It's a good point that consoles are very good now, and as a developer (not of games, but still), it's better to have a single system (or a small number of known systems) that you have to support than to have to support infinite possibilities. Look at Apple and what they're able to do, given that there are 10, 100, or 1000 known possible configurations that they have to support, one for each version of each machine they've released, and they have all the data on them. Compare to the known problems Microsoft has with Windows being an excellent bug-free operating system that exhibits all kinds of maddening problems due to buggy 3rd party device drivers.
Its like people who use a terrible OS (and I'm not even talking Vista here, but more like win 98 or something) and get viruses and all sorts of malware. They don't seem to understand that all those issues they're having with their computer is not something you have to put up with, that there is a solution. This makes demand for really good OSes relatively low.
You know what I really can't stand? (And I hear it all the time, and come to think of it, you probably do too.) People tell me all about how their computer has viruses/spam/spyware/adware and how it's running at the speed of a tractor trying to climb an oily mountain the size of Mt. Everest on a planet with the gravity of a black hole. And they say the phrase I've heard a zillion times, "I need to buy a new computer."
NO YOU DON'T! There is nothing wrong with their current computer, I tell them. It's not the fault of their processor, or their memory, or the little battery that prevents the CMOS from forgetting its configuration, or even the power supply for that matter. It's simply the software! And time and time again, I've been a sucker and had people bring over their PCs, along with any and all dis([c|k])s they have, and then I've just blown all the data off their hard drive and reinstalled their OS (some flavor of Windows) and software. But I make a few changes. I lock down the configuration as well as I can and using resources and utilities I've collected over the years, I clean up that Windows interface until there are no more dogs running around when you do a search, no more cartoonish blue and red "Luna" interface, no delays for menus to open or for Windows to automatically kill hung programs, no Messenger, Outlook, Shmoutlook, no hiding extensions on known virus types, basically I just get rid of everything. And once I've installed whatever of their software that *I* believe they need and want, I throw in Firefox, OpenOffice.org, CCleaner, and more. Oh yeah, and I actually hide most of the control panel applets. And you know what? It's even better than buying a new computer.
By the way, I don't do this for free, so don't ask. Instead of them spending $300 on a new Dell or whatever they go for nowadays, I have them spend about $100 buying me something that I could use around the house. Heh heh... I've gotten tons of free stuff this way.
But it just drives me up the wall how most Joe Shmoes don't recognize any difference between their computer and the software running in it. This is as ludicrous as running out of gas and saying, "I need to buy a new car," because you don't see any difference between your car and the gas in the gas tank.
In other news, the democrats, with the inventor of the Internet, developed a system that automatically makes any republican text display in white on a white background, so that it is impossible to read.
This is retarded. Why should any journal own the copyright on something that is written by a submitter. Heh, that's how you want to do things?! Fine, then I won't submit to your stupid journal. Of course, you could write two copies of the article, using slightly different language and vocabulary, and then submit one to wherever you want. Let the journal prove in court that the other version is under their copyright. This post is copyright (c) 2008 by rice_burners_suck. All rights reserved. Do not make illegal copies of this comment.
There is a common misconception that every security system, whether physical or digital, has a weakness somewhere. But I have a way to build a system with UNBREAKABLE security.
First, you input your fingerprint, which is converted by some algorithm into an 8-bit unsigned char. Then, every byte of your data is XORed with this char. The result is written to the USB stick. Oh yeah, and to ensure that the data, once decrypted, is identical to the original data, an SHA-1 signature of the ORIGINAL data is recorded to the USB stick, too.
The ingenious part of this design is that any system can read the data off the USB stick. But you read it, you need to input your fingerprint to decrypt the information. A small sticker on each USB stick will say, "How to retrieve data in case of lost finger: Try all 256 possible keys and check the result against the SHA-1 signature."
This is completely, utterly, 100% UNBREAKABLE security, worthy of even the most demanding government organizations.
Unexplained hiccup... The rest of the probe's parts are running a Linux kernel, but this probe is running Windows CE. Must have been the blue screen of space.
I know the real value of Pi, but I'm not telling. By the way, I also know where the ark of the covenant is hidden; no it's not in a federal warehouse like Indiana Jones would have you believe. I have it hidden in the same place where I keep this piece of paper with the actual value of Pi. But you'll never find it.
The trouble with ipv6 is that ipv4 works so well for 90% of the population (in the same manner that 76% of statistics are made up on the spot) that nobody who doesn't really care about this won't put in an effort to make the switch. It looks like going 100% ipv6 is quite a few years off, foo.
There should be a law that requires everyone to wear a neckband that sends all their thoughts to the government, for thoughtcrime enforcement. Violation of this law (being caught without the neckband) would result in an immediate death penalty, without a trial. (Wasn't there a movie about something like this once?)
I am the holder of patent #734-0467128475987897, method and apparatus for delivery of feces into toilets (a.k.a., taking a dump). Since everyone on the planet is violating my patent, I am going to sue everyone. First, of course, I'll warn them by sending "cease and desist" letters to everyone (meaning that you can't use the bathroom anymore but must hold it in forever). Of course, you can't patent taking a dump, but I'm going to start by suing those who can't afford a lengthy legal process, so they'll settle with me with whatever money they have, and I'll make a killing until someone invalidates my patent. By the time that happens, I'll have made a fortune and bought myself an island.
Let's get something perfectly straight here. There are three groups involved. The first is a sovereign country, Israel. The second is a very large group of terrorists. The third is the Palestinians who want none of this terrorism, and who are unfortunately stuck between a rock and a hard place. There is a widespread problem in recognizing this, and for this reason, the situation is often oversimplified as "Israel vs. Palestinians" when in fact it's "Israel vs. terrorists" and the Palestinians (the ones you said have "legitimate concerns") are caught up in the mess.
Israel has nothing against the Palestinians. They have a whole lot against the terrorists.
Foreign policy and diplomacy are techniques used when states play political games with each other. In Israel's case, however, it is a state defending itself against loosely organized rebel groups whose only mission in life is to kill as many people as possible. The terrorists deliberately target Israeli families, and do so in such a manner as to put their Palestinian neighbors in danger of being killed when Israel fights back. Israelis get killed, the terrorists win. Palestinians get killed, the terrorists win (because of the bad image that it gives Israel). You cannot use diplomacy when dealing with a group that wants nothing except your total annihilation. You cannot use diplomacy when the leaders of the so-called "government" against whom you defend yourself are terrorists who cover their faces with masks and teach their children to blow themselves up in crowded places.
Suppose you could get them to sit down at a table with you and talk things over. The conversation will go something like this:
You: We are willing to do anything for peace. Name what you want in exchange for peace, and we'll give it to you.
The terrorists: We want all of you infidels to die a horrible death.
You: Uh, we can't do that. Do you have a second choice?
The terrorists: Nope.
You cannot use diplomacy with such a group. There is only one thing that you can do, and that is fight tooth and nail. Make no mistake, it will happen sooner or later. Better make it sooner and get it over with.
A very, very important point that cannot be overemphasized must be made here: The terrorists actually want innocent Palestinians to get killed when Israel fights back. Yes, this is absolutely true. As has been documented time and again, they fire their rockets from right next to a school, or a mosque, or a home where there are many children. If Israel fights back, innocent people are sure to get killed. The terrorists want their neighbors to get killed because it serves their cause. Innocent people get killed, and there is a worldwide uproar against Israel. That's where you get statements like, "120 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military." Yes, it is a factual statement numerically, but you forgot to mention that most were terrorists. Some innocent bystanders were killed too. That is very unfortunate, and it's a situation the Israelis try very hard to avoid. It happens. It's the unfortunate result of being at war. Innocent Israelis are getting killed all the time, too. Don't forget that.
But let's talk about innocent Palestinians for a moment. Suppose someone is shooing at a police officer. The police officer, in self defense, shoots back. Unfortunately, an innocent bystander gets killed. Who's fault is it? It is legally and morally the fault of the criminal, NOT the police officer. Had the criminal not initiated the shooting, none of the following events would have taken place. Since it was the criminal who forced the police officer to shoot, it is entirely the criminal's responsibility and fault that someone got killed. Does this prevent the police officer from having nightmares about this for the rest of his life? No. And such is the case with Israel. The terrorists in Gaza fire rockets. Israel fights back. Some innocent people get killed on both sides. Israelis feel terrible when this happens. But it's not Israel's fault. Israel is fighting in self defense. The terrorists against whom they fight are fighting to get innocent people killed. There is a huge difference. There is no moral, ethical, or legal equivalence between Israel's accidental killing of innocent Palestinians and the terrorists' deliberate killing of both Palestinians and Israelis. When people get killed in this conflict, it is entirely the terrorists' fault, not Israel's, not America's, not the UN's, not George Bush's, not even CmdrTaco's.
Instead of treating the symptom, why don't the Israelis solve the cause? The cause is that in Gaza live two groups of people. One group simply wants to live, work, go to school, live in peace, and mind their own business. The other group wants to blow stuff up. To solve the cause, the group that wants to blow stuff up needs to be blown up first.
Here's the trouble with this simple statement:
Trouble number 1: This isn't a conventional war, where the army of one state fights the army of another. This is a state, which has to abide by laws and wants to avoid killing innocent bystanders, fighting bands of rebels, who abide by no law, target children, and hope to kill as many innocent bystanders as possible. When a terrorist shoots rockets at children and dreams of blowing himself up, does he have morals or care about the consequences of breaking laws? No way!
Trouble number 2: The enemy knows that Israelis value life and want to avoid killing the bystanders I just mentioned, so they use that to their advantage by deliberately firing their rockets from the vicinity of homes or schools. This has two advantages for the terrorists: First, Israel will hesitate to strike back for fear of killing innocents; second, if Israel strikes back and innocents get killed, it makes for great anti-Israel PR for the terrorists. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So the trouble is that you really must kill the terrorists because they pose a danger to both sides of the Gaza border. How do you do that? You have to enlist the help of the innocent people who live in their midst. Israel has to send a few elite battalions into Gaza to stamp out this problem once and for all, and must provide a means for the innocent residents of Gaza to join forces with Israel against the terrorist elements that surround them. Only then will the tens of thousands of terrorists in Gaza be overpowered. And stamp them out one-by-one, destroy their bomb factories, blow up their underground tunnels, and put an end to the problem of terrorism in Gaza once and for all.
This is the solution. This is a painful solution. It will require a tremendous effort, a fight that will last a very long time, and many lives will unfortunately be lost in the process, from all three sides. But this is the only way to end the daily barrage of rocket fire from Gaza onto several Israeli towns, and the terror that the residents of both areas feel on a daily basis.
Building ray guns and all kinds of weird stuff will NOT solve the problem.
I have an idea. Artist royalties should be ZERO, the cost of each music recording should be $100 or higher, the penalty for downloading one MP3 should be the death penalty, and the RIAA should openly keep ALL of the money. That would be in the best interests of both the public and the artists.
I have a better idea. It should be ILLEGAL and punishable by immediate death (without a trial) to write or publish anything, whether in print or online, without a special license from the government, and without every word being placed under government scrutiny and censorship. The current system in which anyone can post online is extremely dangerous, as it may expose embarrassing scandals in the government. It doesn't matter if there are scandals. The important thing is not to allow those scandals to be exposed by the public. Not to mention that it is extremely unfortunate when such exposure causes our leaders to be accountable for their actions. That's definitely something we don't want, either. No, what this country really needs is traffic cops who can stop you for no reason, plant a joint on your dashboard, and then force you to bribe them to avoid arrest.
It's really great that he worked so hard to write the stories so many times over but sometimes as a writer you have to just STFP (ship the product (the F is silent)). Otherwise it'll be like TAOCP. It's a seven volume work, of which four will never, ever be published. All that work ain't worth Jack Schitt if you don't never ship the damn thing so people can do something useful with it.
i think that government organizations should have to approve all decisions. for example, you're on the road, and there's a restroom coming up in 5 miles. you don't really need to use a restroom that badly at the moment, but you're not sure if it's a good idea to stop anyway, or just go another 50 miles down the road to the next restroom. you decide to stop. since this is a decision, what you need to do at this point is fill out 10,000 pages of paperwork to send to a special government agency that approves or declines requests such as this. it takes ten years for the government to get back to you on it, by which time you need a restroom really, really, really, really badly.
dude, some new LED colors they need to develop: Chartreuse, Casablanca, Aquamarine, Heliotrope, Carissma, Periwinkle, and my personal favorite, Saratoga!!!
dude. why don't they just take a brain from one of those people who donates their body to science (after the person passes away, of course), and hook it up to a bunch of connectors and whatnot that would allow it to interface to a regular computer system! then you could have a network of brains in jars figuring stuff out, as opposed to server rooms full of hot electronic computers doing their whole number crunching thing.
Here's an idea for a really great advertising tactic that would make people very happy: All the ad sites would display ads containing peoples' names, social security numbers, addresses, and even a photo! The really innovative part is that it would display peoples' private information to other people! Of course, if you don't want your stuff showing up on millions of peoples' computer screens, there would be a process by which you could "opt out" of having your information displayed. The "opt out" process would be so long and complicated that a whole cottage industry would sprout up all over the place with "opt out" specialists charging $49.95 to opt you out of an ad provider's system, or you could pay $995.95 for the "Ultimate" package, and they'll opt you out of all the various ad agencies' listings! What an innovative idea!
Don't like it? Don't buy an iPhone. It's that easy. Nobody is forcing you to get one. There are plenty of other phones and tiny computers on the market, running everything from Windows CE to Palm OS to Linux. It's not the same as the former M$ monopoly of years past. That monopoly existed because there was no other product on the market to fill that need, and M$ leveraged that control to push their other products. In Apple's case, there are plenty of other products on the market, and this one comes with agreements that Apple made with AT&T. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good point that consoles are very good now, and as a developer (not of games, but still), it's better to have a single system (or a small number of known systems) that you have to support than to have to support infinite possibilities. Look at Apple and what they're able to do, given that there are 10, 100, or 1000 known possible configurations that they have to support, one for each version of each machine they've released, and they have all the data on them. Compare to the known problems Microsoft has with Windows being an excellent bug-free operating system that exhibits all kinds of maddening problems due to buggy 3rd party device drivers.
You know what I really can't stand? (And I hear it all the time, and come to think of it, you probably do too.) People tell me all about how their computer has viruses/spam/spyware/adware and how it's running at the speed of a tractor trying to climb an oily mountain the size of Mt. Everest on a planet with the gravity of a black hole. And they say the phrase I've heard a zillion times, "I need to buy a new computer."
NO YOU DON'T! There is nothing wrong with their current computer, I tell them. It's not the fault of their processor, or their memory, or the little battery that prevents the CMOS from forgetting its configuration, or even the power supply for that matter. It's simply the software! And time and time again, I've been a sucker and had people bring over their PCs, along with any and all dis([c|k])s they have, and then I've just blown all the data off their hard drive and reinstalled their OS (some flavor of Windows) and software. But I make a few changes. I lock down the configuration as well as I can and using resources and utilities I've collected over the years, I clean up that Windows interface until there are no more dogs running around when you do a search, no more cartoonish blue and red "Luna" interface, no delays for menus to open or for Windows to automatically kill hung programs, no Messenger, Outlook, Shmoutlook, no hiding extensions on known virus types, basically I just get rid of everything. And once I've installed whatever of their software that *I* believe they need and want, I throw in Firefox, OpenOffice.org, CCleaner, and more. Oh yeah, and I actually hide most of the control panel applets. And you know what? It's even better than buying a new computer.
By the way, I don't do this for free, so don't ask. Instead of them spending $300 on a new Dell or whatever they go for nowadays, I have them spend about $100 buying me something that I could use around the house. Heh heh... I've gotten tons of free stuff this way.
But it just drives me up the wall how most Joe Shmoes don't recognize any difference between their computer and the software running in it. This is as ludicrous as running out of gas and saying, "I need to buy a new car," because you don't see any difference between your car and the gas in the gas tank.
In other news, the democrats, with the inventor of the Internet, developed a system that automatically makes any republican text display in white on a white background, so that it is impossible to read.
Let's test this software:
In a meeting today, Bush said, "
."
See, the system is working.
This is retarded. Why should any journal own the copyright on something that is written by a submitter. Heh, that's how you want to do things?! Fine, then I won't submit to your stupid journal. Of course, you could write two copies of the article, using slightly different language and vocabulary, and then submit one to wherever you want. Let the journal prove in court that the other version is under their copyright. This post is copyright (c) 2008 by rice_burners_suck. All rights reserved. Do not make illegal copies of this comment.
There is a common misconception that every security system, whether physical or digital, has a weakness somewhere. But I have a way to build a system with UNBREAKABLE security.
First, you input your fingerprint, which is converted by some algorithm into an 8-bit unsigned char. Then, every byte of your data is XORed with this char. The result is written to the USB stick. Oh yeah, and to ensure that the data, once decrypted, is identical to the original data, an SHA-1 signature of the ORIGINAL data is recorded to the USB stick, too.
The ingenious part of this design is that any system can read the data off the USB stick. But you read it, you need to input your fingerprint to decrypt the information. A small sticker on each USB stick will say, "How to retrieve data in case of lost finger: Try all 256 possible keys and check the result against the SHA-1 signature."
This is completely, utterly, 100% UNBREAKABLE security, worthy of even the most demanding government organizations.
Unexplained hiccup... The rest of the probe's parts are running a Linux kernel, but this probe is running Windows CE. Must have been the blue screen of space.
I know the real value of Pi, but I'm not telling. By the way, I also know where the ark of the covenant is hidden; no it's not in a federal warehouse like Indiana Jones would have you believe. I have it hidden in the same place where I keep this piece of paper with the actual value of Pi. But you'll never find it.
The trouble with ipv6 is that ipv4 works so well for 90% of the population (in the same manner that 76% of statistics are made up on the spot) that nobody who doesn't really care about this won't put in an effort to make the switch. It looks like going 100% ipv6 is quite a few years off, foo.
There should be a law that requires everyone to wear a neckband that sends all their thoughts to the government, for thoughtcrime enforcement. Violation of this law (being caught without the neckband) would result in an immediate death penalty, without a trial. (Wasn't there a movie about something like this once?)
I am the holder of patent #734-0467128475987897, method and apparatus for delivery of feces into toilets (a.k.a., taking a dump). Since everyone on the planet is violating my patent, I am going to sue everyone. First, of course, I'll warn them by sending "cease and desist" letters to everyone (meaning that you can't use the bathroom anymore but must hold it in forever). Of course, you can't patent taking a dump, but I'm going to start by suing those who can't afford a lengthy legal process, so they'll settle with me with whatever money they have, and I'll make a killing until someone invalidates my patent. By the time that happens, I'll have made a fortune and bought myself an island.
Dude. They'll never figure out my secret agent decoder ring.
You're making as much sense as a one-legged man joining a butt kicking contest.
Maybe you tried to say it in Hebrew and it came out in Sputnik.
Let's get something perfectly straight here. There are three groups involved. The first is a sovereign country, Israel. The second is a very large group of terrorists. The third is the Palestinians who want none of this terrorism, and who are unfortunately stuck between a rock and a hard place. There is a widespread problem in recognizing this, and for this reason, the situation is often oversimplified as "Israel vs. Palestinians" when in fact it's "Israel vs. terrorists" and the Palestinians (the ones you said have "legitimate concerns") are caught up in the mess.
Israel has nothing against the Palestinians. They have a whole lot against the terrorists.
Foreign policy and diplomacy are techniques used when states play political games with each other. In Israel's case, however, it is a state defending itself against loosely organized rebel groups whose only mission in life is to kill as many people as possible. The terrorists deliberately target Israeli families, and do so in such a manner as to put their Palestinian neighbors in danger of being killed when Israel fights back. Israelis get killed, the terrorists win. Palestinians get killed, the terrorists win (because of the bad image that it gives Israel). You cannot use diplomacy when dealing with a group that wants nothing except your total annihilation. You cannot use diplomacy when the leaders of the so-called "government" against whom you defend yourself are terrorists who cover their faces with masks and teach their children to blow themselves up in crowded places.
Suppose you could get them to sit down at a table with you and talk things over. The conversation will go something like this:
You: We are willing to do anything for peace. Name what you want in exchange for peace, and we'll give it to you.
The terrorists: We want all of you infidels to die a horrible death.
You: Uh, we can't do that. Do you have a second choice?
The terrorists: Nope.
You cannot use diplomacy with such a group. There is only one thing that you can do, and that is fight tooth and nail. Make no mistake, it will happen sooner or later. Better make it sooner and get it over with.
A very, very important point that cannot be overemphasized must be made here: The terrorists actually want innocent Palestinians to get killed when Israel fights back. Yes, this is absolutely true. As has been documented time and again, they fire their rockets from right next to a school, or a mosque, or a home where there are many children. If Israel fights back, innocent people are sure to get killed. The terrorists want their neighbors to get killed because it serves their cause. Innocent people get killed, and there is a worldwide uproar against Israel. That's where you get statements like, "120 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military." Yes, it is a factual statement numerically, but you forgot to mention that most were terrorists. Some innocent bystanders were killed too. That is very unfortunate, and it's a situation the Israelis try very hard to avoid. It happens. It's the unfortunate result of being at war. Innocent Israelis are getting killed all the time, too. Don't forget that.
But let's talk about innocent Palestinians for a moment. Suppose someone is shooing at a police officer. The police officer, in self defense, shoots back. Unfortunately, an innocent bystander gets killed. Who's fault is it? It is legally and morally the fault of the criminal, NOT the police officer. Had the criminal not initiated the shooting, none of the following events would have taken place. Since it was the criminal who forced the police officer to shoot, it is entirely the criminal's responsibility and fault that someone got killed. Does this prevent the police officer from having nightmares about this for the rest of his life? No. And such is the case with Israel. The terrorists in Gaza fire rockets. Israel fights back. Some innocent people get killed on both sides. Israelis feel terrible when this happens. But it's not Israel's fault. Israel is fighting in self defense. The terrorists against whom they fight are fighting to get innocent people killed. There is a huge difference. There is no moral, ethical, or legal equivalence between Israel's accidental killing of innocent Palestinians and the terrorists' deliberate killing of both Palestinians and Israelis. When people get killed in this conflict, it is entirely the terrorists' fault, not Israel's, not America's, not the UN's, not George Bush's, not even CmdrTaco's.
Instead of treating the symptom, why don't the Israelis solve the cause? The cause is that in Gaza live two groups of people. One group simply wants to live, work, go to school, live in peace, and mind their own business. The other group wants to blow stuff up. To solve the cause, the group that wants to blow stuff up needs to be blown up first.
Here's the trouble with this simple statement:
- Trouble number 1: This isn't a conventional war, where the army of one state fights the army of another. This is a state, which has to abide by laws and wants to avoid killing innocent bystanders, fighting bands of rebels, who abide by no law, target children, and hope to kill as many innocent bystanders as possible. When a terrorist shoots rockets at children and dreams of blowing himself up, does he have morals or care about the consequences of breaking laws? No way!
- Trouble number 2: The enemy knows that Israelis value life and want to avoid killing the bystanders I just mentioned, so they use that to their advantage by deliberately firing their rockets from the vicinity of homes or schools. This has two advantages for the terrorists: First, Israel will hesitate to strike back for fear of killing innocents; second, if Israel strikes back and innocents get killed, it makes for great anti-Israel PR for the terrorists. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So the trouble is that you really must kill the terrorists because they pose a danger to both sides of the Gaza border. How do you do that? You have to enlist the help of the innocent people who live in their midst. Israel has to send a few elite battalions into Gaza to stamp out this problem once and for all, and must provide a means for the innocent residents of Gaza to join forces with Israel against the terrorist elements that surround them. Only then will the tens of thousands of terrorists in Gaza be overpowered. And stamp them out one-by-one, destroy their bomb factories, blow up their underground tunnels, and put an end to the problem of terrorism in Gaza once and for all.This is the solution. This is a painful solution. It will require a tremendous effort, a fight that will last a very long time, and many lives will unfortunately be lost in the process, from all three sides. But this is the only way to end the daily barrage of rocket fire from Gaza onto several Israeli towns, and the terror that the residents of both areas feel on a daily basis.
Building ray guns and all kinds of weird stuff will NOT solve the problem.
I have an idea. Artist royalties should be ZERO, the cost of each music recording should be $100 or higher, the penalty for downloading one MP3 should be the death penalty, and the RIAA should openly keep ALL of the money. That would be in the best interests of both the public and the artists.
I have a better idea. It should be ILLEGAL and punishable by immediate death (without a trial) to write or publish anything, whether in print or online, without a special license from the government, and without every word being placed under government scrutiny and censorship. The current system in which anyone can post online is extremely dangerous, as it may expose embarrassing scandals in the government. It doesn't matter if there are scandals. The important thing is not to allow those scandals to be exposed by the public. Not to mention that it is extremely unfortunate when such exposure causes our leaders to be accountable for their actions. That's definitely something we don't want, either. No, what this country really needs is traffic cops who can stop you for no reason, plant a joint on your dashboard, and then force you to bribe them to avoid arrest.
It's really great that he worked so hard to write the stories so many times over but sometimes as a writer you have to just STFP (ship the product (the F is silent)). Otherwise it'll be like TAOCP. It's a seven volume work, of which four will never, ever be published. All that work ain't worth Jack Schitt if you don't never ship the damn thing so people can do something useful with it.
i think that government organizations should have to approve all decisions. for example, you're on the road, and there's a restroom coming up in 5 miles. you don't really need to use a restroom that badly at the moment, but you're not sure if it's a good idea to stop anyway, or just go another 50 miles down the road to the next restroom. you decide to stop. since this is a decision, what you need to do at this point is fill out 10,000 pages of paperwork to send to a special government agency that approves or declines requests such as this. it takes ten years for the government to get back to you on it, by which time you need a restroom really, really, really, really badly.
dude, some new LED colors they need to develop: Chartreuse, Casablanca, Aquamarine, Heliotrope, Carissma, Periwinkle, and my personal favorite, Saratoga!!!
dude. why don't they just take a brain from one of those people who donates their body to science (after the person passes away, of course), and hook it up to a bunch of connectors and whatnot that would allow it to interface to a regular computer system! then you could have a network of brains in jars figuring stuff out, as opposed to server rooms full of hot electronic computers doing their whole number crunching thing.
Here's an idea for a really great advertising tactic that would make people very happy: All the ad sites would display ads containing peoples' names, social security numbers, addresses, and even a photo! The really innovative part is that it would display peoples' private information to other people! Of course, if you don't want your stuff showing up on millions of peoples' computer screens, there would be a process by which you could "opt out" of having your information displayed. The "opt out" process would be so long and complicated that a whole cottage industry would sprout up all over the place with "opt out" specialists charging $49.95 to opt you out of an ad provider's system, or you could pay $995.95 for the "Ultimate" package, and they'll opt you out of all the various ad agencies' listings! What an innovative idea!
i got an idea for a black box upgrade. they say the black box can survive any crash. the upgrade is: build the whole fscking plane that way!
Don't like it? Don't buy an iPhone. It's that easy. Nobody is forcing you to get one. There are plenty of other phones and tiny computers on the market, running everything from Windows CE to Palm OS to Linux. It's not the same as the former M$ monopoly of years past. That monopoly existed because there was no other product on the market to fill that need, and M$ leveraged that control to push their other products. In Apple's case, there are plenty of other products on the market, and this one comes with agreements that Apple made with AT&T. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't.
casino security is ridiculously insane. don't even attempt to dream about thinking of trying to cheat a casino.