That's because copylefts aren't viable since they are such an extemely small portion of all media created. More importantly copyleft != public domain. Copyleft is a license. Like all licenses, the owner of the work dictates to the user/licensee what he can and can not do with it. Public domain works belong to everyone. You can do anything you want.
To use the example of the GPL versus public domain:
GPL: You must distribute the changes you made to the code, if you distribute a modified version
Public Domain: You get the code and you can do anything what you want to with it. If you want to distribute the code, you can. If you don't want to, that's okay.
Public domain is true freedom. Copyleft isn't. At best, it's a benevolent dictator.
Thanks for the links. While they may be useful for some people, it's not really what I'm looking for. I need something that runs on linux, solaris, macosx, and windows. You can't really assume that any of those platforms will have the same libraries, so any dependencies you need to bring with you.
I guess that's less of an issue with 512 meg USB drives, but then you have four different executables and libraries. That's why I suggested Java. An implementation of java is preinstalled on windows, macsox, and solaris; and it's often installed on linux..
Have you ever considered USB keys to store the text files? Having them on your person is just as secure as the key to your car. (Well not exactly, but pretty close.)
I've been wanting to find a Java app (for cross platform compatability. Pretty much everything I will be using will have a JVM) that would store the passwords encrypted on the usb key, but I haven't really looked for one.
-- How the fuck do you get get caught overwhemed at the Astrodome when you know exactly how many people are coming, and have days to plan? What a clusterfuck.
So, when I call you on being rude, you respond with sarcasm, but fail to admit you were a jerk.
Is it a jerk to call someone out for being selfish bastard? I think not. I stand by my statement, and I would say it to his face if he was here to today.
2. You're making things up. Not all of Louisiana was destroyed, so claiming things like "Louisiana doesn't have tax base anymore" is ridiculous.
You don't seem to understand that the most productive part of Louisiana was the part that was destroyed. The oil. The sugar cane. The tourism. The major commerce port. So yeah your right. They have 10% of their tax base. They should just suck it up and start saving those pennys, and maybe in a few years they'll have enough to collect all the bodies.
And you expect people to find you credible when you converse like this?
I forgot. This is slashdot. We're all supposed to advocate the destruction of civilization because humans should live as solitary animals that care nothing about their own kind. Yeah. That's a much more credible sentiment.
Captain Obvious to the Rescue! The disaster occured in a much larger area than just the city of New Orleans proper.
New Orleans has 1.3 million in the metropolitan area. The brunt of the storm hit Biloxi, MS and the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Alabama. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that an excess of 700,000 people lost their homes outside of metro New Orleans. Thus bringing my incredible underestimation to 2 million, and two is definately plural.
Ummm, yeah, I wonder if Chavez is really interested in helping the US, or if he is more interested in turning poor people into communists?
Gee get thee to the 1950s!
Communism is dead. North Korea is probably the only communist country left in the world, and that's a damn wierd place that no one really knows what is going on inside, so maybe not even that one. Sure, China and powerhouse Cuba may call themselves communist, but they really aren't. Totalitarian? Oh most definately! Communist? No. China stopped being communist the moment Deng Xiaopeng said, "To get rich is glorious." Cuba has a complete capitalist economy based on American dollars.
And if you think that there's some big undercurrent in the US wanting to be communist, again. The KGB tried for years to build a meaningful communist movement and failed. In fact, looking at the since declassified KGB reports from the 50s and 60s shows that the KGB agents reported that it was a wasted effort, and get this... they were losing KGB agents do to defection.
I live in the New Madrid fault. There hasn't been a major one here since th 1811 one that caused the Mississippi River to flow backwards. Yes, there was one this year, but it was only 3 and no one felt it. We know there's going to be another massive one, but it's not exactly anything we worry about, and have only made cursory preperations. My parents bolted the bookcases to the wall, and the State of Illinois earthquake hardened the bridges in Southern Illinois, but that's about it. (That nut job, Iben Browning, was actually good for something.) It probably won't happen anytime soon, and there's nothing you can do to prevent it anyway. My parents do have earthquake insurance though. (In your face California!:) )
Actually, funds have been spent since the 1960s to shore up the city. From Philadelphia Daily News:
Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.
Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.
Anyway, there's a great opportunity to dramatically change the city now. Raising the city, and possibly moving it should be considered. If you're going to make a dramatic and painful switch, then you have to do it now. Of course moving/raising the city is an incredibly expensive and painful process. The devastation from Katrina is estimated at 1 trillion. To rebuild the city higher, it would cost even more. 2, 3, 4 times more? I honestly don't know, but it would be much much larger.
Doing anything else reminds me of the scam where rich people buy beachfront property, get flood insurance from the federal government, and every few years a big storm comes along and wipes out their house, and then the taxpayers have to pay to rebuild another house in the exact same spot. There's no excuse for this kind of idiocy.
I believe that's not allowed anymore. I think, in the Carolinas at least, you can expand you buildings on the barrier islands, but if your buildings are destroied, you can't build back, and no new construction is allowed.
Excuse me, but why should I have to pay tax dollars to a state who put a city 17 feet below sea level? This was an inevitability, and why should the FEDERAL government have to suck it up? Sure, you could 'fill in the blank' with all sorts of pork projects, but seriously, more socialism isn't the answer here.
You cavalier attitude shows you don't seem to understand the situation, and your incorrect use of the word "socialism," shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
Here's why the federal government must, should, and will pay:
1. New Orleans is a major sea port. It is pretty much THE agricultural export port for the entire United States east of the Rockies. The loss of the port is a major hinderence to not only the national economy, but the world's, since the United States is the world's number one agricultural exporter. The federal government has a duty to maintain the health of the national economy.
2. All the states, except for about 5 (I know, Vermont and Delaware, but I don't remember the others. They were all small states though.), don't have any money. In fact, they're bankrupt. Even if they did have budget surplus, they wouldn't have nearly enough (early estimates place the amount of damage at 1 trillion dollars). With the complete loss of the major city and several of the major industries (tourism, agriculture and trade, oil and gas, and tourism), Louisiana doesn't have tax base anymore, so even if they had to come up with their own funds, they have no way of doing so.
3. This is a humanitarian disaster the scale of which is unseen in the history of the United States. The devastation is vast. Litterally millions are homeless. With high, stagnent water, in what is effectively swamp land, could lead to wide spread outbreak of disease. This means that the longer it takes to clean up, the worse the situation is going to get.
4. One of the roles of government is doing what others can't do for themselves. The people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and all those along the Gulf Coast, can't clean help themselves. They are our countrymen, and they're in dire need. If you were a civilized individual with any ounce of decency, you'd recognize that.
First, it is not horrible. Quite the opposite. It's trivially easy to make some nice looking animations without even touching actionscript. (I know, I did it.) When you want to make something more than a splash screen, actionscript is easy to use. The speed at which flash overtook Java applets is a testament to its superiority in its niche domain of providing animation and rich interfaces (e.g. MLB Gameday, and numerous games).
Second, the default in flash is to not share the cam and microphone. Anyway it's moot since, there is virtually nothing that uses the cam and mic. And even if some flash animation did sereptitiously use the cam, what are they going to see? Some blurry picture of pimply faced kid sitting at a terminal espousing his sophmoric insights on some Internet forum? Please tell me again your insights into a technology you don't even remember the introduction of and how it relates to Ayn Rand's "objectivism"! What are they going to hear on the mic? The same pimply face kid's snorting laugh? His moaning in pleasure at the latest Faye Valentine hentai pic? How about him yelling at his mom that he'll take out the trash and take a bath "in a minute?"
Third, if flash is sucking down resources, then maybe you should use a real implementation of flash. Yes, even the macromedia flash plugin for linux sucks all the resources on my antiquated 650Mhz Athlon, but it doesn't do that under win98 on the same machine. It's the implementation for the OS. Not the the underlying technology.
4a: Most people browse with a single window so multiple flash instances isn't a big deal. 4b: Modern browsers only run the plugin when the page/window is visible, so don't pull that "it's running on the back tab!" bullshit. Also modern browsers only run plugins visible on the focused browser window at full speed. All other visible plugins run at reduced speed.
Fifth, here's the single biggest reason to install plugin. Because it provides content users want. Your suggestion to install a standalone player is really a nonstarter, especially when you can't even provide a link to one. (FYI: Next time you call for revolutionary acts, actually take the time to at least give some symbolence of leadership. People will see you for the dismissable crackpot you are whenever you say, "I have seen the Promised Land, but you'll have to find it yourself suckers!") Unlike your "responsible" actions of going without "no matter how urgently [you] need to view something," most mature individuals do what it takes to learn the urgent information. Only a fool does not.
Sixth, there's no real push for svg and javascript. Since svg can contain malicious code. But most of all, svg and javascript doesn't provide anything that flash doesn't already provide a better version of. Sorry dude. That niche is filled.
Now run along with your incorrect statements and go karma whore someplace else.
I actually kind of like her. I happened to have watched that season of Real World (it was a long time ago, forgive me) and I have seen some other things about her in the last couple of yeras and I think a lot of people really identify with her, because of the way she was attacked and practically disowned by her family, school and community just for wanting to do normal kid/young adult stuff.
I liked her too. She was cute and friendly. Perhaps a bit naive, but she knew she was naive, which is very good thing, because she was less likely to get in trouble that way. She was great ambasador for mormonism, but alas, her family didn't see it that way.
Although it still seems really fucking bizarre to be on G4...
Agreed. Who would have though a Real Worlder would have turned that 15 minutes of fame into an actual non-MTV television career? (Okay, "career" is probably pushing it, but still...)
(they're trying to push the hot-chick thing for the male viewers, but aside from the punky blonde, morgan webb and sarah lane, they're all kind of below-average). And she basically presents what's nothing more than a weekly slashdot-poll/meme.
They're definately pushing the TnA, ala Maxim. I think the most blatent show that does that is "Street Fury." All of a sudden in the middle of that show they show asian girls disrobing. I'm all for scantily clad girls, but that show sucks. SF doesn't suck as hard as its companion, "Formula D", but that's only because "Formula D" doesn't have half naked asian girls.
What the fuck is "drifting" anyway? I watched that show twice and never did figure it out. It's not race. Apparently the guy that doesn't spin out wins, Woop-dee-freakin-do. I like motorsports, and will watch pretty much anything, but I'm not watching that.
I wouldn't say the g4 girls were below average. They're average, which means for television they are below average, since everyone one television is above average.
How is it bashing when Bush has repeatedly expressed an anti-science bias, to support his religious and buisness supporters? Unless we are to forget his endorsement of intelligent design and censoring EPA studies on water safety, and government studies on global warming?
But engineering really is in dire, dire straits in this country, but for completely differnt (almost opposite) reasons. Primarily, in my mind, because of the stiffling of innovation because of government regulation and excessive lawsuits. When you codify everything, mandate everything, and ban everything else then there is no room to innovate and do new things. It's the Democrats and their state-controlled regulatory state that has stiffled the technical fields, not the religious right.
You're right to say that Bush can't take all the blame for the sorry state the coutry is in, since this problem was long in development. However, I call bullshit on your reasons for the sorry state of engineering in America.
I challenge you to name one innovation that was stiffled due to regulation or a lawsuit.
You blame democrats and the government economic and safety regulations they instituted, yet turn around say that the 1940s to the 1960s was the one of the greatest technicalogical periods in history. Those "stiffling" regulations were enacted during that time. From the 70s on have those regulations been rolled back, yet innovation hasn't increased. Interesting... Me thinks there's not a connection.
The supposed threat from lawsuits is extremely over played. Premiums forinsurance that prtoects gainst lawsuits have increased dramatically in recent years, but both the number of lawsuits and their average payout has actually decreased. In part do to recent legislation limiting lawsuits and damages. Now normally, the premiums should decrease since the danger has decreased, but that's not what has happened. So next time you want to blame those damn lawyers, perhase you should examine the actual situation, instead of just regurgitating what you've been fed.
Regulation has nothing to do with developing new technologies, and infact actually promote innovation. Enviromental standards has not only improved air and water quality, but promoted innovation in fuel efficiency and less pollluting technologies.
While I agree, that R&D and innovation has decreased in recent decades, there have been the occational bright spot, like the Internet and IT innovations of the mid and late 90s. Yes there was a bunch of dumbass ideas, but for every five Kozmos there was a Yahoo, a Google, a Netscape. Real innvovation took place, inspite of the supposed stifiling regulations and lawsuits.
Finally, t's really pathetic for you to blame Democrats for the state of affairs, when they don't control any lever of goverment, and really haven't been a potent force in politics since the end of LBJ's administration in 1968.
What has stiffled innovation? Ironically, buisness. Since the 80s an increasing importance has been placed on short term profits. This shift in focus from long-term to short-term gains conincides with the shift in executive compensation packages tied to stock performance. The need to cut costs and increase profits always existed, and rightfully so, but that drive has now caused many industries to cut of their own nose to spite their face.
The vast majority of the time, R&D is a resource sink. That's just the nature of research. Over the long term, R&D pays off, but in any given year, its safe to assume that a new product isn't going to come out of the lab. So to cut costs, R&D is cut.
Developing a new product takes time and money, and even after all that, there is still no gurantee of success. So the need to have a new successful product, leads buinsesses to simply repackage the an existing successful product. (You can see this most dramatically in Holywood today. (Ha! A pun!)) Since all the company is doing is changing the package color, you don't need all those boffins in the lab, so you cut R&D some more.
Why isn't this scalable? Of course everyone talking to the same friends doesn't scale, but everyone talking to their own friends seems to scale fine.
Because the majority of people don't ask their friends. It's the same reason why you can't use your six degrees of seperation to get a date with Tyra Banks.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because copylefts aren't viable since they are such an extemely small portion of all media created. More importantly copyleft != public domain. Copyleft is a license. Like all licenses, the owner of the work dictates to the user/licensee what he can and can not do with it. Public domain works belong to everyone. You can do anything you want.
To use the example of the GPL versus public domain:
GPL: You must distribute the changes you made to the code, if you distribute a modified version
Public Domain: You get the code and you can do anything what you want to with it. If you want to distribute the code, you can. If you don't want to, that's okay.
Public domain is true freedom. Copyleft isn't. At best, it's a benevolent dictator.
Thanks for the links. While they may be useful for some people, it's not really what I'm looking for. I need something that runs on linux, solaris, macosx, and windows. You can't really assume that any of those platforms will have the same libraries, so any dependencies you need to bring with you.
I guess that's less of an issue with 512 meg USB drives, but then you have four different executables and libraries. That's why I suggested Java. An implementation of java is preinstalled on windows, macsox, and solaris; and it's often installed on linux..
Have you ever considered USB keys to store the text files? Having them on your person is just as secure as the key to your car. (Well not exactly, but pretty close.)
I've been wanting to find a Java app (for cross platform compatability. Pretty much everything I will be using will have a JVM) that would store the passwords encrypted on the usb key, but I haven't really looked for one.
--
How the fuck do you get get caught overwhemed at the Astrodome when you know exactly how many people are coming, and have days to plan? What a clusterfuck.
So, when I call you on being rude, you respond with sarcasm, but fail to admit you were a jerk.
Is it a jerk to call someone out for being selfish bastard? I think not. I stand by my statement, and I would say it to his face if he was here to today.
2. You're making things up. Not all of Louisiana was destroyed, so claiming things like "Louisiana doesn't have tax base anymore" is ridiculous.
You don't seem to understand that the most productive part of Louisiana was the part that was destroyed. The oil. The sugar cane. The tourism. The major commerce port. So yeah your right. They have 10% of their tax base. They should just suck it up and start saving those pennys, and maybe in a few years they'll have enough to collect all the bodies.
And you expect people to find you credible when you converse like this?
I forgot. This is slashdot. We're all supposed to advocate the destruction of civilization because humans should live as solitary animals that care nothing about their own kind. Yeah. That's a much more credible sentiment.
Your long history of one line snarky repsonses has done you well. As has your inordinate focus on a small part of an entire regional disaster.
Since humans came together and form a civilization.
Captain Obvious to the Rescue! The disaster occured in a much larger area than just the city of New Orleans proper.
New Orleans has 1.3 million in the metropolitan area. The brunt of the storm hit Biloxi, MS and the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Alabama. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that an excess of 700,000 people lost their homes outside of metro New Orleans. Thus bringing my incredible underestimation to 2 million, and two is definately plural.
Ummm, yeah, I wonder if Chavez is really interested in helping the US, or if he is more interested in turning poor people into communists?
Gee get thee to the 1950s!
Communism is dead. North Korea is probably the only communist country left in the world, and that's a damn wierd place that no one really knows what is going on inside, so maybe not even that one. Sure, China and powerhouse Cuba may call themselves communist, but they really aren't. Totalitarian? Oh most definately! Communist? No. China stopped being communist the moment Deng Xiaopeng said, "To get rich is glorious." Cuba has a complete capitalist economy based on American dollars.
And if you think that there's some big undercurrent in the US wanting to be communist, again. The KGB tried for years to build a meaningful communist movement and failed. In fact, looking at the since declassified KGB reports from the 50s and 60s shows that the KGB agents reported that it was a wasted effort, and get this... they were losing KGB agents do to defection.
And one more inconvient fact about Chavez. He was democratically elected in an election the Carter Center as flawed, but did not change the outcome. In other words, the election is valid.
I live in the New Madrid fault. There hasn't been a major one here since th 1811 one that caused the Mississippi River to flow backwards. Yes, there was one this year, but it was only 3 and no one felt it. We know there's going to be another massive one, but it's not exactly anything we worry about, and have only made cursory preperations. My parents bolted the bookcases to the wall, and the State of Illinois earthquake hardened the bridges in Southern Illinois, but that's about it. (That nut job, Iben Browning, was actually good for something.) It probably won't happen anytime soon, and there's nothing you can do to prevent it anyway. My parents do have earthquake insurance though. (In your face California! :) )
Anyway, there's a great opportunity to dramatically change the city now. Raising the city, and possibly moving it should be considered. If you're going to make a dramatic and painful switch, then you have to do it now. Of course moving/raising the city is an incredibly expensive and painful process. The devastation from Katrina is estimated at 1 trillion. To rebuild the city higher, it would cost even more. 2, 3, 4 times more? I honestly don't know, but it would be much much larger.
Doing anything else reminds me of the scam where rich people buy beachfront property, get flood insurance from the federal government, and every few years a big storm comes along and wipes out their house, and then the taxpayers have to pay to rebuild another house in the exact same spot. There's no excuse for this kind of idiocy.
I believe that's not allowed anymore. I think, in the Carolinas at least, you can expand you buildings on the barrier islands, but if your buildings are destroied, you can't build back, and no new construction is allowed.
Excuse me, but why should I have to pay tax dollars to a state who put a city 17 feet below sea level? This was an inevitability, and why should the FEDERAL government have to suck it up? Sure, you could 'fill in the blank' with all sorts of pork projects, but seriously, more socialism isn't the answer here.
You cavalier attitude shows you don't seem to understand the situation, and your incorrect use of the word "socialism," shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
Here's why the federal government must, should, and will pay:
1. New Orleans is a major sea port. It is pretty much THE agricultural export port for the entire United States east of the Rockies. The loss of the port is a major hinderence to not only the national economy, but the world's, since the United States is the world's number one agricultural exporter. The federal government has a duty to maintain the health of the national economy.
2. All the states, except for about 5 (I know, Vermont and Delaware, but I don't remember the others. They were all small states though.), don't have any money. In fact, they're bankrupt. Even if they did have budget surplus, they wouldn't have nearly enough (early estimates place the amount of damage at 1 trillion dollars). With the complete loss of the major city and several of the major industries (tourism, agriculture and trade, oil and gas, and tourism), Louisiana doesn't have tax base anymore, so even if they had to come up with their own funds, they have no way of doing so.
3. This is a humanitarian disaster the scale of which is unseen in the history of the United States. The devastation is vast. Litterally millions are homeless. With high, stagnent water, in what is effectively swamp land, could lead to wide spread outbreak of disease. This means that the longer it takes to clean up, the worse the situation is going to get.
4. One of the roles of government is doing what others can't do for themselves. The people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and all those along the Gulf Coast, can't clean help themselves. They are our countrymen, and they're in dire need. If you were a civilized individual with any ounce of decency, you'd recognize that.
Yes, but why would they bother when they're already readily available for both major (win and macosx) and atleast one minor (linux) OS.
Oh wait. You want the source to look cool, because let's be honest, you're not actually going to be modifying it or even looking at.
All hail St Ignucius and sing the hymn.
This is so bullshit.
First, it is not horrible. Quite the opposite. It's trivially easy to make some nice looking animations without even touching actionscript. (I know, I did it.) When you want to make something more than a splash screen, actionscript is easy to use. The speed at which flash overtook Java applets is a testament to its superiority in its niche domain of providing animation and rich interfaces (e.g. MLB Gameday, and numerous games).
Second, the default in flash is to not share the cam and microphone. Anyway it's moot since, there is virtually nothing that uses the cam and mic. And even if some flash animation did sereptitiously use the cam, what are they going to see? Some blurry picture of pimply faced kid sitting at a terminal espousing his sophmoric insights on some Internet forum? Please tell me again your insights into a technology you don't even remember the introduction of and how it relates to Ayn Rand's "objectivism"! What are they going to hear on the mic? The same pimply face kid's snorting laugh? His moaning in pleasure at the latest Faye Valentine hentai pic? How about him yelling at his mom that he'll take out the trash and take a bath "in a minute?"
Third, if flash is sucking down resources, then maybe you should use a real implementation of flash. Yes, even the macromedia flash plugin for linux sucks all the resources on my antiquated 650Mhz Athlon, but it doesn't do that under win98 on the same machine. It's the implementation for the OS. Not the the underlying technology.
4a: Most people browse with a single window so multiple flash instances isn't a big deal. 4b: Modern browsers only run the plugin when the page/window is visible, so don't pull that "it's running on the back tab!" bullshit. Also modern browsers only run plugins visible on the focused browser window at full speed. All other visible plugins run at reduced speed.
Fifth, here's the single biggest reason to install plugin. Because it provides content users want. Your suggestion to install a standalone player is really a nonstarter, especially when you can't even provide a link to one. (FYI: Next time you call for revolutionary acts, actually take the time to at least give some symbolence of leadership. People will see you for the dismissable crackpot you are whenever you say, "I have seen the Promised Land, but you'll have to find it yourself suckers!") Unlike your "responsible" actions of going without "no matter how urgently [you] need to view something," most mature individuals do what it takes to learn the urgent information. Only a fool does not.
Sixth, there's no real push for svg and javascript. Since svg can contain malicious code. But most of all, svg and javascript doesn't provide anything that flash doesn't already provide a better version of. Sorry dude. That niche is filled.
Now run along with your incorrect statements and go karma whore someplace else.
I actually kind of like her. I happened to have watched that season of Real World (it was a long time ago, forgive me) and I have seen some other things about her in the last couple of yeras and I think a lot of people really identify with her, because of the way she was attacked and practically disowned by her family, school and community just for wanting to do normal kid/young adult stuff.
I liked her too. She was cute and friendly. Perhaps a bit naive, but she knew she was naive, which is very good thing, because she was less likely to get in trouble that way. She was great ambasador for mormonism, but alas, her family didn't see it that way.
Although it still seems really fucking bizarre to be on G4...
Agreed. Who would have though a Real Worlder would have turned that 15 minutes of fame into an actual non-MTV television career? (Okay, "career" is probably pushing it, but still...)
Mormon girl is on G4?! I had no idea! I guess her giddy excitement about leaving Utah really did cost her her soul in the city of voodoo.
That is just messed up.
Filter is just as retarded. Another weird looking chick
But she was Fook Mi!
(they're trying to push the hot-chick thing for the male viewers, but aside from the punky blonde, morgan webb and sarah lane, they're all kind of below-average). And she basically presents what's nothing more than a weekly slashdot-poll/meme.
They're definately pushing the TnA, ala Maxim. I think the most blatent show that does that is "Street Fury." All of a sudden in the middle of that show they show asian girls disrobing. I'm all for scantily clad girls, but that show sucks. SF doesn't suck as hard as its companion, "Formula D", but that's only because "Formula D" doesn't have half naked asian girls.
What the fuck is "drifting" anyway? I watched that show twice and never did figure it out. It's not race. Apparently the guy that doesn't spin out wins, Woop-dee-freakin-do. I like motorsports, and will watch pretty much anything, but I'm not watching that.
I wouldn't say the g4 girls were below average. They're average, which means for television they are below average, since everyone one television is above average.
Then why can they make men behave like complete fools any time they want?
What about men and unmarried women? Did they invent the zero too?
:P
Oh you know women can't invent, except for ways to nag!
You learned your American history from a bible thumper didn't you? Because that's not what Ben "As to Jesus of Nazareth [, I have] some doubts as to his divinity" Franklin, or deist Thomas Jefferson, or the authors of the Federalist Papers, have said. Infact, they've said quite the contrary.
How is it bashing when Bush has repeatedly expressed an anti-science bias, to support his religious and buisness supporters? Unless we are to forget his endorsement of intelligent design and censoring EPA studies on water safety, and government studies on global warming?
Someone here definately does have a harmful bias.
Sort of like how small government conservatives expand the role of government when they gain power.
But engineering really is in dire, dire straits in this country, but for completely differnt (almost opposite) reasons. Primarily, in my mind, because of the stiffling of innovation because of government regulation and excessive lawsuits. When you codify everything, mandate everything, and ban everything else then there is no room to innovate and do new things. It's the Democrats and their state-controlled regulatory state that has stiffled the technical fields, not the religious right.
You're right to say that Bush can't take all the blame for the sorry state the coutry is in, since this problem was long in development. However, I call bullshit on your reasons for the sorry state of engineering in America.
I challenge you to name one innovation that was stiffled due to regulation or a lawsuit.
You blame democrats and the government economic and safety regulations they instituted, yet turn around say that the 1940s to the 1960s was the one of the greatest technicalogical periods in history. Those "stiffling" regulations were enacted during that time. From the 70s on have those regulations been rolled back, yet innovation hasn't increased. Interesting... Me thinks there's not a connection.
The supposed threat from lawsuits is extremely over played. Premiums forinsurance that prtoects gainst lawsuits have increased dramatically in recent years, but both the number of lawsuits and their average payout has actually decreased. In part do to recent legislation limiting lawsuits and damages. Now normally, the premiums should decrease since the danger has decreased, but that's not what has happened. So next time you want to blame those damn lawyers, perhase you should examine the actual situation, instead of just regurgitating what you've been fed.
Regulation has nothing to do with developing new technologies, and infact actually promote innovation. Enviromental standards has not only improved air and water quality, but promoted innovation in fuel efficiency and less pollluting technologies.
While I agree, that R&D and innovation has decreased in recent decades, there have been the occational bright spot, like the Internet and IT innovations of the mid and late 90s. Yes there was a bunch of dumbass ideas, but for every five Kozmos there was a Yahoo, a Google, a Netscape. Real innvovation took place, inspite of the supposed stifiling regulations and lawsuits.
Finally, t's really pathetic for you to blame Democrats for the state of affairs, when they don't control any lever of goverment, and really haven't been a potent force in politics since the end of LBJ's administration in 1968.
What has stiffled innovation? Ironically, buisness. Since the 80s an increasing importance has been placed on short term profits. This shift in focus from long-term to short-term gains conincides with the shift in executive compensation packages tied to stock performance. The need to cut costs and increase profits always existed, and rightfully so, but that drive has now caused many industries to cut of their own nose to spite their face.
The vast majority of the time, R&D is a resource sink. That's just the nature of research. Over the long term, R&D pays off, but in any given year, its safe to assume that a new product isn't going to come out of the lab. So to cut costs, R&D is cut.
Developing a new product takes time and money, and even after all that, there is still no gurantee of success. So the need to have a new successful product, leads buinsesses to simply repackage the an existing successful product. (You can see this most dramatically in Holywood today. (Ha! A pun!)) Since all the company is doing is changing the package color, you don't need all those boffins in the lab, so you cut R&D some more.
Without investment in R&D, there's no innovation.
Actually, the Arabs didn't invent the zero. That was the Indians. (The ones with the dot, not the feathers.) Other than that, you're right on.
Why isn't this scalable? Of course everyone talking to the same friends doesn't scale, but everyone talking to their own friends seems to scale fine.
Because the majority of people don't ask their friends. It's the same reason why you can't use your six degrees of seperation to get a date with Tyra Banks.