Ok lets reverse that think back 10 or 20 years ago and what has truly been innovated today? and is not just an evolution of existing software taking advantage of faster and more widespread hardware?
20 years ago. That would be 1989.
*World Wide Web and everything it entails *Global positioning system *Digital Cameras *3D Graphics cards *Rewritable Optical Data Storage *Digital Audio (MP3/iPod) *Digital Video (DVD) *Practical Cell Phones *Wireless Data *Mobile Computing *Roomba *Instant Messaging
The iPhone still feels like it belongs in a Sci-Fi movie. You mean I can pull this small rectangle from my pocket and: 1) Call anywhere in the world. 2) View a movie on it. 3) Hold my entire music collection. 4) Take a picture of someone and send it instantly to anyone on earth. 5) Connect to some whole world network and read or watch the latest news and find out the weather anywhere. 6) Play a video game with 3d graphics that blow away anything from 1989. 7) Have a large photo album on it 8) Find my location anywhere on earth and be able to plot a path from where I am to anywhere in the country. 9) With Google Earth, bring up a satellite image of practically anywhere on earth. 10) Have more classic books than most libraries thanks to Project Gutenberg.
All of this in a device that is 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.46 inches and 4.8 ounces. It may not seem like much since we have been through the changes
gradually, but if you take a step back it is mindblowing.
There are also a host of other technologies that were around in 1989 but were not in widespread use due their cost. Presumably, that means that
there are a host of technologies that exist today that we are barely aware of that will be widespread in 2029.
The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick. I like those movies as much as anyone else, but the franchise deserves something better than that.
I also still think Kirk looks like a preppy douche, not a skilled (if overly testosterone-driven) starship captain. Rest of the cast still looks fine.
Uh, as opposed to the TOS? You know, the one where there was almost always some sort of fistfight and Kirk hooked up with the alien of the week? You know, the fact that Star Trek started out as a "Space Western"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Western
With both Star Trek and Star Wars, I think nostalgia overtakes reason for most people. The writing took a shotgun approach IMHO. Star Trek had some great episodes mixed with mostly mediocre ones at best. We remember "The City on the Edge of Forever" and forget "Spock's Brain".
And don't forget one of the "best" Star Trek movies is "The Wrath of Kahn", which is pretty much a total action flick.
I still don't understand why they keep bringing this guy up. He lied in his question to Obama about being in a position to buy his boss' company. His boss' company also doesn't make the level of income that would trigger a new tax under Obama's plan. Joe himself would get a tax cut under Obama's plan [usatoday.com]. Joe owes back taxes as it is. He's against Social Security. He's not a licensed plumber. Oh, and did I mention his first name isn't even Joe?
You are using a classic strawman attack again Joe the Plumber. The critical thing is Obama's comment: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too...And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." This statement implies a UK Labour Democratic Socialism ideal. It really doesn't matter if Joe is a KKK member whose real first name is Hitler and is suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Now for some reason or another being called a supporter of some form of Socialism is considered the equivalent of child molestation by Obama and the Democrats. So rather than discuss what Obama meant by his statement, it seems like Democrats would rather focus on who Joe is than what Obama said. This is unfortunate, because Obama could just as easily clarify his statements into specific policy points or just admit it was a remark in passing and did not mean anything.
But no, neither side can act like adults in this election. Instead we have to focus on personal attacks and invasions of privacy rather than talk about specifics. The scary part to me is how the Democrats are tearing this guy up for just asking a question based on the fact they didn't like the answer their candidate gave! There is a real viciousness to this whole affair that turns me off on Obama. It is like he is a holy person you must not question.
A hypothesis would be that they are trying to implement hooks to restrict 'free speech', the latter being a potential 'operation tool' for 'terrorists'.
Did anyone bring up anything about banning anything? Didn't think so. It is hyperbole to say the US military is about to ban free speech because they are studying twitter as a tool that can be used in certain scenarios by a terrorist. Part of their job is to study *every* potential tool that our enemies use. If they didn't they would be blamed as ignorant or out-of-touch.
The summary is short, but the issue isn't that they are stupid and don't realize that the internet is one big communications tool. They INVENTED the darn thing. It's the specifics of how it is used. Twitter is obviously a different tool than chat rooms, just like Facebook is different from the days of people having their own personal home pages.
Even after following your link to a conservative website I fail to see how what he said is so unreasonable. He is basically saying that we should be like the rest of the world and have our children learn multiple languages early on. Spanish would be fairly useful since there are many people in the US that speak Spanish.
This is my problem with conservative personalities these days. They try to take these things out of context to make it seem like what Obama says is horrible. But every time I look at the full transcript of what he says, he comes off extremely reasonable. This link didn't even hide the context. So really, what's the big deal?
Why on earth would we want to be like Europe, whose states have more or less been at constant war with one another for hundreds of years with only a couple decades of peace in between---much of it due to the isolation related to having different languages. Maybe they should try going at least a good 100 years without some sort of major civil war or genocide before lecturing anyone on how to run their country.
What on earth is good about having different languages and putting up barriers between people communicating? There is nothing that creates an "us vs them" quicker than the inability for two parties to easily communicate.
...from an organization with a noble cause to a right-wing, Prohibitionist, Evangelical, whiny group that would desire a socialist nanny-state with breathalyzers in every car? I mean, sheeeesh!!! Wow, in one breath you have called MADD both a right-wing evangelical group and a left-wing socialist nanny-state group. I think those are mutually exclusive.:)
Darn those Fascist Capitalistic Communists!
Seriously, drop the right vs left stuff. MADD is just plain WRONG no matter what "wing" they are.
So have newspapers. I was reading an editorial in the WSJ about the how successful "the surge" allegedly is, and found it to stretch things and manipulate quotes. I decided to abandon it out of frustration. While moving my eyes away, I happened to glance at the author: "Karl Rove". R. Murdoch has Foxitized it, as feared.
The New York Times, LA Times, and many other newspapers were "Foxitized" well before Fox. Most of Fox News's popularity comes from people who were sick of the rest of media being so ridiculously biased in one direction.
You know it is bad when Hillary Clinton is complaining about the general bias in media towards candidates. And somehow I don't think she is apart of the "Right Wing Attack Machine". Of course, you only complain when you are not benefiting from the bias...
You also have to consider the effects of the out and out lies---Stephen Glass, the doctored photos from Adnan Hajj, the recent admission the LA times made that they were duped on FBI records on the death of rap murders, etc. The argument against blogs is that they are amateurs who cannot be believed, yet they seem to be the ones doing the best fact checking against the so-called professionals!
We are lacking a maturity in our analysis abilities that allows us to identify bias both FOR and AGAINST our positions. People who lack this maturity think that everything that agrees with their point of view is somehow "in the middle" and everything else is "to the left and right". This two dimensional egotistical thinking is causing deep divisions in our country that really scare me. It's like this is some sort of sporting competition with teams and a winner and a loser. You are not allowed to have any beliefs of the "other side", not allowed to compromise or cooperate for solutions. Not allowed to understand that you have a point of view, and it may be reflected in a newspaper or TV programs, but it is not the only point of view and it is equally valuable to listen to both sides. Or to have a newspaper or news show report with a neutral point of view, to use a wikipedia term. But the media today wants to push an agenda and "tell a story" (aka "Narrative") rather than report facts. So people vote with their dollars and abandon those newspapers, because they aren't providing them with news!
I mean, really. The stinkin' rich will have their hearts replicated and grown one after another just in case, while you and me will just drop down, carried to a hospital, and die. Somehow that's *not* the future I was thinking of when I was young. The bits and pieces (hah!) are there meanwhile, but our society isn't there at all.
A friend of mine was working in a hospital when some old and ill VIP had a heart failure and he not only got a replacement right away
Why do you think that would ever change in any system of government or monetary distribution? However, it has nothing to do with being "rich" as much as it has to do with being "powerful". You see it in a capitalistic society as being rich because rich=powerful in America and most of the West. But even in America, if President Bush and Bill Gates had to fight it out for a replacement heart the President is winning. And you are naive if you don't think that Castro and his family or Politburo members got better health care than most everyone in their societies. Or that in the UK Gordon Brown doesn't get much much better health care than the average joe slogging over to the NHS hospital.
What I don't like about non-capitalistic societies is that power is based more on who you are in politics and who you know rather than any individual abilities. With a capitalistic society, if I am talented enough I can make enough to afford good enough health care and end up being OK. In other countries, it only matters where I am in the political ranks and "who I know".
Also, in a capitalistic society, there is an incentive to make the cost cheap enough to provide services to the most people. More people=more money. Government controlled health care lacks such incentives, because the number of people needing organ transplants is insignificant come election time. It is much more important to a politician to build a useless bridge or monument in a politically important state or district because that may get them reelected.
Sure there is a backlash against XM for the suspension, but what would the backlash be had they done nothing? O&A's comments were much worse IMHO than Imus's and he was fired. What would happen if NOW and other feminist groups got involved. From NOW.org (http://www.now.org/press/05-07/05-14.html"
NOW: Rape is Not Funny
XM Satellite Shock Jocks Opie and Anthony Go Too Far
Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy
May 14, 2007
On a May 9 broadcast of the Opie & Anthony Show on XM Satellite Radio, the show's hosts (whose real names are Gregg Hughes and Anthony Cumia), welcomed a guest they called Homeless Charlie, who said he would like to rape U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, First Lady Laura Bush, and even Queen Elizabeth. In the broadcast, Hughes and Cumia clearly encouraged the guest's horrifying remarks -- they laughed and imagined "the horror" on Rice's face as she is held down and punched in the face.
The language is too hostile to repeat, but any woman who hears the clip will be seething at the misogynistic diatribe. Both hosts knew what they were doing when they treated assault and rape as a joke.
Didn't we just go through this -- with former CBS radio host Don Imus and his hateful words about the women's basketball team at Rutgers University? And JV and Elvis' cruel racism and sexism at the expense of Chinese restaurant employees on CBS radio station WFNY? At least CBS got the message that no one is entitled to a media platform for hate speech.
On May 11, Hughes and Cumia apologized, saying: "We take very seriously the responsibility that comes with out creative freedom and regret any offense that this segment has caused." XM Satellite is clearly concerned, saying that they "deplore the comments" made on the show. CBS, which airs a different Opie & Anthony Show, should be concerned as well, because this kind of "joke" from CBS hosts also reflects on the network.
I have one message for XM Radio bigwigs who rely heavily on pay-to-listen customers, and for shock jocks everywhere: "Profiting from hate will cost you the business of thinking consumers."
If I was an exec, I would be far more scared of NOW and their political base. Especially since XM has been courting women with their Take 5 and Oprah and Friends channel.
And no exec is going to be fired for making a stand against rape. Personally, it saddens me to see so many people defending O&A for their sickening comments. What next, child molestation? Personally, I may have cancelled my XM had they NOT taken this action.
James Currier, a former venture capitalist and serial entrepreneur who sold the social networking site Tickle to job site Monster.com, said that a company on whose board he serves recently lost a prospective employee to Google. The worker, whom he described as a genius, turned down an offer of $120,000, plus stock options, in favor of a $375,000 salary from Google.
Oh No! You mean Google is willing to pay engineers the amount of money normally reserved for empty-suit MBA manager types? The HORROR of having to pay the people who actually build the product. What will the Yale and Harvard grads do now?
Game where computer seems like it is thinking
on
Most Impressive Game AI?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Galactic Civilization I and II (see: http://www.galciv2.com/) is one of the few games I have ever played where it seemed like the computer was thinking. If you have never played GalCiv, and you like strategy, I highly recommend picking them up. I consider them to be superior even to the Civilization series. Brad Wardell prides himself on the AI, and it definitely shows. The computer is very difficult to beat and does not cheat. It actually responds in a logical manner, which makes GalCiv go from just being a number-crunching exercise to an actual strategy game. For example, when making some "aggressive" moves towards an enemy (moving some attack ships to an "ally" to wipe them out) I've actually had the game pop up a message from my ally (before ever entering his space) saying something to the effect of "I used to play video games when I was a kid, and when I did I used to build my forces up and send them to sneak attack an opponent. Well I am no video game." Other things like the fact that if another civilization is dependent on you for a large amount of trade income, they won't just randomly attack you because it would hurt them too.
In other words, what these officers did is blatantly unconstitutional in California, and only questionably unconstitutional in other jurisdictions.
Since the NYPD police have zero jurisdiction in California or any other place but their own city, they have no more or less rights than any other citizen. They are just regular people. So they can goto public meetings like any other US citizen can. They have no power of how to tell how the NYPD runs its police force, and to make some blanket statement to all police from any state would run afowl from Equal Protection.
Continue to tell yourself that 90% of the world's population and 75% of the American population is wrong about current policy and that you, in your infinite wisdom, are the only one who understand how true peace and order may be brought to the world.
I don't know about 75% of the US population, but I could not give a darn what 90% of the world's population thinks. If we did care, this country would not have existed in the first place. If you do care about the majority opinion, prepare to make adultery and homosexuality illegal. "The World" is more than North America and Europe.
First, it's just a radix sort [well that's my take]. Second there are too many google ads on that page. Third, merge sort is O(n log n) time, hard to beat for random data. Fourth, most people use variations of the QUICK SORT not merge sort.
Of course, radix sort is not a comparison sort, but has its own limitations as others have noted.
And Quicksort technically has a O(n^2) worst case (reversed list) but is more often picked over Merge Sort because on avg it is nLogn and doesn't require the extra memory merge sort requires.
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
So corporations, unions, and special interests (AARP, NRA, ACLU, etc) are exempt? Sounds like this is more of an attempt for the old school power interests to keep their power and limit bloggers.
Maybe the problem is that the battle system needs dramatically redone. Some suggestions:
1) Instead of making hundreds of repetitive battles against less skilled enemies, why not make fewer battles against more difficult enemies where you are not guaranteed to win every time? 2) Make the battles more like FF Tactics, where you incorporate positioning. Instead of Fire1/Fire2/Fire3 have a mass range fireball vs a controlled stream of fire with the differences being the area of effect. Incorporate flanking attacks, etc.
I wouldn't call it CS101. In CS101 you learn, of course, that computers are finite machines and can't hold infinite values exactly (ex PI). Going into the precision detail would require a course in Numerical Analysis. Since you know there will always be some error, one of the components of Numerical Analysis is figuring out what the error will be. From that you can determine what error threshhold is acceptable and perform the calculations.
Would it surprise you to learn that these doctored photos were placed by someone on the far Right trying to discredit the centrist media?
Note that he's not saying that it's true, just suggesting that it might be. And, given that this is a well known technique in spin control / psyops, it isn't an unreasonable questions.
So, you have managed to insulate yourself into a small little world where you believe everything the news tells you, believe every other view is some "giant evil conspiracy", and if your sources are proven wrong that merely proves them right because "it must have been a psyops plant". Nice vaccuum you got there.
Assume you are completely correct, and CBS news and Rutgers and all the other news agencies are so easily manipulated by the "Evil Republicans". Doesn't this also mean they are easily manipulated by EVERYONE ELSE? And that anyone with money and an agenda can turn the media into their personal sounding board without being considered bias??? Doesn't the fact that the news agencies CANNOT DISTIGUISH FACT FROM FICTION scare you the most?!?!?!?!
My main problem with Gore and other environmental groups is that they are all problem and no solution. They treat large energy usage in moral, almost religious tones, as if we are being gluttonous by using too much energy. With is complete BS. Rather than look for a solution to the problem, like the ozone hole, they seek push all conservation. Which is practically no solution at all. If Gore right now pushed breeder-reactor Nuclear, he could make a massive change for the better in this country. Couple that with some fuel-cell advances, and we could be golden and off of foreign oil. And I could think of nothing the auto makers would like better than to force everyone to buy a new car in the next 5-10 years because gas is going away...
First, let me start with saying I owned a PS1 and a PS2. I was waiting till I heard the price of the PS3 to decide whether to get an XBox360 or wait. When I heard $500-$600 just for the console I got a 360. Why? Because despite a great job, I have a family to support and could not justify spending that much just for the console. It doesn't matter how much better it is, or how many features it has. Just plain couldn't afford it.
I think that probably describes a large number of people who aren't "single no kids"---whether they are buying it for themselves or their kids. The only response I have heard to that question is, "DUDE, YOU LOZER IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD ONE YOU SUCK TOO BAD YOU DON'T DESERVE ONE.". To which I shrug, and say fine. Wii looks pretty cool and I may pick one up with the kids are a little older. And if Sony wins the console wars, and lowers the price, I may trade in the 360 for a PS3. I'm not a fanboy. But right now, it just looks like it is out of the price reach for many people.
Until that happens, enjoy Madden 2007, 2008, 2009,
I don't know why there are so many complaints about Madden producing a new version every year when there is a new football season every year. Heck, people pay $200 a year to watch 16 out-of-town games on DirectTV. At least with Madden you get your money's worth in multiplayer and online.
Its not like every people people are sitting around going "Boy, I'm not watching the Super Bowl this year! It is the same boring game as last year, maybe with different teams.". Madden tries to add new features besides personnel updates, but these are routinely ignored by those saying "It is just a roster update.". As if doing 3D models for 100+ new individual players every year is not worth something itself (assuming each team signs at least 4 draft picks).
You're talking about displacing 5,000 other people from their job, their primary source of income (most likely), and you think that it warrants a "now that's more like it"?
I'll bet you'd be a lot less glib about it (and way more pissed off) if it was your job on the line. Especially if you saw people making comments like that!
Actually, this is a prime example of why capitalism beats out other systems. Yea it sucks for those 5000, but it is the best thing in the long run. AOL is a dinosaur that has no place in a high-speed internet world. Why should they linger? Why should 5000 people work on something as useless as dial-up modem support when they could be much more productive to society doing something else??
In other systems, AOL might be a state-owned company filled with politician's kids and propped up past its time with tax-dollars from actual productive companies. Capitalism *FORCES* people to make the tough choices. The federal government could NEVER fire 5000 workers even if they are completely useless and are wasting resources.
Why do you think the crap/good ratio has changed? Do you have any idea of the sheer number of bad B-type movies that were created in the previous decades that noone remembers or cares about?
The reason that it just seems like there is a high ratio of crap is because you only remember the GREAT movies of yesteryear. You don't remember the 1000+ cowboy/indian westerns or melodramatic romances because you most likely have never heard of them. You just remember Casablanca/Citizen Kane/etc.
Do you think it should be legal for one movie studio to copy a currently-in-theatres blockbuster that cost some other studio $100M to produce and market, and then to sell a trivially edited version to theatres at a fraction of the normal price?
That isn't what is going on here. Essentially, people are buying a DVD at FULL PRICE (from the company) and then paying this company to remove certain parts. The consumer received 2 copies--the original and the edited version.
It would be more to the effect of someone selling you a DVD and saying skip 00:11 to 00-15 and 1:10 to 1:15.
Don't approve of this action just because you think it only hurts a bunch of "right-wing Christian zealots". Remember fair use! There was a one-to-one copy sold with each of these DVDs---the original and the edited. The filmmakers did not lose one dime, and in fact made money with each copy sold.
So if we are to argue that, if you bought something you have the legal right to do whatever you want to it (Fast Forward through commercials, play on a Linux box, rip to a hard drive), then you cannot allow Hollywood to start acquiring new rights for their so-called "artistic vision". Otherwise, you will find yourself unable to fast forward through scenes (or commercials) because that would violate the "artistic vision" of Hollywood.
Remember folks---it is all about control. Hollywood wants all the control. We cannot surrender even the smallest bit of it, because as soon as we do it establishes legal precedence.
And as for their pure "artistic vision", they regularly violate it when they make full-screen movies, TV versions, and rereleases of the same movie every 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok lets reverse that think back 10 or 20 years ago and what has truly been innovated today? and is not just an evolution of existing software taking advantage of faster and more widespread hardware?
20 years ago. That would be 1989.
*World Wide Web and everything it entails
*Global positioning system
*Digital Cameras
*3D Graphics cards
*Rewritable Optical Data Storage
*Digital Audio (MP3/iPod)
*Digital Video (DVD)
*Practical Cell Phones
*Wireless Data
*Mobile Computing
*Roomba
*Instant Messaging
The iPhone still feels like it belongs in a Sci-Fi movie. You mean I can pull this small rectangle from my pocket and:
1) Call anywhere in the world.
2) View a movie on it.
3) Hold my entire music collection.
4) Take a picture of someone and send it instantly to anyone on earth.
5) Connect to some whole world network and read or watch the latest news and find out the weather anywhere.
6) Play a video game with 3d graphics that blow away anything from 1989.
7) Have a large photo album on it
8) Find my location anywhere on earth and be able to plot a path from where I am to anywhere in the country.
9) With Google Earth, bring up a satellite image of practically anywhere on earth.
10) Have more classic books than most libraries thanks to Project Gutenberg.
All of this in a device that is 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.46 inches and 4.8 ounces. It may not seem like much since we have been through the changes
gradually, but if you take a step back it is mindblowing.
There are also a host of other technologies that were around in 1989 but were not in widespread use due their cost. Presumably, that means that
there are a host of technologies that exist today that we are barely aware of that will be widespread in 2029.
The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick. I like those movies as much as anyone else, but the franchise deserves something better than that.
I also still think Kirk looks like a preppy douche, not a skilled (if overly testosterone-driven) starship captain. Rest of the cast still looks fine.
Uh, as opposed to the TOS? You know, the one where there was almost always some sort of fistfight and Kirk hooked up with the alien of the week? You know, the fact that Star Trek started out as a "Space Western"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Western
With both Star Trek and Star Wars, I think nostalgia overtakes reason for most people. The writing took a shotgun approach IMHO. Star Trek had some great episodes mixed with mostly mediocre ones at best. We remember "The City on the Edge of Forever" and forget "Spock's Brain".
And don't forget one of the "best" Star Trek movies is "The Wrath of Kahn", which is pretty much a total action flick.
I still don't understand why they keep bringing this guy up. He lied in his question to Obama about being in a position to buy his boss' company. His boss' company also doesn't make the level of income that would trigger a new tax under Obama's plan. Joe himself would get a tax cut under Obama's plan [usatoday.com]. Joe owes back taxes as it is. He's against Social Security. He's not a licensed plumber. Oh, and did I mention his first name isn't even Joe?
You are using a classic strawman attack again Joe the Plumber. The critical thing is Obama's comment: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too...And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." This statement implies a UK Labour Democratic Socialism ideal. It really doesn't matter if Joe is a KKK member whose real first name is Hitler and is suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Now for some reason or another being called a supporter of some form of Socialism is considered the equivalent of child molestation by Obama and the Democrats. So rather than discuss what Obama meant by his statement, it seems like Democrats would rather focus on who Joe is than what Obama said. This is unfortunate, because Obama could just as easily clarify his statements into specific policy points or just admit it was a remark in passing and did not mean anything.
But no, neither side can act like adults in this election. Instead we have to focus on personal attacks and invasions of privacy rather than talk about specifics. The scary part to me is how the Democrats are tearing this guy up for just asking a question based on the fact they didn't like the answer their candidate gave! There is a real viciousness to this whole affair that turns me off on Obama. It is like he is a holy person you must not question.
A hypothesis would be that they are trying to implement hooks to restrict 'free speech', the latter being a potential 'operation tool' for 'terrorists'.
Did anyone bring up anything about banning anything? Didn't think so. It is hyperbole to say the US military is about to ban free speech because they are studying twitter as a tool that can be used in certain scenarios by a terrorist. Part of their job is to study *every* potential tool that our enemies use. If they didn't they would be blamed as ignorant or out-of-touch.
The summary is short, but the issue isn't that they are stupid and don't realize that the internet is one big communications tool. They INVENTED the darn thing. It's the specifics of how it is used. Twitter is obviously a different tool than chat rooms, just like Facebook is different from the days of people having their own personal home pages.
Even after following your link to a conservative website I fail to see how what he said is so unreasonable. He is basically saying that we should be like the rest of the world and have our children learn multiple languages early on. Spanish would be fairly useful since there are many people in the US that speak Spanish.
This is my problem with conservative personalities these days. They try to take these things out of context to make it seem like what Obama says is horrible. But every time I look at the full transcript of what he says, he comes off extremely reasonable. This link didn't even hide the context. So really, what's the big deal?
Why on earth would we want to be like Europe, whose states have more or less been at constant war with one another for hundreds of years with only a couple decades of peace in between---much of it due to the isolation related to having different languages. Maybe they should try going at least a good 100 years without some sort of major civil war or genocide before lecturing anyone on how to run their country.
What on earth is good about having different languages and putting up barriers between people communicating? There is nothing that creates an "us vs them" quicker than the inability for two parties to easily communicate.
...from an organization with a noble cause to a right-wing, Prohibitionist, Evangelical, whiny group that would desire a socialist nanny-state with breathalyzers in every car? I mean, sheeeesh!!! Wow, in one breath you have called MADD both a right-wing evangelical group and a left-wing socialist nanny-state group. I think those are mutually exclusive.Darn those Fascist Capitalistic Communists!
Seriously, drop the right vs left stuff. MADD is just plain WRONG no matter what "wing" they are.
So have newspapers. I was reading an editorial in the WSJ about the how successful "the surge" allegedly is, and found it to stretch things and manipulate quotes. I decided to abandon it out of frustration. While moving my eyes away, I happened to glance at the author: "Karl Rove". R. Murdoch has Foxitized it, as feared.
The New York Times, LA Times, and many other newspapers were "Foxitized" well before Fox. Most of Fox News's popularity comes from people who were sick of the rest of media being so ridiculously biased in one direction.
You know it is bad when Hillary Clinton is complaining about the general bias in media towards candidates. And somehow I don't think she is apart of the "Right Wing Attack Machine". Of course, you only complain when you are not benefiting from the bias...
You also have to consider the effects of the out and out lies---Stephen Glass, the doctored photos from Adnan Hajj, the recent admission the LA times made that they were duped on FBI records on the death of rap murders, etc. The argument against blogs is that they are amateurs who cannot be believed, yet they seem to be the ones doing the best fact checking against the so-called professionals!
We are lacking a maturity in our analysis abilities that allows us to identify bias both FOR and AGAINST our positions. People who lack this maturity think that everything that agrees with their point of view is somehow "in the middle" and everything else is "to the left and right". This two dimensional egotistical thinking is causing deep divisions in our country that really scare me. It's like this is some sort of sporting competition with teams and a winner and a loser. You are not allowed to have any beliefs of the "other side", not allowed to compromise or cooperate for solutions. Not allowed to understand that you have a point of view, and it may be reflected in a newspaper or TV programs, but it is not the only point of view and it is equally valuable to listen to both sides. Or to have a newspaper or news show report with a neutral point of view, to use a wikipedia term. But the media today wants to push an agenda and "tell a story" (aka "Narrative") rather than report facts. So people vote with their dollars and abandon those newspapers, because they aren't providing them with news!
Brian EllenbergerI mean, really. The stinkin' rich will have their hearts replicated and grown one after another just in case, while you and me will just drop down, carried to a hospital, and die. Somehow that's *not* the future I was thinking of when I was young. The bits and pieces (hah!) are there meanwhile, but our society isn't there at all. A friend of mine was working in a hospital when some old and ill VIP had a heart failure and he not only got a replacement right away
Why do you think that would ever change in any system of government or monetary distribution? However, it has nothing to do with being "rich" as much as it has to do with being "powerful". You see it in a capitalistic society as being rich because rich=powerful in America and most of the West. But even in America, if President Bush and Bill Gates had to fight it out for a replacement heart the President is winning. And you are naive if you don't think that Castro and his family or Politburo members got better health care than most everyone in their societies. Or that in the UK Gordon Brown doesn't get much much better health care than the average joe slogging over to the NHS hospital. What I don't like about non-capitalistic societies is that power is based more on who you are in politics and who you know rather than any individual abilities. With a capitalistic society, if I am talented enough I can make enough to afford good enough health care and end up being OK. In other countries, it only matters where I am in the political ranks and "who I know". Also, in a capitalistic society, there is an incentive to make the cost cheap enough to provide services to the most people. More people=more money. Government controlled health care lacks such incentives, because the number of people needing organ transplants is insignificant come election time. It is much more important to a politician to build a useless bridge or monument in a politically important state or district because that may get them reelected.
Sure there is a backlash against XM for the suspension, but what would the backlash be had they done nothing? O&A's comments were much worse IMHO than Imus's and he was fired. What would happen if NOW and other feminist groups got involved. From NOW.org (http://www.now.org/press/05-07/05-14.html"
NOW: Rape is Not Funny XM Satellite Shock Jocks Opie and Anthony Go Too Far Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy May 14, 2007 On a May 9 broadcast of the Opie & Anthony Show on XM Satellite Radio, the show's hosts (whose real names are Gregg Hughes and Anthony Cumia), welcomed a guest they called Homeless Charlie, who said he would like to rape U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, First Lady Laura Bush, and even Queen Elizabeth. In the broadcast, Hughes and Cumia clearly encouraged the guest's horrifying remarks -- they laughed and imagined "the horror" on Rice's face as she is held down and punched in the face. The language is too hostile to repeat, but any woman who hears the clip will be seething at the misogynistic diatribe. Both hosts knew what they were doing when they treated assault and rape as a joke. Didn't we just go through this -- with former CBS radio host Don Imus and his hateful words about the women's basketball team at Rutgers University? And JV and Elvis' cruel racism and sexism at the expense of Chinese restaurant employees on CBS radio station WFNY? At least CBS got the message that no one is entitled to a media platform for hate speech. On May 11, Hughes and Cumia apologized, saying: "We take very seriously the responsibility that comes with out creative freedom and regret any offense that this segment has caused." XM Satellite is clearly concerned, saying that they "deplore the comments" made on the show. CBS, which airs a different Opie & Anthony Show, should be concerned as well, because this kind of "joke" from CBS hosts also reflects on the network. I have one message for XM Radio bigwigs who rely heavily on pay-to-listen customers, and for shock jocks everywhere: "Profiting from hate will cost you the business of thinking consumers."
If I was an exec, I would be far more scared of NOW and their political base. Especially since XM has been courting women with their Take 5 and Oprah and Friends channel. And no exec is going to be fired for making a stand against rape. Personally, it saddens me to see so many people defending O&A for their sickening comments. What next, child molestation? Personally, I may have cancelled my XM had they NOT taken this action.
James Currier, a former venture capitalist and serial entrepreneur who sold the social networking site Tickle to job site Monster.com, said that a company on whose board he serves recently lost a prospective employee to Google. The worker, whom he described as a genius, turned down an offer of $120,000, plus stock options, in favor of a $375,000 salary from Google.
Oh No! You mean Google is willing to pay engineers the amount of money normally reserved for empty-suit MBA manager types? The HORROR of having to pay the people who actually build the product. What will the Yale and Harvard grads do now?
Galactic Civilization I and II (see: http://www.galciv2.com/) is one of the few games I have ever played where it seemed like the computer was thinking. If you have never played GalCiv, and you like strategy, I highly recommend picking them up. I consider them to be superior even to the Civilization series. Brad Wardell prides himself on the AI, and it definitely shows. The computer is very difficult to beat and does not cheat. It actually responds in a logical manner, which makes GalCiv go from just being a number-crunching exercise to an actual strategy game. For example, when making some "aggressive" moves towards an enemy (moving some attack ships to an "ally" to wipe them out) I've actually had the game pop up a message from my ally (before ever entering his space) saying something to the effect of "I used to play video games when I was a kid, and when I did I used to build my forces up and send them to sneak attack an opponent. Well I am no video game." Other things like the fact that if another civilization is dependent on you for a large amount of trade income, they won't just randomly attack you because it would hurt them too.
In other words, what these officers did is blatantly unconstitutional in California, and only questionably unconstitutional in other jurisdictions.
Since the NYPD police have zero jurisdiction in California or any other place but their own city, they have no more or less rights than any other citizen. They are just regular people. So they can goto public meetings like any other US citizen can. They have no power of how to tell how the NYPD runs its police force, and to make some blanket statement to all police from any state would run afowl from Equal Protection.
Continue to tell yourself that 90% of the world's population and 75% of the American population is wrong about current policy and that you, in your infinite wisdom, are the only one who understand how true peace and order may be brought to the world.
I don't know about 75% of the US population, but I could not give a darn what 90% of the world's population thinks. If we did care, this country would not have existed in the first place. If you do care about the majority opinion, prepare to make adultery and homosexuality illegal. "The World" is more than North America and Europe.
First, it's just a radix sort [well that's my take]. Second there are too many google ads on that page. Third, merge sort is O(n log n) time, hard to beat for random data. Fourth, most people use variations of the QUICK SORT not merge sort.
For comparison searches, O(n log n) is not just hard to beat it is IMPOSSIBLE to beat.
See http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/161/960116.html.
Of course, radix sort is not a comparison sort, but has its own limitations as others have noted.
And Quicksort technically has a O(n^2) worst case (reversed list) but is more often picked over Merge Sort because on avg it is nLogn and doesn't require the extra memory merge sort requires.
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
So corporations, unions, and special interests (AARP, NRA, ACLU, etc) are exempt? Sounds like this is more of an attempt for the old school power interests to keep their power and limit bloggers.
Maybe the problem is that the battle system needs dramatically redone. Some suggestions:
1) Instead of making hundreds of repetitive battles against less skilled enemies, why not make fewer battles against more difficult enemies where you are not guaranteed to win every time?
2) Make the battles more like FF Tactics, where you incorporate positioning. Instead of Fire1/Fire2/Fire3 have a mass range fireball vs a controlled stream of fire with the differences being the area of effect. Incorporate flanking attacks, etc.
I wouldn't call it CS101. In CS101 you learn, of course, that computers are finite machines and can't hold infinite values exactly (ex PI). Going into the precision detail would require a course in Numerical Analysis. Since you know there will always be some error, one of the components of Numerical Analysis is figuring out what the error will be. From that you can determine what error threshhold is acceptable and perform the calculations.
Would it surprise you to learn that these doctored photos were placed by someone on the far Right trying to discredit the centrist media? Note that he's not saying that it's true, just suggesting that it might be. And, given that this is a well known technique in spin control / psyops, it isn't an unreasonable questions.
So, you have managed to insulate yourself into a small little world where you believe everything the news tells you, believe every other view is some "giant evil conspiracy", and if your sources are proven wrong that merely proves them right because "it must have been a psyops plant". Nice vaccuum you got there.
Assume you are completely correct, and CBS news and Rutgers and all the other news agencies are so easily manipulated by the "Evil Republicans". Doesn't this also mean they are easily manipulated by EVERYONE ELSE? And that anyone with money and an agenda can turn the media into their personal sounding board without being considered bias??? Doesn't the fact that the news agencies CANNOT DISTIGUISH FACT FROM FICTION scare you the most?!?!?!?!
My main problem with Gore and other environmental groups is that they are all problem and no solution. They treat large energy usage in moral, almost religious tones, as if we are being gluttonous by using too much energy. With is complete BS. Rather than look for a solution to the problem, like the ozone hole, they seek push all conservation. Which is practically no solution at all. If Gore right now pushed breeder-reactor Nuclear, he could make a massive change for the better in this country. Couple that with some fuel-cell advances, and we could be golden and off of foreign oil. And I could think of nothing the auto makers would like better than to force everyone to buy a new car in the next 5-10 years because gas is going away...
First, let me start with saying I owned a PS1 and a PS2. I was waiting till I heard the price of the PS3 to decide whether to get an XBox360 or wait. When I heard $500-$600 just for the console I got a 360. Why? Because despite a great job, I have a family to support and could not justify spending that much just for the console. It doesn't matter how much better it is, or how many features it has. Just plain couldn't afford it. I think that probably describes a large number of people who aren't "single no kids"---whether they are buying it for themselves or their kids. The only response I have heard to that question is, "DUDE, YOU LOZER IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD ONE YOU SUCK TOO BAD YOU DON'T DESERVE ONE.". To which I shrug, and say fine. Wii looks pretty cool and I may pick one up with the kids are a little older. And if Sony wins the console wars, and lowers the price, I may trade in the 360 for a PS3. I'm not a fanboy. But right now, it just looks like it is out of the price reach for many people.
Until that happens, enjoy Madden 2007, 2008, 2009,
I don't know why there are so many complaints about Madden producing a new version every year when there is a new football season every year. Heck, people pay $200 a year to watch 16 out-of-town games on DirectTV. At least with Madden you get your money's worth in multiplayer and online.
Its not like every people people are sitting around going "Boy, I'm not watching the Super Bowl this year! It is the same boring game as last year, maybe with different teams.". Madden tries to add new features besides personnel updates, but these are routinely ignored by those saying "It is just a roster update.". As if doing 3D models for 100+ new individual players every year is not worth something itself (assuming each team signs at least 4 draft picks).
You're talking about displacing 5,000 other people from their job, their primary source of income (most likely), and you think that it warrants a "now that's more like it"? I'll bet you'd be a lot less glib about it (and way more pissed off) if it was your job on the line. Especially if you saw people making comments like that!
Actually, this is a prime example of why capitalism beats out other systems. Yea it sucks for those 5000, but it is the best thing in the long run. AOL is a dinosaur that has no place in a high-speed internet world. Why should they linger? Why should 5000 people work on something as useless as dial-up modem support when they could be much more productive to society doing something else??
In other systems, AOL might be a state-owned company filled with politician's kids and propped up past its time with tax-dollars from actual productive companies. Capitalism *FORCES* people to make the tough choices. The federal government could NEVER fire 5000 workers even if they are completely useless and are wasting resources.
The B movies were one-off, limited release or straight-to-video affairs
Straight to video? Huh? In the 40's or 50's? Video didn't come into wide acceptance until the 80s
Why do you think the crap/good ratio has changed? Do you have any idea of the sheer number of bad B-type movies that were created in the previous decades that noone remembers or cares about?
The reason that it just seems like there is a high ratio of crap is because you only remember the GREAT movies of yesteryear. You don't remember the 1000+ cowboy/indian westerns or melodramatic romances because you most likely have never heard of them. You just remember Casablanca/Citizen Kane/etc.
That isn't what is going on here. Essentially, people are buying a DVD at FULL PRICE (from the company) and then paying this company to remove certain parts. The consumer received 2 copies--the original and the edited version.
It would be more to the effect of someone selling you a DVD and saying skip 00:11 to 00-15 and 1:10 to 1:15.
Don't approve of this action just because you think it only hurts a bunch of "right-wing Christian zealots". Remember fair use! There was a one-to-one copy sold with each of these DVDs---the original and the edited. The filmmakers did not lose one dime, and in fact made money with each copy sold.
So if we are to argue that, if you bought something you have the legal right to do whatever you want to it (Fast Forward through commercials, play on a Linux box, rip to a hard drive), then you cannot allow Hollywood to start acquiring new rights for their so-called "artistic vision". Otherwise, you will find yourself unable to fast forward through scenes (or commercials) because that would violate the "artistic vision" of Hollywood.
Remember folks---it is all about control. Hollywood wants all the control. We cannot surrender even the smallest bit of it, because as soon as we do it establishes legal precedence.
And as for their pure "artistic vision", they regularly violate it when they make full-screen movies, TV versions, and rereleases of the same movie every 10 years.