If only they could now release episodes one through three with remastered versions that don't feature lousy acting, shallow characters and crappy plots.
Episode 3 was actually pretty good. It had plenty of action, but enough slow parts that tied the story together and developed the characters. It was dark and evil, definitely had a consistent and welcome theme throughout. I don't know which of the 6 movies is the best, but Episode 3 is a strong contender in my mind.
Episodes 1 and 2 left a lot to be desired, but thanks to the fast forward function of my DVD player, really aren't all that bad. No more frolicking in the meadow, no more talk of midichlorians, etc.
Mister Coward, you obviously didn't read TFM where Dvorak says Microsoft will continue to make "gobs and gobs" of money. He argues that they will be less and less relavent, not that they will make less and less profit.
I don't know about the legality of such clauses since I am not a lawyer (but I am inclined to think they are legal), but I do think they're dumb. What it does is close doors for the employee. Fired? Don't like your job? Too bad, you can't work for a competitor. While this doesn't lock the employee out of the industry entirely, it does restrict them from a specific area, for example, game companies, security companies, OS companies, etc. So you have tons of C++ and graphics experience working for a game company? Well now you can learn a whole new skillset with Java, Oracle, AJAX, etc. and go write web applications. Sure, it's still programming, but it's totally different technology, different programming paradigm, and requires time to adjust.
The only thing that most of these "please remove me" BS forms do is confirm that the email address is a valid one, and can be resold to more spammers. If anything filling those out actually causes more harm than good.
Possibly. Some of the links do embed information identifying your email address. If you're smart, you'll pull that out of the URL first.
Problem is, that to waste their time, you have to waste your time. I sometimes do respond to junk (paper) mail by sending random junk in the envelope. Sometimes I actually write a letter demanding they remove me from their lists. No matter what I do, it doesn't end. Capital One still sends me junk mail despite multiple letters between us -- me demanding them to stop, them reassuring me they will honor my request. Junk mail is even worse because it is more anonymous -- it is easy to forge headers and mask where a mail truly came from. Yes, there are ways to track it down, but it isn't always easy. Filling out information on a web site in the email doesn't do much, since odds are it doesn't go to the same person. Even then, it takes time to screw with the spammers, electronic or paper, and I don't want to waste my time.
Sometimes I do get bored and do screw with them. Such as using my brand new photo printer to print stuff and put it in those return envelopes. After visiting certain not-work-safe sites for photos.
I do read AP crap from multiple sources. While sometimes the stories are identical, often the individual reporters just use AP source material, quotes, etc. and while the stories wind up being similar, they have differences. Still, this is just one source, as you mentioned. I do go to other sources as required.
For example, you mention the sunni/shi'ite struggle in and around Iraq. I actually took a college class on religion that devoted a whole chapter to this struggle in Islam. Yeah, just a chapter, and not an in-depth look. But certainly more detailed than most Americans get. There are many nuances to their culture that would require not only a specialized degree in foreign studies but years of living there among them to learn. While the media certainly oversimplifies many things and gets many other things plain wrong, I have to trust them to some degree to deliver facts to me. I can use my knowledge to filter it out and get the important ideas. I can look up topics in an encyclopedia or wikipedia. I even have a primary source in an Iranian woman I know who lived there for many years. If the topic is something different than the middle east, I have other sources I can use both to check facts and to learn more in-depth knowledge.
I think you allude to the fact that AP newswire is good enough for the masses who don't yearn for more knowledge. I think knowledge is one of mankind's greatest assets, and it is a shame that more of us don't try to self-educate on topics we know little about. It is our nature to be afraid of the unknown and to make shit up, such as mythology, to fill in the blanks. Some of us can fight the urge and use science to learn about our universe, but many of us are just plain lazy. While some people argue that turns us into armchair scientists, it sure beats the alternative -- a layperson wearing blinders.
I may not remember this precisely, but I think what really happened is Microsoft hired an old Unix programmer to work on Windows NT. They used some BSD-licensed code, but by the time NT 3.5 got out the door, the vast majority of the code was rewritten anyway. So it wasn't really based on Unix, they just hired a guy who was part of the old-school Unix community. I could be wrong though.
I do read some of the stuff on Congress' web site, such as debate, voting records, etc. but I don't use that as my primary source. Sometimes I do dig deeper on the important issues, especially stuff like the unPatriotic Act that is a make or break voting issue for me.
I was not stating that it was satisfactory, but saying that's the issue. Actually, with some of the nitpicking in this thread, I've already forgotten what I was talking about.
Microsoft tries to improve security by borrowing from Unix. I think they fail. But they are making progress. Windows still isn't worth paying for.
This is why I consider podcasts so vitally important.
Podcast and blogs are both important, but they bring their own challenges. First-hand accounts of events are crucial to maintaining our history. For example, we have records of battles in the Civil War. However, we also have first hand accounts from spectators (yes, spectators, just like watching fireworks or a football game) who witnessed the combat. We have financial reports from the Great Depression, plus thousands of articles, letters, memos, journals, etc. from people who lived it first hand. I truly and honestly believe that podcasts and blogs are the current generation of these grass roots journals.
Like anything else, you need corroborating information to get a good picture. Some wacko might write about how financially prosperous he was during the depression, and we know he's full of shit because of the thousands of other people who paint a more bleak picture with their words. In a day and age when news happens quickly and an issue might light up a hundred blogs in the span of hours only to die out by the next morning, we don't necessarily have time to build corroborating evidence and get an accurate picture. However, I think these podcasts, blogs, etc. are crucial in the big picture. While we have mainstream media to report on issues, the little guys help fill in the cracks. They have fewer restrictions and guidelines.
My main gripe is that blogs tend to play off each other. One reports some news, someone else grabs it, adds their two cents, and posts something about it. Generally speaking, if you cut out all the middlemen, there are only one or two primary sources for a particular event in the blog community. That kind of homogeny is not good for news accuracy. As more and more people start blogs and report news as it happens, instead of just rehashing other blogs, we'll have an amazing source of news that grows in response to world events, is accurate, and highly trustworthy.
Good, then don't give them your money. I think Microsoft still fall short of making a secure operating system, however, that's not my point. My point was in reponse to the parent poster, saying that they are borrowing some ideas from Unix. I was not referring to Windows being secure, but their improvements being satisfactory compared to the Unix features they emulate.
Yes! This is my number one gripe with computers portrayed in movies and on TV. I understand they won't "get it" 100%, but as soon as the computer beeps from every little thing happening I just can't take it seriously anymore.
At least Bruce Almighty is believable as far as computers go. If you can accept him having god-like powers, I could see whipping out all those emails that quickly.
Despite blood pressure, I've always had the bag at or below the level of the needle when I donate blood. It's just easier that way. While atmospheric pressure will push the blood up the tube, six feet is a bit much. While humans do have a built-in blood pump, the force exerted on a single vein is miniscule. That's why blood doesn't shoot six feet across the room when you cut yourself, it oozes out. Unless you cut an artery, then you're fucked. If you want a realistic depiction of that, Black Hawk Down has a good one considering it is from Hollywood.
Only until they tell me the secret of infinite-resolution photography.
That's the best. Taking a grainy photo taken with a bad camera, enhancing it, and winding up with perfecly legible text where it looked like someone smeared ink all over a paper. Sorry CSI dudes, that's a bit of a stretch.
Even better is when they search for fingerprint matches in a database. Instead of pushing a button, maybe seeing a progress bar or "please wait" dialog box, a huge screen flashes every fingerprint in the database one after another, making a soft "click" sound for each one until an exact duplicate is found.
I know we have some great software, especially some of the highly specialized stuff used to process criminal evidence, but damn. Some of the stuff on CSI and other "murder death kill" shows as my wife calls them is retarded.
The United States is too large with too many things going on at once for us to educate ourselves. I for one am not about to move to Washington, D.C. and spend my time listening to Congressional briefings, White House press conferences, etc. to hear news from the horse's mouth. I have a family and a job. I rely on the news media to present information to me that I do not have time to collect for myself.
The important thing is to learn how to read and to listen. I read multiple news sources, even the same story (which often is rehashed AP stuff, but can have a different slant). While I am reading I am thinking critically, asking myself questions: sure, the article says point A, but I think there's a valid counterpoint B: what are the facts here? Often enough, by reading carefully from multiple sources, I can piece together the whole picture. Another thing I've noticed is journalists like to slant the first sentence or paragraph heavily, setting the reader up to a particular point of view. Be careful with that. Another thing is often those counterpoints that might just break the whole article are left to the last paragraph. They can claim journalistic integrity by keeping it in there, but this has two effects. First, not everyone reads the whole article. If they do, they get the idea that since it's so far down it isn't important or maybe not even valid.
Don't blame the media for biased reporting, or the people for not speaking up. Blame people who trust blindly and don't learn proper communication skills. Reading and listening are far more important than writing and speaking, and in some ways, far more difficult.
The government as a whole draws attention away from power. The people who hold real power are CEOs, lawyers, and big businessmen. The government just panders to the masses and runs interference.
First, how about moving to least privileged users? Separating binaries and data: Program Files and Documents and Settings (usr/bin,/etc,/home). Shipping with only the necessary services turned on. Detaching IE from the OS. Sure, some of these have to wait for Vista, but they've already made improvements. Whether it is enough or is effective is up to debate, but Microsoft are making efforts.
The problem here is that there are so many issues, well more than a hundred that various constituents would consider election-determining. Which issue are you voting on? Even if you can get that message through (unlikely), your voice is drowned in a sea of others. Rough calculation: 175 million voters in the USA (not accurate, just an estimate). 435 members of the House. That is roughly 400,000 constituents per Representative. Assuming you make the uphill battle and make your niche issue known, and only half the constituents vote, yours is one in 200,000 voices.
A much better idea is to launch a grassroots PR campaign to educate the other voters on the issue. Tell them why they should care, and how to fix it. Be concise. Tell your Representative that you now have 50,000 supporters of this issue and be passionate about it. The world will end if you don't get a bill passed in support of your issue. Odds are if you can get this, you can get on his busy schedule and speak with him personally. Convince him, and if that doesn't work, start talking with his opposition in the election. Odds are one or the other will support you. Buy some time on local TV channels and air short 15 second or so commercials. Yes, it costs money, but not as much as you might think. Get the issue out there. Force the politicians to talk about it, and make sure the constituents know why it is important. I've seen this work before and I'm sure I'll see it again. It's little stuff like this that can unseat incumbants that have been sitting pretty for years, making their biennual gestures to the masses for reelection.
The problem is that comparing the total popular vote across all districts to the proportion of parties in the House is not an accurate measure of everything. For example, we all know that Texas is predominantly Republican, so much so that Texas Democrats are really moderate Republicans in order for there to be more than one person on the ballot. I don't have real statistics but I know the overwhelming majority of Texas votes Republican in the House elections. A good number of other districts in the country are a lot closer. Even if voters vote along party lines and given gerrymandering, the election may only be 45/55: there is just no chance for the challenger to make up that last mile, but compared to other states such as Texas, it is a lot closer. The end result may be that the overall popular vote is fairly well matched, but because the votes aren't even throughout all the districts, one party wins significantly more of the seats.
I think if we got rid of gerrymandering this problem would go away and members of the House would be more responsive to their constituents' needs. However, getting rid of gerrymandering is a losing battle. According to the Constitution, the people in charge of redistricting are the ones who have the most to gain. Courts lately have been loathe to intervene, even though the Constitution says they can if the districts are not fair. Yes, they do, just not as much as they should. Personally, I think each Congressional district should be a convex polygon. In cases where the state is oddly shaped (Aleutian islands, parts of Michigan, that little part of Minnesota that sticks up, etc), make the district the intersection of a convex polygon and the state, so that the border of the state need not be convex. I think this would solve problems where we have long skinny districts that carve a fairly balanced region into multiple pieces: one that is 95% leaning toward one party, the sacrificial lamb, and two or more other regions that are more even, say 45/55, but have a loyalty to the other party that doesn't waver. This is exactly what happens with urban areas in Texas. They carve all the Democrats into their own little districts. They let them have their cookie, and they district the rest such that the Republicans are guaranteed to win.
Joking aside, I think this is a great idea, especially for areas subject to brownouts or rolling blackouts. Some areas of the south have power issues during summer months due to high energy demands from thousands of businesses and homes running AC on top of their normal consumption. By storying electricity during non-peak times, this smooths the load difference between peak and non-peak hours, which reduces peak load on the energy grid.
Besides the cost, I see this being a huge benefit to reducing power load on the grid. I suppose the real question is, why don't power companies do this further up the pipe, at the generating stations?
If you need a reminder who the FAA is: they keep the planes from falling out of the sky.
If you've ever known or talked with an amateur pilot, you would know this is not what the FAA does. Instead, they make sure that instead of driving 4 hours along the highway, you spend 3 hours filling out paperwork and a flight plan, then 1 hour flying to get to the same destination.
If you come in 15 million under budget, the budgeting committees are going to look at it, and say "Good job. Now we can give you less money next year".
This is why if a given organization has $15 million, they will spend $14.5 million on the actual project and as close to $500,000 as possible on office supplies, Aeron chairs, etc. so they can say that they need at least as much money next fiscal year. I work in the federal government, I see this all the time. I can't get training until August or September when we're close to the end of the yearly budget (fiscal year starts 1 Oct). However, all the big purchases such as computer upgrades, contractor fees, etc. come out in the first month or two. Makes me think a bunch of 3rd graders run our budget office.
Unix replacing another unix is hardly newsworthy. Such a migration should be trivial (the fact that it's not completely trivial is one of my major gripes with modern unix. IMO, any 2 unix systems should be almost completely interchangable, requiring nothing more than a simple recompile)
While Unix in general has a common set of core utilities and shells, there are some major differences under the surface. Libraries, compilers, etc. are generally fairly different. While some interfaces are standard, in my experience I always run into minor details that turn out to be major pains in the ass. I think the commercial Unix vendors do this on purpose, to lock people into their version of Unix. If Unix really were as interchangeable as you and I hope, customers would have a smaller incentive to stick with one version. Linux came in with its radical ideology of being customer friendly, having open standards, and generally playing nice with Unix and Unix clones. I think sometimes we get stuck on that open mentality and forget the Unix wars of years past. Unix really isn't all that great. Even the modern ones I've work with such as Solaris and HPUX are rather kludgy compared to Linux. I think modern Linux is what Unix should be -- that's why when I think of Unix in 2006, I really think of Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
If only they could now release episodes one through three with remastered versions that don't feature lousy acting, shallow characters and crappy plots.
Episode 3 was actually pretty good. It had plenty of action, but enough slow parts that tied the story together and developed the characters. It was dark and evil, definitely had a consistent and welcome theme throughout. I don't know which of the 6 movies is the best, but Episode 3 is a strong contender in my mind.
Episodes 1 and 2 left a lot to be desired, but thanks to the fast forward function of my DVD player, really aren't all that bad. No more frolicking in the meadow, no more talk of midichlorians, etc.
[If Dvorak is right] ...and he almost never is.
"almost?" Did that slip in there on accident?
PLEASE make my dreams come true!!!
Okay, but where will we find a dead hooker, a llama, and 12 gallons of motor oil at this time of night?
Mister Coward, you obviously didn't read TFM where Dvorak says Microsoft will continue to make "gobs and gobs" of money. He argues that they will be less and less relavent, not that they will make less and less profit.
I don't know about the legality of such clauses since I am not a lawyer (but I am inclined to think they are legal), but I do think they're dumb. What it does is close doors for the employee. Fired? Don't like your job? Too bad, you can't work for a competitor. While this doesn't lock the employee out of the industry entirely, it does restrict them from a specific area, for example, game companies, security companies, OS companies, etc. So you have tons of C++ and graphics experience working for a game company? Well now you can learn a whole new skillset with Java, Oracle, AJAX, etc. and go write web applications. Sure, it's still programming, but it's totally different technology, different programming paradigm, and requires time to adjust.
Gun, meet foot. Pull trigger.
The only thing that most of these "please remove me" BS forms do is confirm that the email address is a valid one, and can be resold to more spammers. If anything filling those out actually causes more harm than good.
Possibly. Some of the links do embed information identifying your email address. If you're smart, you'll pull that out of the URL first.
Problem is, that to waste their time, you have to waste your time. I sometimes do respond to junk (paper) mail by sending random junk in the envelope. Sometimes I actually write a letter demanding they remove me from their lists. No matter what I do, it doesn't end. Capital One still sends me junk mail despite multiple letters between us -- me demanding them to stop, them reassuring me they will honor my request. Junk mail is even worse because it is more anonymous -- it is easy to forge headers and mask where a mail truly came from. Yes, there are ways to track it down, but it isn't always easy. Filling out information on a web site in the email doesn't do much, since odds are it doesn't go to the same person. Even then, it takes time to screw with the spammers, electronic or paper, and I don't want to waste my time.
Sometimes I do get bored and do screw with them. Such as using my brand new photo printer to print stuff and put it in those return envelopes. After visiting certain not-work-safe sites for photos.
I do read AP crap from multiple sources. While sometimes the stories are identical, often the individual reporters just use AP source material, quotes, etc. and while the stories wind up being similar, they have differences. Still, this is just one source, as you mentioned. I do go to other sources as required.
For example, you mention the sunni/shi'ite struggle in and around Iraq. I actually took a college class on religion that devoted a whole chapter to this struggle in Islam. Yeah, just a chapter, and not an in-depth look. But certainly more detailed than most Americans get. There are many nuances to their culture that would require not only a specialized degree in foreign studies but years of living there among them to learn. While the media certainly oversimplifies many things and gets many other things plain wrong, I have to trust them to some degree to deliver facts to me. I can use my knowledge to filter it out and get the important ideas. I can look up topics in an encyclopedia or wikipedia. I even have a primary source in an Iranian woman I know who lived there for many years. If the topic is something different than the middle east, I have other sources I can use both to check facts and to learn more in-depth knowledge.
I think you allude to the fact that AP newswire is good enough for the masses who don't yearn for more knowledge. I think knowledge is one of mankind's greatest assets, and it is a shame that more of us don't try to self-educate on topics we know little about. It is our nature to be afraid of the unknown and to make shit up, such as mythology, to fill in the blanks. Some of us can fight the urge and use science to learn about our universe, but many of us are just plain lazy. While some people argue that turns us into armchair scientists, it sure beats the alternative -- a layperson wearing blinders.
I may not remember this precisely, but I think what really happened is Microsoft hired an old Unix programmer to work on Windows NT. They used some BSD-licensed code, but by the time NT 3.5 got out the door, the vast majority of the code was rewritten anyway. So it wasn't really based on Unix, they just hired a guy who was part of the old-school Unix community. I could be wrong though.
I do read some of the stuff on Congress' web site, such as debate, voting records, etc. but I don't use that as my primary source. Sometimes I do dig deeper on the important issues, especially stuff like the unPatriotic Act that is a make or break voting issue for me.
I was not stating that it was satisfactory, but saying that's the issue. Actually, with some of the nitpicking in this thread, I've already forgotten what I was talking about.
Microsoft tries to improve security by borrowing from Unix. I think they fail. But they are making progress. Windows still isn't worth paying for.
This is why I consider podcasts so vitally important.
Podcast and blogs are both important, but they bring their own challenges. First-hand accounts of events are crucial to maintaining our history. For example, we have records of battles in the Civil War. However, we also have first hand accounts from spectators (yes, spectators, just like watching fireworks or a football game) who witnessed the combat. We have financial reports from the Great Depression, plus thousands of articles, letters, memos, journals, etc. from people who lived it first hand. I truly and honestly believe that podcasts and blogs are the current generation of these grass roots journals.
Like anything else, you need corroborating information to get a good picture. Some wacko might write about how financially prosperous he was during the depression, and we know he's full of shit because of the thousands of other people who paint a more bleak picture with their words. In a day and age when news happens quickly and an issue might light up a hundred blogs in the span of hours only to die out by the next morning, we don't necessarily have time to build corroborating evidence and get an accurate picture. However, I think these podcasts, blogs, etc. are crucial in the big picture. While we have mainstream media to report on issues, the little guys help fill in the cracks. They have fewer restrictions and guidelines.
My main gripe is that blogs tend to play off each other. One reports some news, someone else grabs it, adds their two cents, and posts something about it. Generally speaking, if you cut out all the middlemen, there are only one or two primary sources for a particular event in the blog community. That kind of homogeny is not good for news accuracy. As more and more people start blogs and report news as it happens, instead of just rehashing other blogs, we'll have an amazing source of news that grows in response to world events, is accurate, and highly trustworthy.
Good, then don't give them your money. I think Microsoft still fall short of making a secure operating system, however, that's not my point. My point was in reponse to the parent poster, saying that they are borrowing some ideas from Unix. I was not referring to Windows being secure, but their improvements being satisfactory compared to the Unix features they emulate.
Yes! This is my number one gripe with computers portrayed in movies and on TV. I understand they won't "get it" 100%, but as soon as the computer beeps from every little thing happening I just can't take it seriously anymore.
At least Bruce Almighty is believable as far as computers go. If you can accept him having god-like powers, I could see whipping out all those emails that quickly.
Despite blood pressure, I've always had the bag at or below the level of the needle when I donate blood. It's just easier that way. While atmospheric pressure will push the blood up the tube, six feet is a bit much. While humans do have a built-in blood pump, the force exerted on a single vein is miniscule. That's why blood doesn't shoot six feet across the room when you cut yourself, it oozes out. Unless you cut an artery, then you're fucked. If you want a realistic depiction of that, Black Hawk Down has a good one considering it is from Hollywood.
Only until they tell me the secret of infinite-resolution photography.
That's the best. Taking a grainy photo taken with a bad camera, enhancing it, and winding up with perfecly legible text where it looked like someone smeared ink all over a paper. Sorry CSI dudes, that's a bit of a stretch.
Even better is when they search for fingerprint matches in a database. Instead of pushing a button, maybe seeing a progress bar or "please wait" dialog box, a huge screen flashes every fingerprint in the database one after another, making a soft "click" sound for each one until an exact duplicate is found.
I know we have some great software, especially some of the highly specialized stuff used to process criminal evidence, but damn. Some of the stuff on CSI and other "murder death kill" shows as my wife calls them is retarded.
The United States is too large with too many things going on at once for us to educate ourselves. I for one am not about to move to Washington, D.C. and spend my time listening to Congressional briefings, White House press conferences, etc. to hear news from the horse's mouth. I have a family and a job. I rely on the news media to present information to me that I do not have time to collect for myself.
The important thing is to learn how to read and to listen. I read multiple news sources, even the same story (which often is rehashed AP stuff, but can have a different slant). While I am reading I am thinking critically, asking myself questions: sure, the article says point A, but I think there's a valid counterpoint B: what are the facts here? Often enough, by reading carefully from multiple sources, I can piece together the whole picture. Another thing I've noticed is journalists like to slant the first sentence or paragraph heavily, setting the reader up to a particular point of view. Be careful with that. Another thing is often those counterpoints that might just break the whole article are left to the last paragraph. They can claim journalistic integrity by keeping it in there, but this has two effects. First, not everyone reads the whole article. If they do, they get the idea that since it's so far down it isn't important or maybe not even valid.
Don't blame the media for biased reporting, or the people for not speaking up. Blame people who trust blindly and don't learn proper communication skills. Reading and listening are far more important than writing and speaking, and in some ways, far more difficult.
The government as a whole draws attention away from power. The people who hold real power are CEOs, lawyers, and big businessmen. The government just panders to the masses and runs interference.
First, how about moving to least privileged users? Separating binaries and data: Program Files and Documents and Settings (usr/bin, /etc, /home). Shipping with only the necessary services turned on. Detaching IE from the OS. Sure, some of these have to wait for Vista, but they've already made improvements. Whether it is enough or is effective is up to debate, but Microsoft are making efforts.
The problem here is that there are so many issues, well more than a hundred that various constituents would consider election-determining. Which issue are you voting on? Even if you can get that message through (unlikely), your voice is drowned in a sea of others. Rough calculation: 175 million voters in the USA (not accurate, just an estimate). 435 members of the House. That is roughly 400,000 constituents per Representative. Assuming you make the uphill battle and make your niche issue known, and only half the constituents vote, yours is one in 200,000 voices.
A much better idea is to launch a grassroots PR campaign to educate the other voters on the issue. Tell them why they should care, and how to fix it. Be concise. Tell your Representative that you now have 50,000 supporters of this issue and be passionate about it. The world will end if you don't get a bill passed in support of your issue. Odds are if you can get this, you can get on his busy schedule and speak with him personally. Convince him, and if that doesn't work, start talking with his opposition in the election. Odds are one or the other will support you. Buy some time on local TV channels and air short 15 second or so commercials. Yes, it costs money, but not as much as you might think. Get the issue out there. Force the politicians to talk about it, and make sure the constituents know why it is important. I've seen this work before and I'm sure I'll see it again. It's little stuff like this that can unseat incumbants that have been sitting pretty for years, making their biennual gestures to the masses for reelection.
The problem is that comparing the total popular vote across all districts to the proportion of parties in the House is not an accurate measure of everything. For example, we all know that Texas is predominantly Republican, so much so that Texas Democrats are really moderate Republicans in order for there to be more than one person on the ballot. I don't have real statistics but I know the overwhelming majority of Texas votes Republican in the House elections. A good number of other districts in the country are a lot closer. Even if voters vote along party lines and given gerrymandering, the election may only be 45/55: there is just no chance for the challenger to make up that last mile, but compared to other states such as Texas, it is a lot closer. The end result may be that the overall popular vote is fairly well matched, but because the votes aren't even throughout all the districts, one party wins significantly more of the seats.
I think if we got rid of gerrymandering this problem would go away and members of the House would be more responsive to their constituents' needs. However, getting rid of gerrymandering is a losing battle. According to the Constitution, the people in charge of redistricting are the ones who have the most to gain. Courts lately have been loathe to intervene, even though the Constitution says they can if the districts are not fair. Yes, they do, just not as much as they should. Personally, I think each Congressional district should be a convex polygon. In cases where the state is oddly shaped (Aleutian islands, parts of Michigan, that little part of Minnesota that sticks up, etc), make the district the intersection of a convex polygon and the state, so that the border of the state need not be convex. I think this would solve problems where we have long skinny districts that carve a fairly balanced region into multiple pieces: one that is 95% leaning toward one party, the sacrificial lamb, and two or more other regions that are more even, say 45/55, but have a loyalty to the other party that doesn't waver. This is exactly what happens with urban areas in Texas. They carve all the Democrats into their own little districts. They let them have their cookie, and they district the rest such that the Republicans are guaranteed to win.
Joking aside, I think this is a great idea, especially for areas subject to brownouts or rolling blackouts. Some areas of the south have power issues during summer months due to high energy demands from thousands of businesses and homes running AC on top of their normal consumption. By storying electricity during non-peak times, this smooths the load difference between peak and non-peak hours, which reduces peak load on the energy grid.
Besides the cost, I see this being a huge benefit to reducing power load on the grid. I suppose the real question is, why don't power companies do this further up the pipe, at the generating stations?
If you need a reminder who the FAA is: they keep the planes from falling out of the sky.
If you've ever known or talked with an amateur pilot, you would know this is not what the FAA does. Instead, they make sure that instead of driving 4 hours along the highway, you spend 3 hours filling out paperwork and a flight plan, then 1 hour flying to get to the same destination.
If you come in 15 million under budget, the budgeting committees are going to look at it, and say "Good job. Now we can give you less money next year".
This is why if a given organization has $15 million, they will spend $14.5 million on the actual project and as close to $500,000 as possible on office supplies, Aeron chairs, etc. so they can say that they need at least as much money next fiscal year. I work in the federal government, I see this all the time. I can't get training until August or September when we're close to the end of the yearly budget (fiscal year starts 1 Oct). However, all the big purchases such as computer upgrades, contractor fees, etc. come out in the first month or two. Makes me think a bunch of 3rd graders run our budget office.
Unix replacing another unix is hardly newsworthy. Such a migration should be trivial (the fact that it's not completely trivial is one of my major gripes with modern unix. IMO, any 2 unix systems should be almost completely interchangable, requiring nothing more than a simple recompile)
While Unix in general has a common set of core utilities and shells, there are some major differences under the surface. Libraries, compilers, etc. are generally fairly different. While some interfaces are standard, in my experience I always run into minor details that turn out to be major pains in the ass. I think the commercial Unix vendors do this on purpose, to lock people into their version of Unix. If Unix really were as interchangeable as you and I hope, customers would have a smaller incentive to stick with one version. Linux came in with its radical ideology of being customer friendly, having open standards, and generally playing nice with Unix and Unix clones. I think sometimes we get stuck on that open mentality and forget the Unix wars of years past. Unix really isn't all that great. Even the modern ones I've work with such as Solaris and HPUX are rather kludgy compared to Linux. I think modern Linux is what Unix should be -- that's why when I think of Unix in 2006, I really think of Linux.