In Europe, when crimes do occur, they really are almost exclusively between various breeds of mafiosi.
I don't even know where to begin with this one. Browse these and tell me how many look to be perpetrated by "mafiosi". (at the time of this post, half the stories in the "most recent" column were murders. none looked related to organized crime)
And these are just examples from the UK, where I can find them with an English language google search. I'm sure you'd find others in other countries if you spoke the language. You have a throughly unrealistic view of Europe. It is not a Utopia in the same way the United States is not a violent hellhole. There are good areas and there are bad areas. I come from an area of the US where many people don't lock their doors at night. I have friends in Europe who live in really sketchy neighborhoods. If you want to compare crime statistics or gun ownership rates, that could be a productive discussion. But saying everywhere in the US is plagued by violent crime while everywhere in Europe is totally peaceful is dishonest.
Except the trading cards aren't a meatspace game. It's a digital trading card game.
Granted, it was designed by Wizards of the Coast, so maybe it might end up making the transition to the real world. However, the way it stands now users will lose access to their cards in December.
That seems more like an environmental problem with a regulatory solution to me. A better analogy would be if the people really loved drinking out of the Thames and the government put up a fence to try and stop them.
Some civilian casualties does not equate to "indiscriminately killing as they please".
If anyone is killing indiscriminately, it's the forces the US is fighting against. Take Afganistan, for example (where the GP noted that only 55% of strikes used precision guided munitions). The Guardian reported that 3/4 of civilian casualties were caused by anti-government elements.
So they attacked Bethesda, EVE, League of Legends, Minecraft, and Nintendo, but when someone attacks Sega they're all up in arms? I'm not buying it.
I think they're just trolling the media to keep their name in the headlines. And they succeeded (really, Reuters? don't you have wars you could be reporting on?).
Actually, the conclusion wasn't theirs, it came from the "Andy letter":
I am writing to offer profound thanks to you for resolving an important philosophical question that has been heatedly debated for the last twenty years. The rumination began on a construction site one summer in the early 1970's, as my friend Jamie and I were working our way through college. The question we raised and have agonized over, lo these many years, is one that I've never read about in any philosophical treatise, and yet I have found it has applied to countless situations and conversations overheard in bars, repair shops, sporting events, political debates, etc. etc. etc.
Posit the question: Do two people who don't know what they are talking about know more or less than one person who doesn't know what he's talking about? (Pardon the un-PC masculine pronoun, but I have found this to be, most predominately, a male phenomenon.)
In your recent conversations regarding electric brakes on a cattle carrier, I believe you definitely answered this query and have put our debate to rest. Amazingly enough, you proved that even in a case where one person might know nothing about a subject, it is possible for two people to know even less!
One person will only go so far out on a limb in his construction of deeply hypothetical structures, and will often end with a shrug or a raising of hands to indicate the dismissability of his particular take on a subject. With two people, the intricacies, the gives and takes, the wherefores and why-nots, can become a veritable pas-de-deux of breathtaking speculation, interwoven in such a way that apologies or gestures of doubt are rendered unnecessary.
I had always suspected this was the case, but no argument I could have built from my years of observation would have so satisfyingly closed the door on the subject as your performance on the cattle carrier call. To begin your comments by saying, "We'll answer your question if you tell us how electric brakes work" and "We've never heard of electric brakes" and then indulge in lengthy theoretical hypostulations on the whys and wherefores of the caller's problem allowed me to observe that you were finally putting this gnarly question to rest.
I am forever indebted to you for the great service you have performed! I'm truly impressed that it took so many years of listening to your show to finally have this matter resolved.
The Iraq war example doesn't exactly fit here, since the video is about parsing and analyzing large datasets. But since you brought it up (and I referenced it in my post), I'm going to quote Colbert:
Over the last five years you people were so good, over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.
But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction!
I think there is far more danger to be had in a news media that passively accepts presented facts (Iraqi WMDs, Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, ect) and narratives (invasion of Iraq is necessary) than one that editorializes a bit but doesn't simply act as a mouthpiece for whoever is currently in power. And I disagree with the notion that all bias needs to be balanced out by other bias. That smacks of "teaching the controversy" to me.
Actually, if you watch the video, that's not what Stray is talking about. Rather than doing targeted searches, he's talking about processing the whole dataset and using algorithms to establish connections. The narrative that makes sense of those clusters is what would (hopefully) be the reasoned analysis.
That's part of the point of the video, using data mining techniques to broaden analytical tools beyond a simple keyword search and the preconceptions it can reinforce (the reporter mentions seeing a cluster of tanker truck incidents that was bigger than his organization was previously aware). He ends by noting that the way one writes the algorithm can determine what trends pop out and thus how the story is framed, which seems like a perfectly reasonable statement. Then someone (either the submitter or the Slashdot editors) transforms that into a "great potential for journalistic abuse."
I don't have an issue with the methodology portrayed in the video. But to than take the presenter's words and twist them to support a "just the facts, ma'am" style of journalism seems dishonest and unproductive.
Isn't that one of the major reasons we have journalism? To synthesize and contextualize information? If the contextualized (or perhaps editorialized, depending on your point of view) information was the only kind available, then yes that is an issue. But with Wikileaks, the data is there for anyone who wants to parse it.
This strikes me as being similar to when Anderson Cooper was criticized for calling Mubarak a liar. Or the behavior that Colbert mocked the White House press corps for at the correspondents' dinner. Pretending that journalists are free of bias doesn't make it so, and saying that they should just regurgitate facts and talking points verbatim is counter-productive. Reasoned analysis should be encouraged.
Keep in mind that the US dollar isn't just for settling debts with the US government. According to Title 31 of the US Code:
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
So even though the government can't mandate that people accept the US dollar in exchange for goods and services, they can mandate that any debt owed to a US based creditor can be paid in dollars.
If you read the article, customers can't operate the robot. The website just uses it to take pictures of what different body types look in the clothes.
So in other words, they've taken an adjustable dress form and added some motors. Cool, I guess, but I don't really see how it changes anything (except giving them some publicity on Slashdot).
Colleges are generally the ones in the "sports car" range. Four years of in-state tuition at the top university in my state is $28,000, before any tuition assistance or scholarships.
Yes, I noticed that after I posted. I was actually looking for another Sony story on The Consumerist and that came up. Mea culpa. I stand by the rest of the links, however.
Re:I wonder if the hackers would stop..
on
Sony Compromised, Again
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Sony is a big company with a lot of activities, and not all of them are objectionable.
Look no further than the Fukushima disaster for the proof of nuclear safety versus other power generation methods. How many people have died so far because of Fukushima? How many are projected to get sick in the future? How many have been killed by hydro dams failing and wiping out those downstream? How many coal miners die through accidents each year? How many to lung diseases from working the mines for years?
It's not just that. 24,000 people die prematurely each year from the normal operation of coal fired power plants, in addition to a myriad of other health concerns. Talking about the dangers of nuclear without mentioning the costs of current methods is intellectually dishonest.
The 2nd only downside is the fact that no insurance company will insure a nuclear power plant. Not because of Godzilla fears, but because of nuclear accident facts (and actuarial tables).
Source? Because I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't know what you're talking about:
American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is a joint underwriting association created by some of the largest insurance companies in the United States. Our purpose is to pool the financial assets pledged by our member companies to provide the significant amount of property and liability insurance required for nuclear power plants and related facilities throughout the world.
Fixed that for you. Banning an app from one store is not equivalent to banning it from a device (and no, jailbreaking and sideloading are not equivalent).
Slashdot Mirror
School shootings have occurred in two countries, Finland and Germany,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
In Europe, when crimes do occur, they really are almost exclusively between various breeds of mafiosi.
I don't even know where to begin with this one. Browse these and tell me how many look to be perpetrated by "mafiosi". (at the time of this post, half the stories in the "most recent" column were murders. none looked related to organized crime)
And these are just examples from the UK, where I can find them with an English language google search. I'm sure you'd find others in other countries if you spoke the language. You have a throughly unrealistic view of Europe. It is not a Utopia in the same way the United States is not a violent hellhole. There are good areas and there are bad areas. I come from an area of the US where many people don't lock their doors at night. I have friends in Europe who live in really sketchy neighborhoods. If you want to compare crime statistics or gun ownership rates, that could be a productive discussion. But saying everywhere in the US is plagued by violent crime while everywhere in Europe is totally peaceful is dishonest.
Except the trading cards aren't a meatspace game. It's a digital trading card game.
Granted, it was designed by Wizards of the Coast, so maybe it might end up making the transition to the real world. However, the way it stands now users will lose access to their cards in December.
That seems more like an environmental problem with a regulatory solution to me. A better analogy would be if the people really loved drinking out of the Thames and the government put up a fence to try and stop them.
Some civilian casualties does not equate to "indiscriminately killing as they please".
If anyone is killing indiscriminately, it's the forces the US is fighting against. Take Afganistan, for example (where the GP noted that only 55% of strikes used precision guided munitions). The Guardian reported that 3/4 of civilian casualties were caused by anti-government elements.
So they attacked Bethesda, EVE, League of Legends, Minecraft, and Nintendo, but when someone attacks Sega they're all up in arms? I'm not buying it.
I think they're just trolling the media to keep their name in the headlines. And they succeeded (really, Reuters? don't you have wars you could be reporting on?).
I am writing to offer profound thanks to you for resolving an important philosophical question that has been heatedly debated for the last twenty years. The rumination began on a construction site one summer in the early 1970's, as my friend Jamie and I were working our way through college. The question we raised and have agonized over, lo these many years, is one that I've never read about in any philosophical treatise, and yet I have found it has applied to countless situations and conversations overheard in bars, repair shops, sporting events, political debates, etc. etc. etc.
Posit the question: Do two people who don't know what they are talking about know more or less than one person who doesn't know what he's talking about? (Pardon the un-PC masculine pronoun, but I have found this to be, most predominately, a male phenomenon.)
In your recent conversations regarding electric brakes on a cattle carrier, I believe you definitely answered this query and have put our debate to rest. Amazingly enough, you proved that even in a case where one person might know nothing about a subject, it is possible for two people to know even less!
One person will only go so far out on a limb in his construction of deeply hypothetical structures, and will often end with a shrug or a raising of hands to indicate the dismissability of his particular take on a subject. With two people, the intricacies, the gives and takes, the wherefores and why-nots, can become a veritable pas-de-deux of breathtaking speculation, interwoven in such a way that apologies or gestures of doubt are rendered unnecessary.
I had always suspected this was the case, but no argument I could have built from my years of observation would have so satisfyingly closed the door on the subject as your performance on the cattle carrier call. To begin your comments by saying, "We'll answer your question if you tell us how electric brakes work" and "We've never heard of electric brakes" and then indulge in lengthy theoretical hypostulations on the whys and wherefores of the caller's problem allowed me to observe that you were finally putting this gnarly question to rest.
I am forever indebted to you for the great service you have performed! I'm truly impressed that it took so many years of listening to your show to finally have this matter resolved.
Read the post again, he never mentions lying. Lying and bias are different things entirely (though they can often be found together).
flag@whitehouse.gov | karlmarx
I think Andrew Breitbart just had an orgasm.
Over the last five years you people were so good, over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.
But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction!
I think there is far more danger to be had in a news media that passively accepts presented facts (Iraqi WMDs, Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, ect) and narratives (invasion of Iraq is necessary) than one that editorializes a bit but doesn't simply act as a mouthpiece for whoever is currently in power. And I disagree with the notion that all bias needs to be balanced out by other bias. That smacks of "teaching the controversy" to me.
Actually, if you watch the video, that's not what Stray is talking about. Rather than doing targeted searches, he's talking about processing the whole dataset and using algorithms to establish connections. The narrative that makes sense of those clusters is what would (hopefully) be the reasoned analysis.
That's part of the point of the video, using data mining techniques to broaden analytical tools beyond a simple keyword search and the preconceptions it can reinforce (the reporter mentions seeing a cluster of tanker truck incidents that was bigger than his organization was previously aware). He ends by noting that the way one writes the algorithm can determine what trends pop out and thus how the story is framed, which seems like a perfectly reasonable statement. Then someone (either the submitter or the Slashdot editors) transforms that into a "great potential for journalistic abuse."
I don't have an issue with the methodology portrayed in the video. But to than take the presenter's words and twist them to support a "just the facts, ma'am" style of journalism seems dishonest and unproductive.
Isn't that one of the major reasons we have journalism? To synthesize and contextualize information? If the contextualized (or perhaps editorialized, depending on your point of view) information was the only kind available, then yes that is an issue. But with Wikileaks, the data is there for anyone who wants to parse it.
This strikes me as being similar to when Anderson Cooper was criticized for calling Mubarak a liar. Or the behavior that Colbert mocked the White House press corps for at the correspondents' dinner. Pretending that journalists are free of bias doesn't make it so, and saying that they should just regurgitate facts and talking points verbatim is counter-productive. Reasoned analysis should be encouraged.
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
So even though the government can't mandate that people accept the US dollar in exchange for goods and services, they can mandate that any debt owed to a US based creditor can be paid in dollars.
If you read the article, customers can't operate the robot. The website just uses it to take pictures of what different body types look in the clothes.
So in other words, they've taken an adjustable dress form and added some motors. Cool, I guess, but I don't really see how it changes anything (except giving them some publicity on Slashdot).
The app was rejected because it called undocumented API's. A big no no if you want your app in the store. It's clearly spelled out in the agreements.
But it's okay for Apple to use them? I seem to remember Microsoft getting into some trouble over that.
Speaking of which:
http://press.nintendo.com/E32011/
login: E32011
pw: nintendo
I took that line as giving context to the number, rather than the judge basing it on the revenue from Android.
Colleges are generally the ones in the "sports car" range. Four years of in-state tuition at the top university in my state is $28,000, before any tuition assistance or scholarships.
Yes, I noticed that after I posted. I was actually looking for another Sony story on The Consumerist and that came up. Mea culpa. I stand by the rest of the links, however.
Sony is a big company with a lot of activities, and not all of them are objectionable.
Given their poor hardware quality, rootkits, data breaches, exploding batteries, inventing fake movie critics, removing advertised features, obnoxious viral marketing, spying on environmental activists, being seen as one of the two worst companies in America, and whatever else I couldn't think of off the top of my head, I'd say "most" rather than "not all".
Amazon is taxed like other businesses, look up "Use Tax".
The problem here is tax evasion by consumers, not by Amazon.
Ever heard of the Streisand effect? If this happened to me, my first instinct would be to delete it and move on.
Look no further than the Fukushima disaster for the proof of nuclear safety versus other power generation methods. How many people have died so far because of Fukushima? How many are projected to get sick in the future? How many have been killed by hydro dams failing and wiping out those downstream? How many coal miners die through accidents each year? How many to lung diseases from working the mines for years?
It's not just that. 24,000 people die prematurely each year from the normal operation of coal fired power plants, in addition to a myriad of other health concerns. Talking about the dangers of nuclear without mentioning the costs of current methods is intellectually dishonest.
Source? Because I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't know what you're talking about:
American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is a joint underwriting association created by some of the largest insurance companies in the United States. Our purpose is to pool the financial assets pledged by our member companies to provide the significant amount of property and liability insurance required for nuclear power plants and related facilities throughout the world.
http://www.amnucins.com/
See also: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html
Basically, each nuclear plant has $375 million in private insurance, and then they all pay into a fund that can cover upwards of $12 billion.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your FUD.
fanboyism aside
Fixed that for you. Banning an app from one store is not equivalent to banning it from a device (and no, jailbreaking and sideloading are not equivalent).