't matter in the slightest if your censoring a Neo-nazi or a Gay rights activist.... to close my little rant / diatribe:
Now somewhere I seem to remember an old book or something titled 'Diablo'. I mean, its not like its an original name, but most intelligent people realize that. I really wish I had something witty to say about this... but I find myself just staring at the screen in stunned silence. (serious for a second now) The fact that the lawsuit was even mentioned in the first place outside of a joke is rediculous enough... but that the exec's and lawyers actually are wasting the taxpayers time and money (and their personel, all the judiciary folks involved in filing and presenting the case) in a serious attempt to win makes me rather ill. Or it could be the funky burrito I ate, who knows. Either way, if I was the judge overseeing the initial mediation (I assume they started with that) I don't think I could have refrained from laughing in the face of the lawyers from Blizzard. What hosers... hmmm, I need to go watch Strange Brew, anyone know why its so hard to find that sucker in any video rental stores?
Well, I for one would really like to see that become a reality. Now I know every one who has ever touched a compiler (and often many who don't even know what a compiler does) will give a different opinion on how this is possible, how it has been done, or how it will never be done, etc. And most say that now programmers need to step up and use the features. (I agree with this one) But my question is, are API's keeping up with it. How is DirectX handling more advanced features (not just is it 'supported' but is it clean and efficient) How about OpenGL? How are the projects for middle ware coming like WINE with DirectX and so forth?
I am really impressed with the graphics detail and performance out there right now. I personally want to see more stability. While I am aware of the argument (and it does hold some water I admit) about a higher fps giving better all around performance, it is still common for intense graphics scenes to chug on your machine. I wouldn't mind seeing the ability to average out the fps better, as set by the user. Some method on the hardware to reduce the quality or certain methods only if it detects a forrest of high quality polygons and its own slow speed.
And I would REALLY like to see some better AI, and maybe some api's that make use of hardware driven ai... ok just kidding on that one, but perhaps a set of advanced ai libs with an API isn't too far out there. Tie these in with any of the methods for network distributed processing and you have an amazing LAN party set up. Throw some together on your home server farm and now you have your game server set to go... ahhh. Soon it will be like the old BBS days... but with better graphics and real time interaction.
Well, end of wish list... maybe the internet fairy will bless this if it is seen and make it real.
Perhaps if these smaller companies would stop selling out, the problem would go away. Competition is definitely needed, and while Linux and BSD are slowly creeping into the general publics awareness, they do not have the marketing clout (nor, fortunately, the complete lack of soul) that M$ does. I think we all know how M$ likes to take the R&D of others and steal it. Sometimes they actually buy out the company. Sometimes they actually copy the innovation of the other company thus drowning the market once again (forcing the company to go out of business and then buying them). Or they just lock out the protocol, API, application, etc. with their latest patch (keeping in mind that I consider 95 part 2, 98 and 98SE to be mere patches to the original 95). This forces the other company to go out of business (then M$ buys the patents and such) or just sells out to M$. Then we have Neanderthal Technology (NT or NoT) at ummm, well I wanted to say at work but it just doesn't fit. NT is great for outsourced network engineers, on call ALL the time for the constant problems with NT.
Back to the central point, since M$ likes to use other's work and research for themselves, perhaps the Open source community should allow ourselves to partake in that bit of market strategy. I don't mean copy work, but if you notice a movement that is working (people seem to be adopting it and it spreads like wildfire) then by all means let Linux et al. jump on the bandwagon. I don't understand why people HATE m$ to the degree that anything even remotely associated with them is automatically shut out. That is childish behavior that is in essence self destructive (most illogical and emotional behavior is).
I also think that the software industry needs to mature and develop a steady professional association both on the individual and market level. If done right, and it is done so in many other areas, then if any one group like M$ tries their crap like before, I will specifically target the guerilla marketing and intimidation, then I believe that the threatened companies should be able to safely tell M$ to blow it out its respective arse. Some might say this is already the case with the open source movement, but remember that the open source movement has all the signs of being a fad. Which means that many "supporters" will all drop out when it becomes trendy to leave. On the other hand, since more businesses everyday are adopting Linux and BSD for mission critical systems (I personally and bucking for some more DoD servers running on SecureBSD and Linux) I think that this might not happen soon. People are fickle and very silly, but maybe we can hold off the stampede until later. I could be (I hope I am) wrong, and maybe this is just my cynicism rearing its ugly head.
To summarize my rant, we need to police ourselves. Dont adopt the same unethical tactics, however we should keep our eyes open to things that work. Like Balmer goofily admitted (as if we didn't already know) M$ is commited to closing protocols and locking down ideas to only run on their systems. That pisses everyone off, even many traditional M$ supporters. If we give them what they want, CHOICE we win no matter what.
Now as for your comment about 'what is required, etc.' I have to ask how do you define that? In a perfect setup, anytime a student or teacher was doing research of any school related type, and then went to the school IT person and requested it be unblocked... and then it WAS in a timely manner, this would work. (sorry for the run on, but I am tired) As for the comment about researching at the library, that seems to clash with the idea of learning at schools. Schools have libraries, therefor it seems to follow that research is conducted there. And short of setting up two different networks or firewalls/filtering there is really no way to get around using school access to research. Last (and tying it all in) is this. When these are public schools, it means that kids are going to schools already payed for through taxes (and taxes of those who will never use said schools). Just like you have taxes that feed the library system, these funds from taxes are supposed to be there for the purpose of education of our children. So, I believe that school is the number one place a kid should go to in order to research. Also, since the filtering rules apply to libraries the same way as schools in most communities it creates a gulf of information for the kids. If my kids research at home, then I should pay less taxes. If they attend private school or are home schooled (Obviously not in grammer or spelling) then I should pay no school taxes at all. Now a private school is another matter, since there is a choice for the parents and students whether or not to attend that school.
So to me, it is really an issue of efficiency more than rights or liberties. Of course, if you look at our rights and liberties closely, you find that the protections all seem to follow the reasoning for efficiency as well. Hmmph, maybe its just a coincidence.
Hypocritical attacks and one sided judgments of reality will not help anything but makers of wooden pickets. Education is the key. Use FACTS, not lies, deceit, misrepresentations, technicalities, and ommisions. Plus, if you want to gain trust, you must stop acting like wild animals. If your cause is just, then you will not need to resort to terrorism in order to spread the word about your cause.
Also, remember that if you so painfully judge a non liberal or any other non-extremist as evil, then you must give facts. Then you must use this same list of facts to judge: A) Yourself B) Your organization C) Your 'leaders'
If you fail to do this, you are not just as bad as those whom you label as evil... you are much worse, for you are your own worst enemy (by your definition).
Like many others like you (read your editorial) you mention that you are tired of being labled, yet say it is because you know more than they do, and then go on to label and slander them. Arrogance, hypocracy and a complete lack of care or empathy for others. You will never be more than an annoying insect if you continue with that tactic.
As for "fight the power!"... well lets open up our history books and learn about Communism and other revolutions like it. People being oppressed by the elite. The elite who have everything, yet demand more, and fight to the death to preserve their "right" to have it. They kill and starve anyone who is not like them. Understandably, the commoners do not like this, and they tire of being oppressed and held back to serve the elite. They tire of the fact that the very laws and policies set forth by the elite do not apply to said elite. (See Federal Taxes) Plus they tire of not being able to speak out against it without being censored or silenced (imprisoned or worse)
Now, here comes along Comrade Joe, he rallies all the public in his favor promising reform and 'changes' and that he will 'level the playing ground'. He whips them into a frenzy of blood-lust by playing on their hate and violence, promising to "Make them pay!". What happens next is bloody and painful. Later (months, years, and decades even) you notice that the "party" that reformed the country enjoys amazing wealth and priveledge, they are above the laws they set forth, and are considered the only patriots of the country. Any one who notices this and tries to bring it up is usually imprisoned or shot.
So, you basically end up with the very same thing as before, but with even fewer rights and liberties. The moral of the story is that you must use tactics that have been proven to work, and more importantly you must not replace one evil with another one.
And if you think people like me aren't constantly labeled, judged, and snubbed... think again! It is most often by the very same people along side you with their pickets. The rest of the time, it is by those who you are protesting against. That is OK, I suppose, as our founding fathers had the very same problem... stuck in the middle between two extremist sides, watching each side hypocritically attack the other for the very same reasons that they defend (although of a different flavor)
As for your fear of violence arrupting, I share that fear. However, I realize that (like I said above) I must not advocate a replacement for one evil for another. I believe that policing your self and your organizations is the FIRST and most important step in any cause, as most problems in the world are usually a result of internal problems spilling outward. You obviously hate republicans and the current administration, but your listed reasons are the very same things that Democrats and Green party people do or advocate. To help reduce the risk of violence erupting, try reasoning with people. Don't be them but in your body. Don't attack them or even their beliefs. Like environmentalism, if you attack others as not caring or being nazis, yet hypocritally shout them down and advocate oppresive (and proven inneffective) measures, then you will alienate them from your cause, which SHOULD be protecting the environment. But from observation, I personally believe that the VAST majority of protesters are only concerned about the protests themselves, not the underlying 'cause'. Plus, many people out there are ignorant (not a bad word, btw) and merely require education. Angry, violent, swearing, rioting monkeys do not inspire a will to learn and grow, they inspire fear, anger, mistrust, and contempt.
Be a part of the solution to our problems, not the PROBLEM. Good day and end of long rant
My second reason of course, would be to simply watch for this little knick-knack in use. Hmmmm, 3D huh?... "uhhh, Bob, get a couple of angle shots on those cheerleaders."
Of course, maybe some day pro athletes will stop being such pathetic pansies, bleeding and crying over this or that (when they are not raping or killing), and protesting their tiny 50 Million dollar salaries. Pathetic... well I guess I am being naive, but who knows... things change.
Actually, I think this should be implemented for Soccer in England. That way you could get the 3D shots of beetings and stampedes by the fans, now THAT would be entertaining!
One other thing, specific to Christianity. Christ would definitely have been a Libertarian if he was around today. On many occasion he stated that he did not want to get into the politics of the time, and was there to lead people spiritually not politically (or militarily). According to the bible, you must remove the plank from your own eye BEFORE you point out the speck in your brother's.
I also agree that the Christian Coalition is out of order, both for religious reasons (see, hypocrisy again) and political ones (which are actually one and the same). I am on the front lines when it comes to legislating morality, I just wish others would do the same, instead of picking their favorite 'side' and then blindly charging the enemy... thus totally disregarding the fact that they are by their own definition, oppressive.
FUD and scare tactics work with most people, because unfortunately most people are talking monkeys that refuse to use logic and reason. They are more comfortable reacting emotionally to situations and having someone else tell them what opinions they should have. All the world over, we need to start attacking problems at the sources, not blindly chasing the symptoms. And like with a good doctor, if a treatment fails to work, or causes a deadly reaction with a patient, then we need to divorce ourselves from our bigotry and arrogance and act in an ethical manner to change the 'treatment'.
Its not really that hard to do. There is a saying here, however "Vigilance is the price of liberty" And then there is "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve and lose both"
sit that boy down and tape headphones to him looping Yoko Ono's greatest hits.
The point of all this, is that there is a different method for programming but that still evolves (like adding to your cooking equipment, etc) over time faster than the older one, at least IMHO. Now, I like both. I like to use different styles and tools for different tasks. But I find it both disturbing and strangely amusing that there is such a large contingent of snooty, self promoted elitists out there who think that by snubbing the newer method they are afforded some extra degree of credibility and recognition than they would gather from good work and assistance to others. Perhaps I just see them as the snobs that fall all over themselves trying to prove that they have been doing what you do, longer, more, or their father/mother did it, making them l33t.
As for OOP vs. Procedural and all... ahh, what are ya gonna do? I have heard a lot of the talk about OOP being bad because it has more overhead (compiler or pilot error?), larger file size (see above), and the ol familiar, how can you reuse code when the method to reuse keeps changing? (well, that sounds like the upgrade argument, its gonna happen for awhile, so get used to it!). If you don't like it, or are stuck in the Procedural world, fine. I am sure you can do the very same thing (or very close at the very least) as an OOP program. But if you take someone with 20 years procedural experience and habit who then writes an OOP, then bitches about it and the results... well I'll let you finish this. cheers
Facts show us that government is a corporation with no limits, period. Now picture two people with baseball bats coming towards you but you aren't sure if he is coming at you, or at your neighbor to protect you. One you can choose to avoid, but loose out on the benifits he gives you (consumer choice and boycotting) the other (government) is absolute. You must accept what he is going to do regardless.
As history shows, it is the people who were beaten who mistrust the second one worse. The guy next to them trusts government more. However, it is the intelligent third person who recognizes patterns and that he too may be next. He might even actually care about others and try to disarm both the men with bats.
Furthermore, it is also he who seems to be the only one who noticed that the corporate guy supplied the bat to the government guy, and the government guy supplied the liscense to the corporate guy (or as is usually the case, just looked the other way and played favorites)
Remember, government is the person that will Break both your legs, then hand you a pair of crutches and expect you to pay him and give him thanks for helping you walk
In response to this fact... just ask around and do some research on your own, and you find all the places that enforce the racist affirmative action quotas and are proud of it. Many will one of two things:
1. Well, its about time that whitey got whats coming to him
2. Poor white-boy, I don't see this, and if I did.. see number (1)
Well, lets break this down. First, number one implies that revenge is acceptable. It also implies that the person seeking revenge does not have to be the person wronged and the person that the revenge is aimed at does not have to be the person who wronged the individual. Second, the denial that reverse descrimination exists is hypocritial when applied by the same person, or in the same instance as one who is attempting to prove that racism BY whites is apparent. Also, it degrades the person in the very same degree of loss of dignity and lack of credibility that every self-claimed victim of racism uses as the hallmark of their 'cause'.
So perhaps the biggest point of all of this is simply to back up and analyze things on their own merit, not from our emotional reactions and biases. Descrimination is descrimination, period. You cannot justify one, deny another, then hope to have credibility when claiming that only racism by whites is a problem. BTW, I have on many occasions had black people tell me that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be racist and non-white.
Like in so many other experiences in life, this one should teach us that integrity is the most important aspect of human life. Whether it is racism, rape, politics, you name it... when it comes down to the point that there are seperate standards for different people and issues, and when (usually this is the cause) large flocks of people consistently abuse the claim, like in "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'" all suffer, but the oppressed suffer the most. People in an office who see only coworkers will judge by competency and skill. If race or some other sensitive PC issue is thrown in, they will see those people as different. If they see this long enough, especially if the claim is obviously bogus and the 'victimized' worker is incompetent and below the level of good workers but with better pay, benefits, and enjoys a larger margin for error (basically they are babied and always appeased) then the coworkers will see the other people as weaker, lesser, and naturally inable to operate on the same playing field as everyone else.
The liberal rationalization is based on emotional reaction and pays no attention to facts and past performance. It refuses to look at the long term and the big picture, and misses the common sense of the issue. If you push others around they will eventually push back. Having worked with some very talented people of all backgrounds, I can tell you that to everyone I have ever known, race is NEVER an issue unless the person brings it up themselves and begins to play the victim. However, I have NEVER known any talented person who has done this... in fact, they would refuse it if the possibility existed to gain from the claim because it is not dignified or honorable.
Don't try to cure the disease by shooting the patient, please!
yes, even if the children are the ones at the business end of the stick
Don't elect politicians who destroy the constitution (especially if they are then labled 'Defenders' of said Constitution.
Defang corporations of their power over citizens, vote to reduce governmentanyway, it seems more and more that the very ideas and 'innovations' to protect people are doing the very opposite. Witness the very idea of censorware in Public Schools et al. Sure it may block goat sex sites, but it also seems to block a whole plethora of legitimate research sites... so much for the use of the internet (and technology in general) to promote societal growth and knowledge.
When you think about it, in terms of seeking a cause not the symptoms, you notice that the NOW's political PC movement is at the very heart of all this nonsense. The primary problem is not that people get offended easily, nor is it that many do not care how others are effected. Because those are merely attitudes that shape but do not make our actions. The end result is what is important. I could be a warm caring person looking out for others, trying to prevent victims of drunk driving. But if I then go and blow up all alcohol manufacturers and distributers, then place curfues on people being out (to 'stop' people from getting drunk) and arrest children who play to near the street, etc. I will cause much more harm, as history shows us so very clearly. Here on /. many people become livid at the mention of censorware, but take away the computer and the problem still persists. That problem is unequality and multiple standards. First, it comes down to ethics. If society believes in curing a disease by killing the patient then they should not be suprised when the patient suddenly dies, nor should they sue, blame, accuse, shift responsibility onto others (especially if the scape-goated individuals were against the very thing that caused or worsened the problem).
Why aren't there more leaders out there who are teaching the merits of personal responsibility? (Well for one, I notice that those few that do exist are not given air time, remember that sensationalism and rabble rousing gets ratings, not sensible reasoning and logical idealism) If we could make a magical wish about this, would it be to simply end the existence or use of censorware, or would it be to apply a fair system of personal responsibility and accountability, that applies to ALL people, not just the ones who shout the loudest/hire the loudest lawyers/ get the most sensational air time? Most people will agree that there are many things they would give up, or do in private as to not cause an uproar. However, if they have people shoving morals and regulations down their throats for some things, but not all (thus limiting their freedom of speach and expression, but giving an unequal reign of offense to others) they will not see the ones offended nor the law protecting them as good. Sit any group of white kids down and push on them: affirmative action, accusations of racism and bigotry, films of riots, and interviews with people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Sistah Souljah, etc. Maybe add some people (of any race) to come in and give them 'sensitivity training' and chastise and judge them if they say something that someone somewhere might take offense to, yet say nothing about violence (physical and verbal), censoring, restrictions, etc aimed at them. What you will get after a while is a group of very racist, hateful, bigoted and small minded kids... you will have tomorrow's killers and rapists.
However, teach them reasoning and logic, positive and safe ways to deal with conflict, and self reliance... you will have tomorrow's leaders and teachers. What we as a society need to learn is to not apply multiple standards to what we do. To avoid hypocracy and complacency. The lackadaisical (sp?) attitudes of the masses generaly gets translated into the passing of stupid laws and regulations.
I just wish for the day that Americans (actually everyone) stop trying to control their neighbors and respect others equally.