My wife and I are looking at taking a trip this summer, including the Toronto theatre district. At the moment, we're thinking of something at one of the Shaw Festival theatres near Niagara, and probably "Spamalot" in Toronto. We're also thinking of a few days in Toronto to see museums and sights, as well as the theatre. I'll probably hit your guest book for better contact, but I'm interested in anything you have to say about a trip to the city.
I suspect you've got this backwards. Our diets weren't optimized for us as we evolved. We were optimized for our diets. (Otherwise we died, or otherwise failed to reproduce.)
As for our family, we tried to eat a varied diet, keep up with the 5 servings of fruits/vegetables a day, and get exercise. We also cook mostly from scratch, so most of what we eat has 3 or fewer syllables.
Live until you're 50, then get ready for The Camera.
Go home from work 24 hours ahead, and take your Fleet's Phospho-Soda. Then enjoy jello, Gatorade, etc for the next 24 hours, but NEVER let yourself get very far from the toilet. You'll get cleaned out.
Then go into Ambulatory Care for the Grand Finale.
However, there quite a bit of peace of mind in being told, "Everything looks good, come back in 8 to 10 years."
Heck, when I was in junior high, (late 60's) I built the Estes Space Transport, or whatever the heck they called it. In it's blurb sheet it talked about an air-breathing plane that shifted to scramjets after takeoff, launching a rocket upper stage once it got to speed. Of course the Estes thing just launched a little glider, while the main rocket came down on a chute.
But they were talking scramjets back in the 60's. Then again, my older brother had a plastic model of the nuclear-powered bomber well before that.
There's simply a general misunderstanding of the statement, "Microsoft sets the pace for innovation." At face value, it looks like they're bringing us along, instead of slowing us down.
On any of these flights, has the scramjet accelerated the aircraft?
I've been under the impression that so far all they've really been doing is trying to sustain supersonic combustion, and remember that after one flight it was going to take a lot of effort reading the telemetry to see if any thrust had been produced.
You act surprised by your own statement, or at least that you don't understand that your "black hole" effect is the result of careful planning.
In today's desktop world, Microsoft platforms are a NECESSITY! Maybe if there's some spare resource, it can be used to look into alternatives. Hence, it's important to make sure there is NO spare resource, that all resource is tied up implementing the Windows solution.
This brings to mind the short story, "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex," to bring in the juxtposition of Superhero(TM) with Kleenex. (revoked TM due to failed diligence)
IMHO it's a matter of price. In the XBox/PS2/Gamecube generation the price separation was less, but still there. In this coming generation the price separation is widening. To buy the XBox-360/PS3, gaming has to be a higher priority in your life to justify the money. That narrows it down to harder-core gamers, which tends to mean more intense games. The market it appears that Nintendo is going after wants a bit more, the way technology always seems to deliver, but isn't willing to make it a high priority, financially.
I was considering 3 and 4 as Sunnis trying to live well on the backs of downtrodden Shiites, to over-simplify. In other words, not to free their country, but to try and regain a selfish position once held.
I was only answering someone else's definition of "insurgents," and of course that neglects a lot of the population.
Personally, I think that most of what's really "Al Qaeda" is an idea, an umbrella so that small groups of extremists can feel that they're part of something big, and thereby derive the courage to act, and believe that those actions count toward a greater goal. I'd have to agree that much/most of what we think of as "Al Qaeda" is an invention of our government, as a convenience of mental model. It's also possible that by badging them as an organization, we may have helped consolidate some core that lends support to the outliers mentioned above.
These aspects are part of what scares me most about calling the "War on Terror" a "war". While historically wars may not really have a pinpoint beginning, though we tend to say things like, "Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand," they usually do have a defined end, like the "Treaty of Versailles." Bad example I know, since many say that WWI was not properly concluded, and led directly into WWII. But more precisely, how the heck do you call an end to the "War on Terror?" We could capture/kill Bin Laden tomorrow, and Z-whatshisname in Iraq could declare, "Al Qaeda is still alive." We could capture/kill him, and someone else could make the same declaration. Kind of calls to mind a paraphrase and misuse of a Christian phrase, "Wherever two or more are gathered together in My name..." That's Al Qaeda, and IMHO as long as there are disgruntled Muslims, there will be Al Qaeda. Whether you want to treat them as a military/national problem or a police/FBI/local problem depends on who's grabbing power and who's taking on responsiblilty.
I'd agree with you more if we could refine "insurgents" just a little more: 1 Iraqis trying to free their homeland 2 Foreigners trying to help Iraqis free their homeland 3 Sunni Iraqis who know that if the new government succeeds, they lose the privileges they had under Saddam. 4 Foreign Sunnis trying to help group 3. 5,6 Iraqis and foreigners who just want to try and kill Americans.
I can have respect for groups 1 and 2, but not the rest. I also realize that the line between Al Quaeda and groups 5 and 6 is pretty thin. I also lose respect for groups 1 and 2 if they're indiscriminate about innocent lives.
I'd love to agree heartily with you, and have it only be an 8 year period of stagnation. But remember I said I wasn't targeting GWB, but the movement he's the current front-man for. I certainly hope they're stopped by 8 years, but I wouldn't count on it. I suspect part of the problem is a "this technology good, that technology bad" mindset leading to a "this science good, that science bad" determination. But behind all this, science is all connected and orthogonal to ethics. You can't simply limit science to some number of approved fields of exploration, and expect to get anywhere.
You know what's scary about that... I read "The Naked Sun" somewhere on the order of 3 to 4 decades ago. (probably closer to 4) I fear that predates most Slashdotters. "Robots and Empire" was necessarily more recent, but still right after the book came out. Was the planet the same one as "The Naked Sun"? I'd say Solaris, but don't know if I'm confusing that with Stanislaw Lem's book, or if it did have the same name.
Asimov's Three Laws were always nifty tools for fiction, and certainly gave ground for constructing interesting plots.
But the hard point about the 3 laws, and the short-shrift given them was that it was *hard* to do. At the most elementary, *how* do you recognize a human being? How do you tell it from a robot or a mannequin, so that when there's imminent danger you go right past them and save the amputee with bandages on his face? How do you evaluate the orders by one human won't cause harm to another? "We're testing this rocket against that abandoned building, shoot it," when the so-called abandoned building is actually in use.
Or an even simpler problem - recognizing and interpreting a spoken command.
Killer Robots are a heckuva lot easier to create than ones that will obey the Three Laws.
That someday someone may well look back at the United States and say, "Nothing on the list came after 2000 CE/AD. What does that tell you?"
I'm not choosing 2000 specifically to pick on GWB's election. I am choosing it somewhat arbitrarily to pick on the rise of so-called Christian fundamentalism in the US. (The "so-called" refers to the word "Christian" in that sentence, MHO.)
We have a place in town like that called The Roxy... but it used to be called The Nickelodeon - different name, same types of films. A few weeks back the whole family went to see "Why We Fight" there, with the director's Q&A after. We were talking tonight, and on the horizon the only movies I have any wish to see are at the Roxy.
This is in an area with a population of about 100,000 - rather small, but the biggest for a few hours around.
Several years ago, my wife and I wanted to see a certain non-mainstream movie, but we had a trip planned back to my mom's house. In an area with a population of about 1,000,000 we found only the same dozen or so films playing at cineplex after cineplex. The movie we wanted to see was playing - in a bigger city 1.5 hours away. We saw the movie after we got home.
I didn't see the new Pink Panther, but we did like Steve Martin (and Clare Danes) in "Shop Girl", which I believe we saw at the Roxy. Oh, the guy from "I (heart) Huckabees" was in it, too.
Come to think of it, we saw "I (heart) Huckabees" and the other movie I was first mentioning at theatres other than the Roxy. The thing that surprised me most about Huckabees was that such an odd movie would show in a mainstream movie house.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife and I are looking at taking a trip this summer, including the Toronto theatre district. At the moment, we're thinking of something at one of the Shaw Festival theatres near Niagara, and probably "Spamalot" in Toronto. We're also thinking of a few days in Toronto to see museums and sights, as well as the theatre. I'll probably hit your guest book for better contact, but I'm interested in anything you have to say about a trip to the city.
I suspect you've got this backwards. Our diets weren't optimized for us as we evolved. We were optimized for our diets. (Otherwise we died, or otherwise failed to reproduce.)
We all start with someone else, besides our family and friends. (our "tribe")
We're a "silver bullet" society, I fear.
As for our family, we tried to eat a varied diet, keep up with the 5 servings of fruits/vegetables a day, and get exercise. We also cook mostly from scratch, so most of what we eat has 3 or fewer syllables.
None of us are fat, and we're all pretty healthy.
Live until you're 50, then get ready for The Camera.
Go home from work 24 hours ahead, and take your Fleet's Phospho-Soda. Then enjoy jello, Gatorade, etc for the next 24 hours, but NEVER let yourself get very far from the toilet. You'll get cleaned out.
Then go into Ambulatory Care for the Grand Finale.
However, there quite a bit of peace of mind in being told, "Everything looks good, come back in 8 to 10 years."
Heck, when I was in junior high, (late 60's) I built the Estes Space Transport, or whatever the heck they called it. In it's blurb sheet it talked about an air-breathing plane that shifted to scramjets after takeoff, launching a rocket upper stage once it got to speed. Of course the Estes thing just launched a little glider, while the main rocket came down on a chute.
But they were talking scramjets back in the 60's.
Then again, my older brother had a plastic model of the nuclear-powered bomber well before that.
You truly understand.
There's simply a general misunderstanding of the statement, "Microsoft sets the pace for innovation." At face value, it looks like they're bringing us along, instead of slowing us down.
No. The answer is clear. They should postpone doing anything until Microsoft is ready for them to start, with IE7.
How DARE anyone think of innovating without Microsoft!?!
How DARE anyone think of doing anything with a computer that isn't the One Microsoft Way!?!
(That's sarcasm, for the impaired. Ordinarily I wouldn't think it necessary, but this IS Slashdot.)
On any of these flights, has the scramjet accelerated the aircraft?
I've been under the impression that so far all they've really been doing is trying to sustain supersonic combustion, and remember that after one flight it was going to take a lot of effort reading the telemetry to see if any thrust had been produced.
You act surprised by your own statement, or at least that you don't understand that your "black hole" effect is the result of careful planning.
In today's desktop world, Microsoft platforms are a NECESSITY! Maybe if there's some spare resource, it can be used to look into alternatives. Hence, it's important to make sure there is NO spare resource, that all resource is tied up implementing the Windows solution.
"A Fire on the Deep", by Verner Vinge.
Except that it looked an awful lot like Galactic Usenet, complete with inter-species flame wars.
yep.
Quick! Sue his estate!
This brings to mind the short story, "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex," to bring in the juxtposition of Superhero(TM) with Kleenex. (revoked TM due to failed diligence)
And Nintendo will be doing the same. They all play that good old game, "Know your market."
IMHO it's a matter of price. In the XBox/PS2/Gamecube generation the price separation was less, but still there. In this coming generation the price separation is widening. To buy the XBox-360/PS3, gaming has to be a higher priority in your life to justify the money. That narrows it down to harder-core gamers, which tends to mean more intense games. The market it appears that Nintendo is going after wants a bit more, the way technology always seems to deliver, but isn't willing to make it a high priority, financially.
I was considering 3 and 4 as Sunnis trying to live well on the backs of downtrodden Shiites, to over-simplify. In other words, not to free their country, but to try and regain a selfish position once held.
I was only answering someone else's definition of "insurgents," and of course that neglects a lot of the population.
Personally, I think that most of what's really "Al Qaeda" is an idea, an umbrella so that small groups of extremists can feel that they're part of something big, and thereby derive the courage to act, and believe that those actions count toward a greater goal. I'd have to agree that much/most of what we think of as "Al Qaeda" is an invention of our government, as a convenience of mental model. It's also possible that by badging them as an organization, we may have helped consolidate some core that lends support to the outliers mentioned above.
These aspects are part of what scares me most about calling the "War on Terror" a "war". While historically wars may not really have a pinpoint beginning, though we tend to say things like, "Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand," they usually do have a defined end, like the "Treaty of Versailles." Bad example I know, since many say that WWI was not properly concluded, and led directly into WWII. But more precisely, how the heck do you call an end to the "War on Terror?" We could capture/kill Bin Laden tomorrow, and Z-whatshisname in Iraq could declare, "Al Qaeda is still alive." We could capture/kill him, and someone else could make the same declaration. Kind of calls to mind a paraphrase and misuse of a Christian phrase, "Wherever two or more are gathered together in My name..." That's Al Qaeda, and IMHO as long as there are disgruntled Muslims, there will be Al Qaeda. Whether you want to treat them as a military/national problem or a police/FBI/local problem depends on who's grabbing power and who's taking on responsiblilty.
I'd agree with you more if we could refine "insurgents" just a little more:
1 Iraqis trying to free their homeland
2 Foreigners trying to help Iraqis free their homeland
3 Sunni Iraqis who know that if the new government succeeds, they lose the privileges they had under Saddam.
4 Foreign Sunnis trying to help group 3.
5,6 Iraqis and foreigners who just want to try and kill Americans.
I can have respect for groups 1 and 2, but not the rest. I also realize that the line between Al Quaeda and groups 5 and 6 is pretty thin. I also lose respect for groups 1 and 2 if they're indiscriminate about innocent lives.
I'd love to agree heartily with you, and have it only be an 8 year period of stagnation. But remember I said I wasn't targeting GWB, but the movement he's the current front-man for. I certainly hope they're stopped by 8 years, but I wouldn't count on it. I suspect part of the problem is a "this technology good, that technology bad" mindset leading to a "this science good, that science bad" determination. But behind all this, science is all connected and orthogonal to ethics. You can't simply limit science to some number of approved fields of exploration, and expect to get anywhere.
You know what's scary about that... I read "The Naked Sun" somewhere on the order of 3 to 4 decades ago. (probably closer to 4) I fear that predates most Slashdotters. "Robots and Empire" was necessarily more recent, but still right after the book came out. Was the planet the same one as "The Naked Sun"? I'd say Solaris, but don't know if I'm confusing that with Stanislaw Lem's book, or if it did have the same name.
Asimov's Three Laws were always nifty tools for fiction, and certainly gave ground for constructing interesting plots.
But the hard point about the 3 laws, and the short-shrift given them was that it was *hard* to do. At the most elementary, *how* do you recognize a human being? How do you tell it from a robot or a mannequin, so that when there's imminent danger you go right past them and save the amputee with bandages on his face? How do you evaluate the orders by one human won't cause harm to another? "We're testing this rocket against that abandoned building, shoot it," when the so-called abandoned building is actually in use.
Or an even simpler problem - recognizing and interpreting a spoken command.
Killer Robots are a heckuva lot easier to create than ones that will obey the Three Laws.
That someday someone may well look back at the United States and say, "Nothing on the list came after 2000 CE/AD. What does that tell you?"
I'm not choosing 2000 specifically to pick on GWB's election. I am choosing it somewhat arbitrarily to pick on the rise of so-called Christian fundamentalism in the US. (The "so-called" refers to the word "Christian" in that sentence, MHO.)
At the zoom settings Google has, you can't even see Prospero's heads, let alone the zeks.
(Just finished Dan Simmon's "Illium" and "Olympos".)
We have a place in town like that called The Roxy... but it used to be called The Nickelodeon - different name, same types of films. A few weeks back the whole family went to see "Why We Fight" there, with the director's Q&A after. We were talking tonight, and on the horizon the only movies I have any wish to see are at the Roxy.
This is in an area with a population of about 100,000 - rather small, but the biggest for a few hours around.
Several years ago, my wife and I wanted to see a certain non-mainstream movie, but we had a trip planned back to my mom's house. In an area with a population of about 1,000,000 we found only the same dozen or so films playing at cineplex after cineplex. The movie we wanted to see was playing - in a bigger city 1.5 hours away. We saw the movie after we got home.
I didn't see the new Pink Panther, but we did like Steve Martin (and Clare Danes) in "Shop Girl", which I believe we saw at the Roxy. Oh, the guy from "I (heart) Huckabees" was in it, too.
Come to think of it, we saw "I (heart) Huckabees" and the other movie I was first mentioning at theatres other than the Roxy. The thing that surprised me most about Huckabees was that such an odd movie would show in a mainstream movie house.
I'm glad you like your flims.