-21 members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country on special chartered flights on September 13 while all other flights were grounded. They were NEVER questioned on Osama at all and there is no clear reason why they were given free flight out without interrogation.
This is a point that I am tired of correcting people on. This did not happen as you are lead to believe in the movie. On September 13th commercial flights had already resumed, but private flights were still restricted. Permission came, not from the President, but from Richard Clarke who was a hold-over from the Clinton White House and not a Bush puppet. 22 of the 26 people that were on that flight WERE, in fact, interviewed and cleared by the FBI prior to leaving.
The funniest thing about this, is that everyone who watches the movie leaves with the same wrong impression: that while all other airplanes are stuck on the ground, the bin Ladins are give special permission from the President to be the only plane flying. The fact is, that this is a clear case of spin-doctoring. It is common in politics. This is a way of saying TRUE things, but leading people to specific conclusion that may not be accurate. Moore is a master of this kind of work.
Don't get me wrong, I like Moore's work, but at respect him as an Artist... not as a champion of truth.
Bush may have a relationship with the bin Ladin family, but when you are lead to believe that the bin Ladins were given special treatment because of that relationship, it can piss people off. However, this never happened. It is clear that Bush cannot be blamed for the bin Ladin family and Saudi nationals leaving the country... if you know the facts, it just cannot be substantiated; but Moore, knowing the facts, misleads his film-goers.
I'm not saying don't see the movie. I think everyone should see the movie. Moore has crafted a relevant, entertaining movie. But it IS a commercial movie, and commercial movies are made in order to make money. So, go out an enjoy the film, just don't trust everything you think you hear. Double-check the facts before assuming that your conclusions are correct.
If there were no immigration issues and relocation of family was not a problem, would they prefer to live in India at xK/yr.(per the average developer in India) or in the U.S. for whatever the equal position pays here?
I am curious how many would prefer to come to America and compete for the reduced number of jobs, or stay in India and work the outsourced jobs.
I've met plenty of Indian developers in the U.S. who are more then willing to stay in the U.S. and fight for a job, then to move back to India and work the outsourced jobs.
India does not have an unlimited pool of educated workers, if India was forced to compete to keep their top producers in India, it might raise the cost of employing good Indian developers and eb the flow of outsourced jobs. Maybe the U.S. should open the gates to Indian laborers and let them compete for jobs here.
But then again, I am willing to bet that the people crying about their job going overseas would be even more upset about having to compete for their job here in the states against a foreign worker. I suspect the real issue is not the outsourcing of jobs, but the lack of willingness, on the part of American developers to really compete for their jobs... period.
I know that there are plenty of sad stories of people who would sell their soul to compete for their job, and may even be much more skilled than the developers their job was outsourced to. But, it may be that they are the exception and not the rule. Most of the people I know that have been out of work for a long time, are not willing to really compete for a new position or have never had the thought that they need to be competitive, so they are out of luck when they no longer have a job and have no real way to sell their value to an employer.
What do you do to stay competitive and be the best resource for your employer? Do you generate more in revenue than your employer pays you? How concerned are you about the money that your company lays out for you and your team? Do you do everything that you can to increase the profitability of your company, or do you simply expect to be payed based on the "market" for your skill-set?
I'm not putting this out as some thought-out argument, I'm just throwing random thoughts out there for discussion.
I have read a lot about companies outsourcing development projects to India, but I have no real experience with it. Does anyone actually have any real numbers relating to project costs.
I saw a post about Indian workers making less than $6,000K per year... but does an outsourced project see those differentials? I know I worked once for a company that payed me $25/hr. but billed my hours at $125+/hr. I'm sure that an outsourced project doesn't see a 90% drop in total cost just because workers in India work for 90% less than Americans.
As far as the telecommuting goes, if you want to telecommute, apply for a job in India.;) I can't see how anyone could really think that just because someone is willing to telecommute, somehow that would make a huge difference in the cost of funding a project.
Now, if you said that you were willing to telecommute and work as a contract employee on a fixed cost contract and you would be willing to pay the company for lost revenue in case you miss your delivery date, then you might be able to compete with international outsourcing. If you think that the cost of putting a person in a cube and keeping 20 sq. ft. of space lit and comfort controlled is what is causing a company to be unable to compete in a world market, you have another think coming.
Can anyone shed some light on the real cost associated with outsourcing your projects oversees?
Sometimes I wonder about you all... when it comes to becoming a famous musician, it's not a matter of distribution, but creating a demand for distribution. There are tons of digital warehouses out there for indie artists.. just waiting to house their music for distribution, but unless people know (or want) to go there, there isn't much reason for having it housed anywhere digitally.
Just ask an indie artist when the last time someone downloaded their free MP3s off of Kazzaa... even providing the content for free will not guarantee anyone will ever download it.
What the labels get the big $$$ for is promotion, at least that is what they tell the artists. The labels have the connections... they can get you on the radio, opening for a popular band or a guest spot on Letterman etc. This is what makes the difference between selling 10,000 albums and 500,000 albums.
There are a ton of companies that distribute indie artists' albums, but these companies do little or no promotions beyond a "featured artist" list on their website or a sampler CD with new music.
The company that can find a way to connect with listeners and invade existing promotion channels while creating a new model that provides the artists with the bulk of the $$$ and provide direct digital distribution will change the industry... believe me, I have been cooking ideas related to this for years. I would love to see the industry turned on its ear.
If you have an existing fan base, this might be a great way to get your music out there without the expense of pressing CDs... but it will be catch-as-catch-can unless you have some kind of promotion tied to it.
But as far as I am concerned, much of what I hear is idle words... if you want to support indie artist, hit one of your local music venues and pay the $10 cover and you will discover that there are a ton of fantastic artists out there... nearly all of which will never make big $$$ playing music. The catch is that by going to a show, you may create a greater demand for physical or digital distribution of indie music. And if you are the type that doesn't actually have social interaction with others, spend some time on MP3.com listening to indie artists and buying their music.
It is funny to think that I just sent them an email the other day suggesting this very feature. I just wish that they would include my additional request... mirroring of slashdotted websites for subscribers.
A lot of slashdotters have pointed out reasons why SciFi would kill the show. A few posts mentioned how Henson has the rights to the show and makes all the $$$ on merchandising and syndication. If you were SciFi... would you put up with that? No, just like many artists and shows, once something makes it, it is time to renegotiate for the sake of equality.
Did any of you ever think that this is a ploy to renegotiate? Did you ever think that you are giving Henson a firmer grip if you get other networks in the bid for the show? Has anyone wondered why cancellation news has not been deliberatly declared by SciFi? Sure, mail in fan letters and protests to SciFi... heck, write Henson Productions and gripe to them. If the show is worth its salt (and I think that it is). Let the networks and the owners work this out. But don't sabotage a possible SciFi re-negotiation by involving other networks.
Competition for the show only strengthens Henson's grip. Simply show continued support for SciFi's show. Don't forget, not everyone has SciFi Channel. When smaller cable network stations have to fight for audience to support big budget shows... the viewer is almost always the loser. Just look at how Monk and Deadzone are scrambling for viewers. A great first-run show is not always affordable for smaller cable-only networks... especially a scifi show with a niche audience. Maybe I am wrong, but if I am right... Besides the viewer, who has the most to lose if SciFi cancels the show?... Henson, that's who... follow the money.
Actually crash happened in 1986. Jane Dornnacker (the reporter) was killed. The pilot survived. In a twist of fate, the reporter had survived a helicopter crash earlier that year.
TNG, 7th season, 'Force of Nature'...
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
Some people have explained the nature of this episode that forced warp restriction. Clearly an environmental message, this was an episode where an alien scientist committed suicide to prove her seemingly improvable theory that warp-fields were damaging space and would eventually create sub-space rifts (AKA: holes in the ozone?). The debate was that nothing could be proven and more research would have to be done before the galaxy begin to abandon technology that support their way of life. Anyway, after the enterprise is trapped in the sub space rift created by the scientist (and their obligatory narrow escape), bans were placed restricting warp usage in heavily trafficked corridors of space. There may have been other episodes that dealt with this issue, but I saw this one last week and it is fresh in my mind.
1) Native Hawaiians are curiously missing from the film. I was actually conscious of this during the film... It seemed strange to have no locals in the film.
2) They were torpedo bombers and there were issues that the water was shallow. Torpedoes had to be modified to stay near the surface.
3)It seemed all miscommunication occurred during the attack. As far as historical accuracy... it is a Hollywood film! How historically accurate can it be. Even watching documentaries, you are getting someone's 'flavor' of history.
The one thing that this movie did NOT do was to portray ANYONE as the bad guy. This film went to great lengths NOT to become a propaganda film to say: Japan, bad - U.S., good. Unlike the films of the 40s and 50s, this film tried to present the Japanese point of view and treated them fairly considering they had to play the bad guy role in the film. Call it revisionist history if you want; remember, the history books are always written by the victors. The real truth is usually some place between two opposing points of view.
You don't even know the truth about the Gulf War and that was little more than a decade ago and occurred in an age of technology. Some people have to fight to find the truth and balance the views of both sides. If it is so easy to know the real history... to know the truth, why is it people still get convicted for crimes that they do not commit? The answer: because the truth is based on facts and facts on evidence. Ultimately truth is determined by the fact finders and the fact finders are fallible. In many cases, history is what you choose to believe it is. If someone discovers new evidence that can question the facts, are they then a revisionist? Give me a break. Keep you pennies and do your own research and Lord forbid anyone challenge the status quo!
I always thought that Evil Ed was a wrong about the type of market that he thought the "gaming" market was. Each year, E3 keeps proving him right. Last year he had a segment called "Girls, Girls, Girls" (viewable from his show archive) that says it all about E3 and the type of market that they are going after. Who would have ever thought a guy like Evil Ed could be right!
I can say for sure, that I have enjoyed many of the games put out by LucasArts based on Star Wars movies. Even the Atari game for Empire Strikes Back was one of my favorites... maybe not the greatest game. Most, if not all, of the StarWars arcade games are fun as well as the X-Wing and Tie Fighter games for PC. I think also that Lucas Learning has created some great learning games that are based on characters from the movies. I also loved the Tron arcade game. The Terminator arcade game was also cool.
Up until now, it could also be said that the converse is also true... how many GOOD movies have been based on video games? I'm holding out hope for Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy this summer. I personally would like to see a Starcraft movie.
What about games based on other works? Rainbow Six is a smash hit... it could have easily been a movie before a game.
I think the thing that separates the Star Wars games apart from the rest is that it was guided by the owner of the idea. Most others, I am afraid, have been an attempt to quickly tap the momentum of a film's success by selling out to the first person who can create a game. Don't forget, E.T. was an overnight success and I'm sure that the idea to cash in was conceived after the success of the movie. Today, merchandizing begins before the film is even shot.
Most of the successful titles (i.e. X-Wing, Goldeneye) were concepts that were based on an established market. They had the time to cook the game before releasing it... not nearly as time sensitive as other games that try to cash in on movie momentum. Star Wars and James Bond are icons in our society and don't need the momentum of a film to sell. Create a good game with good story, characters and game play and it will sell on merit with the identification with known characters being the marketing hook. But the game play has to be good... for example; the Star Trek titles have not done so well... they are enjoyed by some hard core fans, but not by the general gaming market. So it all comes down to creating a good game.
I would be interested to know what Microsoft has in store the Matrix title(s) it will produce. While Microsoft has no history of creating GREAT titles, who know what they can come up with. In most cases, it is not Microsoft who is doing the developing... other gaming companies produce the titles for them. Who knows, it might be cool. I may be a huge multiplayer universe that will allow gamers to enter into a digital world and learn to live without boundaries... who knows, but until the title is released, who is to say it will suck?... not me.
Of course this does not solve all of the problems since the government could order SafeWeb to release their logs and do a little sluthing... but it creates a little more trouble for them.
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D draws the following conclusions:
The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt,
that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of
time from primitive animal ancestors.
Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The
response to all those who thump their bible and say there is no
proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, "The
proof is right here, in our genes."
Despite the declaration, "The proof is right here, in our genes", he offers none! Where is the indisputable evidence that the human genome PROVES evolution? Dr. Caplan offers only this:
Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said
that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution... must
make new genes from old parts."
And how was this conclusion drawn? With all of the time that scientists have had to study the human genome... the decades... er, oops... I mean the few months that a few scientists have had. Using only the scientific method, all other hypothesis and theory have been eliminated? After all, evolution is a law of science -- right? What evidence proves this conclusively? Dr. Caplan offers:
The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we
are descended from bacteria.
Hmmm, this is interesting. How does it "show we are descended from bacteria"? Which genes are they that prove this? What are their functions? Do they function the same way in man as they do in bacteria? Based on this premise, ALL creatures on this earth will cary the same genes (since all complex creatures evolved from the lower ones). If this is true, then we cannot make such a declaration until we have mapped the DNA of all creatures on earth to prove this. What if 99.9999999999999% of all creatures have these genes carried over, but one single creature does not... only one; that could have serious implications! That would PROVE what? Nothing, it would damage a hypothesis from which others have to be formulated and tested. Dr. Caplan, being a good scientist, uses the modified scientific method for evolutionists that goes:
Theory + Hypothesis = Fact
Using this new "proof" man should be able to trace its relationship to all existing creatures and trace the path back as far as DNA is retrievable. I suspect that such an idea will be challenged over the next decade by many valid scientific theories. It has been that evolution is the solution to questions that we can't answer. The truth of the matter is that scientists were surprised that man has much fewer genes then expected; that means, in general terms, that there is something else that controls the development of a species other the simply genes. Once again a new question is plugged with evolution. My take is that the new holes opened by the mapping of the genome has opened a new question... if DNA alone does not dictate what a species is... what does? Ultimately this new question can be plugged up with one of two popular theories that fill the void when we don't know something about man... evolution or God. Dr. Caplan asserts:
There is no other way to explain the jerry-rigged nature of the
genes that control key aspects of our development.
Until I learn more about the "jerry-rigged nature" there is no way that I am going to simply allow some guy (from MSNBC no less) tell me that something is true when we are only in our infancy of understanding of the human genome. I am surprised to see how many people jump on the "Hell Yeah!" bandwagon before this whole issue has been solidly debated in the scientific circles. Despite the fast food mentality of many, I need to see evidence and hear solid arguments before I even begin to formulate my final opinion in the matter.
The only conclusion that I have come to with this new information is that God was the first programmer to effectively implement reusable code;)
I was passing this link around several years ago... put out a press release on the latest version and suddenly it is NEW news. Being that I saw a video running on CNN, I was sure to see this reposted today. However old, I love to go back time and time again to continue to marvel at the technology.
How many people remember an article from a year ago?
The second that I hit the page, I said to myself... this has been posted before. Sure, there are people who check/. every few days to see what is new, but I would be willing to say that many avid/.ers remember things like this.
I have no problem when things are posted several times. I just think it is sad when a cool technology has a website that doesn't change in over a year.
I always liked the name an old buddy from high school named his dog... deeohgee [dee-oh-gee]. It took me a little while when I first hear it to realize it was just D. O. G. I'm betting they lean toward the Artoo [R2] type phonetic spelling of some nomenclature.
I am in the same boat that you are. No Cox@Home at my complex and 19000+ from the central office. I have been fighting with Bazillion to provide IDSL (AKA: ISDN DSL) for 144K (it has been 2.5 moths since I signed up)... but they have been unable to get the phone company to set up the ISDN line at my complex. I know many people in the area that have DSL and Cox@Home... many people prefer @Home (unless you live in an area with heavy @Home usage-- then the service crawls!
Because Phoenix is in a valley, there is a technology that is available here. Through the old SpeedChoice now SprintBroadband that connects you through a 10 megabit shared channel WIRELESS technology. It uses a dish and you must have clear view of South Mountain. You can get up to 5 Mbps download, with on 256 K up... (it used to be dial-up upload)... now, I know no one that has this service, but it sounds sweet for mega downloaders... however, my complex will not allow me to put a dish on the complex (even though they have one for SpeedChoice cable)... so I am held in check with dial-up... and the phone line in my apt. SUX... so 26400 is all i get... Errrr. I cannot wait until my lease ends in November!
Good luck finding a provider... but rest easy in the fact that all of the people in the Valley I know of have no complaints about DSL or @Home... so get whichever you can. When I lived in Atlanta... ADSL was the worst thing in the world... I knew no one who had useable service and many of the cable users had problems too... but Phoenix is nothing like Atlanta... no one I talk to seems to have any of the problems that Atlanta had... so don't take the opinions of people outside of the Phoenix area too seriously.
The one point that I would like to make is that you @Home is less friendly about running a server and services on your connection, so be careful less you find you IP changed every 4 days.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a point that I am tired of correcting people on. This did not happen as you are lead to believe in the movie. On September 13th commercial flights had already resumed, but private flights were still restricted. Permission came, not from the President, but from Richard Clarke who was a hold-over from the Clinton White House and not a Bush puppet. 22 of the 26 people that were on that flight WERE, in fact, interviewed and cleared by the FBI prior to leaving.
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m12 82/is_18_55/ai_109411350
The funniest thing about this, is that everyone who watches the movie leaves with the same wrong impression: that while all other airplanes are stuck on the ground, the bin Ladins are give special permission from the President to be the only plane flying. The fact is, that this is a clear case of spin-doctoring. It is common in politics. This is a way of saying TRUE things, but leading people to specific conclusion that may not be accurate. Moore is a master of this kind of work.
Don't get me wrong, I like Moore's work, but at respect him as an Artist... not as a champion of truth.
Bush may have a relationship with the bin Ladin family, but when you are lead to believe that the bin Ladins were given special treatment because of that relationship, it can piss people off. However, this never happened. It is clear that Bush cannot be blamed for the bin Ladin family and Saudi nationals leaving the country... if you know the facts, it just cannot be substantiated; but Moore, knowing the facts, misleads his film-goers.
I'm not saying don't see the movie. I think everyone should see the movie. Moore has crafted a relevant, entertaining movie. But it IS a commercial movie, and commercial movies are made in order to make money. So, go out an enjoy the film, just don't trust everything you think you hear. Double-check the facts before assuming that your conclusions are correct.
- just my $0.02
Just make a 2 hour Clone Wars animated feature.
If there were no immigration issues and relocation of family was not a problem, would they prefer to live in India at xK/yr.(per the average developer in India) or in the U.S. for whatever the equal position pays here?
I am curious how many would prefer to come to America and compete for the reduced number of jobs, or stay in India and work the outsourced jobs.
I've met plenty of Indian developers in the U.S. who are more then willing to stay in the U.S. and fight for a job, then to move back to India and work the outsourced jobs.
India does not have an unlimited pool of educated workers, if India was forced to compete to keep their top producers in India, it might raise the cost of employing good Indian developers and eb the flow of outsourced jobs. Maybe the U.S. should open the gates to Indian laborers and let them compete for jobs here.
But then again, I am willing to bet that the people crying about their job going overseas would be even more upset about having to compete for their job here in the states against a foreign worker. I suspect the real issue is not the outsourcing of jobs, but the lack of willingness, on the part of American developers to really compete for their jobs... period.
I know that there are plenty of sad stories of people who would sell their soul to compete for their job, and may even be much more skilled than the developers their job was outsourced to. But, it may be that they are the exception and not the rule. Most of the people I know that have been out of work for a long time, are not willing to really compete for a new position or have never had the thought that they need to be competitive, so they are out of luck when they no longer have a job and have no real way to sell their value to an employer.
What do you do to stay competitive and be the best resource for your employer? Do you generate more in revenue than your employer pays you? How concerned are you about the money that your company lays out for you and your team? Do you do everything that you can to increase the profitability of your company, or do you simply expect to be payed based on the "market" for your skill-set?
I'm not putting this out as some thought-out argument, I'm just throwing random thoughts out there for discussion.
Just my $.02
http://forum.xchat.ru/Slashdot/
I have read a lot about companies outsourcing development projects to India, but I have no real experience with it. Does anyone actually have any real numbers relating to project costs.
;) I can't see how anyone could really think that just because someone is willing to telecommute, somehow that would make a huge difference in the cost of funding a project.
I saw a post about Indian workers making less than $6,000K per year... but does an outsourced project see those differentials? I know I worked once for a company that payed me $25/hr. but billed my hours at $125+/hr. I'm sure that an outsourced project doesn't see a 90% drop in total cost just because workers in India work for 90% less than Americans.
As far as the telecommuting goes, if you want to telecommute, apply for a job in India.
Now, if you said that you were willing to telecommute and work as a contract employee on a fixed cost contract and you would be willing to pay the company for lost revenue in case you miss your delivery date, then you might be able to compete with international outsourcing. If you think that the cost of putting a person in a cube and keeping 20 sq. ft. of space lit and comfort controlled is what is causing a company to be unable to compete in a world market, you have another think coming.
Can anyone shed some light on the real cost associated with outsourcing your projects oversees?
Just my $.02
Sometimes I wonder about you all... when it comes to becoming a famous musician, it's not a matter of distribution, but creating a demand for distribution. There are tons of digital warehouses out there for indie artists.. just waiting to house their music for distribution, but unless people know (or want) to go there, there isn't much reason for having it housed anywhere digitally.
Just ask an indie artist when the last time someone downloaded their free MP3s off of Kazzaa... even providing the content for free will not guarantee anyone will ever download it.
What the labels get the big $$$ for is promotion, at least that is what they tell the artists. The labels have the connections... they can get you on the radio, opening for a popular band or a guest spot on Letterman etc. This is what makes the difference between selling 10,000 albums and 500,000 albums.
There are a ton of companies that distribute indie artists' albums, but these companies do little or no promotions beyond a "featured artist" list on their website or a sampler CD with new music.
The company that can find a way to connect with listeners and invade existing promotion channels while creating a new model that provides the artists with the bulk of the $$$ and provide direct digital distribution will change the industry... believe me, I have been cooking ideas related to this for years. I would love to see the industry turned on its ear.
If you have an existing fan base, this might be a great way to get your music out there without the expense of pressing CDs... but it will be catch-as-catch-can unless you have some kind of promotion tied to it.
But as far as I am concerned, much of what I hear is idle words... if you want to support indie artist, hit one of your local music venues and pay the $10 cover and you will discover that there are a ton of fantastic artists out there... nearly all of which will never make big $$$ playing music. The catch is that by going to a show, you may create a greater demand for physical or digital distribution of indie music. And if you are the type that doesn't actually have social interaction with others, spend some time on MP3.com listening to indie artists and buying their music.
You know, this one time, at band camp...
It is funny to think that I just sent them an email the other day suggesting this very feature. I just wish that they would include my additional request... mirroring of slashdotted websites for subscribers.
A lot of slashdotters have pointed out reasons why SciFi would kill the show. A few posts mentioned how Henson has the rights to the show and makes all the $$$ on merchandising and syndication. If you were SciFi... would you put up with that? No, just like many artists and shows, once something makes it, it is time to renegotiate for the sake of equality.
Did any of you ever think that this is a ploy to renegotiate? Did you ever think that you are giving Henson a firmer grip if you get other networks in the bid for the show? Has anyone wondered why cancellation news has not been deliberatly declared by SciFi? Sure, mail in fan letters and protests to SciFi... heck, write Henson Productions and gripe to them. If the show is worth its salt (and I think that it is). Let the networks and the owners work this out. But don't sabotage a possible SciFi re-negotiation by involving other networks.
Competition for the show only strengthens Henson's grip. Simply show continued support for SciFi's show. Don't forget, not everyone has SciFi Channel. When smaller cable network stations have to fight for audience to support big budget shows... the viewer is almost always the loser. Just look at how Monk and Deadzone are scrambling for viewers. A great first-run show is not always affordable for smaller cable-only networks... especially a scifi show with a niche audience. Maybe I am wrong, but if I am right... Besides the viewer, who has the most to lose if SciFi cancels the show?... Henson, that's who... follow the money.
Actually, it goes:
Four men rode in a car, a mechnical engineer, an electrical engineer, a chemical engineer, and a Microsoft(R) software engineer. The car stalled out.
The mechnical engineer said it must be the pistons, let's repair them and we'll be okay.
The electrical engineer said it has to be the spark plugs, we'll replace them and be ready to roll.
The chemical engineer said it's got to be bad gas, we'll flush the system and be on our way.
They turned to the computer engineer. What do you think we should do?
First close all the open windows then restart.
Actually crash happened in 1986. Jane Dornnacker (the reporter) was killed. The pilot survived. In a twist of fate, the reporter had survived a helicopter crash earlier that year.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/09/198259 &mode=thread
Some people have explained the nature of this episode that forced warp restriction. Clearly an environmental message, this was an episode where an alien scientist committed suicide to prove her seemingly improvable theory that warp-fields were damaging space and would eventually create sub-space rifts (AKA: holes in the ozone?). The debate was that nothing could be proven and more research would have to be done before the galaxy begin to abandon technology that support their way of life. Anyway, after the enterprise is trapped in the sub space rift created by the scientist (and their obligatory narrow escape), bans were placed restricting warp usage in heavily trafficked corridors of space. There may have been other episodes that dealt with this issue, but I saw this one last week and it is fresh in my mind.
1) Native Hawaiians are curiously missing from the film. I was actually conscious of this during the film... It seemed strange to have no locals in the film.
2) They were torpedo bombers and there were issues that the water was shallow. Torpedoes had to be modified to stay near the surface.
3)It seemed all miscommunication occurred during the attack. As far as historical accuracy... it is a Hollywood film! How historically accurate can it be. Even watching documentaries, you are getting someone's 'flavor' of history.
The one thing that this movie did NOT do was to portray ANYONE as the bad guy. This film went to great lengths NOT to become a propaganda film to say: Japan, bad - U.S., good. Unlike the films of the 40s and 50s, this film tried to present the Japanese point of view and treated them fairly considering they had to play the bad guy role in the film. Call it revisionist history if you want; remember, the history books are always written by the victors. The real truth is usually some place between two opposing points of view.
You don't even know the truth about the Gulf War and that was little more than a decade ago and occurred in an age of technology. Some people have to fight to find the truth and balance the views of both sides. If it is so easy to know the real history... to know the truth, why is it people still get convicted for crimes that they do not commit? The answer: because the truth is based on facts and facts on evidence. Ultimately truth is determined by the fact finders and the fact finders are fallible. In many cases, history is what you choose to believe it is. If someone discovers new evidence that can question the facts, are they then a revisionist? Give me a break. Keep you pennies and do your own research and Lord forbid anyone challenge the status quo!
Just my $.02
AD ASTRA, EVERYMAN!
The Rocket Guy
When Rocket Guy dreams
I wish this guy would put up a website to record his progress and report on the project... but I couldn't find anything like that.
I can say for sure, that I have enjoyed many of the games put out by LucasArts based on Star Wars movies. Even the Atari game for Empire Strikes Back was one of my favorites... maybe not the greatest game. Most, if not all, of the StarWars arcade games are fun as well as the X-Wing and Tie Fighter games for PC. I think also that Lucas Learning has created some great learning games that are based on characters from the movies. I also loved the Tron arcade game. The Terminator arcade game was also cool.
Up until now, it could also be said that the converse is also true... how many GOOD movies have been based on video games? I'm holding out hope for Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy this summer. I personally would like to see a Starcraft movie.
What about games based on other works? Rainbow Six is a smash hit... it could have easily been a movie before a game.
I think the thing that separates the Star Wars games apart from the rest is that it was guided by the owner of the idea. Most others, I am afraid, have been an attempt to quickly tap the momentum of a film's success by selling out to the first person who can create a game. Don't forget, E.T. was an overnight success and I'm sure that the idea to cash in was conceived after the success of the movie. Today, merchandizing begins before the film is even shot.
Most of the successful titles (i.e. X-Wing, Goldeneye) were concepts that were based on an established market. They had the time to cook the game before releasing it... not nearly as time sensitive as other games that try to cash in on movie momentum. Star Wars and James Bond are icons in our society and don't need the momentum of a film to sell. Create a good game with good story, characters and game play and it will sell on merit with the identification with known characters being the marketing hook. But the game play has to be good... for example; the Star Trek titles have not done so well... they are enjoyed by some hard core fans, but not by the general gaming market. So it all comes down to creating a good game.
I would be interested to know what Microsoft has in store the Matrix title(s) it will produce. While Microsoft has no history of creating GREAT titles, who know what they can come up with. In most cases, it is not Microsoft who is doing the developing... other gaming companies produce the titles for them. Who knows, it might be cool. I may be a huge multiplayer universe that will allow gamers to enter into a digital world and learn to live without boundaries... who knows, but until the title is released, who is to say it will suck?... not me.
Just my $0.02,
SafeWeb
Of course this does not solve all of the problems since the government could order SafeWeb to release their logs and do a little sluthing... but it creates a little more trouble for them.
The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt,
that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of
time from primitive animal ancestors.
Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The
response to all those who thump their bible and say there is no
proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, "The
proof is right here, in our genes."
Despite the declaration, "The proof is right here, in our genes", he offers none! Where is the indisputable evidence that the human genome PROVES evolution? Dr. Caplan offers only this:
Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said ... must
that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution
make new genes from old parts."
And how was this conclusion drawn? With all of the time that scientists have had to study the human genome... the decades... er, oops... I mean the few months that a few scientists have had. Using only the scientific method, all other hypothesis and theory have been eliminated? After all, evolution is a law of science -- right? What evidence proves this conclusively? Dr. Caplan offers:
The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we
are descended from bacteria.
Hmmm, this is interesting. How does it "show we are descended from bacteria"? Which genes are they that prove this? What are their functions? Do they function the same way in man as they do in bacteria? Based on this premise, ALL creatures on this earth will cary the same genes (since all complex creatures evolved from the lower ones). If this is true, then we cannot make such a declaration until we have mapped the DNA of all creatures on earth to prove this. What if 99.9999999999999% of all creatures have these genes carried over, but one single creature does not... only one; that could have serious implications! That would PROVE what? Nothing, it would damage a hypothesis from which others have to be formulated and tested. Dr. Caplan, being a good scientist, uses the modified scientific method for evolutionists that goes:
Theory + Hypothesis = Fact
Using this new "proof" man should be able to trace its relationship to all existing creatures and trace the path back as far as DNA is retrievable. I suspect that such an idea will be challenged over the next decade by many valid scientific theories. It has been that evolution is the solution to questions that we can't answer. The truth of the matter is that scientists were surprised that man has much fewer genes then expected; that means, in general terms, that there is something else that controls the development of a species other the simply genes. Once again a new question is plugged with evolution. My take is that the new holes opened by the mapping of the genome has opened a new question... if DNA alone does not dictate what a species is... what does? Ultimately this new question can be plugged up with one of two popular theories that fill the void when we don't know something about man... evolution or God. Dr. Caplan asserts:
There is no other way to explain the jerry-rigged nature of the
genes that control key aspects of our development.
Until I learn more about the "jerry-rigged nature" there is no way that I am going to simply allow some guy (from MSNBC no less) tell me that something is true when we are only in our infancy of understanding of the human genome. I am surprised to see how many people jump on the "Hell Yeah!" bandwagon before this whole issue has been solidly debated in the scientific circles. Despite the fast food mentality of many, I need to see evidence and hear solid arguments before I even begin to formulate my final opinion in the matter.
The only conclusion that I have come to with this new information is that God was the first programmer to effectively implement reusable code ;)
I was passing this link around several years ago... put out a press release on the latest version and suddenly it is NEW news. Being that I saw a video running on CNN, I was sure to see this reposted today. However old, I love to go back time and time again to continue to marvel at the technology.
The second that I hit the page, I said to myself... this has been posted before. Sure, there are people who check /. every few days to see what is new, but I would be willing to say that many avid /.ers remember things like this.
I have no problem when things are posted several times. I just think it is sad when a cool technology has a website that doesn't change in over a year.
Just my $.02,
I always liked the name an old buddy from high school named his dog... deeohgee [dee-oh-gee]. It took me a little while when I first hear it to realize it was just D. O. G. I'm betting they lean toward the Artoo [R2] type phonetic spelling of some nomenclature.
My $.02,
I am in the same boat that you are. No Cox@Home at my complex and 19000+ from the central office. I have been fighting with Bazillion to provide IDSL (AKA: ISDN DSL) for 144K (it has been 2.5 moths since I signed up)... but they have been unable to get the phone company to set up the ISDN line at my complex. I know many people in the area that have DSL and Cox@Home... many people prefer @Home (unless you live in an area with heavy @Home usage-- then the service crawls!
... and the phone line in my apt. SUX... so 26400 is all i get... Errrr. I cannot wait until my lease ends in November!
Because Phoenix is in a valley, there is a technology that is available here. Through the old SpeedChoice now SprintBroadband that connects you through a 10 megabit shared channel WIRELESS technology. It uses a dish and you must have clear view of South Mountain. You can get up to 5 Mbps download, with on 256 K up... (it used to be dial-up upload)... now, I know no one that has this service, but it sounds sweet for mega downloaders... however, my complex will not allow me to put a dish on the complex (even though they have one for SpeedChoice cable)... so I am held in check with dial-up
Good luck finding a provider... but rest easy in the fact that all of the people in the Valley I know of have no complaints about DSL or @Home... so get whichever you can. When I lived in Atlanta... ADSL was the worst thing in the world... I knew no one who had useable service and many of the cable users had problems too... but Phoenix is nothing like Atlanta... no one I talk to seems to have any of the problems that Atlanta had... so don't take the opinions of people outside of the Phoenix area too seriously.
The one point that I would like to make is that you @Home is less friendly about running a server and services on your connection, so be careful less you find you IP changed every 4 days.
Just my $.02,