Specifially that any reasearcher at an institute, lab, or institute that received federal money could not (on penalty of losing all federal funding) engage in any stem cell research (except the known contaminated lines).
If there is stem cell research going on all federal dollard are cut including the carbon nanotubes at the other end of campus.
This has (for 99.9% of the labs) the exact same effect, so the difference between outlawed and denied federal funding is minor and trivial at best.
>The executive order related to what could be done with Federal dollars. To leave that out is a huge distortion. Specifially that any reasearcher at an institute, lab, or institute that received federal money could not (on penalty of losing all federal funding) engage in any stem cell research (except the known contaminated lines).
This has (for 99.9% of the labs) the exact same effect, so, no it is not in fact a "huge" distortion. It is minor and trivial at best.
For some reason, once the baby clears the birth canal, murdering it is wrong.
To start it's the second trimester, not when the baby clears the birth canal. Furthermore what I cannot understand is this: For some reason as soon as the sperm touches the egg; killing the embryo is murder, but killing an oocyte(unfertilized embryo) or a sperm is not.
Abortions are one thing; stem cells are another. Stemcells do not come from abortion; nor do they have anything to do with them. Stem cells are infact harvested when a couple undergoes IVF(in vitro fertilization).
It goes like this:
A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.
The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")
I'm sorry jgardn, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away. So your problem is not with stem cells but actially with in vitro fertilization.
A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.
The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")
I'm sorry Mr. president, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away.
What does it say about the times we are in that the greatest champions of intellectual property freedoms are the constituents of the biggest dictatorship of the world?
I don't understand; the US isn't "the greatest champion of intellectual property freedoms".
Cell provides a machine - but they do it in hardware, the equivalent of Java's virtual machine is the Cells physical hardware. If I was to write Cell code on OS X the exact same Cell code would run on Windows, Linux or Zeta because in all cases it is the hardware Cells which execute it.
So the apps will run on anything- you merely need to rewite every OS ever made!
Then perhaps some of those bright people can shine some light in my direction.
FTFA Caches work by storing part of the memory the processor is working on, if you are working on a 1MB piece of data it is likely only a small fraction of this (perhaps a few hundred bytes) will be present in cache, there are kinds of cache design which can store more or even all the data but these are not used as they are too expensive or too slow.
APU local memory - no cache To solve the complexity associated with cache design and to increase performance the Cell designers took the radical approach of not including any. Instead they used a series of local memories, there are 8 of these, 1 in each APU.
The APUs operate on registers which are read from or written to the local memory. This local memory can access main memory in blocks of 1024 bits but the APUs cannot act directly on main memory.
By not using a caching mechanism the designers have removed the need for a lot of the complexity which goes along with a cache.
This may sound like an inflexible system which will be complex to program and it most likely is but this system will deliver data to the APU registers at a phenomenal rate. If 2 registers can be moved per cycle to or from the local memory it will in it's first incarnation deliver 147 Gigabytes per second. That's for a single APU, the aggregate bandwidth for all local memories will be over a Terabyte per second - no CPU in the consumer market has a cache which will even get close to that figure. The APUs need to be fed with data and by using a local memory based design the Cell designers have provided plenty of it.
Ok, so regular memory is too slow, or too expensive (apparently caching is the main problem although what I remember from comp. arch. was that caching was a Good Thing). So then they abolish the cache. Caching: CPU > cache (1 or 2) > main memory > HD
and then implement another system that is *completely different* Non-Caching: APU > local memory > main memory Now first off, how is it different? Secondly how does this improve the physical memory speed? Is the author claiming that a page fault is what we are avoiding here? If that's the case, then the problem is hard drives not solid state memory. But (again if what I learned in comp arch is correct), because there is a tendency for programs to run the same code over and over again, then (assuming you have a good algorithm) the time saved by caching is signifigant.
The code they are alleging was copied however, was written by IBM, but incoporated into AIX and Dynix before being put over to Linux. Is this something that IBM denies? Because if it isn't I don't see why they need to go through this whole deal. If IBM says "sure we wrote code and put it into AIX and Dynix and linux" then it's about what you said before: whether the Sys-V contracts that mention control of code can be extended to other code that is later incorporated into IBM's derived product. But if IBM is denying this(and it is actually true), how can they prove that the code didn't go into Linux first?
I don't think that is the case though; I don't see why IBM wouldn't just go ahead and deal with it if they really thought that they were in breach or whatnot. It sounds as though SCO is having such a hard time finding the code because it isn't there. I mean, If they really had any proof, they could just say "we need lines X through X" couldn't they?
>Which is exactly what it was used for before it became social security.
Really? Or are you mistaken, in that back before social security, our taxes were never this high?
That is exactly what I said, but I will reiterate: Before social security, people were able to spend the money that would have gone to SS. i.e. They got to invest it themselves.
>Just because the government is bad at saving money, does not mean that the general populace will be any better; they do however, have the possibility of being woefully worse.
This is the worst logic I've come across in a while. Your reason for allowing the government to keep taking YOUR MONEY is that you feel, while the government is bad at saving, you might be worse?
No, I am saying that you are not taking into account the fact that they(these people with holes in their pockets) live in a society. To belong to that society certain contributions need to be made: social security is one of the contributions we have today.
SS, is an enforced form of saving money; this is good because many people *don't* save their own money. When those people run out of money and are (pick a few) old, sick, poor, homeless, addicted, attacked, or killed, society bears the costs. Make no mistake about it either; those cost go up dramatically when they are not preventative, and then society must pay for them (only after the illness is terminal). So one if the ideas that a smart man had was to make people save money, thus offsetting those costs incurred by a society.
Now, I have not read up on this new plan but as I understand it; one can take that (SS) money and lose it all(whether by buying stock in whiffle condoms, or getting lap-jobs, I don't know and it matter little for the excersize): thusly bringing society back to where we were before. For a system like SS to work, there needs to be a guarenteed payoff- regardless of intellect, family connections (I know the republicans in the crowd are cringing now) or even good old fashioned hard work. This is a plan that will benefit the few (the ones that can drop the money into daddy's insider trading accounts), at the expense of the many (everyone that has to pay for the old, sick, weak, etc...).
Bush's proposal, while allowing for private accounts, does not give you unrestricted access to your money. See above; this is a Good Thing.
He knows that would never be allowed in the Nanny States of America. I don't like the asshole either, but that's the great thing about the US, you can leave anytime you want to. Personally, I don't think that he can screw things up more than the general populace that voted for him (Anyone who is for smaller government and voted for George II is getting royally screwed - you get what you asked for), so I'm content to wait for the next one (hopefully we can go with a literate one this time). Speaking of leaving, it seems many people are doing just that "Canadian immigration authorities say they won't know until early next year whether there has been a serious exodus of Americans heading north following the election.
But they point out that their official Web site has been getting a flood of hits since Nov. 2. Normal traffic is about 50,000 hits a day. On Nov. 3, it peaked at 180,000 and has been running above normal ever since."
But shouldn't how people spend their own money be up to them?
That's a good question; I would make the claim that you are not taking into account the fact that they(these people with holes in their pockets) live in a society. To belong to that society certain contributions need to be made: taxes and social security are two of the contributions we have today. If you want a debate about taxation to pay for schools and roads is wrong I'm sure you can find one; just not in this decade.
SS, however is an enforced form of saving money; this is good because many people *don't* save their own money. When those people run out of money and are (pick a few) old, sick, poor, homeless, addicted, attacked, or killed, society bears the costs. So one if the ideas that a smart man had was to make people save money, thus offsetting those costs incurred by a society.
Now, I have not read up on this new plan but as I understand it; one can take that (SS) money and lose it all(whether by buying stock in whiffle condoms, or getting lap-jobs, I don't know and it matter little for the excersize): thusly bringing society back to where we were before. For a system like SS to work, there needs to be a guarenteed payoff- regardless of intellect, family connections or even good old fashioned hard work(I know the republicans in the crowd are cringing now). This is a plan that will benefit the few (the ones that can drop the money into daddy's insider trading accounts), at the expense of the many (everyone that has to pay for the old, sick, weak, etc...).
last time I caught any of O'Reily he was advocating for the legalization of pot and the tightening of environmental laws, which last I knew, were no where near republican talking points. Wich is not inconsistent with reading them to the public, which is the claim I made.
Which brings us back to the fact that some people are not happy unless everything on all TV/Radio/Websites agrees with their personal opinion, worldview, and perspective. If you do not consume the media, and not enough others do, that outlet loses influence and power.
Yes, but your claim was that they were "getting away" with nothing. I contend that the many of the so-called "news" programs and the like are at best entertainment. Certainly not a vaid form or debate. Jon Stewart (the host of a show that makes no pretense as to being other than it is; the Daily Show) also holds this point of view:
"STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.
BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.
STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks."
"STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition."
So at the heart of what I said, actually the only point I made was: they are "getting away with it"; where "it" in my context was masquerading as a news show, pushing opinions that have little or no basis in reality, and having people take it at face value.
If you do not consume the media, and not enough others do, that outlet loses influence and power. This is exactly my point; sure it enough people wer to turn of Fox or whatever because it was dripping crap then "they" would be "getting away with it". But they are, because people still tune in for their daily dose of lies and they (the peopel tuning in) don't care; they just want to be entertained. Unfortuantely, we are living in a time where news used to hold a certain amount of credibility; which it no longer does. But in the social conciousness it still retains that sticky credibilty that it no longer deserves. During that transition where the credebility that is given to the mass media outlets is different than the crediblity that they actually earn they will be "getting away with it". But when the children of the internet have grown up they won't "get away with it" anymore.
People who don't agree with you are not necessarily ignorant, stupid, or wrong. Yes, I know "correlation not causation" and all that. I'll only beleive coincidence so far though.
- Politicians have been spending the SS income rather than investing it for years now. Which is exactly what it was used for before it became social security.
Just because the government is bad at saving money, does not mean that the general populace will be any better; they do however, have the possibility of being woefully worse.
Would you really treat Veterans who hadn't been able to save enough because of constant medical problems not covered by the VA this way? How do you propose to help people whose pensions the courts have stripped through criminal mismanagement by their former employers? You're method is just tough luck, sucks to be you?
>and, as far as viewers are concerned, get away with it. That's in your opinion. They don't get away with in my view, because I refuse to consume their product and to become their product.
Just because you refuse to consume does not mean that "they don't get away with it". They have the ratings and that means that they have they eyeballs, and that means that they are getting away with it. Did you ever notice that they all read the republican "talking points"?
http://www.slate.com/id/2112357/ "Explaining how both the "Social Security crisis" and the "privatization solution" rely on faulty math misses the point of the president's plan entirely. Like supply-side tax cuts, Social Security reform is a subject on which conservatives prize philosophy--or, if you prefer, ideology--over arithmetic."
The idea is to promote an ownership society if I read the article correctly. My favorite quote: (second hand) "Republicans control the entire federal government. If they want to cut government spending, they should do it. They don't need to trash Social Security along the way."
In other news, my drill works very poorly as a toothpick, and my hand makes a bad hammer.
If the tool for doesn't work, it does not nessecarily follow that the tool needs to be redesigned. There are lots of good reasons to go to 64bit, but "the ability to layout my patio in photoshop" is *not* one of them.
When I'm on hold (If I'm unhappy), I'll scream and yell at whoever I was talking to, the company, even the product. I'll swear off ever purchasing anything from the company ever again. I'll make comments about the support technician's mother's ancestry and what orifice he or she may have come out of.
Do I think that they listen to me (either recorded or live)?
ME: It's still cheaper in some cases, but a lot of folks don't realize the life of the bulbs. YOU: More than true. Then again, as far as I'm concerned anyone who goes and spends a grand without doing some serious research either has money to burn, or deservers whatever they get.
I agree to a point but people talking about it on Slashdot could be considered part of someone's research =) They could also consider talking to the homeless guy that sits outside of work, but I have no control over what they consider a reliable source.
To those(hypothetical) readers doing research: Keep the lighting of the room in mind; It is sometimes more helpful for you to spend money on blacking out windows than on the component (in reference to front projectors). You may save in projector costs what you spend on curtains. Additionally, a darker room means that ability to have bigger picture. The prj. I have has 1100 ANSI lumens, and does well with the windows open (at 10' diag.). But if you can get the room blackened, the only limitation you will find is the size of your wall. I got a good picture at 25' diag. Yes FEET(pixels as big as YOUR HEAD). But you could only see it at night.
Rear projection TV's don't need NEARLY as much consideration for room lighting as a projector does! Yes, but they also aren't NEARLY as big. So my point was that if one wanted to count square inches per dollar; In bright light, projectors can't make bigger screens, but in bright light no projection system does well so the LCD's and plasmas get beat on price. In a lighting controlled environment, the front projectors can easily outsize the rear projectors. http://pics.honnecke.us/projector/IM000964.JPG.dis play.jpg
Pretty much, if a tube TV works there, so does a projection TV. I think emphasis on the 'Pretty much' part is warrented. They may be viewable, but they do not have the brightness that a tube does in the same light. They still do better in bright environments than front projectors. If you cannot do anything to control your lighting, then a front projector will not be able to provide much of a size benefit over a rear projector, and will cost more over the long run at that.
Unfortunately, unless you don't care if the picture isn't as good as it should be, screens are somewhat expensive as well. For an ok 60" projector screen you're looking at $400 easy. If you want one of those new black-screen ones, it's a lot more. More than true, I'm still looking for one. The way I understand it, one of the most important aspects is that the screen is coated with glass beads to diffuse the light a little, avoiding hot-spots.
So, we have a decent projector ($800 - $1000) a decent screen ($400) and we're up to $1300 +/- $100. You are right, if we are going to compare against plasma or whatever with that quality, then we need to factor in the screen, so cut a year off of that estimate.
Of course, we're assuming the rest of the internals of the projector hold up as well; they usually have little LCD screens in them, fans, electronics.. We're also making that assumption in reference to whatever option were looking at, be it plasma, LCD, or rear prj.
My whole point is that a projector set-up isn't as cheap as it seems to be for the size of the screen. It's not as cheap as it seems, but I would contend that dollars per square inch, a front projection system would beat anything out there. The rear prj. systems suffer from some of the same problems when not place in a lighting controlled environment, and the plasmas and LCD's are very expensive.
It's still cheaper in some cases, but a lot of folks don't realize the life of the bulbs. More than true. Then again, as far as I'm concerned anyone who goes and spends a grand without doing some serious research either has money to burn, or deservers whatever they get.
Plasma and LCD aren't the only alternatives either; rear projection TV's are usually resonably priced these days, they offer a brilliant picture, they aren't as bulky as they used to be, and they last a lot longer then both plasma and LCD. My dad and brother both have rear projection mitsubishis (65 and 50 inches respectively), and they really do look good. My brother got in for $1700.
I never said projectors weren't good I was just pointing out that they aren't as cheap as they seem, especially with the reoccuring cost of the bulbs. I'm probably going to get one if I can find a good deal on one, but if not I'm going to go with a rear projection. There is a real sweet spot in price at the 1024X768 range. Check out 'polaguy' on ebay, that's where I got mine.
The performance scaling will be measured by multitasking and multithreaded application usage rather than single-threaded applications. You can expect to not see a huge performance gain, if any, with regular computing tasks.
Who really has issues with desktop processing, when only doing *one* thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Specifially that any reasearcher at an institute, lab, or institute that received federal money could not (on penalty of losing all federal funding) engage in any stem cell research (except the known contaminated lines).
If there is stem cell research going on all federal dollard are cut including the carbon nanotubes at the other end of campus.
This has (for 99.9% of the labs) the exact same effect, so the difference between outlawed and denied federal funding is minor and trivial at best.
>The executive order related to what could be done with Federal dollars. To leave that out is a huge distortion.
Specifially that any reasearcher at an institute, lab, or institute that received federal money could not (on penalty of losing all federal funding) engage in any stem cell research (except the known contaminated lines).
This has (for 99.9% of the labs) the exact same effect, so, no it is not in fact a "huge" distortion. It is minor and trivial at best.
For some reason, once the baby clears the birth canal, murdering it is wrong.
To start it's the second trimester, not when the baby clears the birth canal.
Furthermore what I cannot understand is this: For some reason as soon as the sperm touches the egg; killing the embryo is murder, but killing an oocyte(unfertilized embryo) or a sperm is not.
Abortions are one thing; stem cells are another. Stemcells do not come from abortion; nor do they have anything to do with them. Stem cells are infact harvested when a couple undergoes IVF(in vitro fertilization).
It goes like this:
A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.
The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")
I'm sorry jgardn, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away. So your problem is not with stem cells but actially with in vitro fertilization.
Here's a good primer:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
parent is (99%) correct:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.
The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")
I'm sorry Mr. president, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away.
What does it say about the times we are in that the greatest champions of intellectual property freedoms are the constituents of the biggest dictatorship of the world?
I don't understand; the US isn't "the greatest champion of intellectual property freedoms".
Cell provides a machine - but they do it in hardware, the equivalent of Java's virtual machine is the Cells physical hardware. If I was to write Cell code on OS X the exact same Cell code would run on Windows, Linux or Zeta because in all cases it is the hardware Cells which execute it.
So the apps will run on anything- you merely need to rewite every OS ever made!
Then perhaps some of those bright people can shine some light in my direction.
FTFA
Caches work by storing part of the memory the processor is working on, if you are working on a 1MB piece of data it is likely only a small fraction of this (perhaps a few hundred bytes) will be present in cache, there are kinds of cache design which can store more or even all the data but these are not used as they are too expensive or too slow.
APU local memory - no cache
To solve the complexity associated with cache design and to increase performance the Cell designers took the radical approach of not including any. Instead they used a series of local memories, there are 8 of these, 1 in each APU.
The APUs operate on registers which are read from or written to the local memory. This local memory can access main memory in blocks of 1024 bits but the APUs cannot act directly on main memory.
By not using a caching mechanism the designers have removed the need for a lot of the complexity which goes along with a cache.
This may sound like an inflexible system which will be complex to program and it most likely is but this system will deliver data to the APU registers at a phenomenal rate. If 2 registers can be moved per cycle to or from the local memory it will in it's first incarnation deliver 147 Gigabytes per second. That's for a single APU, the aggregate bandwidth for all local memories will be over a Terabyte per second - no CPU in the consumer market has a cache which will even get close to that figure. The APUs need to be fed with data and by using a local memory based design the Cell designers have provided plenty of it.
Ok, so regular memory is too slow, or too expensive (apparently caching is the main problem although what I remember from comp. arch. was that caching was a Good Thing). So then they abolish the cache.
Caching: CPU > cache (1 or 2) > main memory > HD
and then implement another system that is *completely different*
Non-Caching: APU > local memory > main memory
Now first off, how is it different? Secondly how does this improve the physical memory speed? Is the author claiming that a page fault is what we are avoiding here? If that's the case, then the problem is hard drives not solid state memory. But (again if what I learned in comp arch is correct), because there is a tendency for programs to run the same code over and over again, then (assuming you have a good algorithm) the time saved by caching is signifigant.
Anyone?
The code they are alleging was copied however, was written by IBM, but incoporated into AIX and Dynix before being put over to Linux.
Is this something that IBM denies? Because if it isn't I don't see why they need to go through this whole deal. If IBM says "sure we wrote code and put it into AIX and Dynix and linux" then it's about what you said before:
whether the Sys-V contracts that mention control of code can be extended to other code that is later incorporated into IBM's derived product.
But if IBM is denying this(and it is actually true), how can they prove that the code didn't go into Linux first?
I don't think that is the case though; I don't see why IBM wouldn't just go ahead and deal with it if they really thought that they were in breach or whatnot. It sounds as though SCO is having such a hard time finding the code because it isn't there. I mean, If they really had any proof, they could just say "we need lines X through X" couldn't they?
Slate has a thing on computer aided trading today as well: http://www.slate.com/id/2112392/
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/0 3/164257&tid=191&tid=14
The last time Mr. Grey showed up on slashdot.
Does anyone else find it incredibly funny that he has a rip-van-winkle type beard?
Maybe he already knows the secret and just isn't sharing?
>Which is exactly what it was used for before it became social security.
Really? Or are you mistaken, in that back before social security, our taxes were never this high?
That is exactly what I said, but I will reiterate: Before social security, people were able to spend the money that would have gone to SS. i.e. They got to invest it themselves.
>Just because the government is bad at saving money, does not mean that the general populace will be any better; they do however, have the possibility of being woefully worse.
This is the worst logic I've come across in a while. Your reason for allowing the government to keep taking YOUR MONEY is that you feel, while the government is bad at saving, you might be worse?
No, I am saying that you are not taking into account the fact that they(these people with holes in their pockets) live in a society. To belong to that society certain contributions need to be made: social security is one of the contributions we have today.
SS, is an enforced form of saving money; this is good because many people *don't* save their own money. When those people run out of money and are (pick a few) old, sick, poor, homeless, addicted, attacked, or killed, society bears the costs. Make no mistake about it either; those cost go up dramatically when they are not preventative, and then society must pay for them (only after the illness is terminal). So one if the ideas that a smart man had was to make people save money, thus offsetting those costs incurred by a society.
Now, I have not read up on this new plan but as I understand it; one can take that (SS) money and lose it all(whether by buying stock in whiffle condoms, or getting lap-jobs, I don't know and it matter little for the excersize): thusly bringing society back to where we were before. For a system like SS to work, there needs to be a guarenteed payoff- regardless of intellect, family connections (I know the republicans in the crowd are cringing now) or even good old fashioned hard work. This is a plan that will benefit the few (the ones that can drop the money into daddy's insider trading accounts), at the expense of the many (everyone that has to pay for the old, sick, weak, etc...).
Bush's proposal, while allowing for private accounts, does not give you unrestricted access to your money.
See above; this is a Good Thing.
He knows that would never be allowed in the Nanny States of America.
I don't like the asshole either, but that's the great thing about the US, you can leave anytime you want to. Personally, I don't think that he can screw things up more than the general populace that voted for him (Anyone who is for smaller government and voted for George II is getting royally screwed - you get what you asked for), so I'm content to wait for the next one (hopefully we can go with a literate one this time). Speaking of leaving, it seems many people are doing just that
"Canadian immigration authorities say they won't know until early next year whether there has been a serious exodus of Americans heading north following the election.
But they point out that their official Web site has been getting a flood of hits since Nov. 2. Normal traffic is about 50,000 hits a day. On Nov. 3, it peaked at 180,000 and has been running above normal ever since."
But shouldn't how people spend their own money be up to them?
That's a good question; I would make the claim that you are not taking into account the fact that they(these people with holes in their pockets) live in a society. To belong to that society certain contributions need to be made: taxes and social security are two of the contributions we have today. If you want a debate about taxation to pay for schools and roads is wrong I'm sure you can find one; just not in this decade.
SS, however is an enforced form of saving money; this is good because many people *don't* save their own money. When those people run out of money and are (pick a few) old, sick, poor, homeless, addicted, attacked, or killed, society bears the costs. So one if the ideas that a smart man had was to make people save money, thus offsetting those costs incurred by a society.
Now, I have not read up on this new plan but as I understand it; one can take that (SS) money and lose it all(whether by buying stock in whiffle condoms, or getting lap-jobs, I don't know and it matter little for the excersize): thusly bringing society back to where we were before. For a system like SS to work, there needs to be a guarenteed payoff- regardless of intellect, family connections or even good old fashioned hard work(I know the republicans in the crowd are cringing now). This is a plan that will benefit the few (the ones that can drop the money into daddy's insider trading accounts), at the expense of the many (everyone that has to pay for the old, sick, weak, etc...).
last time I caught any of O'Reily he was advocating for the legalization of pot and the tightening of environmental laws, which last I knew, were no where near republican talking points.
t ewartcarlson.htm
Wich is not inconsistent with reading them to the public, which is the claim I made.
Which brings us back to the fact that some people are not happy unless everything on all TV/Radio/Websites agrees with their personal opinion, worldview, and perspective. If you do not consume the media, and not enough others do, that outlet loses influence and power.
Yes, but your claim was that they were "getting away" with nothing. I contend that the many of the so-called "news" programs and the like are at best entertainment. Certainly not a vaid form or debate. Jon Stewart (the host of a show that makes no pretense as to being other than it is; the Daily Show) also holds this point of view:
"STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.
BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.
STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks."
"STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition."
Video: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/multimedia/v/s
So at the heart of what I said, actually the only point I made was: they are "getting away with it"; where "it" in my context was masquerading as a news show, pushing opinions that have little or no basis in reality, and having people take it at face value.
If you do not consume the media, and not enough others do, that outlet loses influence and power.
This is exactly my point; sure it enough people wer to turn of Fox or whatever because it was dripping crap then "they" would be "getting away with it". But they are, because people still tune in for their daily dose of lies and they (the peopel tuning in) don't care; they just want to be entertained. Unfortuantely, we are living in a time where news used to hold a certain amount of credibility; which it no longer does. But in the social conciousness it still retains that sticky credibilty that it no longer deserves. During that transition where the credebility that is given to the mass media outlets is different than the crediblity that they actually earn they will be "getting away with it". But when the children of the internet have grown up they won't "get away with it" anymore.
People who don't agree with you are not necessarily ignorant, stupid, or wrong.
Yes, I know "correlation not causation" and all that. I'll only beleive coincidence so far though.
- Politicians have been spending the SS income rather than investing it for years now.
Which is exactly what it was used for before it became social security.
Just because the government is bad at saving money, does not mean that the general populace will be any better; they do however, have the possibility of being woefully worse.
Would you really treat Veterans who hadn't been able to save enough because of constant medical problems not covered by the VA this way? How do you propose to help people whose pensions the courts have stripped through criminal mismanagement by their former employers? You're method is just tough luck, sucks to be you?
Yes, if he's a dyed in the wool republican.
>and, as far as viewers are concerned, get away with it.
That's in your opinion. They don't get away with in my view, because I refuse to consume their product and to become their product.
Just because you refuse to consume does not mean that "they don't get away with it". They have the ratings and that means that they have they eyeballs, and that means that they are getting away with it. Did you ever notice that they all read the republican "talking points"?
http://www.slate.com/id/2112357/ "Explaining how both the "Social Security crisis" and the "privatization solution" rely on faulty math misses the point of the president's plan entirely. Like supply-side tax cuts, Social Security reform is a subject on which conservatives prize philosophy--or, if you prefer, ideology--over arithmetic."
The idea is to promote an ownership society if I read the article correctly. My favorite quote: (second hand) "Republicans control the entire federal government. If they want to cut government spending, they should do it. They don't need to trash Social Security along the way."
In other news, my drill works very poorly as a toothpick, and my hand makes a bad hammer.
If the tool for doesn't work, it does not nessecarily follow that the tool needs to be redesigned. There are lots of good reasons to go to 64bit, but "the ability to layout my patio in photoshop" is *not* one of them.
For those of us that like to click:
mute-net.sf.net
When I'm on hold (If I'm unhappy), I'll scream and yell at whoever I was talking to, the company, even the product. I'll swear off ever purchasing anything from the company ever again. I'll make comments about the support technician's mother's ancestry and what orifice he or she may have come out of.
Do I think that they listen to me (either recorded or live)?
I really, really, have always hoped so.
ME: It's still cheaper in some cases, but a lot of folks don't realize the life of the bulbs.
s play.jpg
YOU: More than true. Then again, as far as I'm concerned anyone who goes and spends a grand without doing some serious research either has money to burn, or deservers whatever they get.
I agree to a point but people talking about it on Slashdot could be considered part of someone's research =)
They could also consider talking to the homeless guy that sits outside of work, but I have no control over what they consider a reliable source.
To those(hypothetical) readers doing research:
Keep the lighting of the room in mind; It is sometimes more helpful for you to spend money on blacking out windows than on the component (in reference to front projectors). You may save in projector costs what you spend on curtains. Additionally, a darker room means that ability to have bigger picture. The prj. I have has 1100 ANSI lumens, and does well with the windows open (at 10' diag.). But if you can get the room blackened, the only limitation you will find is the size of your wall. I got a good picture at 25' diag. Yes FEET(pixels as big as YOUR HEAD). But you could only see it at night.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/hookup_17.php3 That had a lot of interesting information I thought.
Rear projection TV's don't need NEARLY as much consideration for room lighting as a projector does!
Yes, but they also aren't NEARLY as big. So my point was that if one wanted to count square inches per dollar; In bright light, projectors can't make bigger screens, but in bright light no projection system does well so the LCD's and plasmas get beat on price. In a lighting controlled environment, the front projectors can easily outsize the rear projectors.
http://pics.honnecke.us/projector/IM000964.JPG.di
Pretty much, if a tube TV works there, so does a projection TV.
I think emphasis on the 'Pretty much' part is warrented. They may be viewable, but they do not have the brightness that a tube does in the same light. They still do better in bright environments than front projectors. If you cannot do anything to control your lighting, then a front projector will not be able to provide much of a size benefit over a rear projector, and will cost more over the long run at that.
Unfortunately, unless you don't care if the picture isn't as good as it should be, screens are somewhat expensive as well. For an ok 60" projector screen you're looking at $400 easy. If you want one of those new black-screen ones, it's a lot more.
More than true, I'm still looking for one. The way I understand it, one of the most important aspects is that the screen is coated with glass beads to diffuse the light a little, avoiding hot-spots.
So, we have a decent projector ($800 - $1000) a decent screen ($400) and we're up to $1300 +/- $100.
You are right, if we are going to compare against plasma or whatever with that quality, then we need to factor in the screen, so cut a year off of that estimate.
Of course, we're assuming the rest of the internals of the projector hold up as well; they usually have little LCD screens in them, fans, electronics..
We're also making that assumption in reference to whatever option were looking at, be it plasma, LCD, or rear prj.
My whole point is that a projector set-up isn't as cheap as it seems to be for the size of the screen.
It's not as cheap as it seems, but I would contend that dollars per square inch, a front projection system would beat anything out there. The rear prj. systems suffer from some of the same problems when not place in a lighting controlled environment, and the plasmas and LCD's are very expensive.
It's still cheaper in some cases, but a lot of folks don't realize the life of the bulbs.
More than true. Then again, as far as I'm concerned anyone who goes and spends a grand without doing some serious research either has money to burn, or deservers whatever they get.
Plasma and LCD aren't the only alternatives either; rear projection TV's are usually resonably priced these days, they offer a brilliant picture, they aren't as bulky as they used to be, and they last a lot longer then both plasma and LCD.
My dad and brother both have rear projection mitsubishis (65 and 50 inches respectively), and they really do look good. My brother got in for $1700.
I never said projectors weren't good I was just pointing out that they aren't as cheap as they seem, especially with the reoccuring cost of the bulbs. I'm probably going to get one if I can find a good deal on one, but if not I'm going to go with a rear projection.
There is a real sweet spot in price at the 1024X768 range. Check out 'polaguy' on ebay, that's where I got mine.
The performance scaling will be measured by multitasking and multithreaded application usage rather than single-threaded applications. You can expect to not see a huge performance gain, if any, with regular computing tasks.
Who really has issues with desktop processing, when only doing *one* thing?
Girls have cooties.
No eating boogers.