The flip of the poles is on-going, and has been going on for thousands of years. The pole-flip is to EMP (or anything else that might damage magnetic media) as the millimeter/year changes in sea level are to tsunamis.
I think you may be advocating a specific doctrine on earth development rather than defending scientific research. Scientist are now finding evidence that things can happen very "quickly", and not everything follows the slow, orderly process. This causes problems for many people because it opens the possibility that humans might have a significant impact on the environment, or the environment might not be as long term stable as we have assumed.
WRT the Earths magnetic field, no one really knows if or when it is going flip. It is probably going to flip because it has before, on at least a few occasions. What some scientists think is that magnetic field weakens over a relatively short period, say less than 20K years, and at some critical point when it begins to regenerate, might flip. Since a fluctuation in the field seems normal, and there does not appear to be any predictability in the flip cycle, no one can say whether a flip is imminent or not. What can be said is that if the field does flip, the flip itself will probably happen very quickly, say a thousand years.
As far as moderation, I find most posts are moderated properly. For instance, polemics asserting personal points of view and attacking personalities rather than ideas are often ignored, although in this case such a post was inexplicable moderated up. When I post such polemics I never expect to be moderated up and am only surprised when I offend someone enough to have the comments moderated down.
In reality, many organizations force thier employees to use IE. It is a management decision intended to reduce costs and establish a common interface. In reality it is just a result of web page developer not understanding how to create web content using anything other than frontpage and MS SQL.
I have gone through this at many companies. Ther is little technical or budget benifit to the decision. The only benifit is usually that you can get minimally trained devlopers to do the work cheaply.
The part about this story that gets to me is that the researcher didn't alert Microsoft before posting to a public mailing list.
What irks me is that MS did not discover these themselves. After all, the closed source, security by obscurity, we can do it all ourselves model of software development is so superior, that we can only draw one of two conclusions. Either their superior technicians found the problems already, but the management decided not to put in the resources to fix it, or their superior technicians did not find the bug, in which case they need to not only fix the problem, but understand why their process so routinely fails.
This is not an issue of hating MS, any more than the other recent alert was an issue of hating Apple. It is an issue of knowing there is a problem out there, but having no power in the official process to correct the problem. The only power the might be had is that of public relations. This is very different from OSS, in which one can potentially affect the development process and at least see that something is being done.
This whole issue of course assumes that dozens of other people have not already found the bug and are exploiting it on small scales not easily detectible by the common methods. And of course does not take into account the ability for people to switch browsers. Just imagine how many lives would have been saved if people had been fully aware of the incompetent design of the Explorer and bought other cars instead.
No, I think the problem is that the people who should know better just don't care, because caring would cost them a few extra dollars. Anyway, it is never going to happen to them.
And we are supposed to be denied Internet access if we use a router instead of a direct connection. Given cisco perfect security record i am sure that no workarounds will exist. Simple examples would be:
a proxy that would fool the cisco
a firewall that would fool the cisco
a software solution to fool the cisco
a worm to tunnel through the cisco equipment and set up a client that would radomly crash the equipment.
a general DOS attack just to annoy the users of the equipment.
This is just like any other security system. If it causes too many problems, such as false alarms, customer complaints, or just waking an IT person at an inopportune time, it will just be turned off.
Which is just to say that we should support open firmware. It is hackable in forth, a language that one can learn in a week or two, if you do not already know it.
Perhaps someone will tell us what the benefits of the randomly-changeable bios are.
I don't think Blockbuster wants low sale prices. The latest business plan appears to be the sale of used and previously viewed video, and thier used product price is often comparable to walmart. They buy video at less than $20 and rent for $4 a pop. It is not unreasonable to assume that the costs are covered after a month or two of rentals. However, instead of selling the video for twice rental costs, the tend to sell it in the 12-15 range, with the occasional sale at $10.
They also are expanding in the games market specifically because the price of games are so high. The high price encourages people to rent a game, even a few times, instead of purchasing the game.
Remember that Blockbuster was started when studios still were "pricing to rent" at $50 or more. The drop in price to the sub $20 range has hurt blockbuster by forcing them to effectively cut prices.
Math is wonderful. You can basically create formulas that may or may not have any basis in reality. This is why in addition to mathematician we have experimental physicists who whack the mathematician on the snout, take their formulations, and subject the equations to a rigorous dose of reality. Clearly someone needs to whack this guy on the snout.
Cards and monopoly are great. The have no noise making annoyances, involve lots of manipulative that occupy the child, and rounds proceed quickly while occupying all players attention. More importantly, these games do minimum damage when the playing pieces enter the inevitable tantrum driven projectile phase.
But Bop It? It is noisy, and hurts like hell when used as a club. Jenga? The point is to frustrate your opponents. This game is great at developing necessary skills, but when the pieces fall, the loser has a great desire to test the aerodynamics of the blocks.
Not if you are dealing with a somewhat capitalist economy where people are financially compensated for creating a product that people are willing to pay for. Note that i did not say that people are paid for effort, although the amount of compensation may be commensurate to the effort and risk.
It is up to the seller of a product to create an environment in which the product can be sold and in which paying the asking price is easier than creating the product yourself or making a copy of it or stealing it. If the seller is not able to do this, then the product may go away. If the seller is not able to do this without destroying customer loyalty, then the product may go away. Products go away all the time. Just look at the ibuprofen brands widely present five years ago and widely present today.
It order to justify the "tax" the product would have to be a necessity, like water, electricity, and telephone. In that case, the market would also have to be highly regulated, for instance compulsorily licensing at a fixed costs that may assumes significant revenue comes from the tax, a fixed price of the physical product, and explicit rules for timely return of the product to the public domain. I would argue that no individual artist or label are a necessity, and traditionally we have had more than enough artists that have been able to make a go of it without the PHB overhead.
This is to notify you that you are in violation of the DMCA. All MS hardware includes proprietary encrypted screws and advanced adhesive patented security technology to protect our IP. By removing these technological protections, and exposing the underlying technology, you have violated more IP rights than you can possible imagine. You are a terrorist. The FBI will soon be at your house to throw you in a dark deep dungeon.
Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software. This process is designed to monitor the security and ownership of intellectual property rights associated with the code. By contrast, much of Linux has been built from contributions by numerous unrelated and unknown software developers, each contributing a small section of code. There is no mechanism inherent in the Linux development process to assure that intellectual property rights, confidentiality or security are protected.
Correct if I am wrong, but doesn't all open source code include the name of the copyright owner? Doesn't this mean that the software developers, at least a high level, are much better known than that of proprietary software in which the pieces of code might have been subcontracted to who knows where, through who knows how many layer of management? Has anyone actually tried to go to say, Microsoft, and ask who exactly wrote this particular ActiveX control that is now responsible for so many security breaches?
And you may further correct me, but I believe that OSS, at least on the commercial side, generally supplies code to at least those who purchase the program, and such code may be investigated for copyright violations. Any violating code has historically been removed. OTOH, may small proprietary software firms has used copyrighted code without permission, and those who get caught generally say 'prove it', which is really hard to do because the code is closed?
As a consequence of Linux's unrestricted authoring process, it is not surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of the Linux code provided to customers. Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux developments process may also rest with the end user.
I would really like to see the evidence that, on average, proprietary software is more restrictive that OSS. After all, there is great pressure on proffessional programers to produce. Under such pressure there must be great incentive to borrow a bit of code here and there. After all, the source is closed, so who will know?
I think the poster is somewhat reasonable from an educational point of view. I question whether anyone other than experienced developer can understand it. It took me a minute to understand it. I wonder if the people who make OS decisions will even take the time.
It kind of reminds me of those posters with instruction on surviving the nuclear holocaust the US government distributed ages ago. They kind of fulfilled a moral need, and made people feel like they could survive, but I doubt they would actually do any good in the event of a nuclear exchange.
This may get quite interesting, and we may, at the end, arrive at a rather narrow definition. The reason is that under current laws there are cases where it is beneficial to be an ISP, and other cases where a firm would prefer not to be an ISP. This will likely result in many cases where high power lawyers argue both sides of the situation, and hopefully result in some good precedents.
It's messy, but, as they say, if you don't like the adversarial aspect of the law, go somewhere else.
It seems that google's biggest problem is still the family of link farms that combine incestuous connections and pages full of keywords to get hits of their ads. The problem has gotten so bad lately that I tend to ignore the first few hits. I use the URL and displayed text to try and guess which hit might contain useful information, and not just indexes of links to other pages of indexes to other pages of indexes...
I suppose it is just another symptom of monoculture. It would be real nice to have two or three search engines that were reliable and shared the market space. OTOH, it is a 'free' service, so I am not complaining, and am happy to have such a service.
The market realities is there is just too many talented people out three for any single person or corporate entity to make large sums of money off talent alone. There has to be some mechanism to insure that certain powerful people can choose from the extremely large pool of potential stars and then use these properties to generate profit.
This is why professional sports are monopolies. You allow true competition in the stylized competitive sports and profits are going to drop. Someone might get the idea of not charging $5 for a coke.
In the past the barriers to entry to music has been high enough to insure the labels could control the market without an official monopoly. The Internet can potentially remove those barriers, and therefore they need to make the monopoly official. If they do not, then the arbitrary engineered chick and arbitrary engineer boy-girl will not make their owners huge sums of money.
DRM is not a formation of a police state. DRM is the absolute right of the copyright owner to do whatever they wish with the the content they "own." Now if the copyright owner wishes to further "protect" the DRM part of the content with laws the criminalize certain uses of that content, or if they wish to attack alleged violators of the content they "own" without due process, then that gets into a police state.
So why do the labels not just protect their content with strong DRM. For instance, why do they not encode everything as MS Super Duper We Guarantee That No One Can Copy This Media Technology, and then force everyone to buy a duly licensed MS Super Duper Player But Never Record Or Copy Not Even Through The HeadSet Jack with the special Secure Super Duper Head Set That Will Break If You Try To Copy From It.
Because it is all about PR and nothing but PR. The superstar artist of today is created and is replaced by the superstar artist of tomorrow. Negative PR, such as the fact that it will not play on the car stereo, will cause sales to drop. When the kids realize that the Pretty Girl Star Who Takes Off Her Clothes #1 will not copy onto their MP3 player, or they cannot make a copy for their best friend, next time they will buy Pretty Girl Star Who Takes Off Her Clothes #2. And even worse, when they are old, they will remember that #1 screwed them, and not in the good way.
So the labels have to walk a narrow path between pissing off the fans and extracting enough money from the fans to make the creation of the artist worthwhile.
The problem with most spam laws is that they tend to exempt the ISP from any liability. The language is such laws generally assume the ISP has no control over the spam and is completely innocent.
Which is of course completely wrong. There to appear to service providers who are helping the spammers. These organizations will not respond to complaints. The organizations will say that it "is not our problem" even though it appears they receive compensation from the spammer. The organization seem to have a business model that depend on spammers. However, because they are only the conduit, they are not held responsible.
In some ways this is ok. Just like UCE would be much more palatable if the sender did not forge headers and use other deceptive practices. What i would like to see is the ability to prosecute service providers that do not enforce a minimally acceptable terms of service or have a pattern of behavior that aids the spammers.
The dialog box text should not be done by a programmer. If it is done by a programmer, it should be done by a programmer who speaks the language well and understands the nuances. Not even a native speaker is necessarily qualified. This, and the need for internationalization, is why we separate things like text and icons from code.
If an application is designed correctly, there should a team of competent person writing text for each locale. The same is true for the icons.
I know what you mean. I stuck with a version of office from the late '90s because there was no reason to buy anything new. For about the past year I have been transitioning to OO.org.
A few months ago I downloaded a file that contained a form i was supposed to fill in. My version of word would not display the fields properly. The form was protected so I could not do anything. On a whim I opened it in OO.org. It worked perfectly. All text and fields in tact. All protection gone. I was able to fill in the form, save it back to word, and send it back.
Know I pretty much use OO.org for everything. I occasionally have to go back to Excel as calc does not seem have the full charting capability. But other than that everything works great.
It is very arguable we could be heading for some form of Fascist government. There are several parallels to Hitler and Mussolini.
Opponents are characterized as enemy of the state. This has happened in the past, but seldom to such a degree. Drug users are terrorist. Peaceful demonstrators are terrorists. Democrats are terrorists. Lawyers are terrorists.
The administration is often held up industrialist. This was especially clear in the Nazi party, as well the Bush administration.
Fascism is reaction. The reaction in this case is towards the 'welfare state' and 'degradation' of the economy caused by environmental laws and workers rights. The laws on the books protecting children, workers, and the earth cost business big bucks. They want them gone.
Finally, certain groups are targeted as indicative of social problems, and as an extension economic problems. We are already seeing commercials from the Republican party that put forth blame instead of solutions. The recent ruling for homosexual marriage is going to give Republicans another group to blame: Gays. Look for commercials that distract from the real issues by painting Gays and the people who do not wish to kill them as the reason God hates America.
All this has happened before, in the US and elsewhere. See my.sig for the solution. We are not there yet, but once again we are faced with powerful people who wish we were.
And even if these people were in fact technically competent, the sample is still bad. She found people who were willing to talk to her. So we know up front that the sample was not only self selected, but there is a bias towards people who want to show off how smart they are. In effect, these are the members of the community who think they have something important to say and want publicity bad enough to risk prosecution.
From this biased selection the apparent scientist extrapolates this amazing finding: "I was surprised to discover," says Turgeman, "that they were warm, sociable people with warm families and that many loved to play pranks and were iconoclasts in their childhood."
In other words, the good doctor was surprised to find that the biased self-selected sample, which was selected on their willingness to talk, was in fact a warm sociable crowd. It is also possible that such a sample bias might also favor men. Let's bring out the (ig) Nobel Prize.
The apparent thesis of the paper, to examine self-perception, likely was not significantly effected by the biased sample, which is why the committee let it go. That and the fact that sociology is an extremely soft science. However, some of her quoted comments indicates that she may believe the sample is much more representative that it appears.
anything not specifically allowed should be considered as forbidden.
anything recommended should be considered required.
This is like the quote issue in HTML. For a web page that some bozo knocked up in a hour quotes do not matter. If one is trying to put together a professional document, there is really no excuse not to have quotes. This is especially true if the HTML is machine generated.
higher speeds are good
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As i understand it, in recent years there was a debate about how to handle increase demand for air travel. On camp wanted bigger planes, another wanted faster planes. The bigger planes won out, even though such planes would not fit in older terminals.
It seems that banking the future on bigger planes is kind of mistake. It assumes that airlines can fill bigger planes with passengers. This assumption in the past has created inefficiencies in air travel by forcing customers to fly out their way on smaller planes to hubs and only then go to where they wanted to go in the first place. Bigger planes also can force airlines to sell more heavily discounted tickets to fill the planes.
OTOH faster planes can allow passengers to go to where they want to go without useless detours. Faster smaller planes can allow airlines to sell more standard priced tickets and not play the hub and spoke game with prices. And since planes fly at higher altitude we can put more space between planes. More terminals will need to be built to accommodate more flights, but that is happening anyway. And, with less time on a plane there is less chance of customer service issues.
Combined with some thought on other ways to launch planes, and super sonic speed might be practical.
The Matrix was the first popular film I have seen in quite a while. I paid my full entry to the movie. And then I had to sit there an hear some loser stunt man whine about hard he works and how dangerous the job is.
All I could think is 'you sir are a moron'. All jobs are hard and dangerous. Has he really ever been at work at three in the morning working hard to fix some problem to meet an immovable launch deadline, and i don't mean the whiny ass hollywood kind? Has he really ever been in front of a hundred kids a day, knowing that just down the street one of them beat up a teacher? Has he ever done an honest days work that involved more than fooling the masses? Well, many other people have, many other work hard, and many other people lost their job. And you don't see then wasting our time by whining during time that I paid to be entertained. It was like bring up Sally Struthers for save the whining men campaign.
I would think the industry would try to build up some good relations at blockbusters such as this instead of turning our stomaches.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you may be advocating a specific doctrine on earth development rather than defending scientific research. Scientist are now finding evidence that things can happen very "quickly", and not everything follows the slow, orderly process. This causes problems for many people because it opens the possibility that humans might have a significant impact on the environment, or the environment might not be as long term stable as we have assumed.
WRT the Earths magnetic field, no one really knows if or when it is going flip. It is probably going to flip because it has before, on at least a few occasions. What some scientists think is that magnetic field weakens over a relatively short period, say less than 20K years, and at some critical point when it begins to regenerate, might flip. Since a fluctuation in the field seems normal, and there does not appear to be any predictability in the flip cycle, no one can say whether a flip is imminent or not. What can be said is that if the field does flip, the flip itself will probably happen very quickly, say a thousand years.
As far as moderation, I find most posts are moderated properly. For instance, polemics asserting personal points of view and attacking personalities rather than ideas are often ignored, although in this case such a post was inexplicable moderated up. When I post such polemics I never expect to be moderated up and am only surprised when I offend someone enough to have the comments moderated down.
I have gone through this at many companies. Ther is little technical or budget benifit to the decision. The only benifit is usually that you can get minimally trained devlopers to do the work cheaply.
What irks me is that MS did not discover these themselves. After all, the closed source, security by obscurity, we can do it all ourselves model of software development is so superior, that we can only draw one of two conclusions. Either their superior technicians found the problems already, but the management decided not to put in the resources to fix it, or their superior technicians did not find the bug, in which case they need to not only fix the problem, but understand why their process so routinely fails.
This is not an issue of hating MS, any more than the other recent alert was an issue of hating Apple. It is an issue of knowing there is a problem out there, but having no power in the official process to correct the problem. The only power the might be had is that of public relations. This is very different from OSS, in which one can potentially affect the development process and at least see that something is being done.
This whole issue of course assumes that dozens of other people have not already found the bug and are exploiting it on small scales not easily detectible by the common methods. And of course does not take into account the ability for people to switch browsers. Just imagine how many lives would have been saved if people had been fully aware of the incompetent design of the Explorer and bought other cars instead.
No, I think the problem is that the people who should know better just don't care, because caring would cost them a few extra dollars. Anyway, it is never going to happen to them.
a proxy that would fool the cisco
a firewall that would fool the cisco
a software solution to fool the cisco
a worm to tunnel through the cisco equipment and set up a client that would radomly crash the equipment.
a general DOS attack just to annoy the users of the equipment.
This is just like any other security system. If it causes too many problems, such as false alarms, customer complaints, or just waking an IT person at an inopportune time, it will just be turned off.
Perhaps someone will tell us what the benefits of the randomly-changeable bios are.
They also are expanding in the games market specifically because the price of games are so high. The high price encourages people to rent a game, even a few times, instead of purchasing the game.
Remember that Blockbuster was started when studios still were "pricing to rent" at $50 or more. The drop in price to the sub $20 range has hurt blockbuster by forcing them to effectively cut prices.
Cards and monopoly are great. The have no noise making annoyances, involve lots of manipulative that occupy the child, and rounds proceed quickly while occupying all players attention. More importantly, these games do minimum damage when the playing pieces enter the inevitable tantrum driven projectile phase.
But Bop It? It is noisy, and hurts like hell when used as a club. Jenga? The point is to frustrate your opponents. This game is great at developing necessary skills, but when the pieces fall, the loser has a great desire to test the aerodynamics of the blocks.
It is up to the seller of a product to create an environment in which the product can be sold and in which paying the asking price is easier than creating the product yourself or making a copy of it or stealing it. If the seller is not able to do this, then the product may go away. If the seller is not able to do this without destroying customer loyalty, then the product may go away. Products go away all the time. Just look at the ibuprofen brands widely present five years ago and widely present today.
It order to justify the "tax" the product would have to be a necessity, like water, electricity, and telephone. In that case, the market would also have to be highly regulated, for instance compulsorily licensing at a fixed costs that may assumes significant revenue comes from the tax, a fixed price of the physical product, and explicit rules for timely return of the product to the public domain. I would argue that no individual artist or label are a necessity, and traditionally we have had more than enough artists that have been able to make a go of it without the PHB overhead.
This is to notify you that you are in violation of the DMCA. All MS hardware includes proprietary encrypted screws and advanced adhesive patented security technology to protect our IP. By removing these technological protections, and exposing the underlying technology, you have violated more IP rights than you can possible imagine. You are a terrorist. The FBI will soon be at your house to throw you in a dark deep dungeon.
By contrast, much of Linux has been built from contributions by numerous unrelated and unknown software developers, each contributing a small section of code. There is no mechanism inherent in the Linux development process to assure that intellectual property rights, confidentiality or security are protected.
Correct if I am wrong, but doesn't all open source code include the name of the copyright owner? Doesn't this mean that the software developers, at least a high level, are much better known than that of proprietary software in which the pieces of code might have been subcontracted to who knows where, through who knows how many layer of management? Has anyone actually tried to go to say, Microsoft, and ask who exactly wrote this particular ActiveX control that is now responsible for so many security breaches?
And you may further correct me, but I believe that OSS, at least on the commercial side, generally supplies code to at least those who purchase the program, and such code may be investigated for copyright violations. Any violating code has historically been removed. OTOH, may small proprietary software firms has used copyrighted code without permission, and those who get caught generally say 'prove it', which is really hard to do because the code is closed?
As a consequence of Linux's unrestricted authoring process, it is not surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of the Linux code provided to customers. Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux developments process may also rest with the end user.
I would really like to see the evidence that, on average, proprietary software is more restrictive that OSS. After all, there is great pressure on proffessional programers to produce. Under such pressure there must be great incentive to borrow a bit of code here and there. After all, the source is closed, so who will know?
It kind of reminds me of those posters with instruction on surviving the nuclear holocaust the US government distributed ages ago. They kind of fulfilled a moral need, and made people feel like they could survive, but I doubt they would actually do any good in the event of a nuclear exchange.
It's messy, but, as they say, if you don't like the adversarial aspect of the law, go somewhere else.
I suppose it is just another symptom of monoculture. It would be real nice to have two or three search engines that were reliable and shared the market space. OTOH, it is a 'free' service, so I am not complaining, and am happy to have such a service.
This is why professional sports are monopolies. You allow true competition in the stylized competitive sports and profits are going to drop. Someone might get the idea of not charging $5 for a coke.
In the past the barriers to entry to music has been high enough to insure the labels could control the market without an official monopoly. The Internet can potentially remove those barriers, and therefore they need to make the monopoly official. If they do not, then the arbitrary engineered chick and arbitrary engineer boy-girl will not make their owners huge sums of money.
Or heres another idea. License a library of music to the university and allow the university to broadcast it over the cable system!
So why do the labels not just protect their content with strong DRM. For instance, why do they not encode everything as MS Super Duper We Guarantee That No One Can Copy This Media Technology, and then force everyone to buy a duly licensed MS Super Duper Player But Never Record Or Copy Not Even Through The HeadSet Jack with the special Secure Super Duper Head Set That Will Break If You Try To Copy From It.
Because it is all about PR and nothing but PR. The superstar artist of today is created and is replaced by the superstar artist of tomorrow. Negative PR, such as the fact that it will not play on the car stereo, will cause sales to drop. When the kids realize that the Pretty Girl Star Who Takes Off Her Clothes #1 will not copy onto their MP3 player, or they cannot make a copy for their best friend, next time they will buy Pretty Girl Star Who Takes Off Her Clothes #2. And even worse, when they are old, they will remember that #1 screwed them, and not in the good way.
So the labels have to walk a narrow path between pissing off the fans and extracting enough money from the fans to make the creation of the artist worthwhile.
Which is of course completely wrong. There to appear to service providers who are helping the spammers. These organizations will not respond to complaints. The organizations will say that it "is not our problem" even though it appears they receive compensation from the spammer. The organization seem to have a business model that depend on spammers. However, because they are only the conduit, they are not held responsible.
In some ways this is ok. Just like UCE would be much more palatable if the sender did not forge headers and use other deceptive practices. What i would like to see is the ability to prosecute service providers that do not enforce a minimally acceptable terms of service or have a pattern of behavior that aids the spammers.
If an application is designed correctly, there should a team of competent person writing text for each locale. The same is true for the icons.
A few months ago I downloaded a file that contained a form i was supposed to fill in. My version of word would not display the fields properly. The form was protected so I could not do anything. On a whim I opened it in OO.org. It worked perfectly. All text and fields in tact. All protection gone. I was able to fill in the form, save it back to word, and send it back.
Know I pretty much use OO.org for everything. I occasionally have to go back to Excel as calc does not seem have the full charting capability. But other than that everything works great.
Opponents are characterized as enemy of the state. This has happened in the past, but seldom to such a degree. Drug users are terrorist. Peaceful demonstrators are terrorists. Democrats are terrorists. Lawyers are terrorists.
The administration is often held up industrialist. This was especially clear in the Nazi party, as well the Bush administration.
Fascism is reaction. The reaction in this case is towards the 'welfare state' and 'degradation' of the economy caused by environmental laws and workers rights. The laws on the books protecting children, workers, and the earth cost business big bucks. They want them gone.
Finally, certain groups are targeted as indicative of social problems, and as an extension economic problems. We are already seeing commercials from the Republican party that put forth blame instead of solutions. The recent ruling for homosexual marriage is going to give Republicans another group to blame: Gays. Look for commercials that distract from the real issues by painting Gays and the people who do not wish to kill them as the reason God hates America.
All this has happened before, in the US and elsewhere. See my .sig for the solution. We are not there yet, but once again we are faced with powerful people who wish we were.
From this biased selection the apparent scientist extrapolates this amazing finding:
"I was surprised to discover," says Turgeman, "that they were warm, sociable people with warm families and that many loved to play pranks and were iconoclasts in their childhood."
In other words, the good doctor was surprised to find that the biased self-selected sample, which was selected on their willingness to talk, was in fact a warm sociable crowd. It is also possible that such a sample bias might also favor men. Let's bring out the (ig) Nobel Prize.
The apparent thesis of the paper, to examine self-perception, likely was not significantly effected by the biased sample, which is why the committee let it go. That and the fact that sociology is an extremely soft science. However, some of her quoted comments indicates that she may believe the sample is much more representative that it appears.
anything recommended should be considered required.
This is like the quote issue in HTML. For a web page that some bozo knocked up in a hour quotes do not matter. If one is trying to put together a professional document, there is really no excuse not to have quotes. This is especially true if the HTML is machine generated.
It seems that banking the future on bigger planes is kind of mistake. It assumes that airlines can fill bigger planes with passengers. This assumption in the past has created inefficiencies in air travel by forcing customers to fly out their way on smaller planes to hubs and only then go to where they wanted to go in the first place. Bigger planes also can force airlines to sell more heavily discounted tickets to fill the planes.
OTOH faster planes can allow passengers to go to where they want to go without useless detours. Faster smaller planes can allow airlines to sell more standard priced tickets and not play the hub and spoke game with prices. And since planes fly at higher altitude we can put more space between planes. More terminals will need to be built to accommodate more flights, but that is happening anyway. And, with less time on a plane there is less chance of customer service issues.
Combined with some thought on other ways to launch planes, and super sonic speed might be practical.
All I could think is 'you sir are a moron'. All jobs are hard and dangerous. Has he really ever been at work at three in the morning working hard to fix some problem to meet an immovable launch deadline, and i don't mean the whiny ass hollywood kind? Has he really ever been in front of a hundred kids a day, knowing that just down the street one of them beat up a teacher? Has he ever done an honest days work that involved more than fooling the masses? Well, many other people have, many other work hard, and many other people lost their job. And you don't see then wasting our time by whining during time that I paid to be entertained. It was like bring up Sally Struthers for save the whining men campaign.
I would think the industry would try to build up some good relations at blockbusters such as this instead of turning our stomaches.