The necessary info is almost always "I need the cops at location X". Usually just the call itself, which carries location info (E911 from mobiles), is sufficient. But sometimes telling the cops that the emergency is armed, perhaps heavily, the number of people, or some other details, can help the first responders arrive better prepared to cope with the situation more quickly, safely and effectively. But it's also common for people in the emergency not to be able to talk, lest they tip off the people causing the emergency.
Will subclassing enums make it into JDK 7? It's annoying to jump through hoops that aren't a good model of the work when making enums of commands that are in different groups of overall common functionality.
Anyone serious about data security across the border doesn't carry a storage unit on their person, as their person gives the US police state the motive, means and opportunity to search their storage at the border. Instead, they transfer data over the Internet, either before arriving to a US machine, or once inside the US they retrieve it from the foreign machine to a US machine. Of course they encrypt it, with a long passphrase in practically unbreakable symmetric key encryption. If the data is too large to conveniently transfer across the Internet, they just copy the data to USB sticks, symmetric encrypt them, and mail them across - usually several sticks, on different carriers, to ensure at least one arrives safely.
So forcing people to unlock their personal data for border cops without any evidence that could convince a judge to issue a search warrant doesn't catch anyone serious. Indeed, I've never heard any evidence that these border searches, which search millions of people over many years, have ever produced anything of value to US national security, despite spending $BILLIONS and distracting thousands of expensive security personnel from the actual mission of protecting us from actual threats. Instead it just violates the privacy rights of millions of people, American and foreign, despite the exact contrary instructions spelled out in the Constitution.
All the Americans getting crazy about "securing our borders" and the Constitution haven't said a word insisting the Constitution protect our privacy rights when we return to our country from abroad where it's supposedly "not as free as here". Therefore I leave them in the category of people who are not serious about security. Or the Constitution, or our rights.
The main reason for Google to produce and promote Android is so the mobile/embedded Internet isn't locked up, either by a monopoly (Apple/Nokia/Microsoft/telco) or by a technology (iOS, Symbian, Win7+). With a large minority, or even a majority, of non-desktops off Windows, Google is more likely to have more access to more content to index, and more searching to insert ads into. That is Google's core business, the only one that makes money, and it makes money by the bargeload. Google is the only truly cross platform Internet business other than eBay or any other site that isn't original content. Android makes the Internet more cross platform, so Google has more natural advantage in it. Even if Google doesn't control Android. In this way Google's strategy is just like Sun's Java strategy. And Google is sticking to it much more closely, unlike Sun which never became an "Internet company", but rather a company that the Internet benefited. Consider whether Sun (even as an Oracle division) would still have a future without Java, and whether Java would have as substantial a future without Android. Android free of Google (even more than Java is now free of Sun) would still benefit Google more than does Java free of Sun benefit Google, even as Java keeps Sun alive.
I would love to control each of my lights, indeed each of my appliances, with a network application targeting their power switch (and more, if possible). But a WiFi chip in each light is expensive. People were carping about CFLs costing $10 each when incandescents cost $0.30 each; LEDs are still several times as expensive as CFLs for the same lumens. Adding WiFi is extremely expensive; Arduinos themselves aren't cheap.
But there's a wire connecting each of these devices. X10 has long used the 0V point in every 60Hz (US; 50HZ Europe) AC cycle to transmit network data. Why can't a real packet network run TCP/IP over AC wiring like that, but be reliable the way X10 isn't?
Even if the AC wiring isn't suitable, is there a way to get a $5 device on each light and appliance that just gets on/off signals reliably to its address, and switches a power transistor?
The real test of a student isn't just their reporting on what's already known. The real test is their doing something new.
A better higher education paradigm would be spending a minority of time researching and reporting what's already known in a subject, for which no points are awarded. Then splitting the majority of the time between using that knowledge to produce something new, no matter how trivial - though requiring the base knowledge from purely historical knowledge - and the final task: educating others (teachers or classmates) in the new knowledge.
It's a lot harder to "just copy" the new knowledge, and even harder to fake teaching it to others. Such a system does require the teachers to know what's "new" and what's already known, but that kind of survey should be the work of the school itself, since it requires lots of low-skill "search the literature" work.
But this system would do a lot more than verify that students are educated. It would produce a lot more knowledge, and in the way that it's actually produced in "the real world".
Networks have revolutionized knowledge. They are therefore radically changing education. The momentum could be harnessed to power increased quality, rather than cheating.
"Technology company" with no technology products in the market does not infringe a copyright of a PC and OS maker. Nor of a record distributor, for that matter.
Which is why the courts found in that regard for Jobs.
Jobs signed a contract with Apple Corps back when he had no money, brand or corporate experience. But he got out of it on the legal merits, though only because he had enough money and corporate chops to go to battle with the hoary old Apple Corps.
Your stories show the power of arrogance to interfere with commerce, especially when it prevents consumers from getting intangible content that some rich and powerful corporation can stall indefinitely. It is the power of money + ego in battle royale. Jobs' sum won.
Actually, this announcement's hype is testament to Steve Jobs' narcissism, and whatever is the corporate version of "narcissism" (monopolism?) over at Apple Records. Apple Records has been suing and attacking Apple Computer since the Apple ][, claiming "trademark" rights that don't exist (computers aren't music, even when computers play or sell music). "Beatles on iTunes" closes the "Apple vs Apple" spat that has kept Beatles music from Apple users for so long, even when it there was no possible combo. Which is probably a lot bigger deal to Jobs and Apple Records than it is to the public, even if Apple's music distribution is #1 and the Beatles recordings are still among the most popular music in the world.
Because Steve Jobs is a Baby Boomer whose narcissism crossed with Apple Records' narcissism is bigger than even the narcissism of the entire rest of the "Me Generation".
Is MeeGo increasing the robustness of mobile devices by offering variety? Or is it splitting the developer and consumer activity in mobile between MeeGo and Android, and so slowing down the pace and survival strength of mobile development?
Both are happening. Which is stronger than the other?
The car in question is my 2003 Corolla, which at 27MPG is 22% higher than the average for all 2003 cars. Certainly the data has something - everything - to do with that car.
I divide the amount of miles I drove since I filled it by the number fo gallons I put in to fill it. I get 27 averaged across several refills. I drive 90% of the miles about 50MPH commuting on a highway. So I know how fuel economy works, and how averages work.
What we have proven here is that indeed there is something wrong with you.
Today while I was filling up my 2003 Corolla with gas, a guy drove up to the next pump in his 1952 MG convertible. Which gets 30MPG. My Corolla gets 27MPG.
You might or might not be a CS professor, but you're certainly a liar. If you are a professor, your students should ignore you.
Because what the article says is
For the 2010 fiscal year that ended on September 30, the government had a budget shortfall of 1.294 trillion dollars, down 122 billion dollars from the previous year's record-setting high.
122B / 1.294T = 9.4281298%. "Budget shortfall" = "deficit". The 2010 fiscal year was the first budget that Obama presented. The 2009 budget was Bush's last budget.
Since you're a CS professor and a liar, I'll explain that means "Obama's deficit was 9% lower than Bush's deficit". If we're rounding down, and I'm sure you'd prefer that.
Let's move on to taxes. Since you're a Republican, you're just lying. The definition of taxes is money collected by the government from the people. 95% of Americans paid less taxes starting in April 2009, passed within Obama's first 100 days as his policy. That's because 95% of Americans paid less to the government under Obama's policy. You're lying just like a Republican: the "very creative definition" is to call the health insurance premiums you pay to a private corporation "taxes". Those increases came within the many loopholes and compromises Republicans forced into the HCR law.
There is as much a "consensus among economists" that Clinton's "forced lending policies" caused this recession 8 years after Clinton left office as there is "consensus among scientists" that Climate Change is either not happening or is not reducible by reducing human generated Greenhouse pollution. That is to say "no such consensus", at least not among real economists (or scientists). Of course, there's consensus among Republicans that the deregulation created as a top policy priority by Texas senator Republican Phil Gramm that Clinton signed, and run into the red zone by the Republican Congress under Bush was somehow something Republicans tried to stop. Somehow 6 years of a Republican monopoly on all three Federal bodies that regulate and deregulate couldn't curb them, but a lone Democratic president could create them. I could go on about how rich people who fund and vote Republicans into power defaulted on mortgages at a much higher rate than the poor people Clinton insisted get more credit while Republicans were deregulating. But you're a Republican liar, so I won't waste more time on that.
But I will spend another moment pointing out that even Obama's first budget, that reduced Bush's deficit by over 9%, was itself inflated by spending hundreds of $BILLIONS under the bailout that Bush forced the Congress to pass (along with many Republicans) during his final months in power, the bank bailout. Because Obama forced that bailout to include America's auto industry, the core of America's manufacturing and overall economy, despite every Republican fighting it. Without that bailout, America's economy would be unrecognizable today, two years later. Closely related is how Obama's overall management of the bailouts has kept unemployment at 9.x%, instead of over 12%. Unemployment caused by Bush, his two wars, his ignoring the real economy in favor of deregulating banksters with his Republican Congress.
Maybe you don't see a rescued economy around you because you're a CS professor. More likely it's because you're a Republican, and all you can see is Fox "News", which keeps you dumb and angry - at anyone but the Republican culprits.
While I am a reasonable person who can recognize the truth. You Republican liars crashed America, Obama has kept us out, and you Republicans have used whatever power you've retained to keep us crashed. And you will never stop lying about it.
When someone points out that Net Neutrality is in danger while Republicans have power, when the truth is that Republicans are against Net Neutrality, and someone else criticizes them saying so as biased, that is someone defending the Republican Party on something other than the truth.
In fact, I didn't say it was "loyalty to the Republican Party". You did. I just called them a Republican, because that's who defends Republicans from the truth with BS like "you're biased". Maybe they're not loyal to the Party; maybe they're just against Net Neutrality. Who cares? They're a Republican, and they're full of crap.
What I find to be harmful is strawmen like the one that you posted, and the rest of the cloud of determined ignorance that protects the Republican Party from even being pointed out for what it and its members do.
I didn't say anything partisan. What I said was merely a correction of an actual partisan twat. Attacking Republicans on the facts when a Republican spews BS is not partisan, unless "the truth" is a party.
In that spirit, here's the truth about the BS you just spewed about the Democrats: Obama and the Democrats reduced the deficit by 9% from Bush's devastation, while reducing taxes on 95% of Americans during the recession Bush caused, even as they rescued the economy from that devastating recession. Republicans are the ones who gutted health insurance reform at every turn, yet Obama and Democrats still managed to make a bigger HCR law than has passed our lobbyist-swamped government since Medicare was passed (by Democrats, over the same Republican blockades). The requirement to buy health insurance is toothless, and cannot be enforced, so is merely a way to get Americans who live according to the system to pay what's necessary to support the system, unless they commit the equivalent of jaywalking. Meanwhile Obama has wound down Iraq and its horrendous losses of lives and money on schedule.
Though indeed Democrats have their lying corporatists, too - they just don't control a lockstep party. Democratic corruption is sustainable, while Republican corruption has over and over nearly destroyed this country, until Democrats managed to pull it back into sustainable corruption. Nobody's got an alternative US politics that's not corrupt, but Democrats have an alternative US politics that's sustainable. I'll take sustainable over suicidal, which means I'll take Democrats over Republicans.
What's really false is the false equivalence you just did your part to perpetuate.
I swear no loyalty to any party. I'm not even a member of any party, though I'm very politically active, and have voted every chance I've had since I was old enough in the 1980s. I am loyal to America, the one I live in and that is described in the Constitution and even the rhetoric of some of our worst politicians: Republicans who hide their crimes behind tinny nationalism. I am loyal to the truth.
The truth is that Republicans are intolerably corrupt, including their voters, while Democrats are sustainably corrupt. So when some Republican starts claiming that the truth about Republicans is "bias", I will debunk that. And when someone says Democrats are just as bad, I will debunk that. The truth is slightly more complex than "Republicans = bad / Democrats = good", which is why I don't say that. But it's not so complex that saying "Democrats = Republicans" is true.
You Republicans want to fill the government with the most biased, incompetent, anti-privacy corporatists possible, then whine about bias when people tell the truth about them.
Elections have consequences. You Republicans voting control of the House to Boehner will have consequences that attack your privacy like never before. Evidently starting with the lies about "fair and balanced".
20 years of using tablets is going to change a lot more than whether the target OS is some "MeeGo" or other. But indeed I said
and Linux for the very few in either the narrowest range of specialties or the narrowest band of all: those who use the best tool for the job at hand, regardless of what everyone else is using.
If a keyboard is still the best tool in 2030 for communicating system behavior to a computer, it might still be used for that narrowest band of all: system developers. But probably they will use the HCI that most everyone else uses, just as most developers use a mouse, even though it's one of the worst HCI tools available.
I took over as Tech Director at a Silicon Alley startup that Shirky had just left, so he could become a grandstanding pontificator instead of creating or actually directing technology. Shirky was a poser who left the place in the kind of shape that most of the.bust companies he promoted and pontificated about were really in, under the VC wrapper. "Shirky" is an excellent adjective for him, though the formless "clay" suggests that even his name is made up for effect.
As for Stonehenge, it's clear that the people who were there when Stonehenge was being planned thought that it was a great advantage in knowing what day of the year it was, and/or how to communicate with the nature gods that controlled their everyday lives. Not because it was "cool", but because it was essential to living their lives the way they lived them. Similarly the Giza pyramids, which would have been a better example.
Actually, a 150 storey building someplace where space is not at a premium is also a stupid idea. It's a waste.
That's why in NYC we stopped building such tall buildings after the WTC 40 years ago. Manhattan real estate is precious, but not 4000 people per acre precious. Dubai real estate isn't precious, but Dubai has $billions to waste, and a longstanding inferiority complex that compels it to waste it. Japan is different.
At a time when important projects are left undone because of shortages of resources, even this planning effort is a waste of resources that could be doing something cool that's got actual value. Designing a Lunar habitat would be cool, but I bet someone who actually lives in Japan with its problems and opportunities would think of a better one. This project is more like designing a prop for a science fiction video.
Or just a way for some bankers at Nomura to suck up some public welfare subsidy using some grad students as props.
They already own "Donkey Kong". Using "It's On Like Donkey Kong" to sell a competing video game would already be prevented by the "Donkey Kong" trademark. This move is at best redundant, in an overreaching way. Which leads me to expect that they'd overreach on what they attempted to protect. I expect they'd try to extort money or just send baseless Cease & Desist letters to people using the phrase who aren't selling a competing video game.
This is a pretty lame move to steal a public domain phrase created by the public, to increase some valuation of "Donkey Kong" that Nintendo named after King Kong, a media property to which Nintendo has never had any legitimate claim.
There's thousands of islands near the Equator, especially in the Pacific and Indian oceans, especially if "near" includes places as far as Singapore. I doubt anyone showing up with what it takes to build a city would be in any kind of danger on any of these islands. Especially once they'd built the city.
Until a typhoon, tsunami or drought come through. In the longer term, sealevel rise and larger storms are pretty serious.
Building an energy platform at sea as part of a global energy transmission infrastructure could be a good idea. A city is a bad idea.
If "On like Donkey Kong" was a phrase used to market a game that consumers though was the Nintendo property, there might be a case here. That is the only test that is used to determine whether a phrase or symbol infringes a trademark.
Corporations who frivolously try to grab intellectual "property" like this should have to pay the government fees for using up taxpayer funded resources.
Slashdot Mirror
The necessary info is almost always "I need the cops at location X". Usually just the call itself, which carries location info (E911 from mobiles), is sufficient. But sometimes telling the cops that the emergency is armed, perhaps heavily, the number of people, or some other details, can help the first responders arrive better prepared to cope with the situation more quickly, safely and effectively. But it's also common for people in the emergency not to be able to talk, lest they tip off the people causing the emergency.
Will subclassing enums make it into JDK 7? It's annoying to jump through hoops that aren't a good model of the work when making enums of commands that are in different groups of overall common functionality.
Anyone serious about data security across the border doesn't carry a storage unit on their person, as their person gives the US police state the motive, means and opportunity to search their storage at the border. Instead, they transfer data over the Internet, either before arriving to a US machine, or once inside the US they retrieve it from the foreign machine to a US machine. Of course they encrypt it, with a long passphrase in practically unbreakable symmetric key encryption. If the data is too large to conveniently transfer across the Internet, they just copy the data to USB sticks, symmetric encrypt them, and mail them across - usually several sticks, on different carriers, to ensure at least one arrives safely.
So forcing people to unlock their personal data for border cops without any evidence that could convince a judge to issue a search warrant doesn't catch anyone serious. Indeed, I've never heard any evidence that these border searches, which search millions of people over many years, have ever produced anything of value to US national security, despite spending $BILLIONS and distracting thousands of expensive security personnel from the actual mission of protecting us from actual threats. Instead it just violates the privacy rights of millions of people, American and foreign, despite the exact contrary instructions spelled out in the Constitution.
All the Americans getting crazy about "securing our borders" and the Constitution haven't said a word insisting the Constitution protect our privacy rights when we return to our country from abroad where it's supposedly "not as free as here". Therefore I leave them in the category of people who are not serious about security. Or the Constitution, or our rights.
The main reason for Google to produce and promote Android is so the mobile/embedded Internet isn't locked up, either by a monopoly (Apple/Nokia/Microsoft/telco) or by a technology (iOS, Symbian, Win7+). With a large minority, or even a majority, of non-desktops off Windows, Google is more likely to have more access to more content to index, and more searching to insert ads into. That is Google's core business, the only one that makes money, and it makes money by the bargeload. Google is the only truly cross platform Internet business other than eBay or any other site that isn't original content. Android makes the Internet more cross platform, so Google has more natural advantage in it. Even if Google doesn't control Android. In this way Google's strategy is just like Sun's Java strategy. And Google is sticking to it much more closely, unlike Sun which never became an "Internet company", but rather a company that the Internet benefited. Consider whether Sun (even as an Oracle division) would still have a future without Java, and whether Java would have as substantial a future without Android. Android free of Google (even more than Java is now free of Sun) would still benefit Google more than does Java free of Sun benefit Google, even as Java keeps Sun alive.
I would love to control each of my lights, indeed each of my appliances, with a network application targeting their power switch (and more, if possible). But a WiFi chip in each light is expensive. People were carping about CFLs costing $10 each when incandescents cost $0.30 each; LEDs are still several times as expensive as CFLs for the same lumens. Adding WiFi is extremely expensive; Arduinos themselves aren't cheap.
But there's a wire connecting each of these devices. X10 has long used the 0V point in every 60Hz (US; 50HZ Europe) AC cycle to transmit network data. Why can't a real packet network run TCP/IP over AC wiring like that, but be reliable the way X10 isn't?
Even if the AC wiring isn't suitable, is there a way to get a $5 device on each light and appliance that just gets on/off signals reliably to its address, and switches a power transistor?
The real test of a student isn't just their reporting on what's already known. The real test is their doing something new.
A better higher education paradigm would be spending a minority of time researching and reporting what's already known in a subject, for which no points are awarded. Then splitting the majority of the time between using that knowledge to produce something new, no matter how trivial - though requiring the base knowledge from purely historical knowledge - and the final task: educating others (teachers or classmates) in the new knowledge.
It's a lot harder to "just copy" the new knowledge, and even harder to fake teaching it to others. Such a system does require the teachers to know what's "new" and what's already known, but that kind of survey should be the work of the school itself, since it requires lots of low-skill "search the literature" work.
But this system would do a lot more than verify that students are educated. It would produce a lot more knowledge, and in the way that it's actually produced in "the real world".
Networks have revolutionized knowledge. They are therefore radically changing education. The momentum could be harnessed to power increased quality, rather than cheating.
"Technology company" with no technology products in the market does not infringe a copyright of a PC and OS maker. Nor of a record distributor, for that matter.
Which is why the courts found in that regard for Jobs.
Jobs signed a contract with Apple Corps back when he had no money, brand or corporate experience. But he got out of it on the legal merits, though only because he had enough money and corporate chops to go to battle with the hoary old Apple Corps.
Your stories show the power of arrogance to interfere with commerce, especially when it prevents consumers from getting intangible content that some rich and powerful corporation can stall indefinitely. It is the power of money + ego in battle royale. Jobs' sum won.
Actually, this announcement's hype is testament to Steve Jobs' narcissism, and whatever is the corporate version of "narcissism" (monopolism?) over at Apple Records. Apple Records has been suing and attacking Apple Computer since the Apple ][, claiming "trademark" rights that don't exist (computers aren't music, even when computers play or sell music). "Beatles on iTunes" closes the "Apple vs Apple" spat that has kept Beatles music from Apple users for so long, even when it there was no possible combo. Which is probably a lot bigger deal to Jobs and Apple Records than it is to the public, even if Apple's music distribution is #1 and the Beatles recordings are still among the most popular music in the world.
Because Steve Jobs is a Baby Boomer whose narcissism crossed with Apple Records' narcissism is bigger than even the narcissism of the entire rest of the "Me Generation".
Is MeeGo increasing the robustness of mobile devices by offering variety? Or is it splitting the developer and consumer activity in mobile between MeeGo and Android, and so slowing down the pace and survival strength of mobile development?
Both are happening. Which is stronger than the other?
The car in question is my 2003 Corolla, which at 27MPG is 22% higher than the average for all 2003 cars. Certainly the data has something - everything - to do with that car.
You're really not OK. Goodbye.
I divide the amount of miles I drove since I filled it by the number fo gallons I put in to fill it. I get 27 averaged across several refills. I drive 90% of the miles about 50MPH commuting on a highway. So I know how fuel economy works, and how averages work.
What we have proven here is that indeed there is something wrong with you.
The average MPG in 2003 was 22.2MPG. In 2009 it was 22.6.
So evidently there's something wrong with you.
Today while I was filling up my 2003 Corolla with gas, a guy drove up to the next pump in his 1952 MG convertible. Which gets 30MPG. My Corolla gets 27MPG.
You might or might not be a CS professor, but you're certainly a liar. If you are a professor, your students should ignore you.
Because what the article says is
122B / 1.294T = 9.4281298%. "Budget shortfall" = "deficit". The 2010 fiscal year was the first budget that Obama presented. The 2009 budget was Bush's last budget.
Since you're a CS professor and a liar, I'll explain that means "Obama's deficit was 9% lower than Bush's deficit". If we're rounding down, and I'm sure you'd prefer that.
Let's move on to taxes. Since you're a Republican, you're just lying. The definition of taxes is money collected by the government from the people. 95% of Americans paid less taxes starting in April 2009, passed within Obama's first 100 days as his policy. That's because 95% of Americans paid less to the government under Obama's policy. You're lying just like a Republican: the "very creative definition" is to call the health insurance premiums you pay to a private corporation "taxes". Those increases came within the many loopholes and compromises Republicans forced into the HCR law.
There is as much a "consensus among economists" that Clinton's "forced lending policies" caused this recession 8 years after Clinton left office as there is "consensus among scientists" that Climate Change is either not happening or is not reducible by reducing human generated Greenhouse pollution. That is to say "no such consensus", at least not among real economists (or scientists). Of course, there's consensus among Republicans that the deregulation created as a top policy priority by Texas senator Republican Phil Gramm that Clinton signed, and run into the red zone by the Republican Congress under Bush was somehow something Republicans tried to stop. Somehow 6 years of a Republican monopoly on all three Federal bodies that regulate and deregulate couldn't curb them, but a lone Democratic president could create them. I could go on about how rich people who fund and vote Republicans into power defaulted on mortgages at a much higher rate than the poor people Clinton insisted get more credit while Republicans were deregulating. But you're a Republican liar, so I won't waste more time on that.
But I will spend another moment pointing out that even Obama's first budget, that reduced Bush's deficit by over 9%, was itself inflated by spending hundreds of $BILLIONS under the bailout that Bush forced the Congress to pass (along with many Republicans) during his final months in power, the bank bailout. Because Obama forced that bailout to include America's auto industry, the core of America's manufacturing and overall economy, despite every Republican fighting it. Without that bailout, America's economy would be unrecognizable today, two years later. Closely related is how Obama's overall management of the bailouts has kept unemployment at 9.x%, instead of over 12%. Unemployment caused by Bush, his two wars, his ignoring the real economy in favor of deregulating banksters with his Republican Congress.
Maybe you don't see a rescued economy around you because you're a CS professor. More likely it's because you're a Republican, and all you can see is Fox "News", which keeps you dumb and angry - at anyone but the Republican culprits.
While I am a reasonable person who can recognize the truth. You Republican liars crashed America, Obama has kept us out, and you Republicans have used whatever power you've retained to keep us crashed. And you will never stop lying about it.
When someone points out that Net Neutrality is in danger while Republicans have power, when the truth is that Republicans are against Net Neutrality, and someone else criticizes them saying so as biased, that is someone defending the Republican Party on something other than the truth.
In fact, I didn't say it was "loyalty to the Republican Party". You did. I just called them a Republican, because that's who defends Republicans from the truth with BS like "you're biased". Maybe they're not loyal to the Party; maybe they're just against Net Neutrality. Who cares? They're a Republican, and they're full of crap.
What I find to be harmful is strawmen like the one that you posted, and the rest of the cloud of determined ignorance that protects the Republican Party from even being pointed out for what it and its members do.
I didn't say anything partisan. What I said was merely a correction of an actual partisan twat. Attacking Republicans on the facts when a Republican spews BS is not partisan, unless "the truth" is a party.
In that spirit, here's the truth about the BS you just spewed about the Democrats: Obama and the Democrats reduced the deficit by 9% from Bush's devastation, while reducing taxes on 95% of Americans during the recession Bush caused, even as they rescued the economy from that devastating recession. Republicans are the ones who gutted health insurance reform at every turn, yet Obama and Democrats still managed to make a bigger HCR law than has passed our lobbyist-swamped government since Medicare was passed (by Democrats, over the same Republican blockades). The requirement to buy health insurance is toothless, and cannot be enforced, so is merely a way to get Americans who live according to the system to pay what's necessary to support the system, unless they commit the equivalent of jaywalking. Meanwhile Obama has wound down Iraq and its horrendous losses of lives and money on schedule.
Though indeed Democrats have their lying corporatists, too - they just don't control a lockstep party. Democratic corruption is sustainable, while Republican corruption has over and over nearly destroyed this country, until Democrats managed to pull it back into sustainable corruption. Nobody's got an alternative US politics that's not corrupt, but Democrats have an alternative US politics that's sustainable. I'll take sustainable over suicidal, which means I'll take Democrats over Republicans.
What's really false is the false equivalence you just did your part to perpetuate.
I swear no loyalty to any party. I'm not even a member of any party, though I'm very politically active, and have voted every chance I've had since I was old enough in the 1980s. I am loyal to America, the one I live in and that is described in the Constitution and even the rhetoric of some of our worst politicians: Republicans who hide their crimes behind tinny nationalism. I am loyal to the truth.
The truth is that Republicans are intolerably corrupt, including their voters, while Democrats are sustainably corrupt. So when some Republican starts claiming that the truth about Republicans is "bias", I will debunk that. And when someone says Democrats are just as bad, I will debunk that. The truth is slightly more complex than "Republicans = bad / Democrats = good", which is why I don't say that. But it's not so complex that saying "Democrats = Republicans" is true.
You Republicans want to fill the government with the most biased, incompetent, anti-privacy corporatists possible, then whine about bias when people tell the truth about them.
Elections have consequences. You Republicans voting control of the House to Boehner will have consequences that attack your privacy like never before. Evidently starting with the lies about "fair and balanced".
20 years of using tablets is going to change a lot more than whether the target OS is some "MeeGo" or other. But indeed I said
If a keyboard is still the best tool in 2030 for communicating system behavior to a computer, it might still be used for that narrowest band of all: system developers. But probably they will use the HCI that most everyone else uses, just as most developers use a mouse, even though it's one of the worst HCI tools available.
I took over as Tech Director at a Silicon Alley startup that Shirky had just left, so he could become a grandstanding pontificator instead of creating or actually directing technology. Shirky was a poser who left the place in the kind of shape that most of the .bust companies he promoted and pontificated about were really in, under the VC wrapper. "Shirky" is an excellent adjective for him, though the formless "clay" suggests that even his name is made up for effect.
As for Stonehenge, it's clear that the people who were there when Stonehenge was being planned thought that it was a great advantage in knowing what day of the year it was, and/or how to communicate with the nature gods that controlled their everyday lives. Not because it was "cool", but because it was essential to living their lives the way they lived them. Similarly the Giza pyramids, which would have been a better example.
This city idea is a bridge to nowhere.
Actually, a 150 storey building someplace where space is not at a premium is also a stupid idea. It's a waste.
That's why in NYC we stopped building such tall buildings after the WTC 40 years ago. Manhattan real estate is precious, but not 4000 people per acre precious. Dubai real estate isn't precious, but Dubai has $billions to waste, and a longstanding inferiority complex that compels it to waste it. Japan is different.
At a time when important projects are left undone because of shortages of resources, even this planning effort is a waste of resources that could be doing something cool that's got actual value. Designing a Lunar habitat would be cool, but I bet someone who actually lives in Japan with its problems and opportunities would think of a better one. This project is more like designing a prop for a science fiction video.
Or just a way for some bankers at Nomura to suck up some public welfare subsidy using some grad students as props.
They already own "Donkey Kong". Using "It's On Like Donkey Kong" to sell a competing video game would already be prevented by the "Donkey Kong" trademark. This move is at best redundant, in an overreaching way. Which leads me to expect that they'd overreach on what they attempted to protect. I expect they'd try to extort money or just send baseless Cease & Desist letters to people using the phrase who aren't selling a competing video game.
This is a pretty lame move to steal a public domain phrase created by the public, to increase some valuation of "Donkey Kong" that Nintendo named after King Kong, a media property to which Nintendo has never had any legitimate claim.
There's thousands of islands near the Equator, especially in the Pacific and Indian oceans, especially if "near" includes places as far as Singapore. I doubt anyone showing up with what it takes to build a city would be in any kind of danger on any of these islands. Especially once they'd built the city.
Until a typhoon, tsunami or drought come through. In the longer term, sealevel rise and larger storms are pretty serious.
Building an energy platform at sea as part of a global energy transmission infrastructure could be a good idea. A city is a bad idea.
If "On like Donkey Kong" was a phrase used to market a game that consumers though was the Nintendo property, there might be a case here. That is the only test that is used to determine whether a phrase or symbol infringes a trademark.
Corporations who frivolously try to grab intellectual "property" like this should have to pay the government fees for using up taxpayer funded resources.