News Corp is irrelevant unless you like spoonfed opinionated news.
Have you looked at the ratings lately? I believe the only things beating Fox are the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.
Of course Fox is rocking the cable ratings, you think nascar joe six pack reads a newspaper? Of course not, he needs it spoonfed to him by people in nice suits with flashy graphics. Newspapers are boring text, Fox News is exciting.
That is pretty much what it boils down to, Fox News is entertaining, even if inaccurate. I know that I could easily fall asleep watching the BBC or CBC, they report both sides (usually), and try to give a calm reasoned look into the issue. Fox News has at least 3 American flags on the screen all the time, fast action packed graphics, people yelling at each other, cutting each other off mid sentence, name calling, etc. BBC/CBC have the news, Fox has the news+excitement.
You know who else is really entertaining like that? With all of the fancy fast paced graphics, yelling, and name calling? The Daily Show and Colbert Report. Both of those shows give the news in an entertaining format. The difference is that the Daily Show and Colbert Report are both more entertaining are more accurate (although they have much less content).
If you want to be a professional scientists, act professional.
Richard Feynman wrote a book (Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman) about some of the crazy things he did. It's full of totally inappropriate things that detractors could have hung him out to dry for. The fact that these things had no bearing on the quality of his work is of little consequence.
My point was that given carte blanche access to someone's emails and private files, you will always find something to hang them with. It doesn't even have to be related to their research.
Think about all of the emails and files you have in your work account. Do you really think that someone with an axe to grind won't find something to try to use against you? Nobody is flawless.
Just look at the responses to my post. I admit that some of the code I have written has bugs, and now I have people questioning the quality of my work. They just assumed that the code I was talking about was used for publications (which it is not), when I had intended it to be interpreted as in progress and abandoned code.
I am not trying to say these guys are honest or dishonest. What I am saying is that if they sent an email saying "my code doesn't work" follow by one that says "I found the problem it works now", they should expect that the first email makes the headlines, and the second one doesn't.
Real world data sucks. Really badly. But the people who don't like the outcome would slam the fact the the data has been changed even if it was good science. In general, people who oppose the concept of global warming don't care about science or reason or logic. They have their conclusion and they are going to find the proof...
Thank you. This is so true.
I know for my MASc. thesis I manipulated quite a bit of data. I can walk into a room of my peers and say "I cut some of the data because the sensor stopped working" and everyone would just nod, they can see the errors and agree it's no good. Normal people see this and go "What? You cheated you're a fraud!".
I have published only a few papers and would be mortified if my emails got released to the public. I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff, and removing data that doesn't fit the expectations. The opportunity for out of context quotations is scary to contemplate. Not to mention all of the politically incorrect jokes about such-and-such a graph's sexual orientation.
If one of these guys said anything like that over the years of emails in this dump, they are in some deep shit for nothing. Image someone going through all of the comments for all of the code you have ever written just looking for any tiny detail to prove you're a hack.
"just added one to this variable now it works" = screwed. "need to go back and fix this" = screwed. "not sure why this works but it does" = screwed. "Bob is an idiot, I am just going to comment out his code" = screwed.
Like Cardinal Richelieu said: “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”
Right or wrong, these guys are gonna get the shaft.
Exactly, hasn't NASA learned anything from the War on Terrorism?
If you want funding frame the problem as a "threat". It's the only thing that the crazies respond to, fear. NASA needs to make the threat of space so bad that they will be falling over each other to pay for it. Of course NASA won't because they are honest, unlike certain other bureaucracies.
Instead of going to the moon to look for water, they should be going to the moon to build radars to protect America (not the world because thats the UN's job) from giant space rocks of death!
Then you give a whole bunch of interviews on FOX about "Operation Space Blasters", and how NASA is protecting Averages Joe's right to not have his house bombed out by renegade space rocks.
(Sort of like the NDP party in Canada, they'll never run the country because every time they have a good idea the Liberals take it, implement it and claim it as their own.)
1) It's government regulation that is the problem. If the government would just loosen the regulations a little the power companies would be able to make more money. Then they could spend that money on other things like security, safety, and protecting the environment.
2) We should allow power companies to join the RIAA. Once hackers know they will face life imprisonment for copy right infringement, they will too scared to do anything. While we are at it, why not just give every industrial union (yes that what they are, corporate unions that hassle the government) the power to fuck over the average citizen.
3) As an added bonus, we can pass laws demanding to know what people have plugged into their wall sockets, you know..... to ahh...... watch for hackers! This of course only applies to peoples homes (and by people I mean non-rich people), applying this to businesses would make it harder for them to compete.
Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.
Coal and oil are plentiful, but you know whats more plentiful? The solar radiation and wind, both are unlimited.
Coal and oil are cheap and easy to use because we have spent massive amount of money improving them over the last 100 years. Given enough research it is entirely possible that solar and wind will be as cheap as oil (coal would be tough to beat though). Solar power however will likely end up being easier to use, no fuel, no exhaust, and no moving parts.
... and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in.
Ever heard of smog? I would much rather see a bunch of solar panels and windmills, than a giant brown haze of asthma attack and carcinogens.
And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.
They are called stupid because what they are promoting is bad for business. Switching to these technologies is not efficient yet, but as this article proves they are getting closer. Big businesses and their propaganda machines (eg. Fox News) want to cast these technologies in negative light to avoid having to switch to them, which would cut into profit margins.
Oh and did I mention that these technologies could one day remove the USA's dependence on foreign oil, reduce medical problems, protect the environment, decentralize the electrical system, reduce power lost during transmission (local power generation), and be better suited to installation in 3rd world countries?
Or of course, we could just keep using the current system until our resources run out and then start looking for the solution.
I am confused, since when has it been a Right to play video games?
At some point people are just going to have to take a step back and re-evaluate some of this politically correct nonsense. When someone with impaired VISION can successful sue for not being able to play a VIDEO game something is seriously wrong. You have to draw the line somewhere.
And as for the "generate more profit", no, no they wont. The only way the will generate more profit is if the costs to implement the modifications are offset by increased sales. I doubt there are enough people in this situation to make it worth the effort.
This got me think though, are there theaters that play movies with subtitles for the hearing impaired? I could see profit from that.
Seriously guy, the Cold War is over. The Ruskies aren't coming.
I am constantly amazed by people who think that the USA is the only thing standing between the western world and the apocalypse.
You know who would invade Canada is the USA just vanished? No one. It would be just like Australia.
While I am sure spending the big bucks to protect the world sounds great on Fox News. In the real world most people don't spend their days living in fear.
There is no need for the USA to have a military budget any different from the rest of the western world (in terms of spending vs GDP).
I am also a Teksavvy customer and I have been most impressed with their service.
I switched to them from Rogers, and oh boy what a difference!
Let me give you a breakdown of my experience:
Techsupport:
Teksavvy - Employed by teksavvy, lives in Canada, speaks english, knows whats they are doing.
Rogers - Employed by ???, lives in Asia, speaks gibberish, reads a script.
Service Quality:
Teksavvy - Few breakdowns, always give notice of outage for repairs.
Rogers - Constantly having problems, no notice of outages.
Cost:
Teksavvy - $42/Month 5M/800k 200BG limit (unlimited available).
Rogers - $58/Month 6M/800k 60GB limit ("upgraded" me from my unlimited account).
Teksavvy is always sending me email to try and get me to petition the CRTC to get Bell to remove traffic shaping, and other things they do to mess with the smaller ISPs.
Rogers sent me a letter complaining that I was abusing my unlimited service. Then they upgraded me to a new plan that cost more and provided less. I called to have my old service back and they said it didn't exist anymore.
BTW, teksavvy is the only company I have ever considered buying swag from. Not because what they deliver is amazing, but because in a market where every ISP offers the same stuff, they are the only ones who actually deliver.
I stop watching TV about 5 years ago, but for different reasons then most people have mentioned.
I watch a documentary ("Corporation" I think was then name), and the segment they had on commercials was just creepy. It showed how cereal companies had high priced psychologists do focus groups on what would work best for kids. The person they interviewed even stated that they go after the kids, because they are easier to manipulate, then rely on the kids to pester the parents.
Now I am not a psychologist IANAP. But it got me thinking, how many commercials are actually informative? Few.
The whole point was to use sexy, celebrities, party scenes, etc. To make you have a positive association between what you saw on the screen, and their product. I don't know if this is true for everyone, but when ever I visit people and the TV is on, is seems like its the same 4-5 commercials over, and over. Like the are just using brute repetition to get you to buy their crap.
Now I am sure some people are going to say I need to come out from under my tin foil hat, but I will take pass on the corporate mind fuck, thank you very much.
What, exactly, is "unfair" about buying stuff instead of grinding for it?
Your right thats rather unclear.
There is nothing wrong with spending $10 to get 100 monster skulls. Provided that you don't see yourself as competing with other players.
However many people do see themselves in competition with others, and derive a sense of accomplishment (I am assuming its like a long term K/D ratio in FPS, I don't play MMORPGs) from getting items for their character. People only do the boring parts for the item or what ever at the end. An investment of time results in a reward.
But if you can just buy the reward, without the effort then it diminishes the value of the reward.
From your posts I get that you are just buying stuff to skip the boring parts and have fun, and thats cool. Your not doing it to improve your position relative to others. But some people will do it to improve their position relative to others, and that is what is unfair.
Now I am not saying there is a right way or a wrong way to play. But it should be clear who invested their time and effort to get the where they are, and those who are just using cash to get a leg up on the competition. It's not really about someone (like you) who purchases one or two items needed to do something fun. Its the people who drop $500 to max out their character so they can strut their stuff without having earned it.
Games are supposed to be fun, and competitive. I understand that some people don't want to waste all day to get items so they can have fun, but it's clear that buying your way to the top is unfair.
It sounds to me (Disclamer: I don't play MMORPGs) like there needs to be two separate worlds. A "house league" world where you can buy stuff and just have fun. And a "Select league" world where its only things you have earned, where its very competitive and all about skill.
Then they could implement some way to move between them, but disabling the purchased items in the "select league" world.
Then then again, that may disrupt the cash flow. Which from the article seems to be more important to these guys then making a quality game.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought games were supposed to be fun. This just sounds like grunt work. Don't these researchers have grad students to do this kind of thing?
The full version might have something to do with the long and storied
history of racism, sexism, and exploitation throughout human history.
I see, so this is just history repeating itself.
For a moment there I thought two wrongs don't make a right.
Have you looked at the ratings lately? I believe the only things beating Fox are the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.
Of course Fox is rocking the cable ratings, you think nascar joe six pack reads a newspaper? Of course not, he needs it spoonfed to him by people in nice suits with flashy graphics. Newspapers are boring text, Fox News is exciting.
That is pretty much what it boils down to, Fox News is entertaining, even if inaccurate. I know that I could easily fall asleep watching the BBC or CBC, they report both sides (usually), and try to give a calm reasoned look into the issue. Fox News has at least 3 American flags on the screen all the time, fast action packed graphics, people yelling at each other, cutting each other off mid sentence, name calling, etc. BBC/CBC have the news, Fox has the news+excitement.
You know who else is really entertaining like that? With all of the fancy fast paced graphics, yelling, and name calling? The Daily Show and Colbert Report. Both of those shows give the news in an entertaining format. The difference is that the Daily Show and Colbert Report are both more entertaining are more accurate (although they have much less content).
If you want to be a professional scientists, act professional.
Richard Feynman wrote a book (Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman) about some of the crazy things he did. It's full of totally inappropriate things that detractors could have hung him out to dry for. The fact that these things had no bearing on the quality of his work is of little consequence.
My point was that given carte blanche access to someone's emails and private files, you will always find something to hang them with. It doesn't even have to be related to their research.
Think about all of the emails and files you have in your work account. Do you really think that someone with an axe to grind won't find something to try to use against you? Nobody is flawless.
Just look at the responses to my post. I admit that some of the code I have written has bugs, and now I have people questioning the quality of my work. They just assumed that the code I was talking about was used for publications (which it is not), when I had intended it to be interpreted as in progress and abandoned code.
I am not trying to say these guys are honest or dishonest. What I am saying is that if they sent an email saying "my code doesn't work" follow by one that says "I found the problem it works now", they should expect that the first email makes the headlines, and the second one doesn't.
Real world data sucks. Really badly. But the people who don't like the outcome would slam the fact the the data has been changed even if it was good science. In general, people who oppose the concept of global warming don't care about science or reason or logic. They have their conclusion and they are going to find the proof...
Thank you. This is so true.
I know for my MASc. thesis I manipulated quite a bit of data. I can walk into a room of my peers and say "I cut some of the data because the sensor stopped working" and everyone would just nod, they can see the errors and agree it's no good. Normal people see this and go "What? You cheated you're a fraud!".
I feel really bad for these researchers.
I have published only a few papers and would be mortified if my emails got released to the public. I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff, and removing data that doesn't fit the expectations. The opportunity for out of context quotations is scary to contemplate. Not to mention all of the politically incorrect jokes about such-and-such a graph's sexual orientation.
If one of these guys said anything like that over the years of emails in this dump, they are in some deep shit for nothing. Image someone going through all of the comments for all of the code you have ever written just looking for any tiny detail to prove you're a hack.
"just added one to this variable now it works" = screwed.
"need to go back and fix this" = screwed.
"not sure why this works but it does" = screwed.
"Bob is an idiot, I am just going to comment out his code" = screwed.
Like Cardinal Richelieu said:
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”
Right or wrong, these guys are gonna get the shaft.
Exactly, hasn't NASA learned anything from the War on Terrorism?
If you want funding frame the problem as a "threat". It's the only thing that the crazies respond to, fear. NASA needs to make the threat of space so bad that they will be falling over each other to pay for it. Of course NASA won't because they are honest, unlike certain other bureaucracies.
Instead of going to the moon to look for water, they should be going to the moon to build radars to protect America (not the world because thats the UN's job) from giant space rocks of death!
Then you give a whole bunch of interviews on FOX about "Operation Space Blasters", and how NASA is protecting Averages Joe's right to not have his house bombed out by renegade space rocks.
I wish I could mod you +1 Informative.
I intended my previous post as a joke, sorry if it offended. I had heard of Tommy Douglas but did not know his party eventually became the NDP.
Thanks for the tip, cheers.
(Sort of like the NDP party in Canada, they'll never run the country because every time they have a good idea the Liberals take it, implement it and claim it as their own.)
The NDP had a good idea?
What fantasy world do you live in?
For that post, the neo-conservative one.
If they made more money they'd spend it on investor dividends and executive pay and bonuses.
And lobbyists! Don't forget the lobbyists, the corporate welfare system isn't bribe itself you know. (Or does it?)
You were modded "funny" for a reason.
And overrated, which is in itself funny because my score is only 2.
I only responded because some here actually believe that tripe.
Well not as many as you would think, because I am still waiting for the kickbacks. Or at least a thank you card from Dick Cheney.
Thats crazy talk. Here is the solution:
1) It's government regulation that is the problem. If the government would just loosen the regulations a little the power companies would be able to make more money. Then they could spend that money on other things like security, safety, and protecting the environment.
2) We should allow power companies to join the RIAA. Once hackers know they will face life imprisonment for copy right infringement, they will too scared to do anything. While we are at it, why not just give every industrial union (yes that what they are, corporate unions that hassle the government) the power to fuck over the average citizen.
3) As an added bonus, we can pass laws demanding to know what people have plugged into their wall sockets, you know ..... to ahh ...... watch for hackers! This of course only applies to peoples homes (and by people I mean non-rich people), applying this to businesses would make it harder for them to compete.
4) Profit!
Can I get my Republican kickbacks now?
Coal and oil are plentiful, cheap, and easy to use.
Coal and oil are plentiful, but you know whats more plentiful? The solar radiation and wind, both are unlimited.
Coal and oil are cheap and easy to use because we have spent massive amount of money improving them over the last 100 years. Given enough research it is entirely possible that solar and wind will be as cheap as oil (coal would be tough to beat though). Solar power however will likely end up being easier to use, no fuel, no exhaust, and no moving parts.
... and hurt the eyeline of the cities they are installed in.
Ever heard of smog? I would much rather see a bunch of solar panels and windmills, than a giant brown haze of asthma attack and carcinogens.
And people wonder why environmentalists are considered stupid.
They are called stupid because what they are promoting is bad for business. Switching to these technologies is not efficient yet, but as this article proves they are getting closer. Big businesses and their propaganda machines (eg. Fox News) want to cast these technologies in negative light to avoid having to switch to them, which would cut into profit margins.
Oh and did I mention that these technologies could one day remove the USA's dependence on foreign oil, reduce medical problems, protect the environment, decentralize the electrical system, reduce power lost during transmission (local power generation), and be better suited to installation in 3rd world countries?
Or of course, we could just keep using the current system until our resources run out and then start looking for the solution.
I am confused, since when has it been a Right to play video games?
At some point people are just going to have to take a step back and re-evaluate some of this politically correct nonsense. When someone with impaired VISION can successful sue for not being able to play a VIDEO game something is seriously wrong. You have to draw the line somewhere.
And as for the "generate more profit", no, no they wont. The only way the will generate more profit is if the costs to implement the modifications are offset by increased sales. I doubt there are enough people in this situation to make it worth the effort.
This got me think though, are there theaters that play movies with subtitles for the hearing impaired? I could see profit from that.
Seriously guy, the Cold War is over. The Ruskies aren't coming.
I am constantly amazed by people who think that the USA is the only thing standing between the western world and the apocalypse.
You know who would invade Canada is the USA just vanished? No one. It would be just like Australia.
While I am sure spending the big bucks to protect the world sounds great on Fox News. In the real world most people don't spend their days living in fear.
There is no need for the USA to have a military budget any different from the rest of the western world (in terms of spending vs GDP).
I am also a Teksavvy customer and I have been most impressed with their service.
I switched to them from Rogers, and oh boy what a difference!
Let me give you a breakdown of my experience:
Techsupport:
Teksavvy - Employed by teksavvy, lives in Canada, speaks english, knows whats they are doing.
Rogers - Employed by ???, lives in Asia, speaks gibberish, reads a script.
Service Quality:
Teksavvy - Few breakdowns, always give notice of outage for repairs.
Rogers - Constantly having problems, no notice of outages.
Cost:
Teksavvy - $42/Month 5M/800k 200BG limit (unlimited available).
Rogers - $58/Month 6M/800k 60GB limit ("upgraded" me from my unlimited account).
Teksavvy is always sending me email to try and get me to petition the CRTC to get Bell to remove traffic shaping, and other things they do to mess with the smaller ISPs.
Rogers sent me a letter complaining that I was abusing my unlimited service. Then they upgraded me to a new plan that cost more and provided less. I called to have my old service back and they said it didn't exist anymore.
BTW, teksavvy is the only company I have ever considered buying swag from. Not because what they deliver is amazing, but because in a market where every ISP offers the same stuff, they are the only ones who actually deliver.
Did you use HDR on those images? They look kinda surreal.
There was a Michael Creighton book call Prey based on the same idea.
If I had mod points I would give them all to you. Very good post.
I have not seen that in years. Great movie.
+1 The Chicago Museum of Science.
I was just there last weekend on a family trip and got to checkout that u-boat. Totally awesome.
Another nice one is the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
When it comes to museums its hard to beat DC and Chicago in my experience.
I stop watching TV about 5 years ago, but for different reasons then most people have mentioned.
I watch a documentary ("Corporation" I think was then name), and the segment they had on commercials was just creepy. It showed how cereal companies had high priced psychologists do focus groups on what would work best for kids. The person they interviewed even stated that they go after the kids, because they are easier to manipulate, then rely on the kids to pester the parents.
Now I am not a psychologist IANAP. But it got me thinking, how many commercials are actually informative? Few.
The whole point was to use sexy, celebrities, party scenes, etc. To make you have a positive association between what you saw on the screen, and their product. I don't know if this is true for everyone, but when ever I visit people and the TV is on, is seems like its the same 4-5 commercials over, and over. Like the are just using brute repetition to get you to buy their crap.
Now I am sure some people are going to say I need to come out from under my tin foil hat, but I will take pass on the corporate mind fuck, thank you very much.
What, exactly, is "unfair" about buying stuff instead of grinding for it?
Your right thats rather unclear.
There is nothing wrong with spending $10 to get 100 monster skulls. Provided that you don't see yourself as competing with other players.
However many people do see themselves in competition with others, and derive a sense of accomplishment (I am assuming its like a long term K/D ratio in FPS, I don't play MMORPGs) from getting items for their character. People only do the boring parts for the item or what ever at the end. An investment of time results in a reward.
But if you can just buy the reward, without the effort then it diminishes the value of the reward.
From your posts I get that you are just buying stuff to skip the boring parts and have fun, and thats cool. Your not doing it to improve your position relative to others. But some people will do it to improve their position relative to others, and that is what is unfair.
Now I am not saying there is a right way or a wrong way to play. But it should be clear who invested their time and effort to get the where they are, and those who are just using cash to get a leg up on the competition. It's not really about someone (like you) who purchases one or two items needed to do something fun. Its the people who drop $500 to max out their character so they can strut their stuff without having earned it.
Games are supposed to be fun, and competitive. I understand that some people don't want to waste all day to get items so they can have fun, but it's clear that buying your way to the top is unfair.
It sounds to me (Disclamer: I don't play MMORPGs) like there needs to be two separate worlds. A "house league" world where you can buy stuff and just have fun. And a "Select league" world where its only things you have earned, where its very competitive and all about skill.
Then they could implement some way to move between them, but disabling the purchased items in the "select league" world.
Then then again, that may disrupt the cash flow. Which from the article seems to be more important to these guys then making a quality game.
I'm not going to talk people I know or legitimate customers of mine into something that over promises and under delivers.
So I take it you don't operate in Canada then?
Cell phones with poor reception, expensive data plans, charging for received SMS messages. A proud part of our Canadian heritage (cue music).
Yes sshfs is great. Especially if most of your systems are Linux.