I sent my senator a short message detailing many of these concerns about the PROTECT-IP bill. You might be interested in her response.... WARNING: Don't read any further if you still have hope that senators can understand and address technology issues....
First of all, let me extend to you my deepest sympathies on your unfortunate status as a Texan. We're all hoping for your speedy recovery from this tragedy.
Secondly: "Kay Bailey Hutchison" is all you need to read to know that your carefully-phrased attempt at intelligent communication with your elected Senator was a thoroughgoing waste of time and effort. Texas Republican, former governor, and "honest politician" (i.e. - she stays bought).
Of course, it could have been worse... you could have tried to reason with Michele Bachmann, instead.
God DAMN Crapdot 2.5... or whatever the fuck you assholes are calling this latest piece of shit. Now I can't even submit a story (Las Vegas Web site VegasInc reports that on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Hunt fined copyright troll Righthaven $5,000 for failure to disclose Stephens Media, Inc.'s financial interest in Righthaven's suits against Web sites it accuses of plaigarizing Las Vegas Review-Journal's copyrighted content. Hunt also ordered Righthaven to disclose the full text of its original contract with Stephens Media to prosecute alleged infringers on Stephens' behalf. Hunt's orders are in response to Righthaven's suit against Web site Democratic Underground, a case the judge dismissed on June 14th on grounds that Righthaven lacked "standing" to sue for violations of copyright that Righthaven itself didn't own. In fining righthaven, Hunt also commented, “In the court’s view, the arrangement between Righthaven and Stephens Media is nothing more, nor less, than a law firm — which incidentally I don’t think is licensed to practice law in this state — with a contingent fee agreement masquerading as a company,” which could be an indicator of still larger legal problems for the copyright troll down the road.), because your Javurscript is so fucking broken that the "submit story" button on the popup window is now hidden below the browser window AND THERE'S NO WAY TO REPOSITION THE POPUP WINDOW.
Most engineers know next to nothing about marketing and sales... to the degree that they actually despise interacting with customers. You can have the best product in the world, but if no one knows about it, your business will fail.
Which is true and important and entirely beside the point. MBAs aren't about marketing. They hire people for that. MBAs are all about managing, not marketing. MBAs are the guys who export American manufacturing jobs to the Third World, the guys who cook the books to pump up their employer's apparent profitability enough to raise the stock price again this quarter, the guys who, with apologies to Oscar Wilde, "know the price of everything and the value of nothing." They're the guys who have spent the last 30 years or so systematically dismantling America's industrial base while simultaneously enriching themselves. They nearly destroyed the world's economy three years ago, and yet, mysteriously enough, they're still in charge of basically everything today.
They are the people to whom Santayana was referring, when he warned about repeating the past's mistakes. They are our leaders.
According to the official guidelines, there are 14 categories of journalism Pulitzer. Leaving aside the ones that cant be made to apply to the Onion's ouvre (a distinguished example of investigative reporting, for instance), there are only four potential categories in which it could compete:
Category 1 - a distinguished example of public service by a newspaper or news site,
Category 9 - commentary, or
Category 11 - editorial writing, the test of excellence being clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion in what the writer conceives to be the right direction.
The guidelines state that anyone - that includes you, gentle reader - may submit an entry for consideration. You don't have to be The Onion or even have The Onion's permission to submit it for a Pulitzer. All you have to do put together a submission package that conforms to the Pulitzer guidelines (pdf), and pay the $50 entry fee.
I suspect that a flood of thousands of third-party entries on behalf of The Onion would be certain to garner sufficient attention on the part of the Pulitzer Board to guarantee it would, at a minimum, take into consideration awarding a special Pulitzer to The Onion, if not next year (It's too late to enter the Onion for consideration for this year), then in s subsequent year sometime in the not-too-distant future. And I'm certain that would be the case, if the flood of third-party applications recurs in 2013 and 2014.
FWIW, Next year's deadline is February 11, 2012, and the window for submission opens January 1, 2012, for work originally published during 2011.
So, to summarize, if you think The Onion deserves a Pulitzer, it's within your power, both as an individual, and especially as a community, to lobby very effectively for that to happen. All that's required is that you, as an individual, spend a little time, effort, and money crafting an entry submission on behalf of The Onion, and then send that sucker in on January 4, 2012 (because New Year's Day falls on a Friday next year, so you're likely to be too busy taking advantage of the long weekend to want to hit the Post Office or UPS store on the 2nd). And, if enough of you, as a community, spend that time, effort, and money, you just might make it so.
I'm sure there's an objective, non-sensationalist, just-the-facts reporter working somewhere, but to pretend that the internet is the reason these jobs are going away is silly. They're going away because the local reporting is, in the main, just as vacuous as national reporting and probably less well-edited.
The fact is that small-town newspapers are doing pretty well, compared to the big boys - but it's not because they're paragons of journalistic virtue. In fact, by and large, they stink at journalism. What keeps them afloat is local ad revenue - advertising mom-and-pop businesses and coupon specials for grocery chains and the like.
Meanwhile, the reasons their reportage sucks wind and blows air are:
1. their publishers (mostly chains, like Gannett) fear the revenue impacts of investigative reporting on businesses,
2. their reporters fear the access impacts of investigative reporting on local politicians and public safety personnel, and
3. their pay rates are so laughably meager that they can't attract high-quality writers, and can't keep 'em, if they're lucky enough to hire talented beginners.
My own opinion is that the most important unknown in the Drake Equation will turn out to be "fi" - the fraction of life-bearing planets on which intelligent life develops. I say this, because, on this planet, it took several billion years for that to occur - and it seems safe to say that it appears to have been a product of sheer random chance.
Yes, developing intelligent life needs enough randomness; but random changes that give surviving advantage are almost always kept by evolution, so it inevitably leads to intelligent life given enough time (it's one of the best ways to achieve survival).
I'm not at all convinced that evolution "inevitably" leads to intelligent life (and, more importantly, civilization-building intelligent life.) Randomness is... well... random, by definition. That, in turn, means language + tool-building capability can't be inevitable, because, unlike, say, rolling dice, with evolution, we're not talking about a limited set of outcomes. Instead, what happens is random mutation that may or may not have sufficient survival value that, under a given set of environmental conditions, a particular mutation gets disseminated sufficiently broadly to achieve at least localized dominance. And a relatively localized environmental phenomenon can end that process fairly easily. (Think volcanic eruption, epidemic, the appearance of a new predator, or the "one blue monkey" syndrome, for some instances, occurring soon enough after the mutation in question arises that the population it affects is small enough and geographically constrained enough to be completely wiped out.) It almost happened to humanity about 35,000 years ago, so it's not at all an unthinkable outcome.
And, remember, humanity's version of language + tool-building traits took several iterations and a number of mutations (upright posture to free the forelimbs to develop opposable thumbs, opposable thumbs themselves, plus a big brain with a highly developed frontal cortex to actually use those thumbs for tool building) to evolve an animal capable of developing civilization.
So, no, I don't regard intelligence as in any way an "inevitable" outcome of evolution.
Looked like one giant title to me, did they even say his name?
They did. It's "Rapporteur Jopling". He's a general. And a lord. And, apparently, a major tool.
Any other brief questions? Or questions about some other text editor?
Upon further research, I was mistaken about "Rapporteur". It, too, apparently is some kind of gay NATO title. And it's held by Michael Jopling, a Conservative member of the House of Lords.
Still, a major tool - oh, but I already said he was a Conservative member of the House of Lords, so I'm simply repeating myself here...
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
So, with fl,fi,fc and L (4 of 7) being completely unknowable, the result N is something more than parlor talk? No.
My own opinion is that the most important unknown in the Drake Equation will turn out to be "fi" - the fraction of life-bearing planets on which intelligent life develops. I say this, because, on this planet, it took several billion years for that to occur - and it seems safe to say that it appears to have been a product of sheer random chance.
I suspect we will discover the approximate value of "fl" sometime in the next four or five decades (note I said "approximate value"), by employing space-based telescopes whose resolution will steadily improve, generation by generation, to the point that Hubble will eventually look like a toy by comparison.
I also suspect that "fc" will turn out to be something close to 100%, and L to be somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 alien-civilization-year-equivalents (but only because the equation fails to distinguish between intelligent species and civilizations - which, IMnsHO, ain't the same animal at all).
But the biggie is definitely "fi". And, because it seems fairly safe to say that the development of civilization-capable intelligence is likely to be just as random an event elsewhere as it was here, I strongly suspect it will turn out to be a very low value, indeed.
I'm all for parlor talk and will ponder extraterrestrial life with anyone. My personal opinion is there is other intelligent life, it's just really friggin' far away.
If I'm right about the value of "fi", you're liable to be right, too. And I suspect you are.
I don't think her music can stand on its own, but I enjoyed her performances on SNL as visual spectacle.
Speaking as a singer/songwriter/musician, I have to disagree. Gaga's material is not really my cup of coffee, but she certainly can write compelling songs. She sings very well, too - her voice is powerful, well-trained, and has decent range. And she can play a variety of instruments quite capably. (Before she became a pop star, she made her living as a session pianist in the demanding and very competitive world of NYC recording studios. You don't get those jobs because of hype - you have to be very, very good on your instrument.)
As I say, dance pop is really not my thing. At all. But, out of curiosity, I watched her "Monster Ball" HBO special. Relentless pandering to her audience and her obvious self-esteem issues aside, under all the glitz and spectacle, I was pleasantly surprised at her songwriting and performance chops. In particular, her new single, "Born This Way", with which she closed the show, is a genuine pop anthem - and, behind the closing credits, her a capella reprise of its chorus was even more powerful than the kitchen-sink production number that preceded it.
As for the "visual spectacle" aspect of her show, her (occasionally tiresome) speeches to the audience made it quite clear that she cultivates a fan base of people who consider themselves social outcasts - and gays, in particular. Since outrageous flamboyance is pretty much the sine qua non of gay pop culture, hers makes perfect sense, when seen in that context.
Anyway, I don't plan to buy her albums, but I have gained considerable respect for her as a writer, singer, and musician.
I don't have a rooted device, but I'm not going to access the Movie Market anyway (let me guess it's not available where I live; I haven't bothered to find out).
I see a movie about two or three times a year. When I do, we go to a movie house - big screen, plush seats, expectant crowd - and make an evening of it. Movie, then dinner somewhere, perhaps a beer or two someplace. Part of a full nights entertainment.
I see a movie about 4-5 times a week... and I _never_ go to a "movie house" to watch them. Instead, I do so in my living room, on my modest, big-screen TV with the sound running through my stereo.
See, even if I could afford to go to a "movie house", I wouldn't do so, because, at least here in the U.S., people seem to have entirely lost the social skills necessary to allow me to actually _enjoy_ watching a movie with a crowd of strangers. Somehow, it has become acceptable for selfish idiots to yammer to their seatmates all the way through a movie, shout advice to the characters on the screen, and receive and _make_ cell phone calls from their seats - and the theater management does _nothing_ to stop this oafish behavior. As a result, what once was a genuine pleasure has been completely ruined for me, because my fellow customers' selfishness very effectively prevents me from enjoying the immersion that used to be the key attraction of going out to the movies.
Fuck that noise. Theater owners have enough muscle to force directors to cut their movies' running times to under two hours, but somehow they lack the nuts to eject disruptive customers? I call bullshit on that, and I protest that hypocrisy by NEVER going to see a movie in a theater. Does that mean I miss seeing first-run movies? Well, yeah... but that's a trade off I'm willing to make. After all, there are lots and lots and LOTS of non-first-run movies I have yet to watch - and plenty of classics I'm delighted to watch again.
So, "Watching a movie - made for big-screen immersion - in a crowd, in a theater, with yammering idiots distracting me all around - no thank, I'd rather watch it on a small(er) screen, with my wife.
On April 27, I posted this comment on another story about an entirely different topic. Eventually, it got modded to +3 Insightful. Then, this morning, I discovered it had been modded all the way down to -1 Overrated.
There's only one reason why a single moderator would spend that many mod points on down-modding a single post: to put it below the browsing threshold of virtually all/. readers. The question is, "Why?" And I suspect the only credible answer to that question is, "Because he is so consumed by dedication either to communism or to libertarianism (the two political philosophies whose fundamental assumptions I criticized in the post), that he feels compelled to suppress any criticism of it for which he is unable to muster an argument in response.
Now, because communists are so thin on the ground around here, I have my strong suspicions which philosophy my censor espouses - but it doesn't matter either way, because, in either case, this is clearly a case of someone systematically attempting to suppress dissenting speech. The act of suppression itself is one of craven philosophical cowardice, and it does nothing whatsoever to enhance the credibility of the political philosophy it purports to defend. To the contrary, it merely establishes that the moderator, at least, can muster no useful counter-argument. Instead, he substitutes moderation abuse for intelligent discourse.
In the interest of fairness, I urge you to read my comment. Whether or not the down-mod is undone, it deserves at least that much consideration.
It is not YOUR computer. YOU should not, under any circumstances, upgrade it.
Cogent and on point.
People managed to do "real" work just fine a couple years ago when that computer was mainstream.
Fail.
People managed to do "real" work just fine, a couple of years ago, before Microsoft released Windows XP Service Pack 3. THEN, a half-gig of RAM was enough to let you run Firefox (or any other reasonably-resource-intensive application) at reasonable speed. NOW, it's not, because SP3 increased Windows XP's minimum RAM requirement to the point that not only Firefox, but EVERY reasonably-resource-intensive application ends up RAM-starved, and, as a consequence, the system constantly has to swap to "virtual RAM". In fact, I'd be surprised if switching to Opera makes any noticeable difference in performance, because SP3 is such an enormous, snorking, resource hog.
The OP needs a RAM upgrade - or a new computer. If he can build a convincing business case for it, he should do so. If not, I'd recommend he "accidentally" spill a cup of coffee into his computer's power supply - or inadvertently drop it down a stairwell.
Seriously, I invite you to learn what communism is supposed to be. If you spend even a little time learning about that and about human behavior, especially from a sociological perspective, you will see pretty clearly that communism is a huge lie that can never happen because people are involved.
The same can be said for Libertarianism. Both belief systems are based on fundamental misunderstandings of human nature: communism is founded on the notion that workers are somehow less corrupt and greedy than the rich and the despised middle class, libertarianism on the concept that humans will somehow behave at all times, in regards to all decisions, in a thoroughly rational manner, based strictly on their own self-interest, particularly where money is concerned. Both
are utterly laughable ideas. The first would qualify as charmingly naive, were it not for the millions persecuted, imprisoned, and killed by so-called "communist" regimes that were, at best, merely industrial-grade authoritarianism dressed up in socialist clown suits. (Since there never has been - and never will be - a Libertarian paradise on Earth, the Libertarian delusion actually does qualify for the "charmingly naive" sobriquet.)
Greed and selfishness are permanent features of human nature. Any political theory that denies that fact is predestined to fail. Likewise, humans are stubbornly irrational critters, prone to making decisions for silly, provably-wrong, and/or strictly emotional reasons that wind up being completely contrary to their personal self-interest. And any political theory that studiously turns its pretty head away from THAT fact is, likewise, doomed from the git-go to fail hilariously.
The fact that there is need for an evacuation zone at all should wake dear old Pournelle up to the problem, but he is too drunk and set in his ways.
FTFY
Seriously, I once saw Pournelle physically threaten an audience member at an SF convention panel on Reagan's "Star Wars" pipe dream, because the guy dared to question the technical viability of the proposal, all the while weaving and slurring his words, obviously drunk on his ass.
Pournelle is and has always been a fascist asshole - and a stone alky, to boot.
Do we really need to bring buzzwords like the cloud into this?
Why, sure we do! Don't you realize TFA and TFS are Slashvertisements for Ipswitch, Inc., a vendor of overpriced, closed-source FTP servers and clients? And that invoking "the cloud" is pure market-speak, designed to "cloud" the fact that there are much-less-broken implementations of both available for free? As in "grain-derived potent potables"?
I've seen the type all over the world, amusing that we USAers don't think of all the many, many types of police we have as power tripping corrupt thieving bullying scum, but of course that's all they are.
THIS is modded "insightful"? Those of you who modded it up should be ashamed of yourselves. -1 Troll would be more appropriate.
Yes, there is a personality type that is attracted to police work because it offers the opportunity to bully and abuse civilians and get away with it by hiding behind a badge. And, yes, there far too many cops in the world with that personality disorder.
But "ALL" cops?
No. Absolutely not. Even in municipalities that tolerate or even encourage "cowboy" behavior on the part of police (Las Vegas, anyone?), there are plenty of cops who take "to protect and serve" seriously - and who regularly try to walk their bully-boy compatriots back from abusive and threatening behavior towards members of the public. I've seen and interacted with far too many specimens of both types over the years to allow such a blanket indictment to go unchallenged. Those who genuinely think of themselves as public servants - and who behave by default with courtesy, consideration, and respect toward the general public - absolutely do NOT deserve to be mischaracterized that way. There ARE good cops in the world - more of them than you might think - and this kind of scurrilous, blanket attack on the integrity of all police not only does them a signal disservice, but the mind set it represents acts as a discouraging psychological barrier to potential "good cops" joining the force - and helps to make the "all cops are thugs" dictum a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Read what this popular blogger has repeatedly pointed out about Paul Thurott's talents and track record.
What a tool.
What I read (the top result in the Goggle search string you provided) was nothing more than an extended ad hominem rant against Thurott by an unabashed Apple fanboy. It's entirely opinion-based, utterly biased, and highly inflammatory - and includes absolutely NOTHING in the way of actual evidence that Thurott is anything other than a Microsoft fanboy.
So, in sum, "Boo for the other team's cheerleaders."
Mind you, I am in no way, shape, or form defending or promoting Thurott here. Instead, I am merely and exclusively commenting on the "popular blogger" whose critcisms you seem to think are so compelling. They're not. His observations are opaquely colored with his own bias, and COMPLETELY unobjective.
"The problem with pissing contests is that everybody gets wet, and everybody smells bad afterward."
And the U.S. Constitution forbids states to go bankrupt
Which Article of the Constitution forbids States to go bankrupt? Just did a quick skim, and didn't see anything that stood out.
Article 1, Section 8, reserves to Congress the exclusive power to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States". Congress has, at various times, enacted national bankruptcy laws (which is why there are no state bankruptcy courts - only a Federal judge can hear bankruptcy cases), the latest of which, superceding the Nelson Act of 1898, is the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, codified as Title 11 of the U.S. Code. Title 11(101)(27) specifically defines states as "governmental entities". Title 11(101)(41) excludes government entities from being considered as "persons" for purposes of bankruptcy law. Title 11(109)(a) restricts the definition of a "debtor" exclusively to mean a person or municipality (and 11(109) then goes on to list a number of corporate "persons" - such as railroad corporations - who also are excluded from bankruptcy protection), which means that states - among other "governmental entities" - are not permitted to petition for bankruptcy.
At least, that's how I read it.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer - although I'm available to play one on TV, if anyone's interested.
The public doesn't want to pay taxes to fund 6-figure public sector salaries and pensions, and the people making that pay decide to cut libraries and schools instead of their own pay
That maybe true, but the public is grossly misinformed if they think there are many public sector workers making those kinds of salaries. The average salary of a local public library librarian was $47,940 in 2008, for example.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos068.htm
Lgw's point that "the people making that pay" (i.e. - 6-figure salaries) in California are the ones making decisions to cut libraries is only somewhat correct. Those decisions about library funding are typically made at the City Council and County Supervisor level. In a handful of big cities, councilors can make 6 figures, but the vast majority of City Council members make far less than that. Members of the Board of Supervisors of populous counties do make 6 figures, but there are counties (Mariposa, where I used to live, springs to mind) where the position of Supervisor is a part-time one, and it pays quite modestly.
Employee salaries and benefits only make up about 10% of the state budget ($7B salaries + $3.4B benefits) (p.177). This can hardly be blamed for the budget woes of California. Much more serious are Prop 13 and 2/3 majority needed for the state senate to pass any tax increases.
And even Prop 13 and the supermajority required under California's constitution aren't the worst contributors to the state's current financial quagmire. The worst and most intractable malefactor is California's staggering bonded indebtedness. Decade after decade, California voters have endorsed one multi-billion-dollar bond issue after another, all payable from general tax receipts. When times were good, the state could more-or-less easily afford these obligations. However, when the economy nosedived, that debt remained - and the vast majority of bond issues are payable over the course of decades, so those payments won't be going away any time soon. And the U.S. Constitution forbids states to go bankrupt, so the money to pay those bond obligations - as well as to pay all the other core costs of running the state HAS to come from somewhere. Public employee pension funds are just a convenient piggy bank for lawmakers to raid for the money. Politics being politics, however, it's necessary for those who are eyeing the pension funds to demonize those whose property they are (i.e. - the public sector employees) in order to build support for raiding their pensions and stiffing them on their retirement income.
Thus Wisconsin, and the infinitely regrettable Scott Walker - and the same war drums are now beating in California: the real enemies of the citizenry are the arrogant, greedy bastards who teach our children, sweep our streets, patrol our neighborhoods, and fight our fires. Them and their high-falutin' middle-class lifestyles...
Slashdot Mirror
I sent my senator a short message detailing many of these concerns about the PROTECT-IP bill. You might be interested in her response.... WARNING: Don't read any further if you still have hope that senators can understand and address technology issues....
First of all, let me extend to you my deepest sympathies on your unfortunate status as a Texan. We're all hoping for your speedy recovery from this tragedy.
Secondly: "Kay Bailey Hutchison" is all you need to read to know that your carefully-phrased attempt at intelligent communication with your elected Senator was a thoroughgoing waste of time and effort. Texas Republican, former governor, and "honest politician" (i.e. - she stays bought).
Of course, it could have been worse ... you could have tried to reason with Michele Bachmann, instead.
God DAMN Crapdot 2.5 ... or whatever the fuck you assholes are calling this latest piece of shit. Now I can't even submit a story (Las Vegas Web site VegasInc reports that on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Hunt fined copyright troll Righthaven $5,000 for failure to disclose Stephens Media, Inc.'s financial interest in Righthaven's suits against Web sites it accuses of plaigarizing Las Vegas Review-Journal's copyrighted content. Hunt also ordered Righthaven to disclose the full text of its original contract with Stephens Media to prosecute alleged infringers on Stephens' behalf. Hunt's orders are in response to Righthaven's suit against Web site Democratic Underground, a case the judge dismissed on June 14th on grounds that Righthaven lacked "standing" to sue for violations of copyright that Righthaven itself didn't own. In fining righthaven, Hunt also commented, “In the court’s view, the arrangement between Righthaven and Stephens Media is nothing more, nor less, than a law firm — which incidentally I don’t think is licensed to practice law in this state — with a contingent fee agreement masquerading as a company,” which could be an indicator of still larger legal problems for the copyright troll down the road.), because your Javurscript is so fucking broken that the "submit story" button on the popup window is now hidden below the browser window AND THERE'S NO WAY TO REPOSITION THE POPUP WINDOW.
I give the fuck up. Screw you pinheads.
Most engineers know next to nothing about marketing and sales... to the degree that they actually despise interacting with customers. You can have the best product in the world, but if no one knows about it, your business will fail.
Which is true and important and entirely beside the point. MBAs aren't about marketing. They hire people for that. MBAs are all about managing, not marketing. MBAs are the guys who export American manufacturing jobs to the Third World, the guys who cook the books to pump up their employer's apparent profitability enough to raise the stock price again this quarter, the guys who, with apologies to Oscar Wilde, "know the price of everything and the value of nothing." They're the guys who have spent the last 30 years or so systematically dismantling America's industrial base while simultaneously enriching themselves. They nearly destroyed the world's economy three years ago, and yet, mysteriously enough, they're still in charge of basically everything today.
They are the people to whom Santayana was referring, when he warned about repeating the past's mistakes. They are our leaders.
May Chthulu have mercy on our souls.
According to the official guidelines, there are 14 categories of journalism Pulitzer. Leaving aside the ones that cant be made to apply to the Onion's ouvre (a distinguished example of investigative reporting, for instance), there are only four potential categories in which it could compete:
Category 1 - a distinguished example of public service by a newspaper or news site,
Category 9 - commentary, or
Category 11 - editorial writing, the test of excellence being clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion in what the writer conceives to be the right direction.
The guidelines state that anyone - that includes you, gentle reader - may submit an entry for consideration. You don't have to be The Onion or even have The Onion's permission to submit it for a Pulitzer. All you have to do put together a submission package that conforms to the Pulitzer guidelines (pdf), and pay the $50 entry fee.
I suspect that a flood of thousands of third-party entries on behalf of The Onion would be certain to garner sufficient attention on the part of the Pulitzer Board to guarantee it would, at a minimum, take into consideration awarding a special Pulitzer to The Onion, if not next year (It's too late to enter the Onion for consideration for this year), then in s subsequent year sometime in the not-too-distant future. And I'm certain that would be the case, if the flood of third-party applications recurs in 2013 and 2014.
FWIW, Next year's deadline is February 11, 2012, and the window for submission opens January 1, 2012, for work originally published during 2011.
So, to summarize, if you think The Onion deserves a Pulitzer, it's within your power, both as an individual, and especially as a community, to lobby very effectively for that to happen. All that's required is that you, as an individual, spend a little time, effort, and money crafting an entry submission on behalf of The Onion, and then send that sucker in on January 4, 2012 (because New Year's Day falls on a Friday next year, so you're likely to be too busy taking advantage of the long weekend to want to hit the Post Office or UPS store on the 2nd). And, if enough of you, as a community, spend that time, effort, and money, you just might make it so.
I'm sure there's an objective, non-sensationalist, just-the-facts reporter working somewhere, but to pretend that the internet is the reason these jobs are going away is silly. They're going away because the local reporting is, in the main, just as vacuous as national reporting and probably less well-edited.
The fact is that small-town newspapers are doing pretty well, compared to the big boys - but it's not because they're paragons of journalistic virtue. In fact, by and large, they stink at journalism. What keeps them afloat is local ad revenue - advertising mom-and-pop businesses and coupon specials for grocery chains and the like.
Meanwhile, the reasons their reportage sucks wind and blows air are:
In other news: none of the above is news.
My own opinion is that the most important unknown in the Drake Equation will turn out to be "fi" - the fraction of life-bearing planets on which intelligent life develops. I say this, because, on this planet, it took several billion years for that to occur - and it seems safe to say that it appears to have been a product of sheer random chance.
Yes, developing intelligent life needs enough randomness; but random changes that give surviving advantage are almost always kept by evolution, so it inevitably leads to intelligent life given enough time (it's one of the best ways to achieve survival).
I'm not at all convinced that evolution "inevitably" leads to intelligent life (and, more importantly, civilization-building intelligent life.) Randomness is ... well ... random, by definition. That, in turn, means language + tool-building capability can't be inevitable, because, unlike, say, rolling dice, with evolution, we're not talking about a limited set of outcomes. Instead, what happens is random mutation that may or may not have sufficient survival value that, under a given set of environmental conditions, a particular mutation gets disseminated sufficiently broadly to achieve at least localized dominance. And a relatively localized environmental phenomenon can end that process fairly easily. (Think volcanic eruption, epidemic, the appearance of a new predator, or the "one blue monkey" syndrome, for some instances, occurring soon enough after the mutation in question arises that the population it affects is small enough and geographically constrained enough to be completely wiped out.) It almost happened to humanity about 35,000 years ago, so it's not at all an unthinkable outcome.
And, remember, humanity's version of language + tool-building traits took several iterations and a number of mutations (upright posture to free the forelimbs to develop opposable thumbs, opposable thumbs themselves, plus a big brain with a highly developed frontal cortex to actually use those thumbs for tool building) to evolve an animal capable of developing civilization.
So, no, I don't regard intelligence as in any way an "inevitable" outcome of evolution.
Looked like one giant title to me, did they even say his name?
They did. It's "Rapporteur Jopling". He's a general. And a lord. And, apparently, a major tool.
Any other brief questions? Or questions about some other text editor?
Upon further research, I was mistaken about "Rapporteur". It, too, apparently is some kind of gay NATO title. And it's held by Michael Jopling, a Conservative member of the House of Lords.
Still, a major tool - oh, but I already said he was a Conservative member of the House of Lords, so I'm simply repeating myself here ...
Looked like one giant title to me, did they even say his name?
They did. It's "Rapporteur Jopling". He's a general. And a lord. And, apparently, a major tool.
Any other brief questions? Or questions about some other text editor?
The Drake equation:
So, with fl,fi,fc and L (4 of 7) being completely unknowable, the result N is something more than parlor talk? No.
My own opinion is that the most important unknown in the Drake Equation will turn out to be "fi" - the fraction of life-bearing planets on which intelligent life develops. I say this, because, on this planet, it took several billion years for that to occur - and it seems safe to say that it appears to have been a product of sheer random chance.
I suspect we will discover the approximate value of "fl" sometime in the next four or five decades (note I said "approximate value"), by employing space-based telescopes whose resolution will steadily improve, generation by generation, to the point that Hubble will eventually look like a toy by comparison.
I also suspect that "fc" will turn out to be something close to 100%, and L to be somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 alien-civilization-year-equivalents (but only because the equation fails to distinguish between intelligent species and civilizations - which, IMnsHO, ain't the same animal at all).
But the biggie is definitely "fi". And, because it seems fairly safe to say that the development of civilization-capable intelligence is likely to be just as random an event elsewhere as it was here, I strongly suspect it will turn out to be a very low value, indeed.
I'm all for parlor talk and will ponder extraterrestrial life with anyone. My personal opinion is there is other intelligent life, it's just really friggin' far away.
If I'm right about the value of "fi", you're liable to be right, too. And I suspect you are.
I don't think her music can stand on its own, but I enjoyed her performances on SNL as visual spectacle.
Speaking as a singer/songwriter/musician, I have to disagree. Gaga's material is not really my cup of coffee, but she certainly can write compelling songs. She sings very well, too - her voice is powerful, well-trained, and has decent range. And she can play a variety of instruments quite capably. (Before she became a pop star, she made her living as a session pianist in the demanding and very competitive world of NYC recording studios. You don't get those jobs because of hype - you have to be very, very good on your instrument.)
As I say, dance pop is really not my thing. At all. But, out of curiosity, I watched her "Monster Ball" HBO special. Relentless pandering to her audience and her obvious self-esteem issues aside, under all the glitz and spectacle, I was pleasantly surprised at her songwriting and performance chops. In particular, her new single, "Born This Way", with which she closed the show, is a genuine pop anthem - and, behind the closing credits, her a capella reprise of its chorus was even more powerful than the kitchen-sink production number that preceded it.
As for the "visual spectacle" aspect of her show, her (occasionally tiresome) speeches to the audience made it quite clear that she cultivates a fan base of people who consider themselves social outcasts - and gays, in particular. Since outrageous flamboyance is pretty much the sine qua non of gay pop culture, hers makes perfect sense, when seen in that context.
Anyway, I don't plan to buy her albums, but I have gained considerable respect for her as a writer, singer, and musician.
I don't have a rooted device, but I'm not going to access the Movie Market anyway (let me guess it's not available where I live; I haven't bothered to find out).
I see a movie about two or three times a year. When I do, we go to a movie house - big screen, plush seats, expectant crowd - and make an evening of it. Movie, then dinner somewhere, perhaps a beer or two someplace. Part of a full nights entertainment.
I see a movie about 4-5 times a week ... and I _never_ go to a "movie house" to watch them. Instead, I do so in my living room, on my modest, big-screen TV with the sound running through my stereo.
See, even if I could afford to go to a "movie house", I wouldn't do so, because, at least here in the U.S., people seem to have entirely lost the social skills necessary to allow me to actually _enjoy_ watching a movie with a crowd of strangers. Somehow, it has become acceptable for selfish idiots to yammer to their seatmates all the way through a movie, shout advice to the characters on the screen, and receive and _make_ cell phone calls from their seats - and the theater management does _nothing_ to stop this oafish behavior. As a result, what once was a genuine pleasure has been completely ruined for me, because my fellow customers' selfishness very effectively prevents me from enjoying the immersion that used to be the key attraction of going out to the movies.
Fuck that noise. Theater owners have enough muscle to force directors to cut their movies' running times to under two hours, but somehow they lack the nuts to eject disruptive customers? I call bullshit on that, and I protest that hypocrisy by NEVER going to see a movie in a theater. Does that mean I miss seeing first-run movies? Well, yeah ... but that's a trade off I'm willing to make. After all, there are lots and lots and LOTS of non-first-run movies I have yet to watch - and plenty of classics I'm delighted to watch again.
So, "Watching a movie - made for big-screen immersion - in a crowd, in a theater, with yammering idiots distracting me all around - no thank, I'd rather watch it on a small(er) screen, with my wife.
FTFY
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death my right to point at you and laugh." -- Some Guy
Someone with mod points mod this fucking AC up!
I have one mod point available - but I NEVER award mod points to Anonymous Cowards. Ever.
There's only one reason why a single moderator would spend that many mod points on down-modding a single post
No single moderator did, since no single moderator possibly could. It takes at minimum four moderators to move a post from +3 to -1.
Your naivete is charming.
Single users with multiple accounts? On /.? Inconceivable!
On April 27, I posted this comment on another story about an entirely different topic. Eventually, it got modded to +3 Insightful. Then, this morning, I discovered it had been modded all the way down to -1 Overrated.
There's only one reason why a single moderator would spend that many mod points on down-modding a single post: to put it below the browsing threshold of virtually all /. readers. The question is, "Why?" And I suspect the only credible answer to that question is, "Because he is so consumed by dedication either to communism or to libertarianism (the two political philosophies whose fundamental assumptions I criticized in the post), that he feels compelled to suppress any criticism of it for which he is unable to muster an argument in response.
Now, because communists are so thin on the ground around here, I have my strong suspicions which philosophy my censor espouses - but it doesn't matter either way, because, in either case, this is clearly a case of someone systematically attempting to suppress dissenting speech. The act of suppression itself is one of craven philosophical cowardice, and it does nothing whatsoever to enhance the credibility of the political philosophy it purports to defend. To the contrary, it merely establishes that the moderator, at least, can muster no useful counter-argument. Instead, he substitutes moderation abuse for intelligent discourse.
In the interest of fairness, I urge you to read my comment. Whether or not the down-mod is undone, it deserves at least that much consideration.
Most skeptics reject everything outright.
I'm inclined to dismiss that statement out of hand ...
To the OP:
It is not YOUR computer. YOU should not, under any circumstances, upgrade it.
Cogent and on point.
People managed to do "real" work just fine a couple years ago when that computer was mainstream.
Fail.
People managed to do "real" work just fine, a couple of years ago, before Microsoft released Windows XP Service Pack 3. THEN, a half-gig of RAM was enough to let you run Firefox (or any other reasonably-resource-intensive application) at reasonable speed. NOW, it's not, because SP3 increased Windows XP's minimum RAM requirement to the point that not only Firefox, but EVERY reasonably-resource-intensive application ends up RAM-starved, and, as a consequence, the system constantly has to swap to "virtual RAM". In fact, I'd be surprised if switching to Opera makes any noticeable difference in performance, because SP3 is such an enormous, snorking, resource hog.
The OP needs a RAM upgrade - or a new computer. If he can build a convincing business case for it, he should do so. If not, I'd recommend he "accidentally" spill a cup of coffee into his computer's power supply - or inadvertently drop it down a stairwell.
Seriously, I invite you to learn what communism is supposed to be. If you spend even a little time learning about that and about human behavior, especially from a sociological perspective, you will see pretty clearly that communism is a huge lie that can never happen because people are involved.
The same can be said for Libertarianism. Both belief systems are based on fundamental misunderstandings of human nature: communism is founded on the notion that workers are somehow less corrupt and greedy than the rich and the despised middle class, libertarianism on the concept that humans will somehow behave at all times, in regards to all decisions, in a thoroughly rational manner, based strictly on their own self-interest, particularly where money is concerned. Both are utterly laughable ideas. The first would qualify as charmingly naive, were it not for the millions persecuted, imprisoned, and killed by so-called "communist" regimes that were, at best, merely industrial-grade authoritarianism dressed up in socialist clown suits. (Since there never has been - and never will be - a Libertarian paradise on Earth, the Libertarian delusion actually does qualify for the "charmingly naive" sobriquet.)
Greed and selfishness are permanent features of human nature. Any political theory that denies that fact is predestined to fail. Likewise, humans are stubbornly irrational critters, prone to making decisions for silly, provably-wrong, and/or strictly emotional reasons that wind up being completely contrary to their personal self-interest. And any political theory that studiously turns its pretty head away from THAT fact is, likewise, doomed from the git-go to fail hilariously.
The fact that there is need for an evacuation zone at all should wake dear old Pournelle up to the problem, but he is too drunk and set in his ways.
FTFY
Seriously, I once saw Pournelle physically threaten an audience member at an SF convention panel on Reagan's "Star Wars" pipe dream, because the guy dared to question the technical viability of the proposal, all the while weaving and slurring his words, obviously drunk on his ass.
Pournelle is and has always been a fascist asshole - and a stone alky, to boot.
Doubtless there are good cops and even good teachers for that matter, but they are few and far between.
And your source for this assertion is what?
Oh. Fresh and steaming, I see.
Do we really need to bring buzzwords like the cloud into this?
Why, sure we do! Don't you realize TFA and TFS are Slashvertisements for Ipswitch, Inc., a vendor of overpriced, closed-source FTP servers and clients? And that invoking "the cloud" is pure market-speak, designed to "cloud" the fact that there are much-less-broken implementations of both available for free? As in "grain-derived potent potables"?
I've seen the type all over the world, amusing that we USAers don't think of all the many, many types of police we have as power tripping corrupt thieving bullying scum, but of course that's all they are.
THIS is modded "insightful"? Those of you who modded it up should be ashamed of yourselves. -1 Troll would be more appropriate.
Yes, there is a personality type that is attracted to police work because it offers the opportunity to bully and abuse civilians and get away with it by hiding behind a badge. And, yes, there far too many cops in the world with that personality disorder.
But "ALL" cops?
No. Absolutely not. Even in municipalities that tolerate or even encourage "cowboy" behavior on the part of police (Las Vegas, anyone?), there are plenty of cops who take "to protect and serve" seriously - and who regularly try to walk their bully-boy compatriots back from abusive and threatening behavior towards members of the public. I've seen and interacted with far too many specimens of both types over the years to allow such a blanket indictment to go unchallenged. Those who genuinely think of themselves as public servants - and who behave by default with courtesy, consideration, and respect toward the general public - absolutely do NOT deserve to be mischaracterized that way. There ARE good cops in the world - more of them than you might think - and this kind of scurrilous, blanket attack on the integrity of all police not only does them a signal disservice, but the mind set it represents acts as a discouraging psychological barrier to potential "good cops" joining the force - and helps to make the "all cops are thugs" dictum a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Grow the fuck up, okay?
Read what this popular blogger has repeatedly pointed out about Paul Thurott's talents and track record.
What a tool.
What I read (the top result in the Goggle search string you provided) was nothing more than an extended ad hominem rant against Thurott by an unabashed Apple fanboy. It's entirely opinion-based, utterly biased, and highly inflammatory - and includes absolutely NOTHING in the way of actual evidence that Thurott is anything other than a Microsoft fanboy.
So, in sum, "Boo for the other team's cheerleaders."
Mind you, I am in no way, shape, or form defending or promoting Thurott here. Instead, I am merely and exclusively commenting on the "popular blogger" whose critcisms you seem to think are so compelling. They're not. His observations are opaquely colored with his own bias, and COMPLETELY unobjective.
"The problem with pissing contests is that everybody gets wet, and everybody smells bad afterward."
Which Article of the Constitution forbids States to go bankrupt? Just did a quick skim, and didn't see anything that stood out.
Article 1, Section 8, reserves to Congress the exclusive power to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States". Congress has, at various times, enacted national bankruptcy laws (which is why there are no state bankruptcy courts - only a Federal judge can hear bankruptcy cases), the latest of which, superceding the Nelson Act of 1898, is the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, codified as Title 11 of the U.S. Code. Title 11(101)(27) specifically defines states as "governmental entities". Title 11(101)(41) excludes government entities from being considered as "persons" for purposes of bankruptcy law. Title 11(109)(a) restricts the definition of a "debtor" exclusively to mean a person or municipality (and 11(109) then goes on to list a number of corporate "persons" - such as railroad corporations - who also are excluded from bankruptcy protection), which means that states - among other "governmental entities" - are not permitted to petition for bankruptcy.
At least, that's how I read it.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer - although I'm available to play one on TV, if anyone's interested.
The public doesn't want to pay taxes to fund 6-figure public sector salaries and pensions, and the people making that pay decide to cut libraries and schools instead of their own pay
That maybe true, but the public is grossly misinformed if they think there are many public sector workers making those kinds of salaries. The average salary of a local public library librarian was $47,940 in 2008, for example. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos068.htm
Lgw's point that "the people making that pay" (i.e. - 6-figure salaries) in California are the ones making decisions to cut libraries is only somewhat correct. Those decisions about library funding are typically made at the City Council and County Supervisor level. In a handful of big cities, councilors can make 6 figures, but the vast majority of City Council members make far less than that. Members of the Board of Supervisors of populous counties do make 6 figures, but there are counties (Mariposa, where I used to live, springs to mind) where the position of Supervisor is a part-time one, and it pays quite modestly.
Employee salaries and benefits only make up about 10% of the state budget ($7B salaries + $3.4B benefits) (p.177). This can hardly be blamed for the budget woes of California. Much more serious are Prop 13 and 2/3 majority needed for the state senate to pass any tax increases.
And even Prop 13 and the supermajority required under California's constitution aren't the worst contributors to the state's current financial quagmire. The worst and most intractable malefactor is California's staggering bonded indebtedness. Decade after decade, California voters have endorsed one multi-billion-dollar bond issue after another, all payable from general tax receipts. When times were good, the state could more-or-less easily afford these obligations. However, when the economy nosedived, that debt remained - and the vast majority of bond issues are payable over the course of decades, so those payments won't be going away any time soon. And the U.S. Constitution forbids states to go bankrupt, so the money to pay those bond obligations - as well as to pay all the other core costs of running the state HAS to come from somewhere. Public employee pension funds are just a convenient piggy bank for lawmakers to raid for the money. Politics being politics, however, it's necessary for those who are eyeing the pension funds to demonize those whose property they are (i.e. - the public sector employees) in order to build support for raiding their pensions and stiffing them on their retirement income.
Thus Wisconsin, and the infinitely regrettable Scott Walker - and the same war drums are now beating in California: the real enemies of the citizenry are the arrogant, greedy bastards who teach our children, sweep our streets, patrol our neighborhoods, and fight our fires. Them and their high-falutin' middle-class lifestyles ...