I think they're probably respecting trade regulations, not squashing someone's freedom of speech. Before you limit your business with someone, you should probably find out why they acted as they did.
Was it really necessary or worthwhile to label him a Republican in the AP article? I'm not necessarily saying there's an obvious bias, but would the author have included this statement had he been a Democrat? Politics have nothing to do with this story at all.
OK, without Barnes as Lt. Gov yet, it was harder to hook Bush up, a longer chain of favors. But they did...
You're really reaching at this point. So *if* Barnes' word was golden, and *if* whoever he might have talked to listened and *if* that person had the power to get Bush into the guard (basically, the current Lt. Governor), then at best Barnes has a hearsay testimony that Bush might have gotten preferential treatment.
Combine this with the fact that the CBS report from yesterday contains testimony from Mapes admitting she knew that there was *no wait* for the pilot program of the TANG, just for the ground program, and I don't think we need a trial.
No, the story was also corroborated by Ben Barnes, then Republican Texas Lieutenant Governor.
Er, no. Barnes became Tx Lt. Governor in 1969, a year after Bush started his training with the TANG in 1968. Now, in 1968 Barnes was Speaker for the House in Texas, and was friends with the head of the TANG, James Rose. Supposedly, a family friend named Sidney Adger asked Barnes to do a favor for the Bush's and Barnes talked to Rose. Rose and Adger are both dead, so no corroboration or denial, but it doesn't really matter since Barnes wasn't the Lt. Governor then anyways and couldn't sign Bush into the TANG if he had wanted to. Neither could Rose, that wasn't his job.
It's all pretty well laid out in this WaPo article here.
--trb
Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker
on
CNN Cancels Crossfire
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Okay, you have no clue what you're talking about. Bush is about as close to the opposite of a socialist that you can get. Reducing taxes and privitizing social security alone would disprove what you said, but his pro-capitalism tax/corporate agenda go even further. His backing of Medicare is about the only thing socialistic about him.
I mean, really, look at Canada or some European countries for much closer examples of socialism. We're nowhere close and getting further away.
That's really not his point. His point is the ACLU claims to be a group dedicated to protecting civil liberties, but the subtle connotation is all liberal civil liberties, i.e. the liberties that correspond to a liberal point of view. If I saw them standing against affirmative action (a decidedly racist program) but for equal opportunity (a decision without consideration of race, sex, etc), I might change my tune, but until then I will consider the ACLU to have a decidedly liberal slant.
When my grandmother's brother passed away earlier this year, his immediate family started a scholarship fund at the local high school in Bolivar, NY that he had attended as a kid. They set the terms, and decided it would be an anonymous nomination process among the teachers based on a few criteria (work ethic, morals, etc) and would be handed out at graduation, unbeknownst to the recipient. The area isn't what I would call depressed, but it's no booming economy where everyone can afford to go off to college. The fund is small right now ($500/year handed out), but I'm hoping my whole family will contribute a little to it each year.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of high schools have similar funds for seniors. If not, starting one would be an excellent project and use of your charitable contributions. I think it's a great way to give something that helps locally (you'll see the results of your money) and will help further someone's education. As a side (and somewhat selfish) benefit, my grandmother, who is in her late 70's, doesn't really need more trinkets or useless crap laying around her house, so instead of presents some of us are contributing extra to the fund in her name.
That I don't know. I use SharpReader and I'm guessing it does use the IE cookie store. Either that or I've been using it long enough that I don't remember logging in to some sites. Or it uses an IE browser plugin, of sorts, that uses the cookie store. I know I can right click in the preview pane and have the full set of IE options.
In Disney's defense, it's their channel, they can do what they want. They've always shown only Disney stuff with Disney promos for Disney actors. It dates back to when studios basically "owned" actors and they could only work for that studio. Disney has essentially that (Hillary Duff, Raven, etc), and it's a lucrative deal for both parties. Ever since they've had their own cable channel, they've done just that.
Additionally, I know that Disney isn't going to have a commercial for Trojan condoms or show the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders shaking it during commercial breaks of "Boy Meets World". Sometimes, a closed universe is nice. And besides, there are 900 other channels out there, it's not like they're monopolizing the tv.
I would assume that your RSS feeder can use cookies, I know mine does. I get NYTimes articles all the time that you have to be logged in for, and they do that using cookies, I believe.
XML munches more bandwidth than byte streams, true, but we're still talking about a total in the thousands of kilobyte range, not megs, polling periodically. I'll be happy to look at some hard numbers, but unless you're downloading hundreds upon hundreds of constantly updating RSS feeds, I don't think it's anything to worry about.
My mind reels trying to comprehend how you figure that CBS is a voice for the right wing. Rooney and Rather ring any bells? And Google?! They link to other newspapers, half the time the New York Times or LA Times are the first articles on Google news, and if those papers are bastions of conservative thought, I'm Mickey Mouse.
I spent election night watching NBC and CNN, and I swear to God I thought Brokaw and Wolf Blitzer were going to cry when it started to look like Bush would win. They weren't even attempting to hide it, they were just plain sullen.
Fox News has plenty of right wing people, but on their editorial shows. Their news anchors are robots.
Is this much different than what happens with any media? Look at news corporations...I will assume that at one time they actually understood their job to be informing the public, being a trusted figure, etc. Now look at Rather; rushing to break a story that wasn't properly vetted in order to be the first, and only, person out there with "the scoop".
Sports is the same...it used to be to entertain people and compete (what were salaries in the 20's and 30's?), now it's about how young you can get recruited by a team and how many ridiculous numbers of zero's are attached to your paycheck.
The only reviews that I'll trust come from amateurs...ie, other gamers. Just like most of the sports I enjoy are the amateurs, like college athletes. While they may have agendas, a whole lot of them play just for the fun of it, like me.
Experience is way, way more important. If you're truly concerned, take a year and co-op or intern over the summer at some CS related corporations (SAIC, Northrup, Lockheed, Mitre, etc, in the D.C. area). Not only will this get you professional (sorta) experience, but it's also the first place you should be submitting your resume. Any school with a CS program worth a darn should have a co-op program as well, maybe even a co-op fair.
Working while you're in school helps as well, and if you don't go to school in a city, work for the department. I worked for the Engineering Computing department at Virginia Tech while I was there, and I got a few job possibilities from people the teachers/staff knew. You'd be amazed how impressed employers are when they hear you've actually DONE things as opposed to just LEARNED how to do things.
Additionally, the manual that came with starter decks when I first started playing (circa 1995?) included a line on one of the last pages that said something to the effect of:
"Our sincere condolences to anyone who has been killed by an Ornithopter"
At that time, the hope of every black deck wielding mage was to get a dark ritual, 3 unholy strengths and an ornithopter first turn.
Are people objecting to some of these things because it really conflicts with their personal ethics, or because it conflicts with what their religion mandates and they're afraid of being sent to *insert place of eternal suffering here*?
I think you're trying to draw a line that shouldn't necessarily be drawn. Whether I'm a religious person or not, I have a certain set of ethics that I have cultivated throughout my life based on experiences and teachings. What those teachings were shouldn't be the issue, it's the end product that counts. If I disagree with my religion's teachings and am simply afraid of being sent to *a place of eternal suffering*, then perhaps I should be questioning my choice of religions.
In brief, because your ethics came from secular teachings and mine came from religious teachings doesn't mean we can marginalize either one. Yours seem logical to you, mine seem logical to me.
One argument is that the games that are being produced now are a helluva lot more complicated to produce. For instance, in the days of NES games, you had midi sound that *I* could have composed, and graphics that were nothing amazing. These days, licensing engines, licensing music, developing the technology, etc, all drive game prices. Whereas before you could have a few people pump out a game in a few months, you now have teams composed of 10s of people, trying to get a game out in a year or two.
Compare Super Mario Bros. 3, the quintissential game for the NES, with GTA:SA. This would be like comparing the operating budget of Star Wars with JibJab.
You can argue that we're infringing those peoples' right to life. However, civilians die in ANY war, whether it be Germans in WWII, or Koreans and Vietnamese in those respective wars. War is hell, some civilians die, but I don't think we're marginalizing life here.
Eliminate your right to choose for yourself, and then answer that question again.
Then you put me in a different position. If I wanted my government overthrown (any many of the Iraqis did), but I knew that a percentage of the population would die as a result of gaining that freedom, I would still want the invasion to procede, yes. I would take every opportunity to save myself, like leaving a city that I knew was about to be bombed, but it would still be worth it, in my eyes. It's all hypothetical, ofcourse, so who am I to say (but, conversely, who are you?)
Oh, I realize it's possible. I had to sign up for the Selective Service like every other male when I turned 18, so I know it's quite feasible the government could call my number and tell me to go somewhere with a gun in my hand. However, I don't have a problem with this. I'm a small, small person in a much larger world. If there are reasons I have to die in order to save many others, that would be fine by me. It's part of the very small price you pay for living in a country like the US.
Depends on what you mean by political goals. I think there were multiple goals in our invasion of Iraq; freeing the Iraqi people from oppressive rule, giving them the ability to establish their own form of government, removing a possible terrorism supporter from a seat of power. If any of these count as a political goal, then I think these goals are righteous enough that they outweigh a certain amount of lost life. That amount is probably where the argument lies.
If you say it's zero, then we shouldn't even be having this discussion because we have a fundamental disagreement on what individual life is worth. Totally different conversation.
If you say that my aforementioned reasons for acceptable loss of life aren't valid, then game on, you know where I stand.
Whoa, whoa, okay...step back and look at what I was posting.
And why exactly should they have left before then?
I wasn't arguing that they ever SHOULD leave...I was arguing that the US wasn't holding them there against their will, much the opposite. Having said that, if someone said they were going to bomb in/around my house in a week, you can be damned sure I would be relocating before that time.
I don't see that the fact some people are being held hostage is a justification for invading an entire city...
I don't think anyone ever claimed it WAS the justification. The justification I've heard is that Fallujah is the staging area for many of the car/human bombs that are wrecking havoc in Baghdad. Ofcourse, it's a nice perk to be able to free people that are being held against their will, but that wasn't our intention. We gave people advance warning and asked women/children to leave so that they could get out of harm's way before we attacked the city. It was a nice touch, IMO, and a humanitarian effort.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they're probably respecting trade regulations, not squashing someone's freedom of speech. Before you limit your business with someone, you should probably find out why they acted as they did.
--trb
Blunt, a Republican...
Was it really necessary or worthwhile to label him a Republican in the AP article? I'm not necessarily saying there's an obvious bias, but would the author have included this statement had he been a Democrat? Politics have nothing to do with this story at all.
--trb
before it has even been completed.
whoah, Mr. Rental flashback...
Dark Helmet: How could there be a cassette of Spaceballs-the Movie. We're still in the middle of making it.
Col. Sandurz: That's true, sir, but there's been a new breakthrough in home-video marketing.
Dark Helmet: There has?
Col. Sandurz: Yes. Instant cassettes. They're out in stores before the movie is finished.
--trb
OK, without Barnes as Lt. Gov yet, it was harder to hook Bush up, a longer chain of favors. But they did...
You're really reaching at this point. So *if* Barnes' word was golden, and *if* whoever he might have talked to listened and *if* that person had the power to get Bush into the guard (basically, the current Lt. Governor), then at best Barnes has a hearsay testimony that Bush might have gotten preferential treatment.
Combine this with the fact that the CBS report from yesterday contains testimony from Mapes admitting she knew that there was *no wait* for the pilot program of the TANG, just for the ground program, and I don't think we need a trial.
--trb
No, the story was also corroborated by Ben Barnes, then Republican Texas Lieutenant Governor.
Er, no. Barnes became Tx Lt. Governor in 1969, a year after Bush started his training with the TANG in 1968. Now, in 1968 Barnes was Speaker for the House in Texas, and was friends with the head of the TANG, James Rose. Supposedly, a family friend named Sidney Adger asked Barnes to do a favor for the Bush's and Barnes talked to Rose. Rose and Adger are both dead, so no corroboration or denial, but it doesn't really matter since Barnes wasn't the Lt. Governor then anyways and couldn't sign Bush into the TANG if he had wanted to. Neither could Rose, that wasn't his job.
It's all pretty well laid out in this WaPo article here.
--trb
Okay, you have no clue what you're talking about. Bush is about as close to the opposite of a socialist that you can get. Reducing taxes and privitizing social security alone would disprove what you said, but his pro-capitalism tax/corporate agenda go even further. His backing of Medicare is about the only thing socialistic about him.
I mean, really, look at Canada or some European countries for much closer examples of socialism. We're nowhere close and getting further away.
--trb
Actually, they would provide the answer, "By being smarter and faster than them". The question is his job.
--trb
That's really not his point. His point is the ACLU claims to be a group dedicated to protecting civil liberties, but the subtle connotation is all liberal civil liberties, i.e. the liberties that correspond to a liberal point of view. If I saw them standing against affirmative action (a decidedly racist program) but for equal opportunity (a decision without consideration of race, sex, etc), I might change my tune, but until then I will consider the ACLU to have a decidedly liberal slant.
--trb
When my grandmother's brother passed away earlier this year, his immediate family started a scholarship fund at the local high school in Bolivar, NY that he had attended as a kid. They set the terms, and decided it would be an anonymous nomination process among the teachers based on a few criteria (work ethic, morals, etc) and would be handed out at graduation, unbeknownst to the recipient. The area isn't what I would call depressed, but it's no booming economy where everyone can afford to go off to college. The fund is small right now ($500/year handed out), but I'm hoping my whole family will contribute a little to it each year.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of high schools have similar funds for seniors. If not, starting one would be an excellent project and use of your charitable contributions. I think it's a great way to give something that helps locally (you'll see the results of your money) and will help further someone's education. As a side (and somewhat selfish) benefit, my grandmother, who is in her late 70's, doesn't really need more trinkets or useless crap laying around her house, so instead of presents some of us are contributing extra to the fund in her name.
--trb
I'm a moron...thousands of bytes is what I meant.
--trb
That I don't know. I use SharpReader and I'm guessing it does use the IE cookie store. Either that or I've been using it long enough that I don't remember logging in to some sites. Or it uses an IE browser plugin, of sorts, that uses the cookie store. I know I can right click in the preview pane and have the full set of IE options.
--trb
In Disney's defense, it's their channel, they can do what they want. They've always shown only Disney stuff with Disney promos for Disney actors. It dates back to when studios basically "owned" actors and they could only work for that studio. Disney has essentially that (Hillary Duff, Raven, etc), and it's a lucrative deal for both parties. Ever since they've had their own cable channel, they've done just that.
Additionally, I know that Disney isn't going to have a commercial for Trojan condoms or show the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders shaking it during commercial breaks of "Boy Meets World". Sometimes, a closed universe is nice. And besides, there are 900 other channels out there, it's not like they're monopolizing the tv.
--trb
I would assume that your RSS feeder can use cookies, I know mine does. I get NYTimes articles all the time that you have to be logged in for, and they do that using cookies, I believe.
--trb
XML munches more bandwidth than byte streams, true, but we're still talking about a total in the thousands of kilobyte range, not megs, polling periodically. I'll be happy to look at some hard numbers, but unless you're downloading hundreds upon hundreds of constantly updating RSS feeds, I don't think it's anything to worry about.
--trb
My mind reels trying to comprehend how you figure that CBS is a voice for the right wing. Rooney and Rather ring any bells? And Google?! They link to other newspapers, half the time the New York Times or LA Times are the first articles on Google news, and if those papers are bastions of conservative thought, I'm Mickey Mouse.
I spent election night watching NBC and CNN, and I swear to God I thought Brokaw and Wolf Blitzer were going to cry when it started to look like Bush would win. They weren't even attempting to hide it, they were just plain sullen.
Fox News has plenty of right wing people, but on their editorial shows. Their news anchors are robots.
--trb
Is this much different than what happens with any media? Look at news corporations...I will assume that at one time they actually understood their job to be informing the public, being a trusted figure, etc. Now look at Rather; rushing to break a story that wasn't properly vetted in order to be the first, and only, person out there with "the scoop".
Sports is the same...it used to be to entertain people and compete (what were salaries in the 20's and 30's?), now it's about how young you can get recruited by a team and how many ridiculous numbers of zero's are attached to your paycheck.
The only reviews that I'll trust come from amateurs...ie, other gamers. Just like most of the sports I enjoy are the amateurs, like college athletes. While they may have agendas, a whole lot of them play just for the fun of it, like me.
--trb
Experience is way, way more important. If you're truly concerned, take a year and co-op or intern over the summer at some CS related corporations (SAIC, Northrup, Lockheed, Mitre, etc, in the D.C. area). Not only will this get you professional (sorta) experience, but it's also the first place you should be submitting your resume. Any school with a CS program worth a darn should have a co-op program as well, maybe even a co-op fair.
Working while you're in school helps as well, and if you don't go to school in a city, work for the department. I worked for the Engineering Computing department at Virginia Tech while I was there, and I got a few job possibilities from people the teachers/staff knew. You'd be amazed how impressed employers are when they hear you've actually DONE things as opposed to just LEARNED how to do things.
--trb
Additionally, the manual that came with starter decks when I first started playing (circa 1995?) included a line on one of the last pages that said something to the effect of:
"Our sincere condolences to anyone who has been killed by an Ornithopter"
At that time, the hope of every black deck wielding mage was to get a dark ritual, 3 unholy strengths and an ornithopter first turn.
--trb
Are people objecting to some of these things because it really conflicts with their personal ethics, or because it conflicts with what their religion mandates and they're afraid of being sent to *insert place of eternal suffering here*?
I think you're trying to draw a line that shouldn't necessarily be drawn. Whether I'm a religious person or not, I have a certain set of ethics that I have cultivated throughout my life based on experiences and teachings. What those teachings were shouldn't be the issue, it's the end product that counts. If I disagree with my religion's teachings and am simply afraid of being sent to *a place of eternal suffering*, then perhaps I should be questioning my choice of religions.
In brief, because your ethics came from secular teachings and mine came from religious teachings doesn't mean we can marginalize either one. Yours seem logical to you, mine seem logical to me.
--trb
I don't think this is genetic mapping. Hormone therapy, sure, but they aren't changing the parts of them that make a turkey, ie, their DNA.
--trb
One argument is that the games that are being produced now are a helluva lot more complicated to produce. For instance, in the days of NES games, you had midi sound that *I* could have composed, and graphics that were nothing amazing. These days, licensing engines, licensing music, developing the technology, etc, all drive game prices. Whereas before you could have a few people pump out a game in a few months, you now have teams composed of 10s of people, trying to get a game out in a year or two.
Compare Super Mario Bros. 3, the quintissential game for the NES, with GTA:SA. This would be like comparing the operating budget of Star Wars with JibJab.
--trb
You can argue that we're infringing those peoples' right to life. However, civilians die in ANY war, whether it be Germans in WWII, or Koreans and Vietnamese in those respective wars. War is hell, some civilians die, but I don't think we're marginalizing life here.
Eliminate your right to choose for yourself, and then answer that question again.
Then you put me in a different position. If I wanted my government overthrown (any many of the Iraqis did), but I knew that a percentage of the population would die as a result of gaining that freedom, I would still want the invasion to procede, yes. I would take every opportunity to save myself, like leaving a city that I knew was about to be bombed, but it would still be worth it, in my eyes. It's all hypothetical, ofcourse, so who am I to say (but, conversely, who are you?)
--trb
Oh, I realize it's possible. I had to sign up for the Selective Service like every other male when I turned 18, so I know it's quite feasible the government could call my number and tell me to go somewhere with a gun in my hand. However, I don't have a problem with this. I'm a small, small person in a much larger world. If there are reasons I have to die in order to save many others, that would be fine by me. It's part of the very small price you pay for living in a country like the US.
--trb
Depends on what you mean by political goals. I think there were multiple goals in our invasion of Iraq; freeing the Iraqi people from oppressive rule, giving them the ability to establish their own form of government, removing a possible terrorism supporter from a seat of power. If any of these count as a political goal, then I think these goals are righteous enough that they outweigh a certain amount of lost life. That amount is probably where the argument lies.
If you say it's zero, then we shouldn't even be having this discussion because we have a fundamental disagreement on what individual life is worth. Totally different conversation.
If you say that my aforementioned reasons for acceptable loss of life aren't valid, then game on, you know where I stand.
--trb
Whoa, whoa, okay...step back and look at what I was posting.
And why exactly should they have left before then?
I wasn't arguing that they ever SHOULD leave...I was arguing that the US wasn't holding them there against their will, much the opposite. Having said that, if someone said they were going to bomb in/around my house in a week, you can be damned sure I would be relocating before that time.
I don't see that the fact some people are being held hostage is a justification for invading an entire city...
I don't think anyone ever claimed it WAS the justification. The justification I've heard is that Fallujah is the staging area for many of the car/human bombs that are wrecking havoc in Baghdad. Ofcourse, it's a nice perk to be able to free people that are being held against their will, but that wasn't our intention. We gave people advance warning and asked women/children to leave so that they could get out of harm's way before we attacked the city. It was a nice touch, IMO, and a humanitarian effort.
--trb