There are plenty of management books out there -- it's hard to go wrong when learning the basics -- and they all pretty much emphasize the same things: effective communication, appreciate where your employees are coming from, demand respect for others in the workplace, lead by example, don't be a pushover, and foster a culture of openness so your employees aren't afraid to tell you what's wrong. If you're not sure how to effectively do any of the above, then The First-time Manager is a decent read. But if you're being selected for management, it's probably because your boss(es) have seen you demonstrate those qualities in the first place (unless you're in the military, where advancement is based in large part on factual knowledge that you will almost never use in management).
If you're staying in the same department (or just with the same company), the biggest problem may be the transition from a co-worker relationship to a superior/subordinate relationship. Some people may resent you immediately, and if they don't, they probably will at some point in the future, but if you demonstrate the qualities you require of them, you will likely gain their respect, even if you cannot maintain the same friendship you had. Of course, if you weren't buddies with any of your new underlings (and never, ever call them underlings), that makes things a lot easier.
That said, I hate being a manager/supervisor. The slight (in my experience anyway) increase in pay was never worth the added responsibility, visibility, and stress. My supervisor, for example (for whom I fill in when he's on leave) has 3x the workload, and only makes 3% more. Not only that, but if any of *us* screw up, he's the one held responsible. Middle management can also be lonely; too junior to be good friends with upper management, and too senior to be good friends with your subordinates, so it's good if you have friends outside of the workplace, or at least working in a different area. I'd say the experience is important and necessary -- especially if you want to do something like start your own business, with the possible exception of consulting -- but I've never found it to be a rewarding experience. Under the right circumstances, if I was a team leader or project manager for a creative project, I'd do it again, but in my current line of work, management = TPS reports and scapegoat.
Of course they're just in China to make money. But that doesn't mean that the goals of human rights and making money are mutually exclusive. The freer people are to use Yahoo et al., the more hits, the more traffic, the more advertising, etc.
At the same time, we have very real limits on the freedom of speech at home. It's a crime to tell someone how to circumvent copy protection. It's a crime to be make "obscene" remarks on the air. "Hate" speech. And we have a history of persecuting and prosecuting political speech in the US. See: Eugene Debs. See: McCarthyism. See: MISA.
There's a fine line between ensuring civil stability and stifling free speech. These days we're slightly more tolerant than not of dissenting opinion, but it hasn't always been that way, and not everyone agrees that people should be allowed to disagree with the government (Papa Bear), or that people have the right to confront their representatives (free speech zones).
In my opinion, Yahoo's actions border on unethical, but they hardly cross any hard and fast line on acceptable behavior, and (as far as I've heard) they're not systematically volunteering information to the Chinese government. They were essentially subpoenaed to provide the information. They complied, and the government arrested him. Really, what would have happened if Yahoo hadn't complied? They government would have come in and gotten the information anyway, a bunch of Yahoo employees would be in jail (or worse), etc. Sure, it would have been noble of them to stand up, but who are we to demand that others do as we say (not as we do)?
Clearly, if anyone is in the wrong here, it's the Chinese government, and all this focus on Yahoo is drawing attention away from that. We're blaming Yahoo for emptying the register when they had a gun to their head.
According to whom? The drives are advertised based on capacity, not throughput. RPM, cache, sure, but I've never seen a manufacturer include anything other than the the interface speed in a drive's specs.
It's a stretch to say that this is a form of DRM.. I don't thing a judge would buy it (but you never know). The spirit of the DMCA (if not the letter) was to prevent the circumvention of copy protection, not to prevent third party interaction, support, and/or competing technology, and it says as much at the bottom of pretty much every paragraph.
No, but it would probably put you in contempt. The judge said "You have the data. You can store it. I'm telling you to store it." What you're suggesting is willfully disregarding the judge -- basically sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes, and then saying you can't see or hear anything.
I don't think anyone would argue that this was anything other than a deliberate attempt to distribute copyrighted content. They didn't accidentally leave their files where anyone and everyone could access them.
That said, we have similar venues throughout the US. There are buildings in almost every city and town with shelves of copyrighted material from floor to ceiling, and there are copying machines conveniently placed throughout the building. The doors are unlocked, and not only can people go in and enjoy whatever content is available, they're actively encouraged to do so.
I'm not entirely sure why libraries are acceptable, but filesharing is not. There are major differences to be sure, but it comes down to the same principle: the free and open exchange of ideas not for profit. Is a library only acceptable because there's a chance someone else could be using the resource you want to use? That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction; an unintended consequence of physical storage.
There are many valid reasons in favor of our current copyright system, but one fundamental reason against: It is unenforceable and unsustainable. Supply and demand are basic market forces, and supply is going way, way up. Anyone who could spell HTML could reasonably expect to make 6 figures designing crappy web pages back in the '90s, but that doesn't mean the same expectation would be reasonable today. We can waste time and energy complaining that things are changing, or we can look to the future and change ourselves so that we are better suited to deal with the new reality. Both the quantity of artists, and the quantity of distribution channels have increased, and will continue to increase. It is no longer reasonable to expect to get rich either pressing albums, or writing the content that goes on them.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
They don't specify, but I think we can assume that "threats [of violence]" is implied in point 1. I don't think threats to hold your breath would count as terrorism, for example. All the other definitions are self-referential.
Hmm.. looks like my last paragraph got cut off because I used a less than sign in front of my 5.. that's what I get for not previewing. Here's what it should have said:
Maybe you've done the math, and tax incentives can lower your ROI to less than 5 years. Great -- and I hope you're not looking back in 5 years like the people who paid $15k for a plasma TV. I don't foresee a shortage of silicon anytime in the near future, and companies would be foolish not to increase panel plant production capacity, so the likely worst case is that the price of solar remains constant, and the cost of grid power goes up a few percent. However, I'm fairly certain that the price of solar almost definitely will drop, if for no other reason than economy of scale as a result of market growth.
Ok, in some parts of California, it might be worth it. But my estimate for was $75,000 for my system installed, with a 6 year ROI assuming a 30 year payment at 6.5% and an optimistic estimate of property value. Excluding the property value, it was 13 years, and when you change the rate to an actual rate like 9% (for those of us not including it in the mortgage), it gets much higher. First of all, 75k is 40% of the price of my home, and there's no way anyone would pay 40% more for my home just because it has solar. 20% more, maybe, but you could buy substantially more home for that much more money, so you're limiting your potential buyers to people who are more interested in saving money than having a larger home, but not interested enough that they will buy an even cheaper home. That's a very small part of the buying market, so it would be more reasonable to assume maybe a 5% increase in property value.
The number of people who have residential photovoltaic systems installed is extremely small, way too small to lower the market price of power through supply and demand. Solar is has a 1% market share in the US. Assuming 45% annual growth, as per the article, that comes out to a ~40% share in 10 years. Even if the growth is half that, that's a ~20% market share; easily enough to affect supply/demand. Remember, it doesn't matter who installs solar -- residential or commercial -- it still lowers the overall demand for grid power. Now I have no idea how accurate the annual growth projection is, so solar may well remain at 1-2% in a decade. But something is going to have to increase supply, whether it's nuclear or something else, and that increased supply could easily cause rates to decrease. The prices may have been increasing historically, but past performance is no guarantee of future results, and energy production capacity will either increase dramatically in the US, or we'll have much bigger concerns.
Maybe you've done the math, and tax incentives can lower your ROI to will drop, if for no other reason than economy of scale as the market grows.
Sorry, but there's a big difference between fear for one's life and limb with no knowledge of what actions or locations might put oneself at risk (as irrational as that fear may be), and fear of getting sued for file sharing. Namely, the latter is generally avoidable and, at worst, potentially rectifiable. Also the term "bloody court battle" almost never involves actual blood, which is amazing when you think about it, and makes you wonder where lawyers actually do their feeding.
No kidding. I, for one, am sick and tired of the RIAA blowing up innocent civilians. Er, wait.. I'm sick of them taking hostages and demanding passage to a foreign country. Oh wait.. I'm sick of them using aircraft as weapons.
Can we stop using the word "terrorism," and its derivatives, to describe any unsavory act? The proper term in this case would be extortion, or perhaps coercive actions. That's not what terrorists do, it's what petty thugs do. When they start storming concert halls with small arms and tear gas, then by all means, let's start calling them terrorists. Until then, can we please keep things in context?
Pray tell, then, what does one have to do to qualify as a documentarian? Tell the truth?
I'd say "Make a genuine attempt at creating an accurate portrait of reality." "Absolute truth" is probably unknowable through our limited faculties, but it's still a worthy goal.
Can you point out the parts in his movie where he doesn't tell the truth?
It's not what he says, it's what he doesn't say. "Dihydrogen monoxide can be deadly if inhaled!" That's a true statement, but is the listener any better informed than he was before hearing it? I would argue that he is not. The best case scenario is that he will investigate my statement and discover its relevance and context, but the most likely scenario is that he will simply parrot it to others.
My co-workers, for example, were outraged that Cuba has better healthcare than the US. Is that really true? Well, if "universal no-fee coverage" is your metric, then yes. But if you include average quality of care -- bankruptcy or not -- most people are better off in the US. (Personally I'd much rather be alive and bankrupt than dead and financially secure, but I agree that ideally, citizens of a civilized society should not be faced with such a dichotomy.)
Can you point me to a single documentary that does not contain any editorial bias? Can you point me to anything published ever that does not contain any bias?
That's a red herring. If everybody takes a test, and you get most of the questions wrong, pointing out that nobody got a perfect score (or even that everyone else failed), would not be justification to give you a passing grade. More importantly, eliminating bias isn't a prerequisite for accuracy. I'm biased to believe that 1+1=2.
At any rate, I believe the GP's point was not that Michael Moore produces films that are inconsistent with the content and format of a typical documentary, but rather that his films fall so short of the mark of a good documentary that they are hardly worthy of the title. And he explained that quite clearly with the pr0nography comparison. (Sorry, work filters.. not trying to be 1337).
I do agree that the US has gone downhill in many areas in recent years, and lack of universal healthcare is a glaring shortcoming. And some of us are doing what we can to fix things.. I just hate having someone like Moore on my side. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be dissatisfied with the state of affairs; there's no need to invent falsehoods, and in fact, it only makes things worse because it makes everyone on one side of an issue look like an idiot. Like some dolt who says "antivirus is important to protect you from hackers!" Bush did the same thing with Iraq, and now look where we are. I'm not saying we should be there, but it's an excellent example of how public support turns against you and credibility suffers when you tell half-truths and/or outright lies, no matter how well intentioned. Shortcomings and risks of a plan should be met head on, along with legitimate complaints, not gingerly avoided with cherry picked "facts" and stories about rainbows and lollipops.
Investing in panel makers? Maybe. Investing in a home installation? Call me when the break even point drops below 10 years. How many people even live in their houses for that long anymore? Sure, it may add some equity to your home, but not much, especially if the prices DO fall and/or the efficiency of the panels increases significantly during that 10 years. Imagine trying to include your 5 year old computer as part of your home's equity. You're risking a very similar situation with solar.
You're also betting that grid power won't get any cheaper, which may or may not be a good bet, depending on the fuel source of your local power plant. If solar/microgeneration takes off, there could be an abundance of grid power, causing prices to plummet, especially if people start generating more power than they use -- unlikely, but certainly possible if panel efficiencies increase. The only advantage you have is that grid power can never drop below the cost of maintaining the plant and the distribution network, no matter how cheap the fuel. Nonetheless, my feeling is that there's no time like the present -- to put off a solar installation.
I understand both the rubber band/tube and balloon surface analogies, but neither of those seem complete. It doesn't that there's "nothing" outside of these two items, at least in my (limited) mind, rather that simply makes things easier. Let's take the rubber band analogy first:
While it's true that you will appear to be in the center of an expanding band, insomuch as your neighbors are moving away from you, it's the ends that are important. Assuming a homogeneous distribution of points, if you measure that the farthest visible point in one direction is 3 inches away, and the farthest in the other is 5 inches, you can infer that you are 1 inch away from the center. This is true for any finite line. It may expand further, changing your distance from the center, but if both ends are moving at the same rate, the center won't change.
The balloon analogy is even more lacking, because all items are presumed to be on the surface. There can be no "center" of the surface of a sphere. Nonetheless, you could still find the center of the balloon itself: assuming a homogeneous distribution of neighbors, you simply find the one that's farthest away, and that's the opposite side. Half that, and you have the middle of the balloon.
You can revise your estimates if you find farther neighbors, but it should still give you a good approximation. The universe is assumed to be finite, so as long as the universe is not expanding faster than the speed of light (which should be an impossibility), we should be able to spot our farthest neighbors.
What am I missing? Yes the universe is very large; it may be difficult to see the objects that are farthest away, but it should be possible unless they're obscured by other objects in front of them.
While the expression itself may be almost an oxymoron, the process is rather different. First, I wouldn't want any jury there that didn't want to be there, but I think that's the least of the problems, as most people would feel obligated to give due consideration to the case before them (although that may be less likely in a corporation v. corporation scenario). Second, and perhaps more importantly, both sides participate in the jury selection process. If we assume that intelligent people are a small minority of a random group of potential jurors, then either side could easily use their veto to eliminate the entire subset of intelligent candidates, making it less likely that the jury could follow the opposing argument. So even if you, as an intelligent individual, wanted to serve on the jury (which, incidentally, is supposedly a red flag), you'd still be eliminated if one side was determined not to have you.
I think you're looking at much too small a time period and/or much too selectively. A shared enemy in WWII did more to bring France and England together than any shared principles of government, and even then, "France's political leadership disregarded Churchill's proposal of a Franco-British Union and signed the Second Armistice at Compiègne surrender on June 22, 1940." ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Monarchy_t o_republic Rome was a democracy even during part of its expansion. Germany was a democracy as of 1919. Mexico is a democracy, as it was during the Mexican-American war. India and Pakistan are both democracies. Argentina is and was a democracy during the Falklands conflict. Democracy did not prevent (and arguably caused) the US Civil War. Venezuela is a democracy, as is Iran. I think evidence suggests that democracy merely facilitates internal stability; it does not ensure it, and it certainly does not ensure amicable foreign relations.
That's a nice bean counting machine you've got there. It'd be a real shame if it were to develop a sudden system failure, and oh my.. it looks like the backups have inexplicably failed as well, but just yours. What are the odds?
Google maps doesn't always show the best route. In reference to the post above about long hauling through the Vegas tunnel, Google maps will likely show the route through the tunnel when you put the airport as your starting point. It adds about 3 miles onto the trip, but at highway speeds the time difference can be negligible. Nonetheless, cabs charge primarily by distance. I had a cab take me through the tunnel once, saying traffic was bad the other way, but I had no way to know for sure and I was too tired to argue or stand around waiting for the cops. But needless to say, he got no tip. I've had cabs try to long haul me when visiting my hometown of DC too, although I noticed it only happened when I going between the airport and our hotel. I guess that sort of trip just screams tourist, and they assume you won't know the way around. The drivers never tried anything when I was going to/from a residential address, but that could just be a coincidence.
I agree with Nietzsche's assessment: The priesthood basically uses religion to justify and exercise power. First there were kings who took control based on physical might, and blood line determined who would inherit the throne. The only choice for the "thinking man" was to usurp the kings' power based on "divine" decree. The priests knew the mind of God, and no mortal could argue with that (and not be guilty of heresy), king or serf. Naturally, several kings used the same technique to wrestle power back -- the Church of England, for example, and Ramses claimed to be a god. It's not really relevant whether kings/chiefs came first, or priests.. the point is that organized religion is an effective vehicle for power.
And yet, acknowledging that doesn't get to the heart of the matter any more than saying different species of trees vie for sunlight in the rain forest by trying to grow faster and taller than others. The issue is that people are competing. Religion and politics are both competing for the same thing: power and control. There would not long be a void in the absence of one; the other would simply dominate. And I'm not sure one is any better than the other, as it generally takes armed conflict to overthrow either. Democracy may avoid armed revolution, but it doesn't ensure that, say, a democratic Palestine will peacefully coexist with a democratic Israel, even if religion were out of the picture (which is a pipe dream anyway). In other words, democracy *may* (in some cases) foster stability within ones own borders, but it does nothing for foreign relations. The solution then would seem to be worldwide democracy -- no borders, no problems -- but as we have so gracefully demonstrated in the US, any centralized government will inevitably make decisions that ostracize and/or incense some smaller part of the federation.
As I see it, life is competition for resources. Some people will be content if their needs are met, but many will want more, and there will always be some willing to fight for what they want. Organized religion (although not necessarily personal faith) is a symptom of this never-ending struggle, not a cause.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of management books out there -- it's hard to go wrong when learning the basics -- and they all pretty much emphasize the same things: effective communication, appreciate where your employees are coming from, demand respect for others in the workplace, lead by example, don't be a pushover, and foster a culture of openness so your employees aren't afraid to tell you what's wrong. If you're not sure how to effectively do any of the above, then The First-time Manager is a decent read. But if you're being selected for management, it's probably because your boss(es) have seen you demonstrate those qualities in the first place (unless you're in the military, where advancement is based in large part on factual knowledge that you will almost never use in management).
If you're staying in the same department (or just with the same company), the biggest problem may be the transition from a co-worker relationship to a superior/subordinate relationship. Some people may resent you immediately, and if they don't, they probably will at some point in the future, but if you demonstrate the qualities you require of them, you will likely gain their respect, even if you cannot maintain the same friendship you had. Of course, if you weren't buddies with any of your new underlings (and never, ever call them underlings), that makes things a lot easier.
That said, I hate being a manager/supervisor. The slight (in my experience anyway) increase in pay was never worth the added responsibility, visibility, and stress. My supervisor, for example (for whom I fill in when he's on leave) has 3x the workload, and only makes 3% more. Not only that, but if any of *us* screw up, he's the one held responsible. Middle management can also be lonely; too junior to be good friends with upper management, and too senior to be good friends with your subordinates, so it's good if you have friends outside of the workplace, or at least working in a different area. I'd say the experience is important and necessary -- especially if you want to do something like start your own business, with the possible exception of consulting -- but I've never found it to be a rewarding experience. Under the right circumstances, if I was a team leader or project manager for a creative project, I'd do it again, but in my current line of work, management = TPS reports and scapegoat.
Of course they're just in China to make money. But that doesn't mean that the goals of human rights and making money are mutually exclusive. The freer people are to use Yahoo et al., the more hits, the more traffic, the more advertising, etc.
At the same time, we have very real limits on the freedom of speech at home. It's a crime to tell someone how to circumvent copy protection. It's a crime to be make "obscene" remarks on the air. "Hate" speech. And we have a history of persecuting and prosecuting political speech in the US. See: Eugene Debs. See: McCarthyism. See: MISA.
There's a fine line between ensuring civil stability and stifling free speech. These days we're slightly more tolerant than not of dissenting opinion, but it hasn't always been that way, and not everyone agrees that people should be allowed to disagree with the government (Papa Bear), or that people have the right to confront their representatives (free speech zones).
In my opinion, Yahoo's actions border on unethical, but they hardly cross any hard and fast line on acceptable behavior, and (as far as I've heard) they're not systematically volunteering information to the Chinese government. They were essentially subpoenaed to provide the information. They complied, and the government arrested him. Really, what would have happened if Yahoo hadn't complied? They government would have come in and gotten the information anyway, a bunch of Yahoo employees would be in jail (or worse), etc. Sure, it would have been noble of them to stand up, but who are we to demand that others do as we say (not as we do)?
Clearly, if anyone is in the wrong here, it's the Chinese government, and all this focus on Yahoo is drawing attention away from that. We're blaming Yahoo for emptying the register when they had a gun to their head.
According to whom? The drives are advertised based on capacity, not throughput. RPM, cache, sure, but I've never seen a manufacturer include anything other than the the interface speed in a drive's specs.
It's a stretch to say that this is a form of DRM.. I don't thing a judge would buy it (but you never know). The spirit of the DMCA (if not the letter) was to prevent the circumvention of copy protection, not to prevent third party interaction, support, and/or competing technology, and it says as much at the bottom of pretty much every paragraph.
Ah, that's a good one...
No, but it would probably put you in contempt. The judge said "You have the data. You can store it. I'm telling you to store it." What you're suggesting is willfully disregarding the judge -- basically sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes, and then saying you can't see or hear anything.
I don't think anyone would argue that this was anything other than a deliberate attempt to distribute copyrighted content. They didn't accidentally leave their files where anyone and everyone could access them.
That said, we have similar venues throughout the US. There are buildings in almost every city and town with shelves of copyrighted material from floor to ceiling, and there are copying machines conveniently placed throughout the building. The doors are unlocked, and not only can people go in and enjoy whatever content is available, they're actively encouraged to do so.
I'm not entirely sure why libraries are acceptable, but filesharing is not. There are major differences to be sure, but it comes down to the same principle: the free and open exchange of ideas not for profit. Is a library only acceptable because there's a chance someone else could be using the resource you want to use? That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction; an unintended consequence of physical storage.
There are many valid reasons in favor of our current copyright system, but one fundamental reason against: It is unenforceable and unsustainable. Supply and demand are basic market forces, and supply is going way, way up. Anyone who could spell HTML could reasonably expect to make 6 figures designing crappy web pages back in the '90s, but that doesn't mean the same expectation would be reasonable today. We can waste time and energy complaining that things are changing, or we can look to the future and change ourselves so that we are better suited to deal with the new reality. Both the quantity of artists, and the quantity of distribution channels have increased, and will continue to increase. It is no longer reasonable to expect to get rich either pressing albums, or writing the content that goes on them.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
They don't specify, but I think we can assume that "threats [of violence]" is implied in point 1. I don't think threats to hold your breath would count as terrorism, for example. All the other definitions are self-referential.
No need to apologize.
Agreed.
Ok, in some parts of California, it might be worth it. But my estimate for was $75,000 for my system installed, with a 6 year ROI assuming a 30 year payment at 6.5% and an optimistic estimate of property value. Excluding the property value, it was 13 years, and when you change the rate to an actual rate like 9% (for those of us not including it in the mortgage), it gets much higher. First of all, 75k is 40% of the price of my home, and there's no way anyone would pay 40% more for my home just because it has solar. 20% more, maybe, but you could buy substantially more home for that much more money, so you're limiting your potential buyers to people who are more interested in saving money than having a larger home, but not interested enough that they will buy an even cheaper home. That's a very small part of the buying market, so it would be more reasonable to assume maybe a 5% increase in property value.
The number of people who have residential photovoltaic systems installed is extremely small, way too small to lower the market price of power through supply and demand.
Solar is has a 1% market share in the US. Assuming 45% annual growth, as per the article, that comes out to a ~40% share in 10 years. Even if the growth is half that, that's a ~20% market share; easily enough to affect supply/demand. Remember, it doesn't matter who installs solar -- residential or commercial -- it still lowers the overall demand for grid power. Now I have no idea how accurate the annual growth projection is, so solar may well remain at 1-2% in a decade. But something is going to have to increase supply, whether it's nuclear or something else, and that increased supply could easily cause rates to decrease. The prices may have been increasing historically, but past performance is no guarantee of future results, and energy production capacity will either increase dramatically in the US, or we'll have much bigger concerns.
Maybe you've done the math, and tax incentives can lower your ROI to will drop, if for no other reason than economy of scale as the market grows.
No.. that's what you get when bride orders male.
Sorry, but there's a big difference between fear for one's life and limb with no knowledge of what actions or locations might put oneself at risk (as irrational as that fear may be), and fear of getting sued for file sharing. Namely, the latter is generally avoidable and, at worst, potentially rectifiable. Also the term "bloody court battle" almost never involves actual blood, which is amazing when you think about it, and makes you wonder where lawyers actually do their feeding.
No kidding. I, for one, am sick and tired of the RIAA blowing up innocent civilians. Er, wait.. I'm sick of them taking hostages and demanding passage to a foreign country. Oh wait.. I'm sick of them using aircraft as weapons.
Can we stop using the word "terrorism," and its derivatives, to describe any unsavory act? The proper term in this case would be extortion, or perhaps coercive actions. That's not what terrorists do, it's what petty thugs do. When they start storming concert halls with small arms and tear gas, then by all means, let's start calling them terrorists. Until then, can we please keep things in context?
..to see what books are on that shelf in the background. What are the odds on World Leadership for Dummies?
Probably not as good as World History: A Story in Pictures.
Pray tell, then, what does one have to do to qualify as a documentarian? Tell the truth?
I'd say "Make a genuine attempt at creating an accurate portrait of reality." "Absolute truth" is probably unknowable through our limited faculties, but it's still a worthy goal.
Can you point out the parts in his movie where he doesn't tell the truth?
It's not what he says, it's what he doesn't say. "Dihydrogen monoxide can be deadly if inhaled!" That's a true statement, but is the listener any better informed than he was before hearing it? I would argue that he is not. The best case scenario is that he will investigate my statement and discover its relevance and context, but the most likely scenario is that he will simply parrot it to others.
My co-workers, for example, were outraged that Cuba has better healthcare than the US. Is that really true? Well, if "universal no-fee coverage" is your metric, then yes. But if you include average quality of care -- bankruptcy or not -- most people are better off in the US. (Personally I'd much rather be alive and bankrupt than dead and financially secure, but I agree that ideally, citizens of a civilized society should not be faced with such a dichotomy.)
Can you point me to a single documentary that does not contain any editorial bias? Can you point me to anything published ever that does not contain any bias?
That's a red herring. If everybody takes a test, and you get most of the questions wrong, pointing out that nobody got a perfect score (or even that everyone else failed), would not be justification to give you a passing grade. More importantly, eliminating bias isn't a prerequisite for accuracy. I'm biased to believe that 1+1=2.
At any rate, I believe the GP's point was not that Michael Moore produces films that are inconsistent with the content and format of a typical documentary, but rather that his films fall so short of the mark of a good documentary that they are hardly worthy of the title. And he explained that quite clearly with the pr0nography comparison. (Sorry, work filters.. not trying to be 1337).
I do agree that the US has gone downhill in many areas in recent years, and lack of universal healthcare is a glaring shortcoming. And some of us are doing what we can to fix things.. I just hate having someone like Moore on my side. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be dissatisfied with the state of affairs; there's no need to invent falsehoods, and in fact, it only makes things worse because it makes everyone on one side of an issue look like an idiot. Like some dolt who says "antivirus is important to protect you from hackers!" Bush did the same thing with Iraq, and now look where we are. I'm not saying we should be there, but it's an excellent example of how public support turns against you and credibility suffers when you tell half-truths and/or outright lies, no matter how well intentioned. Shortcomings and risks of a plan should be met head on, along with legitimate complaints, not gingerly avoided with cherry picked "facts" and stories about rainbows and lollipops.
Investing in panel makers? Maybe. Investing in a home installation? Call me when the break even point drops below 10 years. How many people even live in their houses for that long anymore? Sure, it may add some equity to your home, but not much, especially if the prices DO fall and/or the efficiency of the panels increases significantly during that 10 years. Imagine trying to include your 5 year old computer as part of your home's equity. You're risking a very similar situation with solar.
You're also betting that grid power won't get any cheaper, which may or may not be a good bet, depending on the fuel source of your local power plant. If solar/microgeneration takes off, there could be an abundance of grid power, causing prices to plummet, especially if people start generating more power than they use -- unlikely, but certainly possible if panel efficiencies increase. The only advantage you have is that grid power can never drop below the cost of maintaining the plant and the distribution network, no matter how cheap the fuel. Nonetheless, my feeling is that there's no time like the present -- to put off a solar installation.
They have Linux laptops though.
OMG, it's a plot to kill all Linux users! Quick, tell everyone you know before it's too laaaarrrghhh, my legs!
We only ban things poor people can afford.
I understand both the rubber band/tube and balloon surface analogies, but neither of those seem complete. It doesn't that there's "nothing" outside of these two items, at least in my (limited) mind, rather that simply makes things easier. Let's take the rubber band analogy first:
While it's true that you will appear to be in the center of an expanding band, insomuch as your neighbors are moving away from you, it's the ends that are important. Assuming a homogeneous distribution of points, if you measure that the farthest visible point in one direction is 3 inches away, and the farthest in the other is 5 inches, you can infer that you are 1 inch away from the center. This is true for any finite line. It may expand further, changing your distance from the center, but if both ends are moving at the same rate, the center won't change.
The balloon analogy is even more lacking, because all items are presumed to be on the surface. There can be no "center" of the surface of a sphere. Nonetheless, you could still find the center of the balloon itself: assuming a homogeneous distribution of neighbors, you simply find the one that's farthest away, and that's the opposite side. Half that, and you have the middle of the balloon.
You can revise your estimates if you find farther neighbors, but it should still give you a good approximation. The universe is assumed to be finite, so as long as the universe is not expanding faster than the speed of light (which should be an impossibility), we should be able to spot our farthest neighbors.
What am I missing? Yes the universe is very large; it may be difficult to see the objects that are farthest away, but it should be possible unless they're obscured by other objects in front of them.
While the expression itself may be almost an oxymoron, the process is rather different. First, I wouldn't want any jury there that didn't want to be there, but I think that's the least of the problems, as most people would feel obligated to give due consideration to the case before them (although that may be less likely in a corporation v. corporation scenario). Second, and perhaps more importantly, both sides participate in the jury selection process. If we assume that intelligent people are a small minority of a random group of potential jurors, then either side could easily use their veto to eliminate the entire subset of intelligent candidates, making it less likely that the jury could follow the opposing argument. So even if you, as an intelligent individual, wanted to serve on the jury (which, incidentally, is supposedly a red flag), you'd still be eliminated if one side was determined not to have you.
"I'm gonna buy your game, but by God, I won't play it, and I'll be DAMNED if I enjoy what little I do play!"
That'll show 'em.
I think you're looking at much too small a time period and/or much too selectively. A shared enemy in WWII did more to bring France and England together than any shared principles of government, and even then, "France's political leadership disregarded Churchill's proposal of a Franco-British Union and signed the Second Armistice at Compiègne surrender on June 22, 1940." ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Monarchy_t o_republic Rome was a democracy even during part of its expansion. Germany was a democracy as of 1919. Mexico is a democracy, as it was during the Mexican-American war. India and Pakistan are both democracies. Argentina is and was a democracy during the Falklands conflict. Democracy did not prevent (and arguably caused) the US Civil War. Venezuela is a democracy, as is Iran. I think evidence suggests that democracy merely facilitates internal stability; it does not ensure it, and it certainly does not ensure amicable foreign relations.
That's a nice bean counting machine you've got there. It'd be a real shame if it were to develop a sudden system failure, and oh my.. it looks like the backups have inexplicably failed as well, but just yours. What are the odds?
Google maps doesn't always show the best route. In reference to the post above about long hauling through the Vegas tunnel, Google maps will likely show the route through the tunnel when you put the airport as your starting point. It adds about 3 miles onto the trip, but at highway speeds the time difference can be negligible. Nonetheless, cabs charge primarily by distance. I had a cab take me through the tunnel once, saying traffic was bad the other way, but I had no way to know for sure and I was too tired to argue or stand around waiting for the cops. But needless to say, he got no tip. I've had cabs try to long haul me when visiting my hometown of DC too, although I noticed it only happened when I going between the airport and our hotel. I guess that sort of trip just screams tourist, and they assume you won't know the way around. The drivers never tried anything when I was going to/from a residential address, but that could just be a coincidence.
I agree with Nietzsche's assessment: The priesthood basically uses religion to justify and exercise power. First there were kings who took control based on physical might, and blood line determined who would inherit the throne. The only choice for the "thinking man" was to usurp the kings' power based on "divine" decree. The priests knew the mind of God, and no mortal could argue with that (and not be guilty of heresy), king or serf. Naturally, several kings used the same technique to wrestle power back -- the Church of England, for example, and Ramses claimed to be a god. It's not really relevant whether kings/chiefs came first, or priests.. the point is that organized religion is an effective vehicle for power.
And yet, acknowledging that doesn't get to the heart of the matter any more than saying different species of trees vie for sunlight in the rain forest by trying to grow faster and taller than others. The issue is that people are competing. Religion and politics are both competing for the same thing: power and control. There would not long be a void in the absence of one; the other would simply dominate. And I'm not sure one is any better than the other, as it generally takes armed conflict to overthrow either. Democracy may avoid armed revolution, but it doesn't ensure that, say, a democratic Palestine will peacefully coexist with a democratic Israel, even if religion were out of the picture (which is a pipe dream anyway). In other words, democracy *may* (in some cases) foster stability within ones own borders, but it does nothing for foreign relations. The solution then would seem to be worldwide democracy -- no borders, no problems -- but as we have so gracefully demonstrated in the US, any centralized government will inevitably make decisions that ostracize and/or incense some smaller part of the federation.
As I see it, life is competition for resources. Some people will be content if their needs are met, but many will want more, and there will always be some willing to fight for what they want. Organized religion (although not necessarily personal faith) is a symptom of this never-ending struggle, not a cause.