I have, Europe and America are different when it comes to spending. After WWII, America assumed the defense role for the Western world. Half of our money in America goes to war or interest/obligations due on past wars. Now, I for one am anti-war and I think that most of the cold war was easily avoidable. And you can argue that nobody asked America to assume that role (although, I'd say the British did at the very least), but if we hadn't filled that vacuum, European governments would have spent a lot more on defense and a lot less on the social welfare. And with people like Sarkozy rising in France, it would seem that the strain on government programs is rising to a breaking point, despite the military mantle that the US is still assuming.
Why should the government subsidize partying? Aside from a few professions (doctors, lawyers, etc), college is mostly a waste. Don't get me wrong, I loved it. I love learning for learning's sake. But the vast majority come out with nothing that will help them do their jobs, outside of a piece of paper. For the costs, it simply isn't worth it for most people. Especially the large percentage that end up dropping out cause it was never for them in the first place.
Given the gas was well past the expiration date and there was only a miniscule quantity, I think you can hardly categorize that as an actual weapon of mass destruction. Their conventional weapons were likely capable of far greater destruction. I think you know those crumbs were likely an oversight on Sadaam's part, these things happen in any massive effort. Same goes for the reactor parts. There's truth and then there's lawyer speak. A WMD must be capable of mass destruction by definition.
I don't understand how many war critics can't stop mentioning the fact that not finding WMDs would take away all the "legitimacy" of the invasion.
Because that was our only legal basis for the war and it goes back to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. That invasion gave us a legal basis to invade in 1991 and the terms of the surrender called for the elimination of WMD. This was a minor provision at the time, but it was enough for us to use as an excuse to go in this time. This is all very important for people to consider because we won't have this excuse if we invade Iran. A violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not a valid basis for war. There will have to be a 'pretext' for Iran, let's hope they don't find one.
Sadaam never kicked the inspectors out, he simply stop cooperating after it became clear that we were using the inspection program to send in CIA agents. Not to mention all the continual bombings and Albright saying flat out that we would not lift the sanctions as long as Hussein was in power, regardless if he had cooperated. Now say what you want about Sadaam (I agree he was evil), but all countries would do the same in his situation. The inspectors had been in a long time and most had believed Iraq was reasonably cooperating. They found nothing. I believed it too since why wouldn't they cooperate at least as long as was necessary to get us to leave? And guess what? We were right (contrary to how often the press tells me we all believed). I wouldn't have been surprised if they found something ancient that the Iraqis forgot about, but perfect compliance is logistically impossible and I accepted that they were trying. However, it was very much in the interest of some that Iraq been seen as not cooperating. Those same people were the ones who gave us fairy tales about yellow cake.
If God is omnipresent, then he should be omnitemporal as well.
That makes sense, and it allows for God to seem imperfect and flawed at any moment since it would require an understanding of all his moments to even begin to judge his perfection. Something no one is capable of.
That being said, I've never understood the need to personify natural forces. If I had no cultural awareness, I doubt I would have ever thought to attribute the universe around me to the workings of some personality somewhere. I always get lost in the definition of God.
Few things still amaze me as much as a poll I had read about at the time (mainstream, gallop I think) where 2/3 of the respondents said Clinton is doing a great job and should stay in office and in the same poll, 2/3 said that they believed Juanita Broadrick's accusations. That means at least 1/3 of the country has no problem with the president being a rapist. I don't think I ever looked at my fellow countrymen the same way again. It's absolutely shameful. Then again, it's hard to trust the polls sometimes.
If they would have held Clinton accountable for his crime, then I'd be willing to bet that Bush would have been a little more restrained. I remember thinking, as Clinton got off, that the next president would have a blank check because no one is going to want to bring up impeachment again for decades. Especially after bombing El-Shifa on the eve of Monica's grand jury testimony. It was a complete mess and was a prelude to this administration.
When defending his wire-tapping of US citizens, Bush addressed the nation and said that the congressional authorization of force in Iraq gave him the authority to do whatever he feels is necessary. That was the moment I realized that it won't just be decades. All checks and balances have been dissolved and we're stuck with it until the empire collapses. It's not about the man or who was worse, it's about the system and recognizing that there can be no rule of law if those at the top are completely unaccountable.
His supporters already arranged a fund that will pay for it. As for a conviction being on his record, it doesn't make a difference one way or the other. Everyone already knows about him, so there's little point to going to the record. I'm sure Scooter will land on his feet one way or the other.
I recall a judge sentencing someone for something and then made a comment at the end that the defendant was about to get closely acquainted to his new roommate Bubba. I remember thinking at the time that the statement the judge made should be grounds for appeal because he was admitting that he was sentencing this person to rape (and likely AIDs) for his crime (non-violent, drug-related I believe) and rape is so clearly cruel and unusual punishment. If rape in prisons is such an open-secret, then I don't see how any judge has the constitutional authority to sentence anyone in the current environment.
If you find them so, that's great for you. I'm envious. But there wouldn't even be casual dress policies if most people didn't believe the opposite. Unless you're into S&M and being choked by a tie makes you feel right at home, I can't even imagine what you might mean by such a statement.
As for face to face clients, we rarely deal with them in that manner. But when we do, they are never wearing suits. I think it's more professional to dress like your clients so as to not make them feel uneasy. I just kind of assumed that the only ones still wearing suits in the U.S. were North Easterners (one of the main reasons I moved away).
Don't pretend that geeks are somehow special in a way that no one else ever was.
No, but programming is a creative job more than it is a follow-the-blueprints assembly operation. It's just understood that writers, painters, movie-makers, etc aren't going to wear suits because suits are about forcing the employee to conform and conformists make poor artists. And quite frankly, it's bad for business. I'm more likely to stay late to finish some code if I'm not itching to get home to get out of some monkey suit. The only reason some developers are told to wear suits are that their managers are petty and think "well if I have to then you do to." To them I say, "if you get a golden parachute, then I get one too." I would need at least an extra 10-20k a year to ever go back to formal ware. And even then, I'd be looking for my next opportunity.
This really is the entire reason I regret choosing a career in software. Sales and marketing types have all the power, even down to telling us what our level of effort will be for incoming projects, and then they don't get the requirements even close to the ballpark. They inflate usage figures to get larger commissions and then waive the development fees, claiming that recurring service fees will make up the shortfall. Of course, since the usage figures were inflated, we ended up losing a lot of money. These lies piss off customers all the time and we in development have to deal with the fall-out. They get all the praise when things go right and we get all the blame when they don't. Most directors and VPs came up through sales and marketing and they have disparaging views of developers. That's why all the rewards go to them. I never felt the geek-jock schism as much in public school as I do now. And for some dumb reason, I never expected that from adults.
To be fair though, I did once get sent on one of these award trips to Bermuda because they wanted to show an example of a developer getting a perk. It was sweet. But everyone kept looking at my name tag and assuming I was a sales engineer. They had the most perplexed look on their faces when I corrected them and said software engineer. It was completely new to them that a developer would be there. "Oh, you're one of those computer geeks." I get that all the time from those types and it's so insulting. I always wanted to say back, yeah, I'm the reason that you're here.
I'm not saying that sales people have stress-free jobs or anything. Quotas can make it tough. I just think it's bad business the way they're set up now. When it comes to miracle time, who's pulling the rabbit out of the hat and how motivated do you want them to be? Sales people are a dime a dozen. Decent developers are rare.
And what if I don't want to go to prison? If I resist going, I get shot. It's the same everywhere. If you don't pay the mafia their vig, you might say they won't kill you, they'll only break your legs. But if you resist having your legs broken, then they will kill you. All law is ultimately backed by the promise of death if you fail to comply. What land do you live in where this isn't the case?
If there were aliens at Roswell, well, that's been covered. But if there weren't, then what was all the hub-bub about? In 1997, I heard some government spokesman try to explain about the Roswell stories by claiming that the witnesses had confused the bodies they say with some test dummies that were dropped from planes in 1957. That was absurd to me that anyone would suggest that people would confuse events 10 years apart. It was so absurd that at that point, I had my answer. The government simply wants people to believe that aliens crashed at Roswell. They were trying to fuel the conspiracists.
If it was a real conspiracy to hide aliens, they'd (yes, even the government) do a better job at it. They wouldn't come up with such absurd statements after having 50 years to come up with a better cover story. Given all the top secret research we were doing at the time, it seems much more likely that the alien story is a way to deflect the attention of those who might otherwise snoop. Plus it has the added benefit of putting doubt into the minds of your adversaries about your true capabilities.
I'm not saying that the alien stuff is impossible. I try to always keep an open mind. But ever since that day in 1997, I felt like the book was closed on Roswell. Nice try.
I pay my taxes only because the alternative is death. You can't fault a person for not wanting to die. I don't love America, I love freedom. If America stands for freedom (which it most certainly does not), then I love it too. I don't celebrate the 4th of July, I celebrate Independence Day to honor anyone who would throw off the shackles of their oppressors. As for Haliburton, they steal only what the government let's them get away with. And as I said, I don't support the criminals in our government. I am merely ruled by them. I have no more power to stand against them then I do to stand against a tornado. I can technically do it, but what will it have accomplished if I end up dead. Most people don't give two fucks about freedom, why would I give all that I have to save them? At best, I can only hope to maximize my own freedom, until such time when enough Americans wake up and move to take back this country.
That's how I felt when E. Howard Hunt confessed to the Kennedy assassination. Although, I suppose in that case, the tape was only distributed after he died. Still, here was a guy who would be in a position to carry something like that out. It's the ultimate mind-fuck. Does organizing the Watergate break-in make him more or less credible when it comes to a confession like this? It's hard to say.
You and I have just as much blood on our hands as anyone else. What did you do to prevent the war?
Short of wearing a rubber (and being a/.er), I've done nothing to prevent AIDs either, does that make me responsible for that epidemic? Republicans and democrats are both pro-war and they've rigged the system to guarantee their lock on the system. The only ones with blood on their hands are the "Iraq did 9/11" crowd who voted these criminals in office in the first place. Saying that I'm responsible for what my government does is the same as saying the Iraqis are now getting what they deserve because of Sadaam Hussein. Most people are just trying to live their lives and cannot be held accountable for all the evil people in the world. There's simply too much evil to go around and no one man is capable of preventing it all. In fact, it's precisely that kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. Good luck on preventing us from invading Iran though. If you fail, I'll know who to blame.
I was born in 73. I remember getting the Mac when I was in fourth or fifth grade. Just wikied it, must have been fifth. So I guess it was 1984. Two years later, but I wasn't considering time in as much detail when I saw those lightwave models.
My own lying eyes, I guess. I rendered the scene in the mid-90s. It was included with Lightwave I think. I guess it must have been a recreation to show the capabilities of the engine. Blade Runner came out around the time my family upgraded from a Commodore Pet to a Mac (i.e. quite a jump) so given that I did have models that looked genuine (right down to the lens flares) and I knew computers were growing by leaps and bounds back then (more so than they have in a while), it wasn't a totally unreasonable assumption. Although that assumption does seem a little silly looking back. Like you say, it was 1982.
Unless you are being deliberately coy, you clearly know virtually nothing about the subject you are condemning.
Exactly, what do I know? Yes I was making a half-joke. I do think the lights thing is a good point however, joking aside. But I'm never going to claim certainty on things I cannot be certain about. I don't believe in God or man-made global warming either, but it's all instinct because I don't claim to know. I just doubt that anyone else does either.
Actually, from what I understand, Johnny Mnemonic was floated as a test balloon for eventually doing Neuromancer, but when that bombed, so did the plans for Neuromancer. Recently, they've been talking about it again with a tentative 2009 release date. Somehow, I doubt it'll actually get made. And if it is made, I bet they'll screw up the feel. It should make Blade Runner feel like a Pixar film if done correctly. And I guess they won't be able to call it the matrix anymore. I would actually prefer they not do this movie at all unless they find the perfect director for it. I suspect they'll end up doing it on the cheap if at all.
your eyes actually exibit something like ISO noise
But if this is true, then how did you notice that "noise" is lacking in CGI? Actually, they do introduce artificial grain into modern movies. I think this is entirely for the sake of nostalgia though.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget explosives sniffing bees. I hear they use them in sting operations. Yes, I should be modded down for puns (if there even is a category).
Connect the fucking dots.
I have, Europe and America are different when it comes to spending. After WWII, America assumed the defense role for the Western world. Half of our money in America goes to war or interest/obligations due on past wars. Now, I for one am anti-war and I think that most of the cold war was easily avoidable. And you can argue that nobody asked America to assume that role (although, I'd say the British did at the very least), but if we hadn't filled that vacuum, European governments would have spent a lot more on defense and a lot less on the social welfare. And with people like Sarkozy rising in France, it would seem that the strain on government programs is rising to a breaking point, despite the military mantle that the US is still assuming.
Why should the government subsidize partying? Aside from a few professions (doctors, lawyers, etc), college is mostly a waste. Don't get me wrong, I loved it. I love learning for learning's sake. But the vast majority come out with nothing that will help them do their jobs, outside of a piece of paper. For the costs, it simply isn't worth it for most people. Especially the large percentage that end up dropping out cause it was never for them in the first place.
At least the story had "ftp" in it, making it slightly more "for nerds".
;)
Wannabe nerds maybe, the rest of us are using Sftp.
Given the gas was well past the expiration date and there was only a miniscule quantity, I think you can hardly categorize that as an actual weapon of mass destruction. Their conventional weapons were likely capable of far greater destruction. I think you know those crumbs were likely an oversight on Sadaam's part, these things happen in any massive effort. Same goes for the reactor parts. There's truth and then there's lawyer speak. A WMD must be capable of mass destruction by definition.
I don't understand how many war critics can't stop mentioning the fact that not finding WMDs would take away all the "legitimacy" of the invasion.
Because that was our only legal basis for the war and it goes back to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. That invasion gave us a legal basis to invade in 1991 and the terms of the surrender called for the elimination of WMD. This was a minor provision at the time, but it was enough for us to use as an excuse to go in this time. This is all very important for people to consider because we won't have this excuse if we invade Iran. A violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not a valid basis for war. There will have to be a 'pretext' for Iran, let's hope they don't find one.
Sadaam never kicked the inspectors out, he simply stop cooperating after it became clear that we were using the inspection program to send in CIA agents. Not to mention all the continual bombings and Albright saying flat out that we would not lift the sanctions as long as Hussein was in power, regardless if he had cooperated. Now say what you want about Sadaam (I agree he was evil), but all countries would do the same in his situation. The inspectors had been in a long time and most had believed Iraq was reasonably cooperating. They found nothing. I believed it too since why wouldn't they cooperate at least as long as was necessary to get us to leave? And guess what? We were right (contrary to how often the press tells me we all believed). I wouldn't have been surprised if they found something ancient that the Iraqis forgot about, but perfect compliance is logistically impossible and I accepted that they were trying. However, it was very much in the interest of some that Iraq been seen as not cooperating. Those same people were the ones who gave us fairy tales about yellow cake.
If God is omnipresent, then he should be omnitemporal as well.
That makes sense, and it allows for God to seem imperfect and flawed at any moment since it would require an understanding of all his moments to even begin to judge his perfection. Something no one is capable of.
That being said, I've never understood the need to personify natural forces. If I had no cultural awareness, I doubt I would have ever thought to attribute the universe around me to the workings of some personality somewhere. I always get lost in the definition of God.
Few things still amaze me as much as a poll I had read about at the time (mainstream, gallop I think) where 2/3 of the respondents said Clinton is doing a great job and should stay in office and in the same poll, 2/3 said that they believed Juanita Broadrick's accusations. That means at least 1/3 of the country has no problem with the president being a rapist. I don't think I ever looked at my fellow countrymen the same way again. It's absolutely shameful. Then again, it's hard to trust the polls sometimes.
If they would have held Clinton accountable for his crime, then I'd be willing to bet that Bush would have been a little more restrained. I remember thinking, as Clinton got off, that the next president would have a blank check because no one is going to want to bring up impeachment again for decades. Especially after bombing El-Shifa on the eve of Monica's grand jury testimony. It was a complete mess and was a prelude to this administration.
When defending his wire-tapping of US citizens, Bush addressed the nation and said that the congressional authorization of force in Iraq gave him the authority to do whatever he feels is necessary. That was the moment I realized that it won't just be decades. All checks and balances have been dissolved and we're stuck with it until the empire collapses. It's not about the man or who was worse, it's about the system and recognizing that there can be no rule of law if those at the top are completely unaccountable.
His supporters already arranged a fund that will pay for it. As for a conviction being on his record, it doesn't make a difference one way or the other. Everyone already knows about him, so there's little point to going to the record. I'm sure Scooter will land on his feet one way or the other.
I recall a judge sentencing someone for something and then made a comment at the end that the defendant was about to get closely acquainted to his new roommate Bubba. I remember thinking at the time that the statement the judge made should be grounds for appeal because he was admitting that he was sentencing this person to rape (and likely AIDs) for his crime (non-violent, drug-related I believe) and rape is so clearly cruel and unusual punishment. If rape in prisons is such an open-secret, then I don't see how any judge has the constitutional authority to sentence anyone in the current environment.
Suits are more comfortable
If you find them so, that's great for you. I'm envious. But there wouldn't even be casual dress policies if most people didn't believe the opposite. Unless you're into S&M and being choked by a tie makes you feel right at home, I can't even imagine what you might mean by such a statement.
As for face to face clients, we rarely deal with them in that manner. But when we do, they are never wearing suits. I think it's more professional to dress like your clients so as to not make them feel uneasy. I just kind of assumed that the only ones still wearing suits in the U.S. were North Easterners (one of the main reasons I moved away).
Don't pretend that geeks are somehow special in a way that no one else ever was.
No, but programming is a creative job more than it is a follow-the-blueprints assembly operation. It's just understood that writers, painters, movie-makers, etc aren't going to wear suits because suits are about forcing the employee to conform and conformists make poor artists. And quite frankly, it's bad for business. I'm more likely to stay late to finish some code if I'm not itching to get home to get out of some monkey suit. The only reason some developers are told to wear suits are that their managers are petty and think "well if I have to then you do to." To them I say, "if you get a golden parachute, then I get one too." I would need at least an extra 10-20k a year to ever go back to formal ware. And even then, I'd be looking for my next opportunity.
This really is the entire reason I regret choosing a career in software. Sales and marketing types have all the power, even down to telling us what our level of effort will be for incoming projects, and then they don't get the requirements even close to the ballpark. They inflate usage figures to get larger commissions and then waive the development fees, claiming that recurring service fees will make up the shortfall. Of course, since the usage figures were inflated, we ended up losing a lot of money. These lies piss off customers all the time and we in development have to deal with the fall-out. They get all the praise when things go right and we get all the blame when they don't. Most directors and VPs came up through sales and marketing and they have disparaging views of developers. That's why all the rewards go to them. I never felt the geek-jock schism as much in public school as I do now. And for some dumb reason, I never expected that from adults.
To be fair though, I did once get sent on one of these award trips to Bermuda because they wanted to show an example of a developer getting a perk. It was sweet. But everyone kept looking at my name tag and assuming I was a sales engineer. They had the most perplexed look on their faces when I corrected them and said software engineer. It was completely new to them that a developer would be there. "Oh, you're one of those computer geeks." I get that all the time from those types and it's so insulting. I always wanted to say back, yeah, I'm the reason that you're here.
I'm not saying that sales people have stress-free jobs or anything. Quotas can make it tough. I just think it's bad business the way they're set up now. When it comes to miracle time, who's pulling the rabbit out of the hat and how motivated do you want them to be? Sales people are a dime a dozen. Decent developers are rare.
And what if I don't want to go to prison? If I resist going, I get shot. It's the same everywhere. If you don't pay the mafia their vig, you might say they won't kill you, they'll only break your legs. But if you resist having your legs broken, then they will kill you. All law is ultimately backed by the promise of death if you fail to comply. What land do you live in where this isn't the case?
If there were aliens at Roswell, well, that's been covered. But if there weren't, then what was all the hub-bub about? In 1997, I heard some government spokesman try to explain about the Roswell stories by claiming that the witnesses had confused the bodies they say with some test dummies that were dropped from planes in 1957. That was absurd to me that anyone would suggest that people would confuse events 10 years apart. It was so absurd that at that point, I had my answer. The government simply wants people to believe that aliens crashed at Roswell. They were trying to fuel the conspiracists.
If it was a real conspiracy to hide aliens, they'd (yes, even the government) do a better job at it. They wouldn't come up with such absurd statements after having 50 years to come up with a better cover story. Given all the top secret research we were doing at the time, it seems much more likely that the alien story is a way to deflect the attention of those who might otherwise snoop. Plus it has the added benefit of putting doubt into the minds of your adversaries about your true capabilities.
I'm not saying that the alien stuff is impossible. I try to always keep an open mind. But ever since that day in 1997, I felt like the book was closed on Roswell. Nice try.
I pay my taxes only because the alternative is death. You can't fault a person for not wanting to die. I don't love America, I love freedom. If America stands for freedom (which it most certainly does not), then I love it too. I don't celebrate the 4th of July, I celebrate Independence Day to honor anyone who would throw off the shackles of their oppressors. As for Haliburton, they steal only what the government let's them get away with. And as I said, I don't support the criminals in our government. I am merely ruled by them. I have no more power to stand against them then I do to stand against a tornado. I can technically do it, but what will it have accomplished if I end up dead. Most people don't give two fucks about freedom, why would I give all that I have to save them? At best, I can only hope to maximize my own freedom, until such time when enough Americans wake up and move to take back this country.
That's how I felt when E. Howard Hunt confessed to the Kennedy assassination. Although, I suppose in that case, the tape was only distributed after he died. Still, here was a guy who would be in a position to carry something like that out. It's the ultimate mind-fuck. Does organizing the Watergate break-in make him more or less credible when it comes to a confession like this? It's hard to say.
You and I have just as much blood on our hands as anyone else. What did you do to prevent the war?
/.er), I've done nothing to prevent AIDs either, does that make me responsible for that epidemic? Republicans and democrats are both pro-war and they've rigged the system to guarantee their lock on the system. The only ones with blood on their hands are the "Iraq did 9/11" crowd who voted these criminals in office in the first place. Saying that I'm responsible for what my government does is the same as saying the Iraqis are now getting what they deserve because of Sadaam Hussein. Most people are just trying to live their lives and cannot be held accountable for all the evil people in the world. There's simply too much evil to go around and no one man is capable of preventing it all. In fact, it's precisely that kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. Good luck on preventing us from invading Iran though. If you fail, I'll know who to blame.
Short of wearing a rubber (and being a
I was born in 73. I remember getting the Mac when I was in fourth or fifth grade. Just wikied it, must have been fifth. So I guess it was 1984. Two years later, but I wasn't considering time in as much detail when I saw those lightwave models.
Who convinced you of that?
My own lying eyes, I guess. I rendered the scene in the mid-90s. It was included with Lightwave I think. I guess it must have been a recreation to show the capabilities of the engine. Blade Runner came out around the time my family upgraded from a Commodore Pet to a Mac (i.e. quite a jump) so given that I did have models that looked genuine (right down to the lens flares) and I knew computers were growing by leaps and bounds back then (more so than they have in a while), it wasn't a totally unreasonable assumption. Although that assumption does seem a little silly looking back. Like you say, it was 1982.
Unless you are being deliberately coy, you clearly know virtually nothing about the subject you are condemning.
Exactly, what do I know? Yes I was making a half-joke. I do think the lights thing is a good point however, joking aside. But I'm never going to claim certainty on things I cannot be certain about. I don't believe in God or man-made global warming either, but it's all instinct because I don't claim to know. I just doubt that anyone else does either.
Actually, from what I understand, Johnny Mnemonic was floated as a test balloon for eventually doing Neuromancer, but when that bombed, so did the plans for Neuromancer. Recently, they've been talking about it again with a tentative 2009 release date. Somehow, I doubt it'll actually get made. And if it is made, I bet they'll screw up the feel. It should make Blade Runner feel like a Pixar film if done correctly. And I guess they won't be able to call it the matrix anymore. I would actually prefer they not do this movie at all unless they find the perfect director for it. I suspect they'll end up doing it on the cheap if at all.
your eyes actually exibit something like ISO noise
But if this is true, then how did you notice that "noise" is lacking in CGI? Actually, they do introduce artificial grain into modern movies. I think this is entirely for the sake of nostalgia though.