Except there are search features for Ubuntu's add/remove programs tool, search tools for command-line apt, search tools for emerge (when I used linux), etc.
A 20-year-old liberal in 1958 would be a 70-year-old paleoconservative now.
Sad thing is that paleoconservatism is dead. The neocons of today aren't the liberals of yesterday; they're something else. They're not reactionary; they're just plain greedy.
The trouble is, because the idiot vote in the USA is so large, you're never going to get anyone elected who *doesn't* make some attempt to be underhanded.
That doesn't justify it. That doesn't make it honorable, or the right thing to do. But, depending on how pragmatic you are, it just might make it inevitable.
I want a just, upstanding, ethical, and prosperous country.
If "unity" means "agreeing with people who advocate theocracy", then I'm against it. If it means "Americans working together to make their country and the world a better place", I'm for it.
Unity isn't something that you *make* happen. Unity is something that happens as a result of good governance and an educated and civic-minded citizenry.
No, but profit certainly *is* the goal of the contractors who lobby Congress to give money to DARPA. DARPA themselves, whatever that means, doesn't care about profit... but the people at Northrop Grumman certainly do, and they've got a large amount of influence when it comes to allocating money in Washington.
Everyone points to ARPANET as an example of "see, military R&D does produce useful things!"
I call shenanigans. While I wasn't alive at the time, the concept of having computers talk to each other, and getting those computers to automate the routing of messages, surely would have been developed in the private or academic sector as soon as it was useful to do so. It's not a terribly outlandish concept, after all.
DARPA did it first because they were interested in a particular kind of robustness, not the efficiency of an automated decentralized communications network. But once computers developed a little further such that networking computers together would produce a gain in efficiency (i.e. email being more efficient than telegraphy), I imagine the academic/commercial sectors would have set up something very similar to ARPANET.
The issue is that with the current state of DARPA and US military "research", you can put pretty much anything in front of this line (including as many lines of ??? as you want) and it'll still happen.
Exactly. I did grow up in the South, and the KJV-Only crowd is common enough down there that I figured no citation was necessary to confirm the existence of what is, for Alabama, a relatively garden-variety form of crazy.
P2P is a technological success in reducing the load on any one point on the network. If you make the assumption that the cost of bandwidth grows nonlinearly, then it's highly useful for e.g. Ubuntu releases.
To be fair the Bittorrent devs have had to waste time doing things like protocol encryption and distributed hash tables to protect swarms against traffic monitoring and people who send lawyers after trackers. Resilience (vs. lawyers and campus Network Services departments) has taken priority over efficiency for the devs.
I read an article by a high-ranking Toyota exec in the New Yorker about how, in contrast to American companies, Japanese companies *do* think ten or twenty years in advance. He made the point that they didn't introduce hybrid cars in order to sell to hippies in ca. 2000; they introduced them because, come 2010 or 2015, gas is going to be expensive enough that lots of people are going to want them... and they wanted a mature product -- both from an engineering and from a brand standpoint -- ready to go.
Now, in 2008, Priuses (and Corollas and Yarises) are common on the road in my city, while many of the short-sighted US manufacturers are trying to retool from building 18 mpg SUV's.
The interview mentioned a Japanese business term that has no translation in English; I forget the word, but it meant something like "the faith that building products that people need and selling them for a fair price, long-term, will be profitable, long-term." That might be less true now than it once was, but it's interesting to note that Japanese companies do tend more toward the "Build useful stuff; sell it for cost + profit" model, and American ones toward "Make whatever we can market and sell it for whatever we can convince people to pay".
The main exception to this that comes to mind immediately is Sony, who can go die in a fire. They've got their hands in lots of markets and are thus successful in that regard, but they don't seem to be market leader in any of them. I follow the camera market fairly closely, and Sony's main market in the US seems to be
1) people buying point-and-shoot cameras that didn't do their research, and wind up paying >$100 more than the equivalent Canon or Panasonic that performs better;
2) digital SLR's, which aren't really Sony's; they're rebranded Konica-Minolta stuff who Sony bought out.
As an example of Sony's failing, their top-end bridge camera still doesn't offer any sort of processing controls: you're stuck with a JPG with one compression setting, one saturation setting, one contrast setting, one (excessive) noise reduction setting, etc. There's no RAW mode. The lens is *very* prone to chromatic aberration.
Canon and Panasonic's competitors are cheaper, use superior optics, and offer control over the processing; Panasonic's versions have RAW, and Canon's
But, as a marketing matter, you can't sell stuff like this to Joe Sixpack by saying "Look! Good optics! Controllable processing! RAW mode!", so Sony didn't even bother trying to do this stuff.
Right, but many Southern Baptists (the "core" of the religious social-conservative bloc in the US) think that the King James Version of the bible is divinely inspired, and that the English in it is actually more correct than the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic.
So, regardless of what the original said, a Southern Baptist would read it as a proscription against "killing".
That is, if they insisted on logical consistency, which they don't. The Bible is to be interpreted literally verse-by-verse, except when that would be inconvenient.
Yes, but those cultural traditions weren't forced on anyone. That was the whole point of the "freedom of religion" bit: acknowledging that the cultural traditions of the majority shouldn't be imposed on minorities.
Now days, only if you are non-white are you allowed to keep your culture, except for your religion, you cannot keep that unless you change it to be more politically correct and secular. Yes, we know that religion is what makes the core of any culture, but you cannot keep it.
I'm white and have no problem keeping my culture. I can go to concert halls and see the music of my ancestors played; I can go to a restaurant and eat European food; I can go to any church I care to.
I agree that there's been an artificial glorification of minority culture in some respects (ever seen a Black History Month in an elementary school? It's disgusting), but this is no threat to "white" culture.
You certainly can keep your religion; you're just expected to not harass other people with it. If that's a problem, well, it's not my problem that your superstitions require you to heckle others with little nametags that say "Elder Bob".
And religion is NOT what makes the core of any culture. That's an absurd claim. Cultures with indigenous religions often manifest core cultural traits IN their religions (qv. ancient Greece), which is a different matter -- the culture came first, the religion was created to fit it.
They're mainstream American liberal, which is what the rest of the world calls moderate since the American conservative party is so far right of center.
DKos is opinionatedly, vehemently, emphatically moderate -- in opposition to the American far right. They're not balanced, but they're moderate.
I should have the manners to not use my camera's flash at a concert. My camera is my property, it should do whatever I damn well tell it to do.
Now, an automated feature that, when turned on, automatically puts phones on vibrate in the theater is fine -- since that's just the user choosing to use it. But enforcing things like that in the name of "manners enforcement" is ridiculous.
Or even value profit for more people over profit for your buddies.
Every coal-fired power plant in India, China, and the USA could be replaced with nuclear for the cost of the Iraq war. This would be a huge windfall for General Electric and other businesses that happen to be in the business of making nuke plants. (It would, of course, be a windfall for the environment as well.) But we've not done this because Bush is cozier with the military-industrial complex and the oil industry.
The local Anonymous have cameras out the ass. There is one person with a Canon 40D semi-pro DSLR, a guy with a 714mm superzoom setup that can resolve 2mm at 100 yards, people with polarizers to shoot through windows, several video cameras, a bunch of point-and-shoots, and camera phones.
If the cops or the Scientologists try to pull anything, it will be documented and, if necessary, spread to the media and the internet within minutes.
It sounds like if even one of the kids had gotten video of the cops, they could've gotten some of them fired at the very least.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pumping enough "depleted" carbon into the atmosphere that the people who do carbon dating have to correct for it, since the atmospheric C-14 ratio is lower now than it was 50 years ago.
If the people doing archaeological dating have to worry about it, I'd say it's major.
Slashdot Mirror
Except there are search features for Ubuntu's add/remove programs tool, search tools for command-line apt, search tools for emerge (when I used linux), etc.
... but our buddies in Sweden with the big tracker and the pirate flag are.
No worries.
I think you mean too much LSD.
The LDS are those scary people with nametags that act vaguely robotic that keep knocking on your door.
Obama's raising his money $100 at a time from young folks, mostly.
A 20-year-old liberal in 1958 would be a 70-year-old paleoconservative now.
Sad thing is that paleoconservatism is dead. The neocons of today aren't the liberals of yesterday; they're something else. They're not reactionary; they're just plain greedy.
The McCain of today isn't the McCain of then.
In the last two years McCain has solidly thrown his lot in with Bush.
The trouble is, because the idiot vote in the USA is so large, you're never going to get anyone elected who *doesn't* make some attempt to be underhanded.
That doesn't justify it. That doesn't make it honorable, or the right thing to do. But, depending on how pragmatic you are, it just might make it inevitable.
I don't want a unified country.
I want a just, upstanding, ethical, and prosperous country.
If "unity" means "agreeing with people who advocate theocracy", then I'm against it. If it means "Americans working together to make their country and the world a better place", I'm for it.
Unity isn't something that you *make* happen. Unity is something that happens as a result of good governance and an educated and civic-minded citizenry.
Because this lot can still connect to the tracker and read off the IP addresses of other people in the swarm.
No, but profit certainly *is* the goal of the contractors who lobby Congress to give money to DARPA. DARPA themselves, whatever that means, doesn't care about profit ... but the people at Northrop Grumman certainly do, and they've got a large amount of influence when it comes to allocating money in Washington.
Everyone points to ARPANET as an example of "see, military R&D does produce useful things!"
I call shenanigans. While I wasn't alive at the time, the concept of having computers talk to each other, and getting those computers to automate the routing of messages, surely would have been developed in the private or academic sector as soon as it was useful to do so. It's not a terribly outlandish concept, after all.
DARPA did it first because they were interested in a particular kind of robustness, not the efficiency of an automated decentralized communications network. But once computers developed a little further such that networking computers together would produce a gain in efficiency (i.e. email being more efficient than telegraphy), I imagine the academic/commercial sectors would have set up something very similar to ARPANET.
Profit
The issue is that with the current state of DARPA and US military "research", you can put pretty much anything in front of this line (including as many lines of ??? as you want) and it'll still happen.
Exactly. I did grow up in the South, and the KJV-Only crowd is common enough down there that I figured no citation was necessary to confirm the existence of what is, for Alabama, a relatively garden-variety form of crazy.
P2P is a technological success in reducing the load on any one point on the network. If you make the assumption that the cost of bandwidth grows nonlinearly, then it's highly useful for e.g. Ubuntu releases.
To be fair the Bittorrent devs have had to waste time doing things like protocol encryption and distributed hash tables to protect swarms against traffic monitoring and people who send lawyers after trackers. Resilience (vs. lawyers and campus Network Services departments) has taken priority over efficiency for the devs.
I read an article by a high-ranking Toyota exec in the New Yorker about how, in contrast to American companies, Japanese companies *do* think ten or twenty years in advance. He made the point that they didn't introduce hybrid cars in order to sell to hippies in ca. 2000; they introduced them because, come 2010 or 2015, gas is going to be expensive enough that lots of people are going to want them... and they wanted a mature product -- both from an engineering and from a brand standpoint -- ready to go.
Now, in 2008, Priuses (and Corollas and Yarises) are common on the road in my city, while many of the short-sighted US manufacturers are trying to retool from building 18 mpg SUV's.
The interview mentioned a Japanese business term that has no translation in English; I forget the word, but it meant something like "the faith that building products that people need and selling them for a fair price, long-term, will be profitable, long-term." That might be less true now than it once was, but it's interesting to note that Japanese companies do tend more toward the "Build useful stuff; sell it for cost + profit" model, and American ones toward "Make whatever we can market and sell it for whatever we can convince people to pay".
The main exception to this that comes to mind immediately is Sony, who can go die in a fire. They've got their hands in lots of markets and are thus successful in that regard, but they don't seem to be market leader in any of them. I follow the camera market fairly closely, and Sony's main market in the US seems to be
1) people buying point-and-shoot cameras that didn't do their research, and wind up paying >$100 more than the equivalent Canon or Panasonic that performs better;
2) digital SLR's, which aren't really Sony's; they're rebranded Konica-Minolta stuff who Sony bought out.
As an example of Sony's failing, their top-end bridge camera still doesn't offer any sort of processing controls: you're stuck with a JPG with one compression setting, one saturation setting, one contrast setting, one (excessive) noise reduction setting, etc. There's no RAW mode. The lens is *very* prone to chromatic aberration.
Canon and Panasonic's competitors are cheaper, use superior optics, and offer control over the processing; Panasonic's versions have RAW, and Canon's
But, as a marketing matter, you can't sell stuff like this to Joe Sixpack by saying "Look! Good optics! Controllable processing! RAW mode!", so Sony didn't even bother trying to do this stuff.
I hear this crazy guy got over 90% in a primary in Utah and didn't get the nomination ... his candidacy must be being suppressed!
Right, but many Southern Baptists (the "core" of the religious social-conservative bloc in the US) think that the King James Version of the bible is divinely inspired, and that the English in it is actually more correct than the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic.
So, regardless of what the original said, a Southern Baptist would read it as a proscription against "killing".
That is, if they insisted on logical consistency, which they don't. The Bible is to be interpreted literally verse-by-verse, except when that would be inconvenient.
Fetus is the US spelling.
Foetus is the British spelling.
Yes, but those cultural traditions weren't forced on anyone. That was the whole point of the "freedom of religion" bit: acknowledging that the cultural traditions of the majority shouldn't be imposed on minorities.
Now days, only if you are non-white are you allowed to keep your culture, except for your religion, you cannot keep that unless you change it to be more politically correct and secular. Yes, we know that religion is what makes the core of any culture, but you cannot keep it.
I'm white and have no problem keeping my culture. I can go to concert halls and see the music of my ancestors played; I can go to a restaurant and eat European food; I can go to any church I care to.
I agree that there's been an artificial glorification of minority culture in some respects (ever seen a Black History Month in an elementary school? It's disgusting), but this is no threat to "white" culture.
You certainly can keep your religion; you're just expected to not harass other people with it. If that's a problem, well, it's not my problem that your superstitions require you to heckle others with little nametags that say "Elder Bob".
And religion is NOT what makes the core of any culture. That's an absurd claim. Cultures with indigenous religions often manifest core cultural traits IN their religions (qv. ancient Greece), which is a different matter -- the culture came first, the religion was created to fit it.
Daily Kos *is* moderate.
They're mainstream American liberal, which is what the rest of the world calls moderate since the American conservative party is so far right of center.
DKos is opinionatedly, vehemently, emphatically moderate -- in opposition to the American far right. They're not balanced, but they're moderate.
Manners is a property of PEOPLE, not of devices.
I should have the manners to not use my camera's flash at a concert. My camera is my property, it should do whatever I damn well tell it to do.
Now, an automated feature that, when turned on, automatically puts phones on vibrate in the theater is fine -- since that's just the user choosing to use it. But enforcing things like that in the name of "manners enforcement" is ridiculous.
Or even value profit for more people over profit for your buddies.
Every coal-fired power plant in India, China, and the USA could be replaced with nuclear for the cost of the Iraq war. This would be a huge windfall for General Electric and other businesses that happen to be in the business of making nuke plants. (It would, of course, be a windfall for the environment as well.) But we've not done this because Bush is cozier with the military-industrial complex and the oil industry.
The question is, did the kids record video?
The local Anonymous have cameras out the ass. There is one person with a Canon 40D semi-pro DSLR, a guy with a 714mm superzoom setup that can resolve 2mm at 100 yards, people with polarizers to shoot through windows, several video cameras, a bunch of point-and-shoots, and camera phones.
If the cops or the Scientologists try to pull anything, it will be documented and, if necessary, spread to the media and the internet within minutes.
It sounds like if even one of the kids had gotten video of the cops, they could've gotten some of them fired at the very least.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pumping enough "depleted" carbon into the atmosphere that the people who do carbon dating have to correct for it, since the atmospheric C-14 ratio is lower now than it was 50 years ago.
If the people doing archaeological dating have to worry about it, I'd say it's major.