And we were bought a long time ago. Congress has given preferential treatment to big business for so long that it doesn't know who or what "We the people" are anymore.
One telling statistic is the economic makeup of Congress. I wish I could point you to a source, and I'm sure the numbers have changed slightly, but when looking at the percentage of people worth more than $1,000,000 compared to the general population of the U.S., the percentage in Congress was something like NINE TIMES that of millionaires vs the general population.
--
Re:Theres a fungus among us.
on
Mir Lives
·
· Score: 1
Actually I think he's WILLiam shatNER.
--
Re:There's also an education issue
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Try Heinlein's novel "Starship Troopers." The right to vote came through completing military service.
Do you really want a snobocracy? Besides, the real power-weilders are the lobbyists and congressional staffers. The lobbyists are the shapers and the staffers are the filters.
--
Re:There's also an education issue
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
"Breads and Circuses," not cake. Cake was French Revolution's Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake!"
Our last general election had ONE opposed candidate: our ever-beloved "Toughest Sherrif in America" Joe Arpaio, much famed in song and story. I voted against him and voted for no one else. His tag line should be "biggest asshole and media whore" rather than "toughest sherrif."
Unfortunately his Republican challenger entered the race too late to really build a following and Arpaio will coast to reelection. Sigh.
So voting IS IMPORTANT! I have voted in every election since I was of age with one exception (a local, missed it due to illness.) Neither major candidate comes close to what I see, so I'm casting my "send a message" vote for Harry Browne, the only candidate in enough states that has a theoretical chance of winning: he's on the ballot in 49 states.
Are you really suggesting that having an arm move pieces on a chessboard is hard to do these days?
Ah! I must take exception to this! No, having a robotic arm move pieces, in normal playing conditions, is not difficult. As a tournament chess director, movement of the pieces at high speed is critical in the final phases of a time control ("time pressure"). I think you might have reluctance of certain players, particularly Grand Master Walter Brown (founder of the World Blitz Chess Association) who almost always gets into time pressure (he seems to revel in it!). If I relied on my hands as much as these guys do, I'd be very hesitant to have a robotic arm moving and removing pieces from the board at fast speed: I'd risk injury much more than against a human opponent if our paths crossed: keep in mind that not only must you move your piece, you must remove captured pieces. Brings the touch move into a whole new light!
Invariably human/computer matches, even computer/computer matches, have human "handlers" to move the pieces: combining the chess algorithmic and robotic programming crosses disciplines (plus the crossover between computer programming and mechanical engineering) and would be more than a little bit tricky.
I'll add one more wrinkle: players must write their move with the same hand that they move the piece and operate the clock: so not only does the arm have to move, it has to punch the clock (no big feat, unless the opponent "accidently" shifts its position) but it would also have to write.
There are very specific rules on computers for chess tournaments and the only time you'll see people playing against computers is in exhibition events: they are not official games and are not rated.
Personally, I'd like to see IBM's chess computer in a true championship format: having to play 20 people or more in different time control formats. Their computer was optimized to beat Kasparov: how would it do against Boris Gulko, or Joel Benjamin? (Joel isn't a fair comparison: he was a consultant on the IBM project.)
Yeah, pretty sad. I never saw him at any cons, but I never have been into the big National con scene. I always found it interesting that he would never fly. I meant to alude to his death in my post but didn't get around to it.
I guess pretty much the only major oldies left are Clarke and Bradburry.
There isn't enough programming in the world to define a reliable model of what allows a human being to come to harm. I'd suggest going to DragonCon and attending the robot bash: they have a panel that has actual robotics experts/researchers that get into in-depth discussions of what's going on in the field.
There are (broadly speaking) two types of robots: autonomous and non-. Non-autonomous are simply remote-control vehicles. They have no decision-making capability. A fully-autonomous model would be utterly impotent due to bloatware if you tried to implement the Three Laws: remember RoboCop 2? You also have the problem of what harms you might not harm me. That takes a very fine level of discrimination.
SO, IMHO, I don't ever expect to see Asimov's Three Laws implemented in something resembling a viable autonomous robot.
But what I really wish I could see would be Asimov in a panel discussion with actual robotics scientists. THAT would be pretty major.
Robert Heinlein put it best: Freedom of religion is inversely proportional to the strength of the dominant religion."
I don't think they should have any special protections, they simply should be respected like all "mainline" religions.
Which brings to mind one of my fav joke. Late one night God calls the Pope.
God: I've got some good news and some bad news. I've decided to make the United States a Christian Nation!
Pope: That's wonderful! We'll have celebratory masses....
God: Not so fast. I'm calling from Salt Lake City.
My point being fruitbats like Robertson who wants to make the US a Christian nation. Which version of Christianity? Christian = religion based on/following the teachings of Christ. That describes an awful lot of religions.
None should be protected, likewise none should be singled out.
One serious problem with your analogy: someone who smokes crack in their bedroom at night is not likely to be a law-abiding citizen the rest of their day. Crack is extremely addictive and they are likely to be on a nasty spiral. Based on the drug studies I did while working for a health care agency, your analogy using crack would never fly.
Smoking pot at night and being law-abiding during the day would have worked better.
(I apologize in advance if this has already been beaten to death as my browser doesn't want to load all the current posts)
I would like the candidate's responses as to why our country has fallen down to two major political parties and what can be done to encourage more political parties to represent the viewpoints of more Americans. Neither of the two major parties can represent my opinions: I pull from both, thus neither fit me.
Additionally, I would like the candidate's responses as to why we still need the Electoral College. It made sense in the 1700's and 1800's as a representative democracy before we had effective mass communications to use this method to elect the President, but why in this day and age is such a system maintained?
And finally, why should the debates be restricted to the two major parties' candidates. As I understand it, the Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne, is on the ballots of 49 states. This represents a serious candidate whose views on the issues will not be exposed to the voting public because of his exclusion from the public debates. I do not feel that every candidate who is able to get on to the ballots of 2 or 3 states should be included, but 49 states is serious popular support.
I would suggest a viewing of the movie Gattaca. It would appear that it is not too far off.
I myself would be a victim of such "pre-approved" screening as I was born with a heart condition and missing tendons in my right hand. Both have been overcomed but the hand is still a hinderance.
A friend of mine is epileptic due to head trauma. As a result she has to pay something over $200 a month for personal health insurance that has, get ready to choke now, a $10,000 deductible!
I think/fear that these are the joys genetic insurance screenings will bring.
Doesn't parse well. "Used" is weird for meter, and four syllable words don't flow well. The second line doesn't flow well at all: it makes for much harder emphasis on the first syllable in "escrow" which really breaks up the flow of the poem.
Sorry, I think the original flows much better. But I do like losing the "And" for the third line.
NTFS is a very good (robust) file system, made better if you don't use compression. I don't know if you could switch back and forth between Linux and NT with impunity, however. There's the little matter of permissions. You'd have to make the two OS's capable of reading each other's security systems, and I guarantee you'll give MS fits over that one!
Myself, I had a pretty darn secure system at home through MS: dual-booted 95 (at that time) and NT WS 4.0: 95 had internet access and games, NT had NTFS with compression, all my documents, databases, finances, etc. While I was online, the NTFS volume didn't exist.
I still think that's a good way of doing things. There's just too many programs you can't do under Linux, specifically, games and Quicken.
"Contracts which people have no choice but to sign are not valid."
There is a difference between signing a contract under duress, which is invalid, and signing an Olympic contract. If you are pointing a gun at my head and I sign a contract saying I'll pay you $1M, it is not valid. But an Olympic athelete has a choice: they can sign the contract and go to Australia, or they can not sign the contract and not go. It is not duress, it is extreme coercion, but there is no threat if you fail to sign. You simply don't get to go and compete and represent your country. That is the only consequence.
It's a shitty choice of options, but no one is forcing them to sign the contract.
There have been reports of people who go to used car dealerships who have gotten locked in rooms until they promise to sign a contract to buy a car. That, also, is duress. It is also kidnapping (illegally restraining your freedom of movement). Which is why I carry a cell phone and legally carry a concealed firearm when going to car dealerships. I'm just waiting....
So, if you selectively mind-wipe the people who saw the DeCSS code (myself included), would you have to mind-wipe the Copyleft folks who made my swell t-shirts? After all, the code was declared anathema, but the t-shirts were declared Freedom of Expression.
I attend San Diego ComicCon regularly. Back in '88 or '89 (when casting was complete and the movie was in production), Bob Kane, the inventor of Batman, did a panel. There was mass disappointment regarding Michael Keaton. And I admit I was a skeptic. So he talks on and on and someone asks him what he thinks about Keaton. There's laughter and boos, and then he replies. (I wish I could quote it, but that was a lot of years ago.)
He said to give Keaton a chance. Kane had been involved in the film, including working on the set, and was personally quite impressed with the job Keaton had been doing.
That was good enough for me. And when I saw the movie, I was more than satisfied. Keaton pulled off the psychological side of Batman perfectly: dark, brooding, almost borderline psycho.
Let's face it: there can be no ideal actor for Batman. HE'S A COMICBOOK CHARACTER! No one has that physique: that's why the rubber suit! You need an actor who can do a good job portraying Bruce Wayne who can also emote while he's wearing 40 lbs of rubber.
So what happened to the franchise? Jack Nicholson. Nothing bad about Jack's performance, it's just that the movie was written so that the star was The Joker, not The Dark Knight.
That started the trend. We then have THREE villain stars in the second movie with one totally unresolved plot, and again Batman is totally eclipsed. They should have removed Penguin and focused on Catwoman and Max Shreck. The third movie comes along AGAIN with two stars to eclipse Batman, the fourth movie stars Arnold. Give me a break!
Time after time the focus is on the bad guys, who invariably lose. Why do they bother calling the movies Batman? As for myself, I thought Arnold was the worst possible choice for Mr. Freeze as that villain had always been portrayed as a super scientist, not a muscle-bound Austrian. It had been rumored that Patrick Stewart might have played him: I would have been first in line to see that. As it was, I never saw #4. And I think I'm a better person for it.
Slashdot Mirror
And we were bought a long time ago. Congress has given preferential treatment to big business for so long that it doesn't know who or what "We the people" are anymore.
One telling statistic is the economic makeup of Congress. I wish I could point you to a source, and I'm sure the numbers have changed slightly, but when looking at the percentage of people worth more than $1,000,000 compared to the general population of the U.S., the percentage in Congress was something like NINE TIMES that of millionaires vs the general population.
--
Actually I think he's WILLiam shatNER.
--
Try Heinlein's novel "Starship Troopers." The right to vote came through completing military service.
Do you really want a snobocracy? Besides, the real power-weilders are the lobbyists and congressional staffers. The lobbyists are the shapers and the staffers are the filters.
--
"Breads and Circuses," not cake. Cake was French Revolution's Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake!"
(sorry, my soap box needed dusting off!)
--
Our last general election had ONE opposed candidate: our ever-beloved "Toughest Sherrif in America" Joe Arpaio, much famed in song and story. I voted against him and voted for no one else. His tag line should be "biggest asshole and media whore" rather than "toughest sherrif."
Unfortunately his Republican challenger entered the race too late to really build a following and Arpaio will coast to reelection. Sigh.
So voting IS IMPORTANT! I have voted in every election since I was of age with one exception (a local, missed it due to illness.) Neither major candidate comes close to what I see, so I'm casting my "send a message" vote for Harry Browne, the only candidate in enough states that has a theoretical chance of winning: he's on the ballot in 49 states.
--
Are you really suggesting that having an arm move pieces on a chessboard is hard to do these days?
Ah! I must take exception to this! No, having a robotic arm move pieces, in normal playing conditions, is not difficult. As a tournament chess director, movement of the pieces at high speed is critical in the final phases of a time control ("time pressure"). I think you might have reluctance of certain players, particularly Grand Master Walter Brown (founder of the World Blitz Chess Association) who almost always gets into time pressure (he seems to revel in it!). If I relied on my hands as much as these guys do, I'd be very hesitant to have a robotic arm moving and removing pieces from the board at fast speed: I'd risk injury much more than against a human opponent if our paths crossed: keep in mind that not only must you move your piece, you must remove captured pieces. Brings the touch move into a whole new light!
Invariably human/computer matches, even computer/computer matches, have human "handlers" to move the pieces: combining the chess algorithmic and robotic programming crosses disciplines (plus the crossover between computer programming and mechanical engineering) and would be more than a little bit tricky.
I'll add one more wrinkle: players must write their move with the same hand that they move the piece and operate the clock: so not only does the arm have to move, it has to punch the clock (no big feat, unless the opponent "accidently" shifts its position) but it would also have to write.
There are very specific rules on computers for chess tournaments and the only time you'll see people playing against computers is in exhibition events: they are not official games and are not rated.
Personally, I'd like to see IBM's chess computer in a true championship format: having to play 20 people or more in different time control formats. Their computer was optimized to beat Kasparov: how would it do against Boris Gulko, or Joel Benjamin? (Joel isn't a fair comparison: he was a consultant on the IBM project.)
--
Yeah, pretty sad. I never saw him at any cons, but I never have been into the big National con scene. I always found it interesting that he would never fly. I meant to alude to his death in my post but didn't get around to it.
I guess pretty much the only major oldies left are Clarke and Bradburry.
--
There isn't enough programming in the world to define a reliable model of what allows a human being to come to harm. I'd suggest going to DragonCon and attending the robot bash: they have a panel that has actual robotics experts/researchers that get into in-depth discussions of what's going on in the field.
There are (broadly speaking) two types of robots: autonomous and non-. Non-autonomous are simply remote-control vehicles. They have no decision-making capability. A fully-autonomous model would be utterly impotent due to bloatware if you tried to implement the Three Laws: remember RoboCop 2? You also have the problem of what harms you might not harm me. That takes a very fine level of discrimination.
SO, IMHO, I don't ever expect to see Asimov's Three Laws implemented in something resembling a viable autonomous robot.
But what I really wish I could see would be Asimov in a panel discussion with actual robotics scientists. THAT would be pretty major.
--
"A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."
--
Actually, Shinto is also known as the worship of 10,000 gods. 10,000:1 isn't the best of odds....
--
Actually, according to NCIC codes for eye and hair color, BLD is a hair color.
--
Robert Heinlein put it best: Freedom of religion is inversely proportional to the strength of the dominant religion."
I don't think they should have any special protections, they simply should be respected like all "mainline" religions.
Which brings to mind one of my fav joke. Late one night God calls the Pope. God: I've got some good news and some bad news. I've decided to make the United States a Christian Nation! Pope: That's wonderful! We'll have celebratory masses.... God: Not so fast. I'm calling from Salt Lake City.
My point being fruitbats like Robertson who wants to make the US a Christian nation. Which version of Christianity? Christian = religion based on/following the teachings of Christ. That describes an awful lot of religions.
None should be protected, likewise none should be singled out.
--
One serious problem with your analogy: someone who smokes crack in their bedroom at night is not likely to be a law-abiding citizen the rest of their day. Crack is extremely addictive and they are likely to be on a nasty spiral. Based on the drug studies I did while working for a health care agency, your analogy using crack would never fly.
Smoking pot at night and being law-abiding during the day would have worked better.
--
(I apologize in advance if this has already been beaten to death as my browser doesn't want to load all the current posts)
I would like the candidate's responses as to why our country has fallen down to two major political parties and what can be done to encourage more political parties to represent the viewpoints of more Americans. Neither of the two major parties can represent my opinions: I pull from both, thus neither fit me.
Additionally, I would like the candidate's responses as to why we still need the Electoral College. It made sense in the 1700's and 1800's as a representative democracy before we had effective mass communications to use this method to elect the President, but why in this day and age is such a system maintained?
And finally, why should the debates be restricted to the two major parties' candidates. As I understand it, the Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne, is on the ballots of 49 states. This represents a serious candidate whose views on the issues will not be exposed to the voting public because of his exclusion from the public debates. I do not feel that every candidate who is able to get on to the ballots of 2 or 3 states should be included, but 49 states is serious popular support.
--
So what you have is Social Engineering winning out over software loopholes. Amusing.
--
Try Geekfinder from User Friendly. I'm going to be hitting it looking for a new job as a SQL Admin.
They also allow you to post your resume.
--
I would suggest a viewing of the movie Gattaca. It would appear that it is not too far off.
I myself would be a victim of such "pre-approved" screening as I was born with a heart condition and missing tendons in my right hand. Both have been overcomed but the hand is still a hinderance.
A friend of mine is epileptic due to head trauma. As a result she has to pay something over $200 a month for personal health insurance that has, get ready to choke now, a $10,000 deductible!
I think/fear that these are the joys genetic insurance screenings will bring.
--
Doesn't parse well. "Used" is weird for meter, and four syllable words don't flow well. The second line doesn't flow well at all: it makes for much harder emphasis on the first syllable in "escrow" which really breaks up the flow of the poem.
Sorry, I think the original flows much better. But I do like losing the "And" for the third line.
--
Don't forget Kevin Mitnick! He "stole" what was it, $90 million, from Sun, Nokia, etc., yet they didn't list it on forms filed with the SEC.
--
NTFS is a very good (robust) file system, made better if you don't use compression. I don't know if you could switch back and forth between Linux and NT with impunity, however. There's the little matter of permissions. You'd have to make the two OS's capable of reading each other's security systems, and I guarantee you'll give MS fits over that one!
Myself, I had a pretty darn secure system at home through MS: dual-booted 95 (at that time) and NT WS 4.0: 95 had internet access and games, NT had NTFS with compression, all my documents, databases, finances, etc. While I was online, the NTFS volume didn't exist.
I still think that's a good way of doing things. There's just too many programs you can't do under Linux, specifically, games and Quicken.
--
"Contracts which people have no choice but to sign are not valid."
There is a difference between signing a contract under duress, which is invalid, and signing an Olympic contract. If you are pointing a gun at my head and I sign a contract saying I'll pay you $1M, it is not valid. But an Olympic athelete has a choice: they can sign the contract and go to Australia, or they can not sign the contract and not go. It is not duress, it is extreme coercion, but there is no threat if you fail to sign. You simply don't get to go and compete and represent your country. That is the only consequence.
It's a shitty choice of options, but no one is forcing them to sign the contract.
There have been reports of people who go to used car dealerships who have gotten locked in rooms until they promise to sign a contract to buy a car. That, also, is duress. It is also kidnapping (illegally restraining your freedom of movement). Which is why I carry a cell phone and legally carry a concealed firearm when going to car dealerships. I'm just waiting....
--
(paraphrased, the mind begins to go as you approach 40)
"I'd like to see a nude opera because when they hit those high notes I bet you'd really see it in their genitals."
--
So, if you selectively mind-wipe the people who saw the DeCSS code (myself included), would you have to mind-wipe the Copyleft folks who made my swell t-shirts? After all, the code was declared anathema, but the t-shirts were declared Freedom of Expression.
--
I attend San Diego ComicCon regularly. Back in '88 or '89 (when casting was complete and the movie was in production), Bob Kane, the inventor of Batman, did a panel. There was mass disappointment regarding Michael Keaton. And I admit I was a skeptic. So he talks on and on and someone asks him what he thinks about Keaton. There's laughter and boos, and then he replies. (I wish I could quote it, but that was a lot of years ago.)
He said to give Keaton a chance. Kane had been involved in the film, including working on the set, and was personally quite impressed with the job Keaton had been doing.
That was good enough for me. And when I saw the movie, I was more than satisfied. Keaton pulled off the psychological side of Batman perfectly: dark, brooding, almost borderline psycho.
Let's face it: there can be no ideal actor for Batman. HE'S A COMICBOOK CHARACTER! No one has that physique: that's why the rubber suit! You need an actor who can do a good job portraying Bruce Wayne who can also emote while he's wearing 40 lbs of rubber.
So what happened to the franchise? Jack Nicholson. Nothing bad about Jack's performance, it's just that the movie was written so that the star was The Joker, not The Dark Knight.
That started the trend. We then have THREE villain stars in the second movie with one totally unresolved plot, and again Batman is totally eclipsed. They should have removed Penguin and focused on Catwoman and Max Shreck. The third movie comes along AGAIN with two stars to eclipse Batman, the fourth movie stars Arnold. Give me a break!
Time after time the focus is on the bad guys, who invariably lose. Why do they bother calling the movies Batman? As for myself, I thought Arnold was the worst possible choice for Mr. Freeze as that villain had always been portrayed as a super scientist, not a muscle-bound Austrian. It had been rumored that Patrick Stewart might have played him: I would have been first in line to see that. As it was, I never saw #4. And I think I'm a better person for it.
--
Not when I saw him at San Diego ComicCon two months ago. The original poster typo'd.
--