I seriously doubt you can point to any conclusive, scientific language studies on children that really, definitively, show what level of language development a child would develop on it's own, because such a study would be scandalously immoral and unethical.
And yet there are scandalously immoral and unethical situations that have been studied (though perhaps not scientifically, since there's no control over variables, etc.) Of most recent note is the case of Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)) who essentially spent the first 13 years of her life locked in a small bedroom, usually restrained and only rarely hearing words. As is often true of cases like Genie, the course of normal language acquisition has been disrupted, giving researchers and opportunity to see if various theories properly predict what would happen in the abscence of certain events.
You point out the overgeneralization of rules (AKA overregularization, the two most common being 's' for pluralization, and use of 'ed' to indicate past tense) as proof that babies aren't paying attention to the adults trying to teach them language, but you missed one of the essential factors of this phenomenon. Before babies overapply these rules, they actually get them right. That is, in the early stages of learning, they say went instead of goed or feet instead of foots. Then, as they learn more and more verbs they also learn (note I didn't say are taught) that there are rules about this sort of thing, and begin overapplying the rules. Eventaully, though, they are taught that there are exceptions to these rules in English and (hopefully) begin to use them correctly again.
So I would say that it's not that babies are ignoring adults when they try to teach language, but rather that babies are paying so much attention all the time that adults are constantly teaching them the language, not just when they're making a concerted effort to teach them.
Here in Texas, it's the Open Records Act (state law), and since UT Austin is a public institution, a lot of its info counts as open records (even employee salaries).
That said, I happen to know that UT Austin attaches a clear warning to requestors of information that email addresses are for informational purposes only, and may not be used as a source for sending commercial bulk email. Whether that warning was added before or after White Buffalo came along, I don't know
Austin Energy also has extensive rebate offers on everything from low-flow toilets to solar panel (PV) installations on homes and businesses. I don't think they're doing it out of the kindness of their hearts, but if they've found a way to make some green by supporting green, more power (huh huh, get it?) to them.
Beyond the feel-good value of the program, there is another benefit to me. My rate is locked in because it's coming from sources (solar and wind mostly) with limited price fluctuation (because the cost has already been paid and maintenance costs are well known). Austin Energy customers not on the GreenChoice program will be affected by market changes in their sources of fuel (gas, coal, etc.). At this point I'm not laughing my way to the bank, but I feel confident that day's not terribly far off.
From Section 8, Clause 8 (AKA the copyright clause): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
How do you interpret this to apply to COMMERCIAL duplication?
Also, it's worth pointing out that duplication is, in fact, automatically infringing, as fair use doesn't mean you didn't infringe, it just means the infringement is excused or allowed.
As for your previous post's run-down of what is and is not fair use, you might look at http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/c opypol2.htm#test for the four factors that go into defending fair use.
Since I'm not a judge, I can't say with certainty, but scanning the entirity of a book checked out of the library probably would not be fair use. Copying an entire album to give to a friend (even just one) is probably not fair use. That doesn't mean someone's going to come after you for doing it, but the fact that you've copied the entire copyrighted work would make it very hard to call fair use.
I might be inclined to agree, IF my ISP's SMTP server were more reliable than my own, but it's not.
Also, I run my own SMTP server less for "convenience" (after all, what's convenient about managing my own Sendmail installation and making sure I've got mailertable entries for all the domains that don't like my dynamic IP) and more because it allows me to provide features that my ISP doesn't (spam and virus filtering at the top of the list, but also the ability to create throwaway addresses whenever I want, among others).
Were the shows on the same channel perhaps? In that case, there was no overlap, only an offset from the normal 30 minute blocks. Otherwise, I don't believe an unmodified Tivo will do this. Neither of mine ever have.
I'm not aware of any report that hybrids were getting worse mileage than their non-hybrid counterparts. What I have read is that the gap between EPA mileage estimates and real-world mileage seems to be greater for hybrids.
So, for example, say the EPA estimates the regular civic at 30 mpg but it really gets more like 27, while the hybrid gets 45 according to the EPA, but really only gets 37. (These are completely made up numbers to illustrate the point).
Of course, that said, I'm not convinced that these massive discrepancies in hybrids are more than anecdotal. I may not get the EPA estimate in my 04 Prius, but I'm not that far off and I get closer on nearly every tank.
While hybrids don't cost $5K more, you are esentially correct that current hybrids are probably a wash economically. On the other hand, at least for the Prius, the goal is lower emissions not better mileage, and fuel economy is only one of the ways the Prius accomplishes low emissions.
The real point of my post though is that you can't talk about range in an electric car the same way you talk about range in a gasoline car. Even if the range of an electric is the same as a gas, it only takes five or ten minutes to "re-charge" the gasoline car. I think electric cars are great for a lot of situations, but long-distance driving is not one of them.
That's correct. It's also worth pointing out that it's not a tax credit, but rather a "reduction to income" (which is basically like a deduction), so it's actual dollar value impact depends on your tax bracket.
The original Priuses are a smaller car, but the 2004 fits four easily and comfortably (OK, as long as the people in the back seat aren't too many inches above average height). In fact, everybody who's ridden in mine makes the comment about how they didn't expect it to be so roomy. True nerds even joke about how Toyota must have licensed Tardis technology, because the inside is deceptively large compared to how it looks from the outside.
To summarize, the Prius is not a US car. It is not good in a traffic jam as it will have silly pollution levels and silly consumption because the engine will be always cold. It is not good on a highway.
You clearly haven't driven a Prius. I can speak only to the 2004 model (as it's what I own), but traffic jams (and other stop and go traffic) are one of the places where the Prius is ideal. At low speeds, you can run on electric only, so no pollution or consumption. Brake every so often and the regenerative braking keeps the battery charged. The engine doesn't cool that fast (and in fact, the Prius has a Thermos-like container to hold the coolant warm when it's not in use for longer periods (hours or even a day or two)).
As for the Prius' highway performance, just a week and a half ago I made a roughly 200 mile drive where all but maybe 10 miles was 60-70mph highway and when we arrived at the destination, we showed 54 mpg. I suspect some tail wind, because after the return trip (which took the whole tank), our mpg dropped to just over 50. Hardly what I would call "not good".
Absolutely. At least Congress tried to control porn on the Internet by passing the Communications Decency Act. As crappy as it was, it was better than nothing. Not to mention Prohibition. Sure it required amending the Constitution, but then we worked to fix it and, oh, wait. Nevermind.
For a few quick points, 1) she was in the passenger seat, 2) the car was parked in the parking lot and 3) that particular McDonald's was serving it's coffee at 180F - 190F (capable of causing third degreee burns in 2 to 7 seconds). Plus, in the ten years prior to her case, McDonald's had had over 700 burn complaints, some with similar third degree burns.
That's not to say that there aren't some disturbingly frivolous lawsuits out there, but her's isn't the best example.
I'm going to butcher the explanation, but modern cosmology posits that there is no center to the universe in the way you mean.
It's important to remember that at the moment of the big bang, there wasn't a universe outside of it. That is to say that when the big bang occured, it didn't expland into some already exisiting space, rather it was the space that was expanding. As such, all objects are moving away from all other objects.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html has a decent drawing to illustrate how this leads to no "real" center.
The other explanation that has always helped me picture it is to imagine the universe as an un-inflated balloon. In this model, we've reduced the universe to a two-dimensional, unbounded, infinite space in order to help us visualize this principle. Before inflating the balloon, mark several points with permanent marker, Now, when you inflate the balloon, you can see that each point grows more distant (over the surface of the balloon) from every other point you've marked and that the farther one mark is from another, the faster it moves away from it. From the point of view of a given mark, everything else is moving away from it, which would give the impression that it's at the "center" of the balloon's surface. At the same time, however, that impression would appear to be true for every other mark.
Re:Sheesh!
on
TiVo Will Die
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It didn't die anymore than I died because I was so different in 1985. It grew up, just like everyone else. Beyond that, you seem to have some misinformation there.
Let's see, the Web (http) wasn't invented until 1991. While SLIP existed in 1985, the RFC wasn't written until 1988, and even then, it was something available primarily on commercial unix equipment. I think perhaps you meant gopher sites instead of finger sites (or maybe you meant finger servers, cause I've never heard of "finger sites" nor does the phrase make any sense). Even gopher didn't exist until the early 90's (maybe UMN was using it before that, but I doubt anyone else was).
As another poster pointed out, I would place this description of the Internet in the 1991-1993 time period, not 1985. Perhaps Hobbes' Internet timeline would help clear things up. http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/
I'm already seeing several questions about why Farscape (FS from here on out) is so good, or people talking about how they can't stand (and then admit they've only watched a few episodes). So, to answer those posts, I'm going to give you X number of reasons (where X equals the point where I get tired of typing or can't think of anymore) why FS is a fantastic show (especially SciFi show, but even among other shows).
These are in no particular order.
1. Continuity matters - What happens in one episode usually has an impact on a later episode, even if you don't realize it at the time. This ranges from X happened last epsiode, and now it has impact Y on the next one to X happened a season ago, and helps explain Y in this episode a season later. There are a few other SF shows on TV right now that do this (Enterprise), but not many. Unfortunately, this has a downside, in that grabbing new viewers midstream becomes problematic.
2. Complex characters - Sometimes the "good" guys act bad and some times the "bad" guys act good, and sometimes the "bad" guys turn out to be not so bad and really it can get a little hard to tell who the good and bad guys are a lot of the time. All of the time you're left guessing at most of the characters motives. Friendships and allegiances bend and break. Sometimes the "good" and "bad" guys have to cooperate to achieve shared goals.
3. Unpredictability - Farscape has done some stuff I never saw coming (or my wife, who's better at guessing plot twists than I). They killed off a main character in the middle of a season. They "cloned" the main character and had both walking around for nearly a season. Normally, you sort of realize that the central character can't get killed off, but when there's two of him, you never know if/when one might get wacked.
4. Somewhat more creative aliens - This is due in part to the Henson involvement. It allows them to create non-humanoid aliens that are very believable. Among those are the "ship" itself, the somewhat symbiotic pilot of the ship and Rygel. Even the humanoid aliens are fairly different from one another. One of the main characters is a humanoid meat-eating vegetable. Nearly a season's worth of episodes are focused on the pregnancy of the ship, how the crew deals with it, how it affects their run from the law, etc.
5. A great ensemble cast - For the most part, every main character is well acted (and via some episodes we get to see them stretch their abilities) and well written. This interplays with having complex characters, but unlike some shows, there's hardly a dud in the bunch (I'm looking at you Harry Kim or, sorry Wil, Wesley Crusher).
6. Comedy - I know a lot of SF shows are good at inserting humor, but Farscape does it as well as any other. I would rank it right up there with Firefly. If nothing else, the voices in the main character's head are handled perfectly, just skirting the edge of slapstick but not quite turning into the stooges.
7. Fresh characters - The cast has been changing since the first season. New characters show up, others leave the show. And this isn't just "add a hot babe to boost ratings" changes. Think more along the lines of old ugly witch-doctor woman who cooks meals and occasionally drugs the crew.
There are so many other reasons, but I can't think of them all right now. If you can get your hands on them, go rent the first few DVD's which will have the first six episodes or so. Watch them all, and I think you'll see what I mean.
When did Salon start this "you have two options to read the rest of this article" crap. I don't really mind sitting through an ad (especially for powell's books, a fantastic bookstore), but then it didn't even take me to the rest of the article. Instead it dropped me back at their main page with no clue where to go next.
First, I didn't actually say anything about US intervention in Isreal/Palestine, I just pointed out that bin Laden had issues with our policy in that region. That said, I do think the US's handling of the recent mess could have been better.
In any case, intervention is a broad word and while some intervention is good, other times it's not. It's like accusing me of being a hypocrite because I'm for driving cars in some situations (like an ambulance going to the hospital), but not others (say when the driver is drunk).
The US has a role to play on the world-wide scene, I just don't think that role is "secretly" playing around with their governments. The US often complains about how the UN infringes on our sovereignty (case in point being Bush's repeated statements that the US would go forward in Iraq with or without a UN resolution), but we don't seem to mind undercutting other nations' sovereignty. That's what's hypocritical.
As the most prosperous country in the world, I think the US should intervene in places where our prosperity would help other nations rise out of economic, social or political hardship. Even these efforts have to be conducted in the open, though. Sadly though, as a proportion of our GDP, we're one of the stingiest countries in the world when it comes to international aid.
Nonsense. If you racially profile, you enhance your odds of catching criminals. There is a reason that every BOLO I have ever heard (and I have heard a lot of them) list the race of the suspect.
The description of an individual on a BOLO or APB is not racial profiling. It's based on the description by one or more witnesses or agencies of a single individual so as to identify the person as uniquely as possible to the public, not to describe an entire category of individuals.
Now, if you've seen a BOLO or APB that says "be on the lookout for (black|hispanic|asian|white) people" then I stand corrected.
The writing of this post makes me seriously wonder whether this is a troll. Something about that last sentence sounds like words from a Miss America candidate's mouth. Nonetheless, assuming you're serious, I would argue just the opposite of your position.
One of the main reasons people in other countries hate America is that we preach democracy, but export anything but to the rest of the world. Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from, is not a democracy. Rather, it's a monarchy propped up by the US government and its dependency on oil. Wouldn't you be pissed if one of your country's stronger allies had a democratic government but handed over billions of dollars a year to your government that threw you in jail for even mentioning how nice democracy might be.
For other examples of the US supporting (if not outright creating) non-democratic regimes, see Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Much of Central and South America and probably numerous others I'm forgetting right now.
In addition, I would argue that one of the primary purposes of last year's attack was to bring the choas that exists in so many parts of the world to the US's front door, if even temporarily. Remember that bin Laden is a strong crusader for palestinian rights and has stated his anger that America regularly ignores the choas and bloodshed of the region. He wanted the American people and politicians to feel the same sense of uncertainty and overwhelming dread that citizens of Palestine face on a constant basis.
You don't have to forgive or excuse to understand terrorism, but you have to understand it to defeat, defuse, undermine or otherwise declare "victory" in the war on terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
While that would be awesome, lipsync is a looong way away from being like dropbox.
I seriously doubt you can point to any conclusive, scientific language studies on children that really, definitively, show what level of language development a child would develop on it's own, because such a study would be scandalously immoral and unethical.
) who essentially spent the first 13 years of her life locked in a small bedroom, usually restrained and only rarely hearing words. As is often true of cases like Genie, the course of normal language acquisition has been disrupted, giving researchers and opportunity to see if various theories properly predict what would happen in the abscence of certain events.
And yet there are scandalously immoral and unethical situations that have been studied (though perhaps not scientifically, since there's no control over variables, etc.) Of most recent note is the case of Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)
And if that isn't disturbing enough, there's a whole website on similar stories (including Genie) at http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php.
You point out the overgeneralization of rules (AKA overregularization, the two most common being 's' for pluralization, and use of 'ed' to indicate past tense) as proof that babies aren't paying attention to the adults trying to teach them language, but you missed one of the essential factors of this phenomenon. Before babies overapply these rules, they actually get them right. That is, in the early stages of learning, they say went instead of goed or feet instead of foots. Then, as they learn more and more verbs they also learn (note I didn't say are taught) that there are rules about this sort of thing, and begin overapplying the rules. Eventaully, though, they are taught that there are exceptions to these rules in English and (hopefully) begin to use them correctly again.
So I would say that it's not that babies are ignoring adults when they try to teach language, but rather that babies are paying so much attention all the time that adults are constantly teaching them the language, not just when they're making a concerted effort to teach them.
Here in Texas, it's the Open Records Act (state law), and since UT Austin is a public institution, a lot of its info counts as open records (even employee salaries).
That said, I happen to know that UT Austin attaches a clear warning to requestors of information that email addresses are for informational purposes only, and may not be used as a source for sending commercial bulk email. Whether that warning was added before or after White Buffalo came along, I don't know
Austin Energy also has extensive rebate offers on everything from low-flow toilets to solar panel (PV) installations on homes and businesses. I don't think they're doing it out of the kindness of their hearts, but if they've found a way to make some green by supporting green, more power (huh huh, get it?) to them.
Beyond the feel-good value of the program, there is another benefit to me. My rate is locked in because it's coming from sources (solar and wind mostly) with limited price fluctuation (because the cost has already been paid and maintenance costs are well known). Austin Energy customers not on the GreenChoice program will be affected by market changes in their sources of fuel (gas, coal, etc.). At this point I'm not laughing my way to the bank, but I feel confident that day's not terribly far off.
They specifically excluded medical technology. I suspect the list would have been dramatically different otherwise.
From Section 8, Clause 8 (AKA the copyright clause):
c opypol2.htm#test
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
How do you interpret this to apply to COMMERCIAL duplication?
Also, it's worth pointing out that duplication is, in fact, automatically infringing, as fair use doesn't mean you didn't infringe, it just means the infringement is excused or allowed.
As for your previous post's run-down of what is and is not fair use, you might look at http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/
for the four factors that go into defending fair use.
Since I'm not a judge, I can't say with certainty, but scanning the entirity of a book checked out of the library probably would not be fair use. Copying an entire album to give to a friend (even just one) is probably not fair use. That doesn't mean someone's going to come after you for doing it, but the fact that you've copied the entire copyrighted work would make it very hard to call fair use.
I might be inclined to agree, IF my ISP's SMTP server were more reliable than my own, but it's not.
Also, I run my own SMTP server less for "convenience" (after all, what's convenient about managing my own Sendmail installation and making sure I've got mailertable entries for all the domains that don't like my dynamic IP) and more because it allows me to provide features that my ISP doesn't (spam and virus filtering at the top of the list, but also the ability to create throwaway addresses whenever I want, among others).
Or not...
s .a sp
http://www.snopes.com/business/names/worldserie
Were the shows on the same channel perhaps? In that case, there was no overlap, only an offset from the normal 30 minute blocks. Otherwise, I don't believe an unmodified Tivo will do this. Neither of mine ever have.
I'm not aware of any report that hybrids were getting worse mileage than their non-hybrid counterparts. What I have read is that the gap between EPA mileage estimates and real-world mileage seems to be greater for hybrids.
So, for example, say the EPA estimates the regular civic at 30 mpg but it really gets more like 27, while the hybrid gets 45 according to the EPA, but really only gets 37. (These are completely made up numbers to illustrate the point).
Of course, that said, I'm not convinced that these massive discrepancies in hybrids are more than anecdotal. I may not get the EPA estimate in my 04 Prius, but I'm not that far off and I get closer on nearly every tank.
While hybrids don't cost $5K more, you are esentially correct that current hybrids are probably a wash economically. On the other hand, at least for the Prius, the goal is lower emissions not better mileage, and fuel economy is only one of the ways the Prius accomplishes low emissions.
The real point of my post though is that you can't talk about range in an electric car the same way you talk about range in a gasoline car. Even if the range of an electric is the same as a gas, it only takes five or ten minutes to "re-charge" the gasoline car. I think electric cars are great for a lot of situations, but long-distance driving is not one of them.
That's correct. It's also worth pointing out that it's not a tax credit, but rather a "reduction to income" (which is basically like a deduction), so it's actual dollar value impact depends on your tax bracket.
The original Priuses are a smaller car, but the 2004 fits four easily and comfortably (OK, as long as the people in the back seat aren't too many inches above average height). In fact, everybody who's ridden in mine makes the comment about how they didn't expect it to be so roomy. True nerds even joke about how Toyota must have licensed Tardis technology, because the inside is deceptively large compared to how it looks from the outside.
As for the Prius' highway performance, just a week and a half ago I made a roughly 200 mile drive where all but maybe 10 miles was 60-70mph highway and when we arrived at the destination, we showed 54 mpg. I suspect some tail wind, because after the return trip (which took the whole tank), our mpg dropped to just over 50. Hardly what I would call "not good".
Absolutely. At least Congress tried to control porn on the Internet by passing the Communications Decency Act. As crappy as it was, it was better than nothing. Not to mention Prohibition. Sure it required amending the Constitution, but then we worked to fix it and, oh, wait. Nevermind.
I'm so tired of hearing about the old lady driving with the hot coffee.
For a few quick points, 1) she was in the passenger seat, 2) the car was parked in the parking lot and 3) that particular McDonald's was serving it's coffee at 180F - 190F (capable of causing third degreee burns in 2 to 7 seconds). Plus, in the ten years prior to her case, McDonald's had had over 700 burn complaints, some with similar third degree burns.
That's not to say that there aren't some disturbingly frivolous lawsuits out there, but her's isn't the best example.
I'm going to butcher the explanation, but modern cosmology posits that there is no center to the universe in the way you mean.
It's important to remember that at the moment of the big bang, there wasn't a universe outside of it. That is to say that when the big bang occured, it didn't expland into some already exisiting space, rather it was the space that was expanding. As such, all objects are moving away from all other objects.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
has a decent drawing to illustrate how this leads to no "real" center.
The other explanation that has always helped me picture it is to imagine the universe as an un-inflated balloon. In this model, we've reduced the universe to a two-dimensional, unbounded, infinite space in order to help us visualize this principle. Before inflating the balloon, mark several points with permanent marker, Now, when you inflate the balloon, you can see that each point grows more distant (over the surface of the balloon) from every other point you've marked and that the farther one mark is from another, the faster it moves away from it. From the point of view of a given mark, everything else is moving away from it, which would give the impression that it's at the "center" of the balloon's surface. At the same time, however, that impression would appear to be true for every other mark.
It didn't die anymore than I died because I was so different in 1985. It grew up, just like everyone else. Beyond that, you seem to have some misinformation there.
Let's see, the Web (http) wasn't invented until 1991. While SLIP existed in 1985, the RFC wasn't written until 1988, and even then, it was something available primarily on commercial unix equipment. I think perhaps you meant gopher sites instead of finger sites (or maybe you meant finger servers, cause I've never heard of "finger sites" nor does the phrase make any sense). Even gopher didn't exist until the early 90's (maybe UMN was using it before that, but I doubt anyone else was).
As another poster pointed out, I would place this description of the Internet in the 1991-1993 time period, not 1985. Perhaps Hobbes' Internet timeline would help clear things up.
http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/
I'm already seeing several questions about why Farscape (FS from here on out) is so good, or people talking about how they can't stand (and then admit they've only watched a few episodes). So, to answer those posts, I'm going to give you X number of reasons (where X equals the point where I get tired of typing or can't think of anymore) why FS is a fantastic show (especially SciFi show, but even among other shows).
These are in no particular order.
1. Continuity matters - What happens in one episode usually has an impact on a later episode, even if you don't realize it at the time. This ranges from X happened last epsiode, and now it has impact Y on the next one to X happened a season ago, and helps explain Y in this episode a season later. There are a few other SF shows on TV right now that do this (Enterprise), but not many. Unfortunately, this has a downside, in that grabbing new viewers midstream becomes problematic.
2. Complex characters - Sometimes the "good" guys act bad and some times the "bad" guys act good, and sometimes the "bad" guys turn out to be not so bad and really it can get a little hard to tell who the good and bad guys are a lot of the time. All of the time you're left guessing at most of the characters motives. Friendships and allegiances bend and break. Sometimes the "good" and "bad" guys have to cooperate to achieve shared goals.
3. Unpredictability - Farscape has done some stuff I never saw coming (or my wife, who's better at guessing plot twists than I). They killed off a main character in the middle of a season. They "cloned" the main character and had both walking around for nearly a season. Normally, you sort of realize that the central character can't get killed off, but when there's two of him, you never know if/when one might get wacked.
4. Somewhat more creative aliens - This is due in part to the Henson involvement. It allows them to create non-humanoid aliens that are very believable. Among those are the "ship" itself, the somewhat symbiotic pilot of the ship and Rygel. Even the humanoid aliens are fairly different from one another. One of the main characters is a humanoid meat-eating vegetable. Nearly a season's worth of episodes are focused on the pregnancy of the ship, how the crew deals with it, how it affects their run from the law, etc.
5. A great ensemble cast - For the most part, every main character is well acted (and via some episodes we get to see them stretch their abilities) and well written. This interplays with having complex characters, but unlike some shows, there's hardly a dud in the bunch (I'm looking at you Harry Kim or, sorry Wil, Wesley Crusher).
6. Comedy - I know a lot of SF shows are good at inserting humor, but Farscape does it as well as any other. I would rank it right up there with Firefly. If nothing else, the voices in the main character's head are handled perfectly, just skirting the edge of slapstick but not quite turning into the stooges.
7. Fresh characters - The cast has been changing since the first season. New characters show up, others leave the show. And this isn't just "add a hot babe to boost ratings" changes. Think more along the lines of old ugly witch-doctor woman who cooks meals and occasionally drugs the crew.
There are so many other reasons, but I can't think of them all right now. If you can get your hands on them, go rent the first few DVD's which will have the first six episodes or so. Watch them all, and I think you'll see what I mean.
When did Salon start this "you have two options to read the rest of this article" crap. I don't really mind sitting through an ad (especially for powell's books, a fantastic bookstore), but then it didn't even take me to the rest of the article. Instead it dropped me back at their main page with no clue where to go next.
Oh, there it is all the way at the bottom. Grrr.
No I'm not that same hypocritical type.
First, I didn't actually say anything about US intervention in Isreal/Palestine, I just pointed out that bin Laden had issues with our policy in that region. That said, I do think the US's handling of the recent mess could have been better.
In any case, intervention is a broad word and while some intervention is good, other times it's not. It's like accusing me of being a hypocrite because I'm for driving cars in some situations (like an ambulance going to the hospital), but not others (say when the driver is drunk).
The US has a role to play on the world-wide scene, I just don't think that role is "secretly" playing around with their governments. The US often complains about how the UN infringes on our sovereignty (case in point being Bush's repeated statements that the US would go forward in Iraq with or without a UN resolution), but we don't seem to mind undercutting other nations' sovereignty. That's what's hypocritical.
As the most prosperous country in the world, I think the US should intervene in places where our prosperity would help other nations rise out of economic, social or political hardship. Even these efforts have to be conducted in the open, though. Sadly though, as a proportion of our GDP, we're one of the stingiest countries in the world when it comes to international aid.
Nonsense. If you racially profile, you enhance your odds of catching criminals. There is a reason that every BOLO I have ever heard (and I have heard a lot of them) list the race of the suspect.
The description of an individual on a BOLO or APB is not racial profiling. It's based on the description by one or more witnesses or agencies of a single individual so as to identify the person as uniquely as possible to the public, not to describe an entire category of individuals.
Now, if you've seen a BOLO or APB that says "be on the lookout for (black|hispanic|asian|white) people" then I stand corrected.
The writing of this post makes me seriously wonder whether this is a troll. Something about that last sentence sounds like words from a Miss America candidate's mouth. Nonetheless, assuming you're serious, I would argue just the opposite of your position.
One of the main reasons people in other countries hate America is that we preach democracy, but export anything but to the rest of the world. Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from, is not a democracy. Rather, it's a monarchy propped up by the US government and its dependency on oil. Wouldn't you be pissed if one of your country's stronger allies had a democratic government but handed over billions of dollars a year to your government that threw you in jail for even mentioning how nice democracy might be.
For other examples of the US supporting (if not outright creating) non-democratic regimes, see Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Much of Central and South America and probably numerous others I'm forgetting right now.
In addition, I would argue that one of the primary purposes of last year's attack was to bring the choas that exists in so many parts of the world to the US's front door, if even temporarily. Remember that bin Laden is a strong crusader for palestinian rights and has stated his anger that America regularly ignores the choas and bloodshed of the region. He wanted the American people and politicians to feel the same sense of uncertainty and overwhelming dread that citizens of Palestine face on a constant basis.
You don't have to forgive or excuse to understand terrorism, but you have to understand it to defeat, defuse, undermine or otherwise declare "victory" in the war on terrorism.