If you think that the public has to much power, then how better to put the unwashed masses under control than by bankrupting the only institution which must (at least partially by way of elections) answer to it.
Well, THAT'S just crazy tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory talk. Instead, let's talk about the global network of Liberal Media Reporters, and how they secretly want Saddam Hussein in power so they can resume terror attacks on US soil and institute Sharia worldwide, and how all Scientists promote these crazy theories like "Global Warming" so they can destroy our economy and endlessly milk the government for research funds, and how the Atheists and Gays have taken over our public education system in order to brainwash our children into following Satan by teaching them Darwinism (which leads to questioning the authenticity of the Bible) and Sex ed (which teaches them that they can have sex without Consequences)./Rush Limbaugh
Never mind how much it costs to go to war to secure oil supplies. (never mind speculation about Iraq. I won't go there. But for god's sake, look at WWII. Japan attacked the US because the US embargoed Japan's oil supply when Japan invaded China).
Wars are pretty expensive things, even when you don't factor in things like suspension of civil liberties, or loss of life. But these costs aren't factored in at the pump. Free Market my Fucking Ass.
From a crypto point of view though, isn't this easily distinguishable? I mean, each pair of characters would maintain the same level of entropy as a standard 1-to-1 character map. Maybe it would require a bit more sophistication than a straight dictionary attack, but isn't this just less secure than a full-on random password?
What do you expect? The very fact that these movies are remakes is a clear sign of lack of originality and loss of creativity.
I don't think that's true at all.
I think that all the remakes are a sign that:
1. Audiences don't give a crap about good writing. The Nostalgia Factor alone, is enough to sell tickets. Toss in some CG eye candy, and some big names (no talent required), and you've got a winner.
2. Hollywood doesn't want to pay for good writing anymore. Lower cost=higher profit. It's the spreadsheet jockeys and bean counters who run things now.
3. Big Media is desperate to flood the market with the formula that makes money. There's a buttload of demand for movies, and the theater chains are a cartel, so through that constraint, there's high-demand at the box office. They've got to cycle titles in and out of the 18-screen cineplexes every 2 weeks, in order for the best of the sorry lot to be the high-seller. That means 468 releases a year. Plus, now the big cable networks are churning out material. Remakes make this volume of content production possible. A willfully decadent, gullible, and tasteless market makes it profitable.
It's not that creativity is lost. It's just that the Movie Industry has evolved to optimally exploit it's market.
And even more confusion over a hydrogen bomb, which is really a fission bomb with some extra tritium thrown in to add some extra energy.
This statement does nothing to mitigate the confusion about the workings of nuclear weapons.
A "Hydrogen Bomb" as you put it, is what's referred to as a Thermonuclear Device".
It's a lot more than simply throwing in some extra tritium.
Yes, some deuterium is, in fact added. But the bulk of the additional effectiveness is adding "stages" to the detonation by carefully crafted neutron deflectors, and depleted uranium, which, upon intense neutron bombardment from the fusing deuterium, itself undergoes a chain-reaction, which is really what adds the bulk of the increase in yeild. The original Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were less that 1% efficient, because as soon as the implosion took place, the heat generated from the chain reaction blows the core apart, stopping the chain reaction. The techniques used in more advanced warheads improve this situation.
so, you're saying that ALL fusion research scientists are in some kind of evil conspiracy to milk governments for funding and then not deliver a product?
Oil=ability to constrain supply, jacking up profits, pass money under the table between cronies to keep everyone on the same page. Invade or subvert countries (Iraq, Iran, Venezuela) whose leaders nationalize the oil industry, and go against the cronies' wishes.
Fusion=anyone can build a fusion reactor, therefore it will do to the Energy Industry what Open Source Software can do to the IT industry.
It's NEVER had more than a few paltry hundred million. Not from the US Government anyway.
We've spent $200 BILLION in Iraq which did nothing but increase global terrorism, and jack up the price of oil (how conveeenient for those who sell it, and for those who make stuff that's getting blown up like Humvees).
Fusion Research should be mankinds highest priority. #1. It's not even in the top ten, funding-wise.
China is given advanced US missle technology with Clintons approval, blame Bush.
WTF? Clinton had nothing to do with it. The contractor broke the rules, the contractor was caught and punished. On Clinton's Watch.
Bush dumped highly sensitive technology (spy plane) on China's lap. Standing orders for that plane during the Clinton Administration was to self destruct the plane, (it was so armed). ONLY the chief executive has the authority to change those orders. Bush changed them.
Al'queda blows up a van in the World Trade Center, and comes back a couple of years later to finish the job, blaim Bush.
um - 1993 attack wasn't Al Qaeda. It was a different terrorist, and the leader, Ramsi Yousef, was hunted down, extradited, tried, convicted, and is now rotting in jail.
Where is Osama bin Laden? 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.
ENRON plays fast and loose with power, and gets shut down when a new President is elected, blaim Bush.
Blame the 1998 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Clinton's ONLY veto, overridden by the Republican-controlled Congress. It' basically makes it impossible for shareholders to successfully sue corporations for this kind of fraud. Blame Bush? No. But blame policies that were vigorously pursued by his party for the past 20 years? Absolutely.
Just look how the Clintons had ended terrorism (by ignoring it), solved all the Israel/Palestine problems (by making Arafat the most frequent guest at the White House), and was always 100% honest
Terrorism is sharply up, according to CIA, Pentagon, and State Department reports, since we invaded Iraq. Bush and his administration are several orders of magnatude more mendacious than Clinton ever was. Clinton lied about a blowjob. Bush lied about WMD. Case-in-point. Yesterday, Rumsfeld told the troops that they didn't have enough armor for them because the suppliers couldn't keep up with demand. The manufacturer of Humvee armor responded by saying that they could ramp production 22% with no additional investment, they're just waiting for orders from the Pentagon. Rummy flat out lied, and our troops are dying. I don't think covering up a blowjob even qualifies compared to this.
If you think that ending the predominance of oil will bankrupt energy companies, then you're in for a surprise.
sure, but ending the reliance on foreign oil as an energy source, would eliminate about 99% of the PROBLEMS current reliance causes, everything from wars to oil spills to global warming, and as an added bonus, the financial pressure on the politics which currently encourage all of the above.
Practical Fusion will change all of that. And anyone who tries to monopolize energy production, will be undercut by competition, if the technology is opened. (I'm sure it will become a fiercely fought IP-law battle).
Well, if the Dollar continues it's downward spiral into oblivion, the US will start to lose some of that "pull" with the WTO.
Honestly, I think that the WTO, and the World Bank, as orginazations, are in decline as well. They won't be nearly as influential 10 years from now. All it will take is a few more Argentinas. . .
Some odd bastard-child of Space Cruiser Yamato, with that big spinal weapon with the long recharge time, a blatant formula for generating gratuitous storyline suspense.
Such a weapon, deployed on a ship designed supposedly for exploration, is stupid to the point of busting up my suspension of disbeleif.
As a back-line support weapon for major fleet engagements, I can see a use. But it's weaknesses become immediately obvious to any enemy that survives the first two volleys, so really, I just can't see the sense in this particular deployment of that weapon. Ruined the WHOLE SERIES for me.
now, if I *were* to speculate on an Apple/IBM merger, I would say that rather than merge, IBM would, instead, work a cross-licensing deal with Apple.
Take two cups of Mac OS X desktop system technology. Add a Power-based IBM hardware platform at 4 Ghz. Gradually stir in a half-pound of highly refined Linux/Java/XML business infrastructure. Network with your choice of IBM mainframes, Power 5-based line of servers, or x86-based servers, running Linux. Let simmer for about 5 years, and serve to Corporate America's 50 million desktop systems.
All they really need to complete this recepie would be: 1) A decent database. (I'm not a DB/2 fan). 2) A decent Office/Groupware suite (definately NOT a Lotus Notes fan). 3) A more popular LDAP solution.
This is a recipie for Mac OS to make inroads into the Corporate Desktop market. But I doubt Jobs will license Mac OS X to IBM. Even with very restrictive terms. There's synergy here, IBM would have zero chance of cannibalizing Apple's home market, and we know that Apple currently has about zero exposure in the business world. So it's a win-win situation.
IBM's going to lose to Microsoft if they relegate themselves to being a "servers" company. Like Sun and Novell. Microsoft controls the client, and if.NET doesn't run on your server, yer fucked, unless you can remove Microsoft's client/desktop dominance.
While I'd certainly give this "rumor" more creedence at this time than at ANY time in the past. . . you must acknowledge that Apple-IBM merger rumors are about as old as dirt.
There's one MAJOR reason why I believe this will never happen. IBM is a Business-oriented company. (The "B" stands for Business, you know). Old-guard, East Coast, suits, ties, white shirts.
Apple is a consumer-oriented company. iMacs. iPods. Turtlenecks. Birkenstocks.
There may be a technological synergy there. There is. It's undeniable. But culturally, and perhaps more imporantly, STRUCTURALLY, these two companies are incompatible as hell. Apple is geared towards developing products for consumers, selling them to consumers, and supporting consumers. IBM is geared towards developing products for businesses, selling to corporate customers, and has a HUGE consulting and field support unit for supporting corporate customers (and integrators). On the surface, they seem to complement eachother. In reality, it would be like trying to jam a triangular peg into a much smaller round hole.
At this precise moment in America's history, the presidential administration is more concerned with finding good soldiers than good scientists/literati. I am not an American and it's not my intention to equate America with Nazi Germany. But those facists sure loved their sports...that's because intellectual people, in general, are well read, and understand philosophy, and in general, are a THREAT to fascist systems of ruling.
Both Stalin and Hitler went after their intellectuals and purged them.
Well, like I said, I don't have anything against athletics, per se. I don't even really have a problem with athletics obsession, if that's what turns someone's crank.
But when it's at the *expense* of academics, and I'm not talking necessarily about monetary expense, though that's part of it, and what my example was based on.
School should be about academics. Athletics should be kept a separate, extracurricular activity, without such deep ties and involvement to individual schools (as repulsive as that idea is to a typical American Traditionalist).
Professional Sports is a regulated monopoly. And it's aim is entertainment, but has become a money-making scam. This has infected schools to the point where we get responses like: "yeah, but the stadiums make money, and the microscopes don't".
Education is a public investment in the intellectual infrastructure of our nation. If we divert resources from that investment to Sports, then we further cement our nation into the position of "Entertainment Consumer" as opposed to "Creative Innovator, Generator of Global Wealth and Prosperity."
Athletics *IS* a worthy passtime, and I enthusiastically enroll my own children in soccer and basketball. But I make it clear to them that academics comes first. Hopefully, that attitude will translate to my kids being better able to compete for jobs on the world market when the time comes for that. But our culture does little to encourage that attitude and priority, and MUCH to encourage the opposite. Then we should not wonder AT ALL why our academic standards are falling. Whether we fund the teachers unions or not. Whehter we support vouchers or not.
I also see the rise of this religious Creationism and Abstinance-only curricula having an impact, but they're symptoms of the broader problem.
Look at our society's overall fascination with athletics. When a school needs a quarter million to build a new stadium, they find the money. When a school needs five thousand dollars to buy a new set of microscopes, they have to hold a bake sale or something, and kids end up sharing because they only raised half of what they need.
I have nothing personally against athletics. But when it replaces academics as the highest pursuit in our nation's schools, when parents spend their Saturdays watching their kids' football games, but won't bother to take them to the libray or planetarium or the science museum, then there's something wrong with our priorities.
We're becoming a nation of used-car salesmen who dreamed of being pro-sports stars. The rest of the world will eat our lunch.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think that the public has to much power, then how better to put the unwashed masses under control than by bankrupting the only institution which must (at least partially by way of elections) answer to it.
/Rush Limbaugh
Well, THAT'S just crazy tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory talk.
Instead, let's talk about the global network of Liberal Media Reporters, and how they secretly want Saddam Hussein in power so they can resume terror attacks on US soil and institute Sharia worldwide, and how all Scientists promote these crazy theories like "Global Warming" so they can destroy our economy and endlessly milk the government for research funds, and how the Atheists and Gays have taken over our public education system in order to brainwash our children into following Satan by teaching them Darwinism (which leads to questioning the authenticity of the Bible) and Sex ed (which teaches them that they can have sex without Consequences).
Or, more simply put:
"They hate us for our Freedom."
"Only a Terrorist has use for Civil Liberties"
This is the great struggle of our Age.
When it is finished, we will see if the Age of Reason continues, or is undone.
Just put up a chart showing the average salary of IT Workers and Engineers, and how it has trended over the past 7 or so years.
I guarantee, they'll be stampeding. Out the door.
It's simple.
The Constitution said:
"To Promote the Useful Arts And Sciences"
THAT is what Patents are for. Not to guarantee someone profit, or even an ROI for R&D costs.
IMNSHO, if it doesn't PROMOTE innovation, a Patent or Copyright should NOT be granted.
And if it doesn't do so for a USEFUL Art or Science, also, a Patent or Copyright should NOT be granted.
PERIOD.
It's clear to me, from the language in the Constitution that the purpose of Patents and Copyrights is to benefit the public.
SCORE!
(f) Mass Graves from genocide resulting from war over oil.
Never mind how much it costs to go to war to secure oil supplies. (never mind speculation about Iraq. I won't go there. But for god's sake, look at WWII. Japan attacked the US because the US embargoed Japan's oil supply when Japan invaded China).
Wars are pretty expensive things, even when you don't factor in things like suspension of civil liberties, or loss of life. But these costs aren't factored in at the pump. Free Market my Fucking Ass.
This is a pretty neat idea.
From a crypto point of view though, isn't this easily distinguishable? I mean, each pair of characters would maintain the same level of entropy as a standard 1-to-1 character map. Maybe it would require a bit more sophistication than a straight dictionary attack, but isn't this just less secure than a full-on random password?
What do you expect? The very fact that these movies are remakes is a clear sign of lack of originality and loss of creativity.
I don't think that's true at all.
I think that all the remakes are a sign that:
1. Audiences don't give a crap about good writing. The Nostalgia Factor alone, is enough to sell tickets. Toss in some CG eye candy, and some big names (no talent required), and you've got a winner.
2. Hollywood doesn't want to pay for good writing anymore. Lower cost=higher profit. It's the spreadsheet jockeys and bean counters who run things now.
3. Big Media is desperate to flood the market with the formula that makes money. There's a buttload of demand for movies, and the theater chains are a cartel, so through that constraint, there's high-demand at the box office. They've got to cycle titles in and out of the 18-screen cineplexes every 2 weeks, in order for the best of the sorry lot to be the high-seller. That means 468 releases a year. Plus, now the big cable networks are churning out material. Remakes make this volume of content production possible. A willfully decadent, gullible, and tasteless market makes it profitable.
It's not that creativity is lost. It's just that the Movie Industry has evolved to optimally exploit it's market.
I think Tim Burton, overall, is in some kind of creative slump.
Watched Stepford Wives the other night. Wasn't at all impressed. He really hasn't made anything good since Nightmare Before Christmas.
Well, at least he's keeping Danny Elfman steadily employed.
And even more confusion over a hydrogen bomb, which is really a fission bomb with some extra tritium thrown in to add some extra energy.
This statement does nothing to mitigate the confusion about the workings of nuclear weapons.
A "Hydrogen Bomb" as you put it, is what's referred to as a Thermonuclear Device".
It's a lot more than simply throwing in some extra tritium.
Yes, some deuterium is, in fact added. But the bulk of the additional effectiveness is adding "stages" to the detonation by carefully crafted neutron deflectors, and depleted uranium, which, upon intense neutron bombardment from the fusing deuterium, itself undergoes a chain-reaction, which is really what adds the bulk of the increase in yeild.
The original Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were less that 1% efficient, because as soon as the implosion took place, the heat generated from the chain reaction blows the core apart, stopping the chain reaction. The techniques used in more advanced warheads improve this situation.
so, you're saying that ALL fusion research scientists are in some kind of evil conspiracy to milk governments for funding and then not deliver a product?
No, the formulae are more like this:
Oil=ability to constrain supply, jacking up profits, pass money under the table between cronies to keep everyone on the same page. Invade or subvert countries (Iraq, Iran, Venezuela) whose leaders nationalize the oil industry, and go against the cronies' wishes.
Fusion=anyone can build a fusion reactor, therefore it will do to the Energy Industry what Open Source Software can do to the IT industry.
High funding my ass.
It's NEVER had more than a few paltry hundred million. Not from the US Government anyway.
We've spent $200 BILLION in Iraq which did nothing but increase global terrorism, and jack up the price of oil (how conveeenient for those who sell it, and for those who make stuff that's getting blown up like Humvees).
Fusion Research should be mankinds highest priority. #1. It's not even in the top ten, funding-wise.
China is given advanced US missle technology with Clintons approval, blame Bush.
WTF? Clinton had nothing to do with it. The contractor broke the rules, the contractor was caught and punished. On Clinton's Watch.
Bush dumped highly sensitive technology (spy plane) on China's lap. Standing orders for that plane during the Clinton Administration was to self destruct the plane, (it was so armed). ONLY the chief executive has the authority to change those orders. Bush changed them.
Al'queda blows up a van in the World Trade Center, and comes back a couple of years later to finish the job, blaim Bush.
um - 1993 attack wasn't Al Qaeda. It was a different terrorist, and the leader, Ramsi Yousef, was hunted down, extradited, tried, convicted, and is now rotting in jail.
Where is Osama bin Laden? 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.
ENRON plays fast and loose with power, and gets shut down when a new President is elected, blaim Bush.
Blame the 1998 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Clinton's ONLY veto, overridden by the Republican-controlled Congress. It' basically makes it impossible for shareholders to successfully sue corporations for this kind of fraud. Blame Bush? No. But blame policies that were vigorously pursued by his party for the past 20 years? Absolutely.
Just look how the Clintons had ended terrorism (by ignoring it), solved all the Israel/Palestine problems (by making Arafat the most frequent guest at the White House), and was always 100% honest
Terrorism is sharply up, according to CIA, Pentagon, and State Department reports, since we invaded Iraq. Bush and his administration are several orders of magnatude more mendacious than Clinton ever was. Clinton lied about a blowjob. Bush lied about WMD. Case-in-point. Yesterday, Rumsfeld told the troops that they didn't have enough armor for them because the suppliers couldn't keep up with demand. The manufacturer of Humvee armor responded by saying that they could ramp production 22% with no additional investment, they're just waiting for orders from the Pentagon. Rummy flat out lied, and our troops are dying. I don't think covering up a blowjob even qualifies compared to this.
If you think that ending the predominance of oil will bankrupt energy companies, then you're in for a surprise.
sure, but ending the reliance on foreign oil as an energy source, would eliminate about 99% of the PROBLEMS current reliance causes, everything from wars to oil spills to global warming, and as an added bonus, the financial pressure on the politics which currently encourage all of the above.
Practical Fusion will change all of that. And anyone who tries to monopolize energy production, will be undercut by competition, if the technology is opened. (I'm sure it will become a fiercely fought IP-law battle).
If it were up to me, I'd launch a nuclear fusion program on the scale of the Manhattan Project.
Kerry proposed such a thing. It was referred to as "the new Apollo Project".
In a land where I see "Kick their ass, steal their gas" bumperstickers, I have a sinking feeling why this idea is still not gaining any traction. . .
Well, if the Dollar continues it's downward spiral into oblivion, the US will start to lose some of that "pull" with the WTO.
Honestly, I think that the WTO, and the World Bank, as orginazations, are in decline as well. They won't be nearly as influential 10 years from now. All it will take is a few more Argentinas. . .
The other thing about Crusade, was that SHIP.
Some odd bastard-child of Space Cruiser Yamato, with that big spinal weapon with the long recharge time, a blatant formula for generating gratuitous storyline suspense.
Such a weapon, deployed on a ship designed supposedly for exploration, is stupid to the point of busting up my suspension of disbeleif.
As a back-line support weapon for major fleet engagements, I can see a use. But it's weaknesses become immediately obvious to any enemy that survives the first two volleys, so really, I just can't see the sense in this particular deployment of that weapon. Ruined the WHOLE SERIES for me.
now, if I *were* to speculate on an Apple/IBM merger, I would say that rather than merge, IBM would, instead, work a cross-licensing deal with Apple.
.NET doesn't run on your server, yer fucked, unless you can remove Microsoft's client/desktop dominance.
Take two cups of Mac OS X desktop system technology.
Add a Power-based IBM hardware platform at 4 Ghz.
Gradually stir in a half-pound of highly refined Linux/Java/XML business infrastructure.
Network with your choice of IBM mainframes, Power 5-based line of servers, or x86-based servers, running Linux.
Let simmer for about 5 years, and serve to Corporate America's 50 million desktop systems.
All they really need to complete this recepie would be:
1) A decent database. (I'm not a DB/2 fan).
2) A decent Office/Groupware suite (definately NOT a Lotus Notes fan).
3) A more popular LDAP solution.
This is a recipie for Mac OS to make inroads into the Corporate Desktop market. But I doubt Jobs will license Mac OS X to IBM. Even with very restrictive terms. There's synergy here, IBM would have zero chance of cannibalizing Apple's home market, and we know that Apple currently has about zero exposure in the business world. So it's a win-win situation.
IBM's going to lose to Microsoft if they relegate themselves to being a "servers" company. Like Sun and Novell. Microsoft controls the client, and if
While I'd certainly give this "rumor" more creedence at this time than at ANY time in the past. . . you must acknowledge that Apple-IBM merger rumors are about as old as dirt.
There's one MAJOR reason why I believe this will never happen.
IBM is a Business-oriented company. (The "B" stands for Business, you know). Old-guard, East Coast, suits, ties, white shirts.
Apple is a consumer-oriented company. iMacs. iPods. Turtlenecks. Birkenstocks.
There may be a technological synergy there. There is. It's undeniable. But culturally, and perhaps more imporantly, STRUCTURALLY, these two companies are incompatible as hell. Apple is geared towards developing products for consumers, selling them to consumers, and supporting consumers. IBM is geared towards developing products for businesses, selling to corporate customers, and has a HUGE consulting and field support unit for supporting corporate customers (and integrators). On the surface, they seem to complement eachother. In reality, it would be like trying to jam a triangular peg into a much smaller round hole.
At this precise moment in America's history, the presidential administration is more concerned with finding good soldiers than good scientists/literati. I am not an American and it's not my intention to equate America with Nazi Germany. But those facists sure loved their sports .. .that's because intellectual people, in general, are well read, and understand philosophy, and in general, are a THREAT to fascist systems of ruling.
Both Stalin and Hitler went after their intellectuals and purged them.
In America, they're called "over-educated".
Well, like I said, I don't have anything against athletics, per se. I don't even really have a problem with athletics obsession, if that's what turns someone's crank.
But when it's at the *expense* of academics, and I'm not talking necessarily about monetary expense, though that's part of it, and what my example was based on.
School should be about academics.
Athletics should be kept a separate, extracurricular activity, without such deep ties and involvement to individual schools (as repulsive as that idea is to a typical American Traditionalist).
Professional Sports is a regulated monopoly. And it's aim is entertainment, but has become a money-making scam. This has infected schools to the point where we get responses like: "yeah, but the stadiums make money, and the microscopes don't".
Education is a public investment in the intellectual infrastructure of our nation. If we divert resources from that investment to Sports, then we further cement our nation into the position of "Entertainment Consumer" as opposed to "Creative Innovator, Generator of Global Wealth and Prosperity."
Athletics *IS* a worthy passtime, and I enthusiastically enroll my own children in soccer and basketball. But I make it clear to them that academics comes first. Hopefully, that attitude will translate to my kids being better able to compete for jobs on the world market when the time comes for that. But our culture does little to encourage that attitude and priority, and MUCH to encourage the opposite. Then we should not wonder AT ALL why our academic standards are falling. Whether we fund the teachers unions or not. Whehter we support vouchers or not.
I also see the rise of this religious Creationism and Abstinance-only curricula having an impact, but they're symptoms of the broader problem.
It's not just that.
Look at our society's overall fascination with athletics. When a school needs a quarter million to build a new stadium, they find the money. When a school needs five thousand dollars to buy a new set of microscopes, they have to hold a bake sale or something, and kids end up sharing because they only raised half of what they need.
I have nothing personally against athletics. But when it replaces academics as the highest pursuit in our nation's schools, when parents spend their Saturdays watching their kids' football games, but won't bother to take them to the libray or planetarium or the science museum, then there's something wrong with our priorities.
We're becoming a nation of used-car salesmen who dreamed of being pro-sports stars. The rest of the world will eat our lunch.