Recreate the following and population behind the site? Not likely.
Two billion dollars is a lot of money. How about this:
$1,000,000 to recreate the facebook code
$1,000,000 for servers, power, office space, and donuts in the break room $1,000,000,000 for advertising, kickbacks to colleges, and outright bribes for customers
Go visit your local eco village. Start talking about technology, start talking about genetic manipulation, start talking about virtual reality, start talking about pervasive computing, and start talking about the technological singularity. See how far you can get, before people start getting worried or strained looks on their faces. Report back on your experiment here.
I don't know what kind of environmentalists you hang out with, but as a born and bred son of Oregon hippies, I think you are full of shit. Most environmentalists are far more educated and open minded and pro-technology than you give them credit for. However, where I think you get confused is believeing that pro-coal burning power plant is somehow the equivalent to being pro-technology. I think most environmentalists are, almost by definition, liberal, progressive, pro-progress, pro-equality, and striving towards both inner and external perfection. They are pro-technology because when they look around they say, "there must be a way to do this better." For most environmentalist, this is an inherintly pro-technology stance.
I have a new experiement to try.
Go visit your local Baptist (or any religion, really) church or even a professional football stadium. Start talking about technology, genetic manipulation, virtual reality, prevasive computing, nanotechnology. See how far you can get. Compare your results to your previous results in the "eco village" and see which group is more open to your ideas. I belive that the environmentalists, where they do disagree with you vision, are more likely to be able to express an alternative vision and be able to intelligently debate. Who knows, you might even learn something.
Do the math, and I think you've find that most of the available land suitable for farming and food production is... surprise! Being farmed.
In reality it's far, far worse than that. The best farmland is also, generally, the best living land. Two areas I'm familar with -- rural Maryland and the Willamette Valley in Oregon -- were once among the most fertile areas ever seen. Unfortunately, they are also great places to live so every year thousands of acres of prime farmland becomes yards and parking lots and roads. From an economics standpoint this is a perfectly rational allocation of resources -- houses and businesses are more valuable than farmland -- but it doesn't bode well for the long term sustainability of our economy.
No disagreement. I would collude with my competitors if I could get away with it as well. But, after reading seven pages of "De Beers was incredibly successful at manipulating the market but now, maybe, their nefarious reign of terror is over..." it was humorous to realize that 24 years later they are still going strong and we're all still buying into it.
Diamonds, like Beanie Babies, are only really valuable because marketing has convinced us that they are valuable (with the exception of industrial cutting and polishing where they are, in fact, pretty useful).
Unless the resourceful managers of De Beers can find a way to gain control of the various sources of diamonds that will soon crowd the market, these sources [Zaire and Australia] may bring about the final collapse of world diamond prices. If they do, the diamond invention will disintegrate and be remembered only as a historical curiosity, as brilliant in its way as the glittering little stones it once made so valuable.
Unfortunately, the article was written in 1982. In the last 24 years it doesn't seem like anything has changed.
On the flip side, if the OP sues to prevent the use of cell phone blocking paint can I instigate a class action suit against him for disturbing the peace on behalf of all the people who had to listen to him or anyone else receive his non-emergency calls?
Think of it this way: two jackasses get in an accident on the freeway because they are speeding, passing on the right, and failing to signal. 10,000 people have to wait for an hour in a traffic jam while the roads are cleared. Shouldn't we be able to sue those fuckers for the aggregate lost time and annoyance? Sure, my personal lost time was only 60 minutes, but if you multiply it by the total number of people in the traffic jam (assuming an average wage of $20/hour) then they've cost the U.S. $200k in lost productivity (not counting taxes lost to emergency services) and there should be a way to recover that.
Similarly, listening to phones ring and jackasses chat in the theatre may only interrupt 10 minutes of my 100 minute $8 movie or, perhaps, $0.80 of lost "enjoyment". If you multiply it by 100 people in the theater and by 10,000 movies shown in the U.S. on a given night and by 365 nights of potential movie enjoyment per year then you have a lot of lost enjoyment. By my calculations the OP's lawsuit preventing the use of cell phone blocking paint -- if it were successful -- may cost the U.S. consumer $292,000,000 in lost enjoyment per year.
In other words, if he sues the paint manufacturer and the theater owners then I really think we should sue him. It's the American way!
I guess I was never that concerned about the evil Clipper chip. A parental control device in a non-networked consumer entertainment device did not, to me, seem like the final straw that breaks the back of the Bill of Rights. Perhaps it was worse than Tipper's warning labels on CD's, but warrentless wiretaps, extrodinary renditions, re (and over) classifications, and a demoralized and fragmented fourth estate seems like far worse threats to the country.
Now who's rewriting history. Those documents were only declassified in the first place because of Clinton and Gore. Under the Repubican administrations (with the exception of Eisenhower), the military industrial complex (a dated term, I know) has historically had little or no restraints.
The Clinton administration was a relatively open time in our history compared to any administration before or since. Not perfect, but definitely better than Bush I or II.
My first was the Timex/Sinclair 1000 which, I believe, was the same as the ZX81 including the 16k RAM expansion back. I blame all of my subsequent carpel-tunnel problems to typeing in games (using that damn membrane keyboard and awkward key-combinations [e.g. function + P = Print ] ) from Compute! magazine into that thing over and over again because 90% of the time the computer wouldn't reload the program successfully.
Ominiously for him, two days ago George Bush held a press conference where he said, "Heck of a job, Deutschie!" This is, of course, the kiss of death to a Republican flunky.
This could be a win-win situation. NASA has an opening for a job to be filled by a Republican crony. Michael Brown is unemployed. Looks like a natural fit! Give that man a call!
The REAL solution is not to put everything and the kitchen sink in the language itself.
I think that's exactly what the GPP was saying. Java isn't and implementation of "every obscure library you could ever think of" though it does have available every obscure library you could ever think of if you want to use them. The only thing CPAN or BOOST give you is either a repository of every obscure library/module (in CPAN's case) or a preview of what's going to be the standard obscure libraries of the future (in BOOST's case). As far as interface design is concerned, the obscure libraries that have nice designs get used and the un-usable ones don't.
In any case, the incorporation with an OS (which Sun has an interest in pursuing, of course, and Microsoft will never do again since they aleady did it with.NET.) is more of a JVM issue and not a language issue. If anyone ever proposed a Java Language specification change that read "all libraries must be loaded by the OS into memory on startup of the operating system" they would be laughed out of the room.
Just so you know, it was the Washington Times (the Moonies ultra right-wing newspaper) that leaked the Osama story back in the 90's. Actually, I'm not surprised, every other point in your post was incorrect. Some members of one congressional committee were informed in secret not all of Congresss. No one except for Rove believes it is acceptable under the CiC clause. The NYT held on to the story to keep from affecting the 2004 elections not to torpedo the Patriot act. And, it was Ramzi Yousef not Osama that was responsible for the '93 attack.
Next time you post please, please, please try and get at least on fact right. Thanks.
So, if any of the forecasts are to be believed all those petrol installations along the cost as well as Houston, Galveston, etc are dead meat.
Poetic justice? If it's true that burning hydrocarbons is causing global warming (which it probably is) then maybe the problem is self limiting.
1. We release greenhouse gases 2. Hurricans increase in frequency and power 3. Oil refineries along coastlines are destroyed 4. Gas prices increase 5. We release less greehouse gases 6. Hurricans decrease in frequency and power 7. We rebuild oil refineries along coastlines 8. Gas prices decrease 9. Goto 1.
The long forgotten and ignored 9th Amendment says it best:
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the tenth reiterates it:
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
By any reasonable reading that seems to means that if the Constitution doesn't say "you must show photo id to travel" then you should have the right to travel without a photo id.
If there is "even a small chance" you are talking to a terrorist then we should all have our phone calls monitored.
If there is "even a small chance" of terrorism then we should all be forced to carry identification papers.
If there is "even a small chance" you may have searched for porn then we all should have our Google searches stored and analyzed.
You may want to ignore the minor issues, but eventually they will become major issues and then it will be too late.
My thought: we should start working on an Amendment to Constitution that makes a "Right to Privacy" explicit instead of depending on the judicial branch's interpretation of the 4th Amendment. At least it would be a worthwile campaign unlike the never ending battle to create an amendment to ban flag burning at gay marriage ceremonies. This is not my idea, by the way, this was proposed by Dan Savage in a NYT editorial last year (I think).
In my experience, a headhunter may help you get a better salary or find an opportunity that you wouldn't have found on your own they are definitely not time savers. The HH will want you to go to more interviews than you might have gone on your own, and they will want you to meet them to go over the interview process, etc., etc..
Anyway, for me it was a learning experience with a very active headhunter. I'd recommend it to anyone... once. Take the tricks you learn and next time do it on your own. But, back to the topic at hand, they are not a time saver.
What gets me is that most 'intellectuals' will scoff at christians but listen seriously to these people.
That's an interesting sentence. The idea that people with intelligence and/or education (depending on which definition of intellectual you are using) generally (i.e. you can always find a counter-example) believe the statements from group B but don't believe the statements from group A would, I would think, be a good reason to (initially, at least, until independent research caused you to change your mind) take group B to be the more valid starting point for your world view. However, as you have phrased your sentence, you obviously believe that the group A (i.e. the christians; or at least those christians who are not also part of the set of human beings who consider themselves environmentalists) to be the more belivable group and, furthermore, that support of the intellectuals for group B (i.e. the environmentalists; or at least those environmentalists that are not also part of the set of human beings that are christian) is, if anything, a negative comment on group B's veracity.
How did you come by this conclusion? Do you have an inherent distrust of intellect or of education? Or, perhaps, you simply agree with the conclusions that the "end of the world is near" but disagree that the cause of that event will be environmental degradation preferring, perhaps, to believe that it will be caused by The Rapture as described in the Bible? Perhaps "The End of Days" will be brought on by our environmental degradations? That's something that both intellectuals and christians and environmentalists could agree on!
Yeah, don't pick on television. As you can see from Tassleman's post, television helps us develop our intellect and debating skills. We all are more informed and useful citizens and members of society thanks to TV.
Slashdot Mirror
Two billion dollars is a lot of money. How about this:
$1,000,000 to recreate the facebook code
$1,000,000 for servers, power, office space, and donuts in the break room
$1,000,000,000 for advertising, kickbacks to colleges, and outright bribes for customers
You'd still save a billion dollars.
I don't know what kind of environmentalists you hang out with, but as a born and bred son of Oregon hippies, I think you are full of shit. Most environmentalists are far more educated and open minded and pro-technology than you give them credit for. However, where I think you get confused is believeing that pro-coal burning power plant is somehow the equivalent to being pro-technology. I think most environmentalists are, almost by definition, liberal, progressive, pro-progress, pro-equality, and striving towards both inner and external perfection. They are pro-technology because when they look around they say, "there must be a way to do this better." For most environmentalist, this is an inherintly pro-technology stance.
I have a new experiement to try.
Go visit your local Baptist (or any religion, really) church or even a professional football stadium. Start talking about technology, genetic manipulation, virtual reality, prevasive computing, nanotechnology. See how far you can get. Compare your results to your previous results in the "eco village" and see which group is more open to your ideas. I belive that the environmentalists, where they do disagree with you vision, are more likely to be able to express an alternative vision and be able to intelligently debate. Who knows, you might even learn something.
Very interesting post. I've made that exact same "why do you care if I sign the card" comment.
In reality it's far, far worse than that. The best farmland is also, generally, the best living land. Two areas I'm familar with -- rural Maryland and the Willamette Valley in Oregon -- were once among the most fertile areas ever seen. Unfortunately, they are also great places to live so every year thousands of acres of prime farmland becomes yards and parking lots and roads. From an economics standpoint this is a perfectly rational allocation of resources -- houses and businesses are more valuable than farmland -- but it doesn't bode well for the long term sustainability of our economy.
For that *simple* language let me recommend Ruby. There's a great "learn to program" book online that uses Ruby here.
No disagreement. I would collude with my competitors if I could get away with it as well. But, after reading seven pages of "De Beers was incredibly successful at manipulating the market but now, maybe, their nefarious reign of terror is over..." it was humorous to realize that 24 years later they are still going strong and we're all still buying into it.
Diamonds, like Beanie Babies, are only really valuable because marketing has convinced us that they are valuable (with the exception of industrial cutting and polishing where they are, in fact, pretty useful).
Unfortunately, the article was written in 1982. In the last 24 years it doesn't seem like anything has changed.
On the flip side, if the OP sues to prevent the use of cell phone blocking paint can I instigate a class action suit against him for disturbing the peace on behalf of all the people who had to listen to him or anyone else receive his non-emergency calls?
Think of it this way: two jackasses get in an accident on the freeway because they are speeding, passing on the right, and failing to signal. 10,000 people have to wait for an hour in a traffic jam while the roads are cleared. Shouldn't we be able to sue those fuckers for the aggregate lost time and annoyance? Sure, my personal lost time was only 60 minutes, but if you multiply it by the total number of people in the traffic jam (assuming an average wage of $20/hour) then they've cost the U.S. $200k in lost productivity (not counting taxes lost to emergency services) and there should be a way to recover that.
Similarly, listening to phones ring and jackasses chat in the theatre may only interrupt 10 minutes of my 100 minute $8 movie or, perhaps, $0.80 of lost "enjoyment". If you multiply it by 100 people in the theater and by 10,000 movies shown in the U.S. on a given night and by 365 nights of potential movie enjoyment per year then you have a lot of lost enjoyment. By my calculations the OP's lawsuit preventing the use of cell phone blocking paint -- if it were successful -- may cost the U.S. consumer $292,000,000 in lost enjoyment per year.
In other words, if he sues the paint manufacturer and the theater owners then I really think we should sue him. It's the American way!
It makes you wonder if:
1. The prosecutor is in an elected office.
2. They have or are planning to use Deibold election machines in his district.
It's hard not to dance with the ones that brung ya.
I guess I was never that concerned about the evil Clipper chip. A parental control device in a non-networked consumer entertainment device did not, to me, seem like the final straw that breaks the back of the Bill of Rights. Perhaps it was worse than Tipper's warning labels on CD's, but warrentless wiretaps, extrodinary renditions, re (and over) classifications, and a demoralized and fragmented fourth estate seems like far worse threats to the country.
Now who's rewriting history. Those documents were only declassified in the first place because of Clinton and Gore. Under the Repubican administrations (with the exception of Eisenhower), the military industrial complex (a dated term, I know) has historically had little or no restraints.
The Clinton administration was a relatively open time in our history compared to any administration before or since. Not perfect, but definitely better than Bush I or II.
Now that we have defeated the forces of Communisim, we only need to win the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism to test this theory out...
My first was the Timex/Sinclair 1000 which, I believe, was the same as the ZX81 including the 16k RAM expansion back. I blame all of my subsequent carpel-tunnel problems to typeing in games (using that damn membrane keyboard and awkward key-combinations [e.g. function + P = Print ] ) from Compute! magazine into that thing over and over again because 90% of the time the computer wouldn't reload the program successfully.
Those were the good old days...
Don't forget:
Bolten as U.N. Ambassador.
Ellen Sauerbrey as (recess appointment to) Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration ($700M budget).
Melvin Sembler, youth cult leader, appointed to Amabassador to Italy.
Ominiously for him, two days ago George Bush held a press conference where he said, "Heck of a job, Deutschie!" This is, of course, the kiss of death to a Republican flunky.
This could be a win-win situation. NASA has an opening for a job to be filled by a Republican crony. Michael Brown is unemployed. Looks like a natural fit! Give that man a call!
I think that's exactly what the GPP was saying. Java isn't and implementation of "every obscure library you could ever think of" though it does have available every obscure library you could ever think of if you want to use them. The only thing CPAN or BOOST give you is either a repository of every obscure library/module (in CPAN's case) or a preview of what's going to be the standard obscure libraries of the future (in BOOST's case). As far as interface design is concerned, the obscure libraries that have nice designs get used and the un-usable ones don't.
In any case, the incorporation with an OS (which Sun has an interest in pursuing, of course, and Microsoft will never do again since they aleady did it with .NET.) is more of a JVM issue and not a language issue. If anyone ever proposed a Java Language specification change that read "all libraries must be loaded by the OS into memory on startup of the operating system" they would be laughed out of the room.
Just so you know, it was the Washington Times (the Moonies ultra right-wing newspaper) that leaked the Osama story back in the 90's. Actually, I'm not surprised, every other point in your post was incorrect. Some members of one congressional committee were informed in secret not all of Congresss. No one except for Rove believes it is acceptable under the CiC clause. The NYT held on to the story to keep from affecting the 2004 elections not to torpedo the Patriot act. And, it was Ramzi Yousef not Osama that was responsible for the '93 attack.
Next time you post please, please, please try and get at least on fact right. Thanks.
Poetic justice? If it's true that burning hydrocarbons is causing global warming (which it probably is) then maybe the problem is self limiting.
1. We release greenhouse gases
2. Hurricans increase in frequency and power
3. Oil refineries along coastlines are destroyed
4. Gas prices increase
5. We release less greehouse gases
6. Hurricans decrease in frequency and power
7. We rebuild oil refineries along coastlines
8. Gas prices decrease
9. Goto 1.
The long forgotten and ignored 9th Amendment says it best:
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the tenth reiterates it:
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
By any reasonable reading that seems to means that if the Constitution doesn't say "you must show photo id to travel" then you should have the right to travel without a photo id.
Unfortunately, it just goes on and on...
If there is "even a small chance" you are talking to a terrorist then we should all have our phone calls monitored.
If there is "even a small chance" of terrorism then we should all be forced to carry identification papers.
If there is "even a small chance" you may have searched for porn then we all should have our Google searches stored and analyzed.
You may want to ignore the minor issues, but eventually they will become major issues and then it will be too late.
My thought: we should start working on an Amendment to Constitution that makes a "Right to Privacy" explicit instead of depending on the judicial branch's interpretation of the 4th Amendment. At least it would be a worthwile campaign unlike the never ending battle to create an amendment to ban flag burning at gay marriage ceremonies. This is not my idea, by the way, this was proposed by Dan Savage in a NYT editorial last year (I think).
In my experience, a headhunter may help you get a better salary or find an opportunity that you wouldn't have found on your own they are definitely not time savers. The HH will want you to go to more interviews than you might have gone on your own, and they will want you to meet them to go over the interview process, etc., etc..
Anyway, for me it was a learning experience with a very active headhunter. I'd recommend it to anyone... once. Take the tricks you learn and next time do it on your own. But, back to the topic at hand, they are not a time saver.
Doesn't anyone remember (maybe they still exist) the machines that would take a penny and smoosh it out so that it had a design on it.
;-)
I remember OMSI (Oregon Museum of Science and Industry) had one that would smoosh a picture of the Apollo lander onto a penny.
There's a real reason for Ashcroft (and now Torture Boy) to go after the great state of Oregon.
What gets me is that most 'intellectuals' will scoff at christians but listen seriously to these people.
That's an interesting sentence. The idea that people with intelligence and/or education (depending on which definition of intellectual you are using) generally (i.e. you can always find a counter-example) believe the statements from group B but don't believe the statements from group A would, I would think, be a good reason to (initially, at least, until independent research caused you to change your mind) take group B to be the more valid starting point for your world view. However, as you have phrased your sentence, you obviously believe that the group A (i.e. the christians; or at least those christians who are not also part of the set of human beings who consider themselves environmentalists) to be the more belivable group and, furthermore, that support of the intellectuals for group B (i.e. the environmentalists; or at least those environmentalists that are not also part of the set of human beings that are christian) is, if anything, a negative comment on group B's veracity.
How did you come by this conclusion? Do you have an inherent distrust of intellect or of education? Or, perhaps, you simply agree with the conclusions that the "end of the world is near" but disagree that the cause of that event will be environmental degradation preferring, perhaps, to believe that it will be caused by The Rapture as described in the Bible? Perhaps "The End of Days" will be brought on by our environmental degradations? That's something that both intellectuals and christians and environmentalists could agree on!
Yeah, don't pick on television. As you can see from Tassleman's post, television helps us develop our intellect and debating skills. We all are more informed and useful citizens and members of society thanks to TV.