Heroes devolved from a series about a super hero showdown to high school drama at an actual high school with the plot seemingly generated at random. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was the best TV in a long time, unfortunately the whole setup reeks of some half-effort crap that's just there to sell a movie - until you actually watch a few episodes to prove that wrong. It's a bit how Batman: Arkham Asylum was a tremendous game, but it might easily have been passed over because most movie tie-in games suck. I enjoyed Caprica, but I can easily see how many other people wouldn't. It was too all over the place - while much better than Heroes, it shared that flaw.
Groupings within a party does not make for a multiparty system. It makes it easier to find consensus among the groups within a party because there is a common interest in opposing the enemy, but that at the same time makes it harder to find consensus with the enemy.
In a multiparty system many different groupings are possible and so it is not smart politics to paint other politicians as evil baby eaters because tomorrow you might need to work with them - or at least it is not as smart politics as it otherwise is. There is more of a common interest and that creates at least the possibility of cooperation among parties.
It is not true that the people were against the democrats' plan because the population didn't know what the democrats' plan was due to misinformation from all sides, so they couldn't possibly be against it or for it - they could only be for or against whatever they had imagined the plan to be. I've heard there was positive sentiment in polls when people were asked about the content of the actual plan without it being revealed where the plan came from, though I don't know the details of that. The democrats did try to engage the republicans - on that we seem to agree though you have a different perspective on what their motivations for doing so were.
No problem, unlimited data plans exist only in commercials. You cannot buy an actually unlimited data plan for any affordable amount of money in any place that I know of. If you saturate your pipe 24/7 they will find a way to disconnect you.
In the end you didn't get anything like what the Democrats wanted, yet they have a majority. Your rhetoric about something being forced on someone is disingenuous in that that is the definition of politics as opposed to e.g. persuasion. When you vote for something, then you are voting to force the issue against those voting against and vice versa. It is what politics is, and that is exactly why politics makes people so angry. The funny thing is that what Obama is getting in trouble for is precisely that he tried to go beyond that and inevitably failed.
Republicans are not concerned with pleasing democrats, and I don't know why they would be. The strange thing is that democrats are concerned with pleasing republicans. It is as if they don't understand that in a two-party system they are playing a zero-sum game for power. They are acting as though they are in a many-party system where consensus is the way to make decisions.
That's a little amusing - you have clearly drunk the koolaid you rail against in your sig and name. I'm not American and have no stake in US politics, I just follow it out of curiosity, so there is no "us" or "them" for me. What the republicans did isn't just filibustering, they pretended to negotiate with no intention of getting anywhere. When the democrats turned out to be so extremely flexible and bipartisan that the republicans were unable to pretend that their demands weren't being met, they made up demands to make the bill a mess that they could then turn around and point fingers at for being such a mess and for taking so long.
You would have had a proper bill in a timely manner if the democrats had done what you are accusing them of doing - using their majority. It is because they didn't do what you are saying they did that the bill is such a mess. The current election is punishing the democrats exactly for being too bipartisan and not getting anywhere as a result. Both sides are probably equally corrupt, it just seems to me from the outside that the republicans are much better at being devious like that. It's a prisoner's dilemma type game where the democrats chose to cooperate and the republicans did not, so the republicans get a higher payoff. Seems bipartisanship is a losing strategy.
I think America is only center anything compared to itself (by definition). Compared to the rest of the world, it is extremely right-wing in its policies and so are the democrats, just less so than the republicans.
Since the brain discards most of the information it takes in, and our eyes are only very sensitive in a small area, a direct brain interface might require much less processing power. Furthermore, It might be we could simply tell the brain where objects are and have the brain go from there instead of making up an image from objects at great computational cost that the brain then also at great computational cost decomposes into objects. I agree we'll keep on finding ways to use more computer power, though.
It's even less than that in winter because the energy that is consumed by your computer is also energy saved on the heat bill. If you have electric heat, electricity is free up until the point at which you can turn off your electric heating. In summer it is more expensive for the same reason if you are running an AC, though.
You are missing the point. That is how it is today because we don't have good 3D printers in every home. When we do, and physical items become as copyable as bits, the issue becomes completely different and the ideas we have about such issues now will be challenged. That is an event in the future and potentially bad outcomes of that are also in the future. It is meaningless for the matter at hand that we have avoided those bad outcomes before the event. As an example of what will happen, just see Belial6 in this very thread calling for "special protections".
The alternative is not 100 billion dollars for a war. The alternative could have been 100 billion dollars on general science spending. That's 11 LHCs of science or 10,000 individual X prices of engineering. I'm not in a position to evaluate that against the current space program, but that's a lot of pay off to compete with.
Only the "good" ads work by convincing you consciously to buy something. The rest are designed to manipulate you in a non-conscious way so that you will end up buying that stuff without being aware of the reason that you are doing so is that you saw an ad for it. Because you are supposed to forget about the ad consciously, there is no question of willpower, self-control or independent thought involved. You don't have the option of deciding not to be influenced by ads once you've been subjected to them, you have only the option of trying to avoid them in the first place. What you are doing is blaming the victims so that you can think that you are not yourself a victim of ads. Being angry does not improve your mind to be able to resist these techniques.
Holy crap, if someone doesn't know what the effect of compound interest is, that's like not understanding that sharp objects can hurt you. Please take my money mr. moneylender.
Let's go with your stated finger-lag of 1/30 second. For an insanely fast game, it will display a reaction to that on the next frame, which at 30 fps can be 1/30 second later. So the total lag is 2/30, which is double of the lag in the real world. If you run at 60 fps, the total lag will instead be 1/30 finger lag plus 1/60 game lag, for a total of 3/60, which is 1/60 less than before. There is no physical impossibility in being able to detect a difference of 1/60 second. Now add to that that some games take, say, 4 frames to react, and then at 30 fps you get a lag of 5/30 second while at 60 fps you get a lag of 6/60, which is 4/60=1/15 second better. And yes, Rage isn't just a display engine, it's also doing path finding and so on at 60 fps.
Got nothing to do with the internet, even. Newspapers have been on that wagon for a long time in the US and probably in some other places too. E.g. I once saw an ad for Amish electric radiators (sic) that was a full page ad written as to be indistinguishable from the other pages in the newspaper. The only clue was a discreet banner saying "advertisement". I read through the whole page before seeing the banner, and I was dumbfounded by how stupid the newspaper guys were being for being taken in by the "miracle of Amish craftsmanship", in that it would make your heating bill greatly decrease (true, since it was running on electricity), but they never pointed out the part about your electricity bill increasing.
It's not that it is useless to me. My point would remain even if I was personally profiting from HFT, as indeed I may be indirectly doing if my bank or pension fund is engaging in it. My complaint is that a market that makes HFT economical is not as useful to society as one that does not - just as for insider trading. The difference is that insider trading has to be illegal to make it a bad prospect, because it is hard to detect, while it is not necessary to make HFT illegal to make it uneconomical. Your suggestion of a tiny tax per transaction is a good start. There is no relation to whether or not HFT is useful to me personally.
Slashdot Mirror
Heroes devolved from a series about a super hero showdown to high school drama at an actual high school with the plot seemingly generated at random. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was the best TV in a long time, unfortunately the whole setup reeks of some half-effort crap that's just there to sell a movie - until you actually watch a few episodes to prove that wrong. It's a bit how Batman: Arkham Asylum was a tremendous game, but it might easily have been passed over because most movie tie-in games suck. I enjoyed Caprica, but I can easily see how many other people wouldn't. It was too all over the place - while much better than Heroes, it shared that flaw.
Groupings within a party does not make for a multiparty system. It makes it easier to find consensus among the groups within a party because there is a common interest in opposing the enemy, but that at the same time makes it harder to find consensus with the enemy.
In a multiparty system many different groupings are possible and so it is not smart politics to paint other politicians as evil baby eaters because tomorrow you might need to work with them - or at least it is not as smart politics as it otherwise is. There is more of a common interest and that creates at least the possibility of cooperation among parties.
It is not true that the people were against the democrats' plan because the population didn't know what the democrats' plan was due to misinformation from all sides, so they couldn't possibly be against it or for it - they could only be for or against whatever they had imagined the plan to be. I've heard there was positive sentiment in polls when people were asked about the content of the actual plan without it being revealed where the plan came from, though I don't know the details of that. The democrats did try to engage the republicans - on that we seem to agree though you have a different perspective on what their motivations for doing so were.
True, though that isn't happening.
No problem, unlimited data plans exist only in commercials. You cannot buy an actually unlimited data plan for any affordable amount of money in any place that I know of. If you saturate your pipe 24/7 they will find a way to disconnect you.
I thought this was a good writeup on the issue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/
In the end you didn't get anything like what the Democrats wanted, yet they have a majority. Your rhetoric about something being forced on someone is disingenuous in that that is the definition of politics as opposed to e.g. persuasion. When you vote for something, then you are voting to force the issue against those voting against and vice versa. It is what politics is, and that is exactly why politics makes people so angry. The funny thing is that what Obama is getting in trouble for is precisely that he tried to go beyond that and inevitably failed.
Republicans are not concerned with pleasing democrats, and I don't know why they would be. The strange thing is that democrats are concerned with pleasing republicans. It is as if they don't understand that in a two-party system they are playing a zero-sum game for power. They are acting as though they are in a many-party system where consensus is the way to make decisions.
That's a little amusing - you have clearly drunk the koolaid you rail against in your sig and name. I'm not American and have no stake in US politics, I just follow it out of curiosity, so there is no "us" or "them" for me. What the republicans did isn't just filibustering, they pretended to negotiate with no intention of getting anywhere. When the democrats turned out to be so extremely flexible and bipartisan that the republicans were unable to pretend that their demands weren't being met, they made up demands to make the bill a mess that they could then turn around and point fingers at for being such a mess and for taking so long.
You would have had a proper bill in a timely manner if the democrats had done what you are accusing them of doing - using their majority. It is because they didn't do what you are saying they did that the bill is such a mess. The current election is punishing the democrats exactly for being too bipartisan and not getting anywhere as a result. Both sides are probably equally corrupt, it just seems to me from the outside that the republicans are much better at being devious like that. It's a prisoner's dilemma type game where the democrats chose to cooperate and the republicans did not, so the republicans get a higher payoff. Seems bipartisanship is a losing strategy.
The right could torpedo the bill because the Democrats were trying to be bipartisan and the right took that as an opportunity to sabotage the project.
I think America is only center anything compared to itself (by definition). Compared to the rest of the world, it is extremely right-wing in its policies and so are the democrats, just less so than the republicans.
Since the brain discards most of the information it takes in, and our eyes are only very sensitive in a small area, a direct brain interface might require much less processing power. Furthermore, It might be we could simply tell the brain where objects are and have the brain go from there instead of making up an image from objects at great computational cost that the brain then also at great computational cost decomposes into objects. I agree we'll keep on finding ways to use more computer power, though.
It's even less than that in winter because the energy that is consumed by your computer is also energy saved on the heat bill. If you have electric heat, electricity is free up until the point at which you can turn off your electric heating. In summer it is more expensive for the same reason if you are running an AC, though.
I don't disagree with anything in your post. It does not contradict what I've been posting.
You are missing the point. That is how it is today because we don't have good 3D printers in every home. When we do, and physical items become as copyable as bits, the issue becomes completely different and the ideas we have about such issues now will be challenged. That is an event in the future and potentially bad outcomes of that are also in the future. It is meaningless for the matter at hand that we have avoided those bad outcomes before the event. As an example of what will happen, just see Belial6 in this very thread calling for "special protections".
If you believe that I'm repeating myself then you haven't understood.
He said "is going to be", not "is".
The alternative is not 100 billion dollars for a war. The alternative could have been 100 billion dollars on general science spending. That's 11 LHCs of science or 10,000 individual X prices of engineering. I'm not in a position to evaluate that against the current space program, but that's a lot of pay off to compete with.
Your belief that you are immune to most bids for influence leveled against you makes you more susceptible to those very attempts at influence.
Probably not, but it might do so the first time.
If you think that you are not susceptible, then you are exactly the target group.
Only the "good" ads work by convincing you consciously to buy something. The rest are designed to manipulate you in a non-conscious way so that you will end up buying that stuff without being aware of the reason that you are doing so is that you saw an ad for it. Because you are supposed to forget about the ad consciously, there is no question of willpower, self-control or independent thought involved. You don't have the option of deciding not to be influenced by ads once you've been subjected to them, you have only the option of trying to avoid them in the first place. What you are doing is blaming the victims so that you can think that you are not yourself a victim of ads. Being angry does not improve your mind to be able to resist these techniques.
That's not funny, that's a perspective that has value, even if it may not be the whole story. Bad teaching.
Holy crap, if someone doesn't know what the effect of compound interest is, that's like not understanding that sharp objects can hurt you. Please take my money mr. moneylender.
Let's go with your stated finger-lag of 1/30 second. For an insanely fast game, it will display a reaction to that on the next frame, which at 30 fps can be 1/30 second later. So the total lag is 2/30, which is double of the lag in the real world. If you run at 60 fps, the total lag will instead be 1/30 finger lag plus 1/60 game lag, for a total of 3/60, which is 1/60 less than before. There is no physical impossibility in being able to detect a difference of 1/60 second. Now add to that that some games take, say, 4 frames to react, and then at 30 fps you get a lag of 5/30 second while at 60 fps you get a lag of 6/60, which is 4/60=1/15 second better. And yes, Rage isn't just a display engine, it's also doing path finding and so on at 60 fps.
Got nothing to do with the internet, even. Newspapers have been on that wagon for a long time in the US and probably in some other places too. E.g. I once saw an ad for Amish electric radiators (sic) that was a full page ad written as to be indistinguishable from the other pages in the newspaper. The only clue was a discreet banner saying "advertisement". I read through the whole page before seeing the banner, and I was dumbfounded by how stupid the newspaper guys were being for being taken in by the "miracle of Amish craftsmanship", in that it would make your heating bill greatly decrease (true, since it was running on electricity), but they never pointed out the part about your electricity bill increasing.
Can I have it?
It's not that it is useless to me. My point would remain even if I was personally profiting from HFT, as indeed I may be indirectly doing if my bank or pension fund is engaging in it. My complaint is that a market that makes HFT economical is not as useful to society as one that does not - just as for insider trading. The difference is that insider trading has to be illegal to make it a bad prospect, because it is hard to detect, while it is not necessary to make HFT illegal to make it uneconomical. Your suggestion of a tiny tax per transaction is a good start. There is no relation to whether or not HFT is useful to me personally.