He got the majority of the 30% of voters who actually bothered to vote. All that work they do to make us think voting is a waste of time seems to be paying off. Just think if the other 70% had voted GW Bush would still be burying oil companies and baseball teams on daddys payroll. What really gets me is that he barely got 51% of the 30% of voters who voted, then people act like he was somehow the peoples choice, he was the choice of a minority. But yes, if Americans cant even take the time to go and vote for someone else they get what they deserve.
One correction. Nixon did not turn the Southern Segregationalists to the Republican party. The Southern Segregationalists turned when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 64. Nixon just exploited that anger to get votes. Nixon had the opportunity to at least slow down their momentum and expose them for what they are, but instead he encouraged their destructive behavior for his own personal gain. Until Nixon came along they were never really able to get a foothold in power and were basically the weird uncle of the democratic party. But of course the monumentally naive republicans welcomed them with open arms for a few extra votes so we get the shit we have today. And yes slavery is still in the cards for these people, they just haven't played that card yet. Give them time. The Civil war was never really resolved in this country, all that happened is that the confederates were forced to back down, no one convinced them that slavery was bad. Well they are back and instead of seceding this time they mean to taking over.
And if you dont think Richard Nixon had some grand plan, then either you are too young or you are living in a state of denial. When he was president he constantly talked about his grand plan for America, I remember I was there.
You seem to have forgotten that it never seems to apply to the type of person that would use that type of logic to justify taking our privacy away from us.
If you are trying to glean some new information from the info you have then brainstorming, trains of thought, gut reactions, etc (the kinds of info you find on blogs) work great. If you are trying to learn something that is well established, then nothing beats well thought out in-depth research.
And his whole point is that the mathematical concept of algorithms is the limiting factor. As a computer scientist this should be an interesting subject. As processes are getting more complex, is the concept of the algorithm going to be a limiting factor to computer theory? This should lead to you asking yourself, is there a better paradigm? Do we as computer scientists need to re-define the concept of an algorithm? Heck I have always thought of algorithms as being implementations and not theoretical applications of computers. What is the theory behind computer sorting? Quick sort, bubble sort, merge sort, these are all implementations of that theory, not theories themselves.
Proper scientific process requires that results be validated but also that the methods used to achieve those results need to be validated and re-evaluated also. And anyone who is a real scientist and not just some math bigot realizes, the entire foundations your science are based on need to constantly be viewed under the same microscope you use to practice your science. I see more and more young people with scientific degrees that treat their science almost the same way a religious zealot treats their religion. The scientific process we have today exists because that process is in a constant state of doubt. We only use the tools and data that we have available to us today, tomorrow someone could discover or prove that our tools and data are total bs.
What of the person that studies Human Interface Design, that person is creating the theories and concepts that define how people use and interact with computers. Other than using statistics to quantify aspects of his/her research I doubt that person would need a strong background in mathematical theory. How is this person not a computer scientist? Computer science is more than just converting things into 1's and 0's then converting them back into something else.
I am not sure. But I think I finally get what MS is doing. They are planning on openly breaking the GPL, so that we have no choice but to defend ourselves in court. If we do nothing they can spin FUD that open source has no teeth to protect its customers. If we loose then Microsoft starts sueing everyone using open source except for the voucher holders. If we win then Microsoft is forced to release the source for their offending code (their GPL breaking code as opposed to all of their other code) then their claims that the GPL is viral becomes valid and they can use it to scare the crap out of more people. Microsoft must have something they feel puts them at an advantage here. I dont think they would have even started this unless they felt that no matter what the outcome they could come out of it smelling like a rose. Perhaps they found some loop hole in the GPL that they can exploit. Of course this is all just my opinion, but if anyone has the resources and motive to test the GPL in court, its Microsoft.
I call BS like everyone else. A computer scientist/engineer architects, designs, codes and tests applications, language is irrelevant. You really must be dealing with some unskilled people. I have seen this in very large corporations though. There was a time when corps hired unskilled people and taught them the necessary skills to get the job done. So there are quite a few people out there who are very proficient in one language or platform but seem to flounder when they get outside of their area of expertise.
And Jobs has every right to negotiate his end of the bargain as well. That is what free enterprise is. Universal has every right to say "Nope, you cant sell our wares anymore", just like Apple has the right to say "Nope, we arent going to sell your wares anymore". My point was, this is what the argument is about, not the conspiracy theories that have been suggested in this thread. This is about tiered pricing and nothing else. Well, MS could have made an offer that Universal finds more appealing but by the comments from Universal it sounds like they are just making threats to get tiered pricing implemented in iTunes.
Ahh I see the astro-turfers are out in full swing. MS wants to generate as much bad publicity for the iPhone as they can because mobile windows sucks so bad. Hence the AC posting.
This is an extortion attempt against apple. Universal wants to set the price on the music that iTunes sells, Steve Jobs says no, its my business we are selling songs for 99 cents. If you want us to raise the price give our customers something (like no DRM). Universal is just pissed because they cannot control Apple and the iTunes store.
Reuters, digg and engadget are all claiming 500,000 units sold in the first 3 days. Probably not the most successful rollout but a pretty respectable showing.
But one aspect missing from the film is the defense.
I also don't get this, why is it Micheal Moore's responsibility to do this? This is a documentary, the purpose of a documentary is to make a statement then prove that statement with facts. Objectivity is not only not a requirement but usually hurts the argument you are trying to make. Any rational and half intelligent person knows this, and any journalist who paid attention in school should know this. Moore's objective is to get us talking, not push some personal agenda, even if that conversation is "It cant really be that bad, can it?", at least people are thinking about the issue. If someone wants to do a documentary defending the current health care system they are perfectly free to do so. As long as it is not done by the health care industry (or someone that is indebted to them) I will watch it and keep an open mind.
I also feel that health care in this country is generally excellent, at least at the health care level (doctors, nurses, etc), but it sucks at the administrative level (insurance, hospital administration, etc), they are ruining it for everybody. But the number of Americans who are unable to utilize our excellent health care is getting too large too fast. What is the use of having excellent doctors and nurses if nobody can afford them? What really amazes me is the number of people who feel no embarassment and think there is nothing wrong with the fact that we cannot even take care of our own people.
socialized corporate losses and privatized corporate profits
excellent point, its like the debate I hear from conservatives that liberals are trying to create a welfare state. The truth is both sides are doing the same thing, the liberals just give the welfare to the poor who need it (I didn't say they deserved it) and the conservatives give the welfare to the rich who already have more than they need (and dont deserve it). I think the reason liberals and conservatives fight so bitterly is because they are so much alike. Happiness is found somewhere in the middle.
Just as an off topic, socialized programs are not necessarily socialism. Social programs are programs to improve the quality of life and provide vital services to the citizenry of a society. Socialism is a political dogma which in practice seems to encourage totalitarianism, perpetual expansionism and a greater division in economic classes, wait a sec! who is leading us to socialism again?
You obviously are missing the whole point of his movies. He is not conservative bashing, it is only coincidence that conservatives are all acting like a bunch of asshats lately. He is trying to expose some serious problems in this country and to try and get people talking about these problems. Here is a real rundown of his movies:
Roger & Me - how the outsourcing of jobs is actually affecting America and how the corporate heads just dont give a flying fuck about us.
Bowling for Columbine - we are a culture of fear and hate, with easily obtainable guns this a dangerous mixture. In fact Moore does not advocate gun control anywhere in the movie, he is an avid hunter himself. By the way I come from a family who regularily and with great gusto practice their 2nd amendment rights. And we all hate the NRA and realize they are nothing but a lobbyist group for gun companies and are completely full of shit. Name one thing they have ever done to actually protect our gun rights? Their whole reason for existing is to collect dues from the ignorant masses and give nothing back. I personally liked this movie, I am not against gun control. I cannot think of one single reason why I would need instant access to a gun. There is a problem with guns in this country and we better do something about it or America is going to turn into Beirut.
Fahrenheit 9/11 - ok I will concede this was a personal attack on Bush (Moore admits it himself), but it was not an attack against Republicans as a whole. Considering he had the facts verified by the same people that verify facts for the Bush administration, what can you say? If the movie is all full of lies, then our entire government is relying on getting their facts from a source that will lie for the highest bidder thus showing further incompetence on the part of our current administration. Oh! the irony!
The point being, his movies are only trying to get us to talk about the problems in this country instead of acting like America is some sort of magical utopia and we are immune to social problems. Getting dialog started is really what we need right now to fix some of our problems. I would personally like to see him make a movie about how both parties are trying to create a welfare state, they just call it different things.
Nobody is trying to stop the other side from telling its tale. But it does seem that when the conservatives do retort is is usually gut reactions and unverifiable facts, so until you can find someone who can retort logically, rationally and in an adult manner get used to being ignored. Unfortunately in the healthcare industry their point of view is: MONEY, MORE MONEY, GIVE ME MORE. I am not talking about the hard working nurses, doctors and their support staffs. I am talking about insurance, administrators and share holders who just arent in it to benefit humanity but to make a buck. Arent there enough industries to make a buck off of? Do you have to infect the one industry we entrust our health with?
Obviously you have never done a documentary, its like doing an essay. You devise a hypothesis (or some statement you want to try to prove), then use facts to support that hypothesis, finally you tie it all together to show that your facts indeed do prove your hypothesis. The idea is to prove your hypothesis not provide an unbiased discussion of that hypothesis, it is the same process with documentaries. I once did an essay on the benifits the nazis had on society, I didnt turn it into a nazi bashing paper in fact after reading the paper my teacher said the nazis might not have been as bad as he thought (jokingly). The point is that I stuck with my hypothesis and proved without a shadow of a doubt that nazis had contributed some positive things to society. Just so you dont think I am one of those people who denies the holocaust ever happened my next essay was about the atrocities they commited and my facts
Re:This phone is a 2 HAND device vs 1 HAND device
on
Apple iPhone Dissected
·
· Score: 1
You must be a record company shill, that sounded pretty threatening. What specific laws are preventing an artist from releasing his own music under his own label? I have met the guy, he might be kind of flakey but he is not an idiot. There is no way in hell he would align himself with the record industry again.
I think Prince has been through enough legal bullshit with the record industry (they took his name away at one point) that he wouldnt be doing this unless he already knew he could.
All it's going to do is hurt the people who are lawful and have a media center. The people pirating , or mass selling DVDs, wont be hurt by this.
Well I guess you now know where their priorities lie. They are a bunch of dinosaurs who are still living in the 70's and pissed off because of the Fair Use laws.
Slashdot Mirror
He got the majority of the 30% of voters who actually bothered to vote. All that work they do to make us think voting is a waste of time seems to be paying off. Just think if the other 70% had voted GW Bush would still be burying oil companies and baseball teams on daddys payroll. What really gets me is that he barely got 51% of the 30% of voters who voted, then people act like he was somehow the peoples choice, he was the choice of a minority. But yes, if Americans cant even take the time to go and vote for someone else they get what they deserve.
One correction. Nixon did not turn the Southern Segregationalists to the Republican party. The Southern Segregationalists turned when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 64. Nixon just exploited that anger to get votes. Nixon had the opportunity to at least slow down their momentum and expose them for what they are, but instead he encouraged their destructive behavior for his own personal gain. Until Nixon came along they were never really able to get a foothold in power and were basically the weird uncle of the democratic party. But of course the monumentally naive republicans welcomed them with open arms for a few extra votes so we get the shit we have today. And yes slavery is still in the cards for these people, they just haven't played that card yet. Give them time. The Civil war was never really resolved in this country, all that happened is that the confederates were forced to back down, no one convinced them that slavery was bad. Well they are back and instead of seceding this time they mean to taking over.
And if you dont think Richard Nixon had some grand plan, then either you are too young or you are living in a state of denial. When he was president he constantly talked about his grand plan for America, I remember I was there.
You seem to have forgotten that it never seems to apply to the type of person that would use that type of logic to justify taking our privacy away from us.
both.
If you are trying to glean some new information from the info you have then brainstorming, trains of thought, gut reactions, etc (the kinds of info you find on blogs) work great. If you are trying to learn something that is well established, then nothing beats well thought out in-depth research.
And his whole point is that the mathematical concept of algorithms is the limiting factor. As a computer scientist this should be an interesting subject. As processes are getting more complex, is the concept of the algorithm going to be a limiting factor to computer theory? This should lead to you asking yourself, is there a better paradigm? Do we as computer scientists need to re-define the concept of an algorithm? Heck I have always thought of algorithms as being implementations and not theoretical applications of computers. What is the theory behind computer sorting? Quick sort, bubble sort, merge sort, these are all implementations of that theory, not theories themselves.
Proper scientific process requires that results be validated but also that the methods used to achieve those results need to be validated and re-evaluated also. And anyone who is a real scientist and not just some math bigot realizes, the entire foundations your science are based on need to constantly be viewed under the same microscope you use to practice your science. I see more and more young people with scientific degrees that treat their science almost the same way a religious zealot treats their religion. The scientific process we have today exists because that process is in a constant state of doubt. We only use the tools and data that we have available to us today, tomorrow someone could discover or prove that our tools and data are total bs.
What of the person that studies Human Interface Design, that person is creating the theories and concepts that define how people use and interact with computers. Other than using statistics to quantify aspects of his/her research I doubt that person would need a strong background in mathematical theory. How is this person not a computer scientist? Computer science is more than just converting things into 1's and 0's then converting them back into something else.
I am not sure. But I think I finally get what MS is doing. They are planning on openly breaking the GPL, so that we have no choice but to defend ourselves in court. If we do nothing they can spin FUD that open source has no teeth to protect its customers. If we loose then Microsoft starts sueing everyone using open source except for the voucher holders. If we win then Microsoft is forced to release the source for their offending code (their GPL breaking code as opposed to all of their other code) then their claims that the GPL is viral becomes valid and they can use it to scare the crap out of more people. Microsoft must have something they feel puts them at an advantage here. I dont think they would have even started this unless they felt that no matter what the outcome they could come out of it smelling like a rose. Perhaps they found some loop hole in the GPL that they can exploit. Of course this is all just my opinion, but if anyone has the resources and motive to test the GPL in court, its Microsoft.
I call BS like everyone else. A computer scientist/engineer architects, designs, codes and tests applications, language is irrelevant. You really must be dealing with some unskilled people. I have seen this in very large corporations though. There was a time when corps hired unskilled people and taught them the necessary skills to get the job done. So there are quite a few people out there who are very proficient in one language or platform but seem to flounder when they get outside of their area of expertise.
Its not the size of your patent that matters, its the number lawyers you have to protect it that matters.
And Jobs has every right to negotiate his end of the bargain as well. That is what free enterprise is. Universal has every right to say "Nope, you cant sell our wares anymore", just like Apple has the right to say "Nope, we arent going to sell your wares anymore". My point was, this is what the argument is about, not the conspiracy theories that have been suggested in this thread. This is about tiered pricing and nothing else. Well, MS could have made an offer that Universal finds more appealing but by the comments from Universal it sounds like they are just making threats to get tiered pricing implemented in iTunes.
Ahh I see the astro-turfers are out in full swing. MS wants to generate as much bad publicity for the iPhone as they can because mobile windows sucks so bad. Hence the AC posting.
This is an extortion attempt against apple. Universal wants to set the price on the music that iTunes sells, Steve Jobs says no, its my business we are selling songs for 99 cents. If you want us to raise the price give our customers something (like no DRM). Universal is just pissed because they cannot control Apple and the iTunes store.
Quite a bit of foreplay I would imagine!
Reuters, digg and engadget are all claiming 500,000 units sold in the first 3 days. Probably not the most successful rollout but a pretty respectable showing.
I dont have time to link to all of the articles.
But one aspect missing from the film is the defense.
I also don't get this, why is it Micheal Moore's responsibility to do this? This is a documentary, the purpose of a documentary is to make a statement then prove that statement with facts. Objectivity is not only not a requirement but usually hurts the argument you are trying to make. Any rational and half intelligent person knows this, and any journalist who paid attention in school should know this. Moore's objective is to get us talking, not push some personal agenda, even if that conversation is "It cant really be that bad, can it?", at least people are thinking about the issue. If someone wants to do a documentary defending the current health care system they are perfectly free to do so. As long as it is not done by the health care industry (or someone that is indebted to them) I will watch it and keep an open mind.
I also feel that health care in this country is generally excellent, at least at the health care level (doctors, nurses, etc), but it sucks at the administrative level (insurance, hospital administration, etc), they are ruining it for everybody. But the number of Americans who are unable to utilize our excellent health care is getting too large too fast. What is the use of having excellent doctors and nurses if nobody can afford them? What really amazes me is the number of people who feel no embarassment and think there is nothing wrong with the fact that we cannot even take care of our own people.
socialized corporate losses and privatized corporate profits
excellent point, its like the debate I hear from conservatives that liberals are trying to create a welfare state. The truth is both sides are doing the same thing, the liberals just give the welfare to the poor who need it (I didn't say they deserved it) and the conservatives give the welfare to the rich who already have more than they need (and dont deserve it). I think the reason liberals and conservatives fight so bitterly is because they are so much alike. Happiness is found somewhere in the middle.
Just as an off topic, socialized programs are not necessarily socialism. Social programs are programs to improve the quality of life and provide vital services to the citizenry of a society. Socialism is a political dogma which in practice seems to encourage totalitarianism, perpetual expansionism and a greater division in economic classes, wait a sec! who is leading us to socialism again?
You obviously are missing the whole point of his movies. He is not conservative bashing, it is only coincidence that conservatives are all acting like a bunch of asshats lately. He is trying to expose some serious problems in this country and to try and get people talking about these problems. Here is a real rundown of his movies:
Roger & Me - how the outsourcing of jobs is actually affecting America and how the corporate heads just dont give a flying fuck about us.
Bowling for Columbine - we are a culture of fear and hate, with easily obtainable guns this a dangerous mixture. In fact Moore does not advocate gun control anywhere in the movie, he is an avid hunter himself. By the way I come from a family who regularily and with great gusto practice their 2nd amendment rights. And we all hate the NRA and realize they are nothing but a lobbyist group for gun companies and are completely full of shit. Name one thing they have ever done to actually protect our gun rights? Their whole reason for existing is to collect dues from the ignorant masses and give nothing back. I personally liked this movie, I am not against gun control. I cannot think of one single reason why I would need instant access to a gun. There is a problem with guns in this country and we better do something about it or America is going to turn into Beirut.
Fahrenheit 9/11 - ok I will concede this was a personal attack on Bush (Moore admits it himself), but it was not an attack against Republicans as a whole. Considering he had the facts verified by the same people that verify facts for the Bush administration, what can you say? If the movie is all full of lies, then our entire government is relying on getting their facts from a source that will lie for the highest bidder thus showing further incompetence on the part of our current administration. Oh! the irony!
The point being, his movies are only trying to get us to talk about the problems in this country instead of acting like America is some sort of magical utopia and we are immune to social problems. Getting dialog started is really what we need right now to fix some of our problems. I would personally like to see him make a movie about how both parties are trying to create a welfare state, they just call it different things.
Nobody is trying to stop the other side from telling its tale. But it does seem that when the conservatives do retort is is usually gut reactions and unverifiable facts, so until you can find someone who can retort logically, rationally and in an adult manner get used to being ignored. Unfortunately in the healthcare industry their point of view is: MONEY, MORE MONEY, GIVE ME MORE. I am not talking about the hard working nurses, doctors and their support staffs. I am talking about insurance, administrators and share holders who just arent in it to benefit humanity but to make a buck. Arent there enough industries to make a buck off of? Do you have to infect the one industry we entrust our health with?
Obviously you have never done a documentary, its like doing an essay. You devise a hypothesis (or some statement you want to try to prove), then use facts to support that hypothesis, finally you tie it all together to show that your facts indeed do prove your hypothesis. The idea is to prove your hypothesis not provide an unbiased discussion of that hypothesis, it is the same process with documentaries. I once did an essay on the benifits the nazis had on society, I didnt turn it into a nazi bashing paper in fact after reading the paper my teacher said the nazis might not have been as bad as he thought (jokingly). The point is that I stuck with my hypothesis and proved without a shadow of a doubt that nazis had contributed some positive things to society. Just so you dont think I am one of those people who denies the holocaust ever happened my next essay was about the atrocities they commited and my facts
Oh bummer, no porn on my iPhone then?
You must be a record company shill, that sounded pretty threatening. What specific laws are preventing an artist from releasing his own music under his own label? I have met the guy, he might be kind of flakey but he is not an idiot. There is no way in hell he would align himself with the record industry again.
I think Prince has been through enough legal bullshit with the record industry (they took his name away at one point) that he wouldnt be doing this unless he already knew he could.
All this does it put people's minds at ease that the government is Doing Something.
Well, thats about 90% of what our politicians do these days, just try and convince us they are doing something.
I agree, I wish the Republicans could just admit that their party is broken and fix it.
And by the looks of it they got paid up front.
They have a disclaimer on their site that says the pictures uploaded need to be legal by Swedish law.
All it's going to do is hurt the people who are lawful and have a media center. The people pirating , or mass selling DVDs, wont be hurt by this.
Well I guess you now know where their priorities lie. They are a bunch of dinosaurs who are still living in the 70's and pissed off because of the Fair Use laws.
I always thought it was:
Those who do, do
Those who dont, teach
Those who do neither become experts