There are perfectly good games on the xbox that wouldn't output in 720p or 1080i. I'd like to play them on the 360 rendered at higher res for improved clarity.
The original playstation had widespread problems with heat. As in having to prop up the edges on books to let air circulate underneath. It was easy to tell when it was overheating, because video cut-scenes would stutter. Eventually many of the overheating machines did fail. So quite a large percentage of owners had to buy a new one. The only good news was by then a new one only cost $129 or $99.
heck, I'd be happy if my phone just asked me if I meant Carlos or Carla and I'd tell it "the first one." Of course, that's imperfect so Apple would never use such an inelegant system.
As for wet-her.com, I have no plans to bookmark that site. If I could specify sites I've bookmarked by saying the word bookmark, that would really reduce the chances it screws up my request.
If Apple had included voice dialing as well as voice control the problem would be mostly moot. "Computer, call Carlos." "Computer, surf bookmark weather.com." "Computer, display calendar for July eighteenth." "Computer, play artist Offspring, all songs with a play count of at least five."
Except the phone is a computer. It can surf to Weird Al's website and there are free mp3s there. As a computer, it ought to be capable of downloading them, and adding them to its library. If it can't, then the second generation should.
The iPhone is one step closer to convergence. In a few years it should be possible to buy a phone that works as a computer the way sub-notebooks work as computers by themselves.
In Canada, people are much more likely to have a gun. The carjackers will then put themselves in more danger, even if they have a gun too. Canadian law is also much more favorable to self-defense actions than in the UK.
Even though the book has some interesting ideas, I don't care about them. In a world almost without real animals, yes humans will covet them like an infertile couple coveting having a baby. Doesn't make me care. I found that theme boring. Same with Deckard's relationship to a woman who he had little reason to be with. There's tons of people in bland pairings, doesn't mean I want to read about them. Mercerism - people are sheep and will follow nonsense.
Complicated, but straightforward. The orange color easily stands out against the green, as long as the oranges are picked once they have at least some color. Stereo cameras or even an array of cameras locate the fruit using color and RADAR, the triangulate the co-ordinates. Large fans could tilt to blow leaves around so the cameras can see the oranges inside the canopy. The picking arms could first slide away from the machine and out to the tree, then extend upwards to the orange. A camera on the end of the arm would help the machine hone in on the fruit. Additional tilting and rotation could be added to the arms as needed. The machine could plan the most efficient order to use it's dozen or so arms. A driver/operator would be optional, since the trees can be tagged with sensors so going along the row is a piece of cake. The operator could optionally have multiple touch screens displaying the cameras' view along with an overlay of oranges identified by the computer. The human could touch the screen with a pen to tag oranges the machine missed.
There's another way of representing someone than just by representing their district.
Congressman Rick Boucher of Virginia has been introducing bills ever since the DMCA to weaken it and improve fair use rights. By doing so he has been representing the views and interests of everyone in the United States who wants that to happen.
Thus Libertarians and Greens in the Assembly are more likely to represent the views and interests of the Libertarians and Greens throughout the state who voted for them. Sure the Libertarian voters won't always agree with how the elected Libertarians vote. Odds are really good though they'll agree with who they elected much more often than say, the Greens.
Let's say there's a voter named Joe. If compared to the Democrats or Republicans, a Libertarian in the Assembly is voting more closely to how Joe would vote if he was elected, then Joe is being better represented by the Libertarian.
For what it's worth, if I was writing the law, before the election I'd require the parties to release an ordered list of exactly who would fill each seat won. Meaning we would know that if the party wins only one seat, a specific person will get it. If the party wins two seats, that same person gets the first one, and another specific person gets the second one. That way we will know better what people might get elected.
In theory we could have a civilization where people only work if they want to. Isaac Asimov and Roger MacBride Allen explored one possible society in the Caliban trilogy.
We could have robots making our fast food, doing the gardening, mining metal, making robots, maintaining robots.
We have a high-enough resolution map of the surface of Mars to see almost everything we need to see, with the exception of the caves. Building the first outpost in a stable cave would make shelter much easier. Really though, what will the first person on Mars do that's so useful? Dig up rocks like the robots did?
What would be smart planning is if the lander on the first manned Mars landing was designed for re-use or continual use as part of a growing outpost colony. Until we have a way to grow enough food and generate enough air on Mars, that colony might as well wait so we can spend resources solving support problems.
Looking over your original post, I see you're more interested in representing local communities. Well that's a problem for California because 420,000 people per district is already wayyyy too many for that kind of hands-on approach you want. One solution is quadruple the number of Assembly members. That has it's own set of drawbacks. So because California is just too populated for it's own good, I think it's a good candidate for letting the minority parties get in the picture. The state is big enough that it can handle them, and they'll do more good than the current Assembly.
I'm aware of the bicameral legislature, and it's good requiring both bodies to pass legislation. The Senate would still be district-based, thus offering a check. I also absolutely want gerrymandering to stop.
Don't you think that getting third parties into the Assembly will improve representation of ideas and political ideologies? If Greens and Libertarians get seats then they get heard and their votes matter in controversial bills. That's improving representation. It means Republicans in San Francisco get heard. It means Greens and Libs scattered throughout the state get someone representing their positions. In most of the world's democracies, national representation is done like this, instead of by district.
I think California is a good candidate for proportional representation in its state Assembly, while keeping districts in the state Senate. There are just so many people in the state that each Assembly member represents something like 250,000 people. Senators represent 600,000 people. Those numbers are so large that they border on redundant. Representing part of the Bay Area in either body will involve similar concerns and priorities. The same with the Central Valley.
So I'd really like the Assembly to switch to proportional representation. That way the third parties will have a few seats and get some media coverage and mind-share. They'll become legitimate parties worth voting for. The Senators will still represent geographic districts.
With a system like this, I would bet within eight years a quarter or a third of the Assembly will be Greens, Libertarians, and possibly other 3rd parties.
There are other variables I think are important to consider, or not. People living in a fertile valley may generally be farmers. If a district is created for them, while a neighboring district is just for the nearby city, then both seats have very different priorities. If it's possible to make both districts by population 50% city and 50% farming, then both politicians ought to care about the needs of both groups.
In the real world such a scenario probably can't happen too often while making honestly compact districts. For contest with real maps, I'd want my local area kept in one district. Finding a balance between following city boundaries and topographic features are two ways to do this. I'd consider them superior to dividing a state into nothing but rectangles for districts. Sure it increases the ability to tilt the balance of seats, but if courts actually enforced compactness, it wouldn't be such a big deal. People drawing up districts that follow city limits and topographic features but lack compactness should have to justify their deviations. If the deviations make a seat more "safe", then it probably shouldn't be allowed.
It's the execution that matters. Sending in the military is a mistake. Pressuring the monarchy and secretly (or not secretly) aiding pro-democracy groups is the better way.
The Dems are bowing to political realities. Had they pulled funding the Republican machine would never let the media forget who did it, and that the war might have been "won" if not for the Dems. By waiting until September, more Reps will vote with the Dems to pull the plug, and it'll be more bipartisan, and more importantly, Bush's surge will be largely acknowledged as having failed.
You talk of the Dems as if they're all the same. At least something like 170 Dems in the House would have voted in May to pull the plug if Pelosi had brought such a bill up for a vote.
Ron Paul is right in that our meddling in other countries and support of the wrong people to favor our corporations has been very bad. However he seems to want to withdraw too much from other countries. We should be supporting the good people trying to do what's right for their countries.
one side says "We'll take all your money and give it to the welfare programs, prisons, and the poor" and the other side says "We'll take all your money and give it to the oil companies, airlines, and the telecoms". Either way, they've taken all your money.
And yet, how can you not see that one is giving your money to potentially better uses than the other? Even giving it to prisons can be beneficial considering the growing trend of offering drug treatment and rehabilitation programs to prisoners.
I absolutely do not accept that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. By number and gravity of scandals in the past fifty years, the Republicans have been worse.
If Venezuela weren't swimming in oil, its economy would already be in ruins. Unfortunately the oil money is just buying Chavez time to build up to an even more spectacular collapse.
Without Chavez, under capitalism, Venezuela's oil profits would go mostly to the wealthy corporations and shareholders. Then a little bit of that wealth would trickle down to the other 99% of the people. Hopefully Chavez, for all his faults, will give more of those gigantic profits directly to projects that help the 99% more quickly and directly, and from there the money trickles up again to businesses and the owners. Want to stimulate an economy? Give money to the people. Want to stimulate the economy less but also make the rich richer? Give tax breaks to the rich.
Chavez is just following the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sound familiar?
I don't like either case, but Chavez has less power and fewer options than the USA.
As for central planning, it will never be as efficient as free markets. But consider how the USSR's central planning would have gone if it had Walmart's computing power, data analysis, demand prediction programs, and supplier controls and communication. Walmart does a tremendous job of centrally planning its stores. It has to forecast what people need and will consume, just like Stalin needed to.
Slashdot Mirror
There are perfectly good games on the xbox that wouldn't output in 720p or 1080i. I'd like to play them on the 360 rendered at higher res for improved clarity.
The original playstation had widespread problems with heat. As in having to prop up the edges on books to let air circulate underneath. It was easy to tell when it was overheating, because video cut-scenes would stutter. Eventually many of the overheating machines did fail. So quite a large percentage of owners had to buy a new one. The only good news was by then a new one only cost $129 or $99.
but but but apple can do no wrong, jobs is god!
they need to get that stuff working properly.
heck, I'd be happy if my phone just asked me if I meant Carlos or Carla and I'd tell it "the first one." Of course, that's imperfect so Apple would never use such an inelegant system.
As for wet-her.com, I have no plans to bookmark that site. If I could specify sites I've bookmarked by saying the word bookmark, that would really reduce the chances it screws up my request.
If Apple had included voice dialing as well as voice control the problem would be mostly moot. "Computer, call Carlos." "Computer, surf bookmark weather.com." "Computer, display calendar for July eighteenth." "Computer, play artist Offspring, all songs with a play count of at least five."
Except the phone is a computer. It can surf to Weird Al's website and there are free mp3s there. As a computer, it ought to be capable of downloading them, and adding them to its library. If it can't, then the second generation should.
The iPhone is one step closer to convergence. In a few years it should be possible to buy a phone that works as a computer the way sub-notebooks work as computers by themselves.
In Canada, people are much more likely to have a gun. The carjackers will then put themselves in more danger, even if they have a gun too. Canadian law is also much more favorable to self-defense actions than in the UK.
Time to spring for the cellular or GPS tracker I guess.
Even though the book has some interesting ideas, I don't care about them. In a world almost without real animals, yes humans will covet them like an infertile couple coveting having a baby. Doesn't make me care. I found that theme boring. Same with Deckard's relationship to a woman who he had little reason to be with. There's tons of people in bland pairings, doesn't mean I want to read about them. Mercerism - people are sheep and will follow nonsense.
Complicated, but straightforward. The orange color easily stands out against the green, as long as the oranges are picked once they have at least some color. Stereo cameras or even an array of cameras locate the fruit using color and RADAR, the triangulate the co-ordinates. Large fans could tilt to blow leaves around so the cameras can see the oranges inside the canopy. The picking arms could first slide away from the machine and out to the tree, then extend upwards to the orange. A camera on the end of the arm would help the machine hone in on the fruit. Additional tilting and rotation could be added to the arms as needed. The machine could plan the most efficient order to use it's dozen or so arms. A driver/operator would be optional, since the trees can be tagged with sensors so going along the row is a piece of cake. The operator could optionally have multiple touch screens displaying the cameras' view along with an overlay of oranges identified by the computer. The human could touch the screen with a pen to tag oranges the machine missed.
There's another way of representing someone than just by representing their district.
Congressman Rick Boucher of Virginia has been introducing bills ever since the DMCA to weaken it and improve fair use rights. By doing so he has been representing the views and interests of everyone in the United States who wants that to happen.
Thus Libertarians and Greens in the Assembly are more likely to represent the views and interests of the Libertarians and Greens throughout the state who voted for them. Sure the Libertarian voters won't always agree with how the elected Libertarians vote. Odds are really good though they'll agree with who they elected much more often than say, the Greens.
Let's say there's a voter named Joe. If compared to the Democrats or Republicans, a Libertarian in the Assembly is voting more closely to how Joe would vote if he was elected, then Joe is being better represented by the Libertarian.
For what it's worth, if I was writing the law, before the election I'd require the parties to release an ordered list of exactly who would fill each seat won. Meaning we would know that if the party wins only one seat, a specific person will get it. If the party wins two seats, that same person gets the first one, and another specific person gets the second one. That way we will know better what people might get elected.
I'll join the campaign for robots to do as much work as possible while the government gives me a stipend to become an artist.
In theory we could have a civilization where people only work if they want to. Isaac Asimov and Roger MacBride Allen explored one possible society in the Caliban trilogy.
We could have robots making our fast food, doing the gardening, mining metal, making robots, maintaining robots.
We have a high-enough resolution map of the surface of Mars to see almost everything we need to see, with the exception of the caves. Building the first outpost in a stable cave would make shelter much easier. Really though, what will the first person on Mars do that's so useful? Dig up rocks like the robots did?
What would be smart planning is if the lander on the first manned Mars landing was designed for re-use or continual use as part of a growing outpost colony. Until we have a way to grow enough food and generate enough air on Mars, that colony might as well wait so we can spend resources solving support problems.
Looking over your original post, I see you're more interested in representing local communities. Well that's a problem for California because 420,000 people per district is already wayyyy too many for that kind of hands-on approach you want. One solution is quadruple the number of Assembly members. That has it's own set of drawbacks. So because California is just too populated for it's own good, I think it's a good candidate for letting the minority parties get in the picture. The state is big enough that it can handle them, and they'll do more good than the current Assembly.
Whoa, back up there.
I'm aware of the bicameral legislature, and it's good requiring both bodies to pass legislation. The Senate would still be district-based, thus offering a check. I also absolutely want gerrymandering to stop.
Don't you think that getting third parties into the Assembly will improve representation of ideas and political ideologies? If Greens and Libertarians get seats then they get heard and their votes matter in controversial bills. That's improving representation. It means Republicans in San Francisco get heard. It means Greens and Libs scattered throughout the state get someone representing their positions. In most of the world's democracies, national representation is done like this, instead of by district.
I think California is a good candidate for proportional representation in its state Assembly, while keeping districts in the state Senate. There are just so many people in the state that each Assembly member represents something like 250,000 people. Senators represent 600,000 people. Those numbers are so large that they border on redundant. Representing part of the Bay Area in either body will involve similar concerns and priorities. The same with the Central Valley.
So I'd really like the Assembly to switch to proportional representation. That way the third parties will have a few seats and get some media coverage and mind-share. They'll become legitimate parties worth voting for. The Senators will still represent geographic districts.
With a system like this, I would bet within eight years a quarter or a third of the Assembly will be Greens, Libertarians, and possibly other 3rd parties.
There are other variables I think are important to consider, or not. People living in a fertile valley may generally be farmers. If a district is created for them, while a neighboring district is just for the nearby city, then both seats have very different priorities. If it's possible to make both districts by population 50% city and 50% farming, then both politicians ought to care about the needs of both groups.
In the real world such a scenario probably can't happen too often while making honestly compact districts. For contest with real maps, I'd want my local area kept in one district. Finding a balance between following city boundaries and topographic features are two ways to do this. I'd consider them superior to dividing a state into nothing but rectangles for districts. Sure it increases the ability to tilt the balance of seats, but if courts actually enforced compactness, it wouldn't be such a big deal. People drawing up districts that follow city limits and topographic features but lack compactness should have to justify their deviations. If the deviations make a seat more "safe", then it probably shouldn't be allowed.
Text is a very slow medium, so only the most information is conveyed.
:-)
Was that accidental or intentional?
Isn't it obvious which is better? In Europe, when leaders have mistresses or affairs it's just not the big deal.
Exactly.
It's the execution that matters. Sending in the military is a mistake. Pressuring the monarchy and secretly (or not secretly) aiding pro-democracy groups is the better way.
Does Ron Paul agree with actively supporting those in other countries who want democracy?
The Dems are bowing to political realities. Had they pulled funding the Republican machine would never let the media forget who did it, and that the war might have been "won" if not for the Dems. By waiting until September, more Reps will vote with the Dems to pull the plug, and it'll be more bipartisan, and more importantly, Bush's surge will be largely acknowledged as having failed.
You talk of the Dems as if they're all the same. At least something like 170 Dems in the House would have voted in May to pull the plug if Pelosi had brought such a bill up for a vote.
Ron Paul is right in that our meddling in other countries and support of the wrong people to favor our corporations has been very bad. However he seems to want to withdraw too much from other countries. We should be supporting the good people trying to do what's right for their countries.
one side says "We'll take all your money and give it to the welfare programs, prisons, and the poor" and the other side says "We'll take all your money and give it to the oil companies, airlines, and the telecoms". Either way, they've taken all your money.
And yet, how can you not see that one is giving your money to potentially better uses than the other? Even giving it to prisons can be beneficial considering the growing trend of offering drug treatment and rehabilitation programs to prisoners.
I absolutely do not accept that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. By number and gravity of scandals in the past fifty years, the Republicans have been worse.
If Venezuela weren't swimming in oil, its economy would already be in ruins. Unfortunately the oil money is just buying Chavez time to build up to an even more spectacular collapse.
Without Chavez, under capitalism, Venezuela's oil profits would go mostly to the wealthy corporations and shareholders. Then a little bit of that wealth would trickle down to the other 99% of the people. Hopefully Chavez, for all his faults, will give more of those gigantic profits directly to projects that help the 99% more quickly and directly, and from there the money trickles up again to businesses and the owners. Want to stimulate an economy? Give money to the people. Want to stimulate the economy less but also make the rich richer? Give tax breaks to the rich.
Chavez is just following the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sound familiar?
I don't like either case, but Chavez has less power and fewer options than the USA.
As for central planning, it will never be as efficient as free markets. But consider how the USSR's central planning would have gone if it had Walmart's computing power, data analysis, demand prediction programs, and supplier controls and communication. Walmart does a tremendous job of centrally planning its stores. It has to forecast what people need and will consume, just like Stalin needed to.