we're up to the 4th year that the Audigy has been their high-end card line
Non-pro and non-prosumer sound cards have matured for now. You hit 48KHz, 16-bit, surround sound, and you're basically done. In my experience, the other 3D stuff is more gimmick than quality. I have a Soundblaster around here somewhere but it's such a pain to deal with that I just use motherboard sound, which has also matured.
Now, if we standardized on a new super-MIDI or something that allowed for the really sophisticated effects modern professional synths have becoming available for dynamic music generation, that might be something. But as games seem satisfied to play static music off of MP3 or equivalent tech, and sound effect engines seem to all fit well within what a modern processor can do in its spare time, I don't think you're going to see any more advances in sound cards to speak of in the near future. The sound cards have basically matched the human ear, as far as the average consumer is concerned; anything you can hear can be generated by the soundcard with reasonable fidelity.
This is unlike video, where there is both extremely high interest in dynamic video generation (3D graphics), and even in video playback there is room for improvement.
So is Creative marketing the same card continuously for 4 years? Why not? What would they add to it that people actually want? (I've already given one idea, but clearly nobody wants it at the consumer level.) I'd want to diversify, too.
To all of you who said this, I'd like to point out this is why I said "one image".
Even then, CSI doesn't get this right. I would expect that with this technology, only moving things could be interpolated, but of course the entire image from the non-moving camera jumps in resolution by a factor of 20x+...
You can wavelet and fractalate and vigourously wave your hands in the air until the lift you generate pulls you alongside a cruising 747, but you can not get more information than exists out of an image.
Most zooming algorithms suck, compared to the true content of the image, which is why we can do much better with our eyes. We know that is a "car", so we don't interpolate, say, a tire with jaggy lines, we know it is round.
But ultimately, take a fuzzy, off-true "3" and "5" and zoom out/blur enough, and there is no difference between the two, thus, no way to "backtrack" to the original image. There is a fundamental limit, and CSI routinely passes it.
You can play with contrast and brightness and sometimes retrieve a number or something. But your human eyes are already as good as you can expect at extracting a "3" from an image with suitable brightness and contrast. If you can't already see it, no magic algorithm is going to help. (I'm confident in this case our brains are close enough to optimal on this problem that no significant improvement can be made, even in theory, on still images.)
I don't see anywhere where he said "Nobody should show pics of their kid", or "Nobody should want to show off their kid". I think he was just appreciative of the restraint.
Personally, I wouldn't want a complete moratorium per se, but restraint is nice. The author of Sluggy Freelance struck a nice balance.
Usability and security are opposing forces, if and only if the program has optimal usability and security. To make such a program more usable, by definition it requires removing a feature, or compromising security to make it easier. To make such a program more secure, it requires either removing a feature or adversely affecting usability by adding another hoop to jump through.
Note they aren't strictly speaking opposing forces, since "remove features" can both enhance security and usability. It's just that if your program is already optimal and you need to push it harder, something else has to give.
You don't have to be a cynic to observe few programs are optimal, and therefore most software engineers don't have to think in this way. Thus, as a practical matter in the current environment, no, they are not opposed. But they should be.
(As a PS, I'd define security as "Ensuring the computer does what the owner wants, no more, and no less, with the computer owner having all relevant information about and control over what the computer does." But that definition has yet another idealogical focus, no?)
Snort. Right. Hard numbers about military spending is soft data, and your vague notions about things is hard data.
Do you all wonder why you're having a hard time convincing me of the "obvious truth" of your claims? You're so ignorant about what constitutes data and what "the other's" argument is that you self-righteously accuse me of your own biggest flaws, apparently without irony.
I prefer to learn from people smarter than me, not more ignorant and less able to think than me. People who understand the plural of anecdote is not data, for instance.
Really? I find the list of uninvaded countries, untoppled regimes, and, germane to the topic, un-nuked cities is quite long.
Un-espionaged may be short, but turnabout's fair play on that one.
Vague claims aren't going to convince me when I'm falling back on hard data, here. I know, you're not used to people doing that in this domain, and I know it can be a little frightening. But again, people aren't acting terrified; why should I believe they are, or should be?
Note that if anybody just replies again with "The US has done some nasty stuff, therefore ignore the hard data and believe the US is evil", I pre-emptively wave at the data and ask why people aren't defending themselves if they're so terrified of the US. (The only even remotely plausible explanation is that nobody thinks they could win an arms race, but that still doesn't hold if everybody teams up. Which of course they are nowhere near scared enough to do.)
It's the "so choosing" part that is the entire point.
While I don't agree with and don't condone every action my country has taken (taking a large portion of the wind out of your sails), the world is clearly not concerned about systematic repression or destruction. You can quote anecdotes until you're blue in the face, but the plural of anecdote isn't data; my point is based on some of the hardest data there is.
The US isn't perfect, but by and large, people are not actually losing sleep over the idea that it is seriously going to come after them. Even post-Iraq, which says to me most of the world practically acknowlegdes that was a criminal regime and therefore an exception, not a rule. Actions don't lie.
This isn't black and white... a line commonly spoken by your "side" but rarely put into practice. I don't have to sit here and claim the US is perfect, and I don't. But even though you (and I!) can reel off a list of exceptions as long as your arm, people clearly understand those are exceptions... or they'd be doing something about it, other than bitch and hope that we take the opportunity to voluntarily shoot ourselves down, a tactic so cheap (pure talk-based) that it is worth trying, but hardly indicative of real feelings.
Are you really living your life in fear the Americans are going to nuke you?
I like to look at objective measurements of the world's real opinions, not what they say. Talk is cheap. And when I look at global military expenditures, even post-Iraq, I see a world that isn't scared of the US. Lots of talk. Little to no action.
Let us be clear: you hope Islam will one day kill off millions because they will not convert? And then become educated, civilized and toned down?
Yes, he obviously meant that. Because when people mention a historical occurance, they always condone it.
By the way, Stalin.
Woohoo! I'm a communist! (File that in the "quotes to take out of context if Jerf ever runs for office" folder.)
(Pet peeve. Think, people, think. Just because something is mentioned, or gets put in the "then" clause of an if-then, or put the words in the mouth of a major character, or any number of other things like that, does not mean they condone it.)
No, it doesn't. That backs up the claim that genetically modified stuff will sneak into other foods, assuming you automatically take the side of the farmer and assume he wasn't trying to cheat the system. From where I stand there is insufficient information to adopt with certainty any sort of conspiracy claims, but there is enough evidence to at least have a plausible reason for concern.
However, that does nothing to back up his claim that non-GM seed is going to be outright banned. That is the one I challenge, that is the one I find absurd, that is the one that the most plausible reason I have at the moment to explain his claim is weak thinking (including, as in the previous paragraph, the assumption that the farmer is telling the truth because that is the result that most confirms his belief, despite a lack of evidence, very weak thinking indeed) and a tendency towards conspiracy theories not backed up by rational thought. I'm asking him to give me a reason to believe otherwise, or I will dismiss his worries as unfounded hyperbole. (I don't yet, only if no evidence is forthcoming.)
You need to learn more about how BitTorrent works. There isn't much point in BitTorrenting a 288,930 byte file; just mirror it. Tracker overhead will eat any advantage you think you're gaining.
The U.S. regime will most likely criminalize the use of the olds seeds.
Do you have any evidence for this claim, or is it just something you had to make up to feel comfortable with your personal, pre-existing point of view?
The idea is, on the face of it, absurd on every level. I say this as a more-or-less Bush supporter, too.
Your second sentance is a bit more sensible, although I would expect that if this becomes even a remotely big fuss, the rules will be removed since it isn't even remotely worth a political fight over this.
1: Gradual growth. Find bottleneck, remove it. Repeat. Make sure to start with a growable database and web site technology, but that shouldn't be too tough. Also, stay ahead of the game, always with overcapacity, both to cover for outages and for sudden growth spurts.
2: Instant growth from 0 to thousands+: Hire someone who knows what they are doing. In the first scenario, you have the time to learn what is actually going on, which is an advantage. In this one, you don't, and the customer base is to big (i.e., $$$) to screw with.
That basically covers it. Specific advice will vary widely based on databases and web technology deployed, so just about any other specific advice you get here is as likely to be wrong for you as right.
Boy, you'd better not put people on hold long with that music. That's what, 20 seconds at most (generous; I sang it at 16 seconds for both verses), so three repetitions per minute? Yikes, you'd damn well better like Cletus!
Get's 'em off that there phoner thingee, I reckon.
By your logic we should object to anyone doing or asking for anything even once because they might bother you about it forever.
Ever raised a kid?
From where I sit, not saying no, firmly, the first time, is a Top 5 parental mistake. Make that mistake a couple of times and suddenly the kid is effectively in charge.
While the logic may or may not apply in this case, it is not always useless, as you imply, and more work is needed to establish the invalidity of the argument. I think you're probably right in general, though.
For any price AOL would take, it would be more efficient, as in "probably costing orders of magnitude less", to use it to hire someone to add the missing desired features to an already-existing open source project.
Someone further down the thread mentions Blender, but Winamp is no Blender. Blender was a unique innovative product that would have been years to adequately (let alone "completely") replace. MP3 players are a dime a dozen, now. Port XMMS and put a WinAmp skin on it and you're most of the way there, just needing a few features and maybe a bit of cleanup. Hmmm... don't see a Windows version of XMMS (no surprise), but it isn't the only open source MP3 player, either.
I would expect the "bugs" to outnumber old hardware ethusiusts easily 10-to-1, plus while he didn't say anything, you probably got taken back off the list if you say something like "Wow, an acoustic coupler! I haven't seen one of those in years!" or "Isn't it ironic that a modern hard drive has 1/10th the volume but 1,000 times the capacity of this old brick? What is it, 10MB?".
I ran "identify the old hardware" contests for my local ACM branch in 1997, 98, and 99. I stopped in 99 because only a couple of the incoming freshman were even able to identify a CPU, let alone guess which one ti was. Precipitous decline in quality, there; in the first year I had people correctly identify a Hercules monochrome graphics card, which is tricky because the... errr... connection thingy (your first clue about what a random card does) is identical to a 9-pin serial port. By 99, nobody even guessed it was a serial port... and participation (in raw numbers) went up every year!
In an election of over 100 million people, it is easy to collect enough anecdotes to prove any point. Make sure you actually have systematic evidence before you make any accusations.
The other thing I'd suggest is even if you find problems, focus more on fixing them then crowing about them unless they are really drop-dead obvious, which I do not expect. (Personally, I expect that both sides did roughly equal fraud.) Four more years of "Bush stole the election" aren't going to help your cause; y'all have cried wolf so many times you've ("you" in general) have lost our ("our" in general) trust; unless you can prove it 100% it can only hurt you, even if it is true. That's what happens when you cry wolf.
The first thing to do is to tell our friendly governments in the Arab world (this only excludes Syria and Lybia and possibly Tunisia at this point) that this whole idea of transforming actual education to a fundamentalist religious training was a tremendously bad idea of us. We know, we've told them for thirty years that this was the only way to counter the socialist menace that was threatening peace, but we can change our minds, can't we?
It is unclear to me how sarcastic you are being.
While I think we are moving in the right direction now, that in no way implies, and in many ways disclaims, the idea that all our policy has been right all along. I'm 25, and for as far back as I can remember I've never understood our policy of "any dictatorship on our side is a good one", and I still don't. Nor do I understand the ideas that you mentioned.
While regret has its place, that doesn't change what we must do now. I for one am glad someone is actually standing up to the problem and meeting it head on, instead of pushing off into the future as long as possible and letting the "children" deal with it, only 10 times worse... or more. Which, considering the generation in charge, would be my generation.
It's a pity it took what it did to change us. I'm glad it hasn't taken more; we might have only realized the necessity of the current actions after a nuke or three.
I'm not worried that they might lean socialist, as long as they don't go to the extreme (which is bad on all sides of politics). Besides, that much less competition for us.
The "use missile strikes in densly populated areas" approach has not worked yet, neither in Iraq nor Israel, and I see no reason why it should suddenly start working.
Pray tell, what can we do in Iraq or anywhere else where the government didn't want us there? Whatever you may propose in answer to this question, the first step will always be "remove that government", or you have a faulty understanding of the governments of the Middle East.
I tend to agree that killing people isn't necessarily the path to peace. But we are building schools and hospitals and relationships. Your apparent belief that the US is just over there, gunning people down, shows both your own lack of initiative in getting enough information to form your opinions and the failure of the news media to present an accurate picture of what is going on over there. If it bleeds, it leads, but bleeding isn't anywhere near the whole story.
The first step in "winning the peace" is re-writing the board so that we can win the piece. Hopefully we're near the end of that phase, but that does involve killing people who are violently insisting that they, and everybody else, will continue to live in the 12th century. I'd love to live in a world where all we had to do was ride over in our "Reading is Fundamental" Van and hand out books peacefully, but we don't live in that world.
Based on your post, you ought to be supporting our actions on the whole, even as you may criticize aspects of our actions. We don't need a new plan, we need more people to understand what the current one really is.
Re:Unscripted is the best comedy
on
Humor in Games?
·
· Score: 1
Let's make a reality show game!!" Which would then, of course, be designed with a linear storyline:)
I like reading hachet jobs. That ought to tell you about how that game was reviewed, even without visiting that site.
No matter how you feel about reality shows, anything that has a "voting" component ultimately can't be simulated in one player games. The contests are usually incidental to that; unless you sweep the immunities in Survivor, for instance, you damn well better have a good political game or you are toast... and nobody has ever swept more than a couple in a row at the end. The games can't match this.
Can you imagine an Apprentice video game? If you lose the contest (which can't be adequately simulated anyhow), a random number generator determines if you win or lose...:-)
I've seen some people speculating lately that the strong split between city and country is cause, not effect. That is to say, the dominant parties have deliberately catered to the different needs of city and country, which due to different lifestyles have certain sharp differences. There are also differences due to different groupthink... and you are fooling yourself if you think only the "other guys" have groupthink and your side has all come to its decisions through rational processes.
I think this makes sense, more sense than many of the other theories, and certainly more sense than some of the more self-congratulatory posts about how stupid the other side is and how smart their side is. Sorry, but that just shows extreme ignorance of the "other side", and that you are willing to delude yourself and dehumanize your "enemy", not that you are on the naturally smarter side.
I strongly suspect that we will not see this distribution again in 2008, and certainly not in 2012. The Democrats have implicitly agreed to this split through emergent processes (i.e., no one necessarily decided on this grand strategy, it just emerged) and it clearly is not working for them. The obvious next move for them, as they re-form themselves, is to shake up the playing field. If they don't they will continue to lose.
There will be other boundaries to draw in 2008, but we can over-inflate concerns about that then.
Cheap talk. We defeated you slave-loving conservative hicks before.
That's right, I apparently disagree with you and therefore I am "slave loving". Are you still mystified about why "your side" is having a hard time connecting with enough of the electorate?
OK, you had a smiley, but it takes more than a smiley to take the sting out of an accusation of racism.
Slashdot Mirror
we're up to the 4th year that the Audigy has been their high-end card line
Non-pro and non-prosumer sound cards have matured for now. You hit 48KHz, 16-bit, surround sound, and you're basically done. In my experience, the other 3D stuff is more gimmick than quality. I have a Soundblaster around here somewhere but it's such a pain to deal with that I just use motherboard sound, which has also matured.
Now, if we standardized on a new super-MIDI or something that allowed for the really sophisticated effects modern professional synths have becoming available for dynamic music generation, that might be something. But as games seem satisfied to play static music off of MP3 or equivalent tech, and sound effect engines seem to all fit well within what a modern processor can do in its spare time, I don't think you're going to see any more advances in sound cards to speak of in the near future. The sound cards have basically matched the human ear, as far as the average consumer is concerned; anything you can hear can be generated by the soundcard with reasonable fidelity.
This is unlike video, where there is both extremely high interest in dynamic video generation (3D graphics), and even in video playback there is room for improvement.
So is Creative marketing the same card continuously for 4 years? Why not? What would they add to it that people actually want? (I've already given one idea, but clearly nobody wants it at the consumer level.) I'd want to diversify, too.
To all of you who said this, I'd like to point out this is why I said "one image".
Even then, CSI doesn't get this right. I would expect that with this technology, only moving things could be interpolated, but of course the entire image from the non-moving camera jumps in resolution by a factor of 20x+...
You can wavelet and fractalate and vigourously wave your hands in the air until the lift you generate pulls you alongside a cruising 747, but you can not get more information than exists out of an image.
Most zooming algorithms suck, compared to the true content of the image, which is why we can do much better with our eyes. We know that is a "car", so we don't interpolate, say, a tire with jaggy lines, we know it is round.
But ultimately, take a fuzzy, off-true "3" and "5" and zoom out/blur enough, and there is no difference between the two, thus, no way to "backtrack" to the original image. There is a fundamental limit, and CSI routinely passes it.
You can play with contrast and brightness and sometimes retrieve a number or something. But your human eyes are already as good as you can expect at extracting a "3" from an image with suitable brightness and contrast. If you can't already see it, no magic algorithm is going to help. (I'm confident in this case our brains are close enough to optimal on this problem that no significant improvement can be made, even in theory, on still images.)
I don't see anywhere where he said "Nobody should show pics of their kid", or "Nobody should want to show off their kid". I think he was just appreciative of the restraint.
Personally, I wouldn't want a complete moratorium per se, but restraint is nice. The author of Sluggy Freelance struck a nice balance.
Usability and security are opposing forces, if and only if the program has optimal usability and security. To make such a program more usable, by definition it requires removing a feature, or compromising security to make it easier. To make such a program more secure, it requires either removing a feature or adversely affecting usability by adding another hoop to jump through.
Note they aren't strictly speaking opposing forces, since "remove features" can both enhance security and usability. It's just that if your program is already optimal and you need to push it harder, something else has to give.
You don't have to be a cynic to observe few programs are optimal, and therefore most software engineers don't have to think in this way. Thus, as a practical matter in the current environment, no, they are not opposed. But they should be.
(As a PS, I'd define security as "Ensuring the computer does what the owner wants, no more, and no less, with the computer owner having all relevant information about and control over what the computer does." But that definition has yet another idealogical focus, no?)
you apparently have no idea what hard data is
Snort. Right. Hard numbers about military spending is soft data, and your vague notions about things is hard data.
Do you all wonder why you're having a hard time convincing me of the "obvious truth" of your claims? You're so ignorant about what constitutes data and what "the other's" argument is that you self-righteously accuse me of your own biggest flaws, apparently without irony.
I prefer to learn from people smarter than me, not more ignorant and less able to think than me. People who understand the plural of anecdote is not data, for instance.
Really? I find the list of uninvaded countries, untoppled regimes, and, germane to the topic, un-nuked cities is quite long.
Un-espionaged may be short, but turnabout's fair play on that one.
Vague claims aren't going to convince me when I'm falling back on hard data, here. I know, you're not used to people doing that in this domain, and I know it can be a little frightening. But again, people aren't acting terrified; why should I believe they are, or should be?
Note that if anybody just replies again with "The US has done some nasty stuff, therefore ignore the hard data and believe the US is evil", I pre-emptively wave at the data and ask why people aren't defending themselves if they're so terrified of the US. (The only even remotely plausible explanation is that nobody thinks they could win an arms race, but that still doesn't hold if everybody teams up. Which of course they are nowhere near scared enough to do.)
It's the "so choosing" part that is the entire point.
While I don't agree with and don't condone every action my country has taken (taking a large portion of the wind out of your sails), the world is clearly not concerned about systematic repression or destruction. You can quote anecdotes until you're blue in the face, but the plural of anecdote isn't data; my point is based on some of the hardest data there is.
The US isn't perfect, but by and large, people are not actually losing sleep over the idea that it is seriously going to come after them. Even post-Iraq, which says to me most of the world practically acknowlegdes that was a criminal regime and therefore an exception, not a rule. Actions don't lie.
This isn't black and white... a line commonly spoken by your "side" but rarely put into practice. I don't have to sit here and claim the US is perfect, and I don't. But even though you (and I!) can reel off a list of exceptions as long as your arm, people clearly understand those are exceptions... or they'd be doing something about it, other than bitch and hope that we take the opportunity to voluntarily shoot ourselves down, a tactic so cheap (pure talk-based) that it is worth trying, but hardly indicative of real feelings.
Are you really living your life in fear the Americans are going to nuke you?
I like to look at objective measurements of the world's real opinions, not what they say. Talk is cheap. And when I look at global military expenditures, even post-Iraq, I see a world that isn't scared of the US. Lots of talk. Little to no action.
I don't think they're wrong, either.
Let us be clear: you hope Islam will one day kill off millions because they will not convert? And then become educated, civilized and toned down?
Yes, he obviously meant that. Because when people mention a historical occurance, they always condone it.
By the way, Stalin.
Woohoo! I'm a communist! (File that in the "quotes to take out of context if Jerf ever runs for office" folder.)
(Pet peeve. Think, people, think. Just because something is mentioned, or gets put in the "then" clause of an if-then, or put the words in the mouth of a major character, or any number of other things like that, does not mean they condone it.)
No, it doesn't. That backs up the claim that genetically modified stuff will sneak into other foods, assuming you automatically take the side of the farmer and assume he wasn't trying to cheat the system. From where I stand there is insufficient information to adopt with certainty any sort of conspiracy claims, but there is enough evidence to at least have a plausible reason for concern.
However, that does nothing to back up his claim that non-GM seed is going to be outright banned. That is the one I challenge, that is the one I find absurd, that is the one that the most plausible reason I have at the moment to explain his claim is weak thinking (including, as in the previous paragraph, the assumption that the farmer is telling the truth because that is the result that most confirms his belief, despite a lack of evidence, very weak thinking indeed) and a tendency towards conspiracy theories not backed up by rational thought. I'm asking him to give me a reason to believe otherwise, or I will dismiss his worries as unfounded hyperbole. (I don't yet, only if no evidence is forthcoming.)
You need to learn more about how BitTorrent works. There isn't much point in BitTorrenting a 288,930 byte file; just mirror it. Tracker overhead will eat any advantage you think you're gaining.
The U.S. regime will most likely criminalize the use of the olds seeds.
Do you have any evidence for this claim, or is it just something you had to make up to feel comfortable with your personal, pre-existing point of view?
The idea is, on the face of it, absurd on every level. I say this as a more-or-less Bush supporter, too.
Your second sentance is a bit more sensible, although I would expect that if this becomes even a remotely big fuss, the rules will be removed since it isn't even remotely worth a political fight over this.
1: Gradual growth. Find bottleneck, remove it. Repeat. Make sure to start with a growable database and web site technology, but that shouldn't be too tough. Also, stay ahead of the game, always with overcapacity, both to cover for outages and for sudden growth spurts.
2: Instant growth from 0 to thousands+: Hire someone who knows what they are doing. In the first scenario, you have the time to learn what is actually going on, which is an advantage. In this one, you don't, and the customer base is to big (i.e., $$$) to screw with.
That basically covers it. Specific advice will vary widely based on databases and web technology deployed, so just about any other specific advice you get here is as likely to be wrong for you as right.
Boy, you'd better not put people on hold long with that music. That's what, 20 seconds at most (generous; I sang it at 16 seconds for both verses), so three repetitions per minute? Yikes, you'd damn well better like Cletus!
Get's 'em off that there phoner thingee, I reckon.
By your logic we should object to anyone doing or asking for anything even once because they might bother you about it forever.
Ever raised a kid?
From where I sit, not saying no, firmly, the first time, is a Top 5 parental mistake. Make that mistake a couple of times and suddenly the kid is effectively in charge.
While the logic may or may not apply in this case, it is not always useless, as you imply, and more work is needed to establish the invalidity of the argument. I think you're probably right in general, though.
For any price AOL would take, it would be more efficient, as in "probably costing orders of magnitude less", to use it to hire someone to add the missing desired features to an already-existing open source project.
Someone further down the thread mentions Blender, but Winamp is no Blender. Blender was a unique innovative product that would have been years to adequately (let alone "completely") replace. MP3 players are a dime a dozen, now. Port XMMS and put a WinAmp skin on it and you're most of the way there, just needing a few features and maybe a bit of cleanup. Hmmm... don't see a Windows version of XMMS (no surprise), but it isn't the only open source MP3 player, either.
I would expect the "bugs" to outnumber old hardware ethusiusts easily 10-to-1, plus while he didn't say anything, you probably got taken back off the list if you say something like "Wow, an acoustic coupler! I haven't seen one of those in years!" or "Isn't it ironic that a modern hard drive has 1/10th the volume but 1,000 times the capacity of this old brick? What is it, 10MB?".
I ran "identify the old hardware" contests for my local ACM branch in 1997, 98, and 99. I stopped in 99 because only a couple of the incoming freshman were even able to identify a CPU, let alone guess which one ti was. Precipitous decline in quality, there; in the first year I had people correctly identify a Hercules monochrome graphics card, which is tricky because the... errr... connection thingy (your first clue about what a random card does) is identical to a 9-pin serial port. By 99, nobody even guessed it was a serial port... and participation (in raw numbers) went up every year!
In an election of over 100 million people, it is easy to collect enough anecdotes to prove any point. Make sure you actually have systematic evidence before you make any accusations.
The other thing I'd suggest is even if you find problems, focus more on fixing them then crowing about them unless they are really drop-dead obvious, which I do not expect. (Personally, I expect that both sides did roughly equal fraud.) Four more years of "Bush stole the election" aren't going to help your cause; y'all have cried wolf so many times you've ("you" in general) have lost our ("our" in general) trust; unless you can prove it 100% it can only hurt you, even if it is true. That's what happens when you cry wolf.
PLEASE say something negative about this movie?
I thought frame #115,342 was a bit off.
The first thing to do is to tell our friendly governments in the Arab world (this only excludes Syria and Lybia and possibly Tunisia at this point) that this whole idea of transforming actual education to a fundamentalist religious training was a tremendously bad idea of us.
We know, we've told them for thirty years that this was the only way to counter the socialist menace that was threatening peace, but we can change our minds, can't we?
It is unclear to me how sarcastic you are being.
While I think we are moving in the right direction now, that in no way implies, and in many ways disclaims, the idea that all our policy has been right all along. I'm 25, and for as far back as I can remember I've never understood our policy of "any dictatorship on our side is a good one", and I still don't. Nor do I understand the ideas that you mentioned.
While regret has its place, that doesn't change what we must do now. I for one am glad someone is actually standing up to the problem and meeting it head on, instead of pushing off into the future as long as possible and letting the "children" deal with it, only 10 times worse... or more. Which, considering the generation in charge, would be my generation.
It's a pity it took what it did to change us. I'm glad it hasn't taken more; we might have only realized the necessity of the current actions after a nuke or three.
I'm not worried that they might lean socialist, as long as they don't go to the extreme (which is bad on all sides of politics). Besides, that much less competition for us.
The "use missile strikes in densly populated areas" approach has not worked yet, neither in Iraq nor Israel, and I see no reason why it should suddenly start working.
Pray tell, what can we do in Iraq or anywhere else where the government didn't want us there? Whatever you may propose in answer to this question, the first step will always be "remove that government", or you have a faulty understanding of the governments of the Middle East.
I tend to agree that killing people isn't necessarily the path to peace. But we are building schools and hospitals and relationships. Your apparent belief that the US is just over there, gunning people down, shows both your own lack of initiative in getting enough information to form your opinions and the failure of the news media to present an accurate picture of what is going on over there. If it bleeds, it leads, but bleeding isn't anywhere near the whole story.
The first step in "winning the peace" is re-writing the board so that we can win the piece. Hopefully we're near the end of that phase, but that does involve killing people who are violently insisting that they, and everybody else, will continue to live in the 12th century. I'd love to live in a world where all we had to do was ride over in our "Reading is Fundamental" Van and hand out books peacefully, but we don't live in that world.
Based on your post, you ought to be supporting our actions on the whole, even as you may criticize aspects of our actions. We don't need a new plan, we need more people to understand what the current one really is.
Let's make a reality show game!!" Which would then, of course, be designed with a linear storyline :)
:-)
Been done; see the Survivor video game.
I like reading hachet jobs. That ought to tell you about how that game was reviewed, even without visiting that site.
No matter how you feel about reality shows, anything that has a "voting" component ultimately can't be simulated in one player games. The contests are usually incidental to that; unless you sweep the immunities in Survivor, for instance, you damn well better have a good political game or you are toast... and nobody has ever swept more than a couple in a row at the end. The games can't match this.
Can you imagine an Apprentice video game? If you lose the contest (which can't be adequately simulated anyhow), a random number generator determines if you win or lose...
I've seen some people speculating lately that the strong split between city and country is cause, not effect. That is to say, the dominant parties have deliberately catered to the different needs of city and country, which due to different lifestyles have certain sharp differences. There are also differences due to different groupthink... and you are fooling yourself if you think only the "other guys" have groupthink and your side has all come to its decisions through rational processes.
I think this makes sense, more sense than many of the other theories, and certainly more sense than some of the more self-congratulatory posts about how stupid the other side is and how smart their side is. Sorry, but that just shows extreme ignorance of the "other side", and that you are willing to delude yourself and dehumanize your "enemy", not that you are on the naturally smarter side.
I strongly suspect that we will not see this distribution again in 2008, and certainly not in 2012. The Democrats have implicitly agreed to this split through emergent processes (i.e., no one necessarily decided on this grand strategy, it just emerged) and it clearly is not working for them. The obvious next move for them, as they re-form themselves, is to shake up the playing field. If they don't they will continue to lose.
There will be other boundaries to draw in 2008, but we can over-inflate concerns about that then.
Cheap talk. We defeated you slave-loving conservative hicks before.
That's right, I apparently disagree with you and therefore I am "slave loving". Are you still mystified about why "your side" is having a hard time connecting with enough of the electorate?
OK, you had a smiley, but it takes more than a smiley to take the sting out of an accusation of racism.