Then they will spend 1/3 of the film time getting to the damn lions in those transporter tubes.
And here is another thing that chaffs me about Voltron - one of them was parked in the middle of a volcano, submerged in lava, right? And you needed a *KEY* to turn in on - like somebody's gonna steal the damn thing. And I thought I was obsessive compulsive.
But that's just yet another reason of the long list of why it sucked compared to Gatchaman. Which I will cover in another posting.
Is Karl Rove really that unique with respect to Republican strategists?
He seems to be just this decade's equivalent to Lee Attwater. Both men seemed to specialize in organizing people by appealing to their worst instincts - bigotry, fear, xenophobia of blacks, women, gays - this isn't really unique or difficult with humanity, sadly. Attwater attempted some half-hearted acknowledgment of how evil this strategy was on his deathbed, but now its too late - its now standard operating procedure for the GOP as illustrated by Rove. They are crippled from using this crutch too much.
Rove's unique tactic seemed to be sabotaging campaigns - initially, the opponents, then he realized how much more mileage you could get if you sabotaged YOUR side's campaign in some half hearted way, and blamed your opponent. Sure its out-of-the-box thinking, but of the kind only sociopaths applaud, like "Why not take candy from a baby?" or "Why not invade a country for oil and political points?". Most people are human enough to not go there.
Initially, I was writing this to contradict the description of Rove as a "master of politics", but the initial author was very clever with his choice of words - he was a master of politics. I'm just annoyed that the tactics he used were so successful, and that they left America poorer.
Cheap energy made the world smaller and more accessible to more people. As energy gets more expensive and harder to acquire your frontier will reemerge. These dark regions are momentary sigularities now, but will get larger as energy gets more expensive and information on what is going on where gets more expensive.
While real problems and challenges like privacy and identity theft go ignored, they waste their time on crap like "National milk drinking day" and raising funds so they can leave more problems unsolved.
We are in the midst of an identity fraud crime wave, made possible by more intrusive technology and fewer regulations that limit the sharing of that information. There is a limit to the solutions that the individual can do - it can only be accomplished on a national level. Unfortunately, there is no leadership of any sort at the national level in the US. The head of the fish has completely rotted away.
They all usually do - they aren't the ones being shot at.
The best ones, like the Kaiser, usually go in with the question of "what's the worst thing that can happen, and how can I minimize the chances of that happening?".
But nowadays they would be considered wafflers, and not confident enough.
But since Bush doesn't want to impact the profitability of this war
Wait, do we hate Bush because he's spending too much money on the war, or because he didn't finance it enough to let the troops do their job? I'm so confused!
If that confuses you, you're probably also confused about why businessmen who are usually selfish, get a hard on about wars where individuals are often asked to sacrifice money, freedoms and their lives to the state. Key word - which you overlooked was 'profitability'. As in war profiteer.
Example. During the civil war, J.P. Morgan made a pretty penny selling rifles to the Union. The rifles had a tendency to explode in use and take off soldier's thumbs. Money was spent, but Morgan profited by the Union's loss of effectiveness.
Bush is attempting Military Keynesianism to boost the economy. Which is good if you have inside connections, like inflation or think you can wage war forever ala 1984. But the long term distortions that it introduces in the free market aren't worth the short term benefits.
You might want to review Argentinian history for a look at the outcomes of this economic policy. Starts with an economic boost, leads to high inflation and crime, followed by brutal military repression and finally collapse with people digging through junk yards for scrap to sell. No change in the outcome, just more resources wasted for the profit of a few.
"It would require me to get out of my comfortable niche in order to change my behavior or that of my elected officials. I'll just wait until there are refugees on my lawn and food is so expensive that McDonalds starts to serve 'long pork' McRibs.
After reading some of the responses, I come away amazed at how many people get their politics from a poorly written science fiction novel. A pyramid of chumps that get fed a slurry of entertainment and spin to be vomited out on cue.
Yes. There's an evil conspiracy of scientists and ecofreaks that are dead set against you eating eagle burgers while driving your Hummer with your feet.
Its kind of hard for any computer hobbyist not to have a bone to pick with Microsoft.
Microsoft 'ported' a copy of Basic to some minicomputers, and when some hobbyists started copying it, Bill Gates put a n article/letter in Creative Computing that basically called them all thieves.
It kind of went downhill from there, with Microsoft bringing buisness skills and ruthless tactics to what a lot of hackers enjoyed as a hobby. Gearheads think you should be rewarded according to your innovations as opposed to business skills. Microsoft was more of an innovator from the business side of things.
Carter didn't inherit the Iranian hostage fiasco from anyone.
It was President Eisenhower that overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a wildly unpopular Shah that resulted in the hostage fiasco. So blame good ol 'Ike for getting us into the democracy-killing-for-oil business.
And his efforts were unfotunate. Having diminished our military ability to the point that we couldn't manage a rescue attempt without abject failure, Carter left us with not only a damaged economy, but damaged military and failed Middle East policy.
There's a saying, "Presidents fight with the army of the last administration". Why? Mainly because it takes time to train soldiers and keep them up to date.
Following Vietnam, the use of special forces fell out of favor and were downsized under the Ford administration. When the need for those forces came up under "Desert Eagle" they were not ready. (You can't blame Carter for not having filters on the helicopters. He wasn't the one that blew of the British's advice!) As a result, it was Carter who recognized the need for these units and restored funding - not Reagan. That's a matter of record - not spin.
And perhaps Clinton could be accused of being distracted from foreign affairs, having become preoccupied with his own?
Cute. But we were much more recognized and respected as a nation under Clinton. You know, back when we weren't endorsing torture and preemptive nuke strikes. Go figure.
And the army Clinton left for Bush won the battles quickly and efficiently. Now that they are essentially beat-cops in the worst neighborhood on earth, I pity the President that's going to have to restore their strength.
Paint with both hands, gang, or just be reduced to partisan whining.
Well gosh, why don't you just hustle on over to Iraq and bask in all the happy Iraqis that you helped free? They'll give you a 'warm welcome' (ala Blackwater) and make you the 'head'(minus body) of the parade.
Yes, President Carter. Double-didgit inflation, taxes so high that they broke the econom, etc. were all Carter. Carter has done far more for the US after his presidency than he ever did for the country while in office.
First, 'double-didgit' inflation was initiated under Nixon, partially to pay for Vietnam, but mostly a result of Nixon's choice to make the dollar fiat, as opposed to redeemable for gold. Inflation stayed in double-digits under Ford, whose idea to beat inflation consisted of wearing buttons with "Whip Inflation Now" printed on them. Inflation was tamed under Carter thanks to Volker jacking up the interest rate. An unpopular solution, but sometimes its necessary to take the punch bowl away. Reagan took the credit, and dumped Volker for Greenspan when he had the chance to restart the 'play now pay later' budget monkeyshines.
Speaking of Greenspan, its funny how Carter gets pegged as raising taxes when payroll 'deductions' were doubled by Reagan under Greenspan's insistence that the additional money would make SS fiscally sound. Reagan ended up wasting the additional money for the Star Wars boondoggle.
Another thing Reagan gets credit for is strengthening the US military. It was infact Carter who brought back the use of Special Forces after the cuts in the programs under Ford led to the failed Desert Eagle mission.
Carter's mistakes - maybe funding the Afghanistan resistance, which gave us Bin Ladin. The Carter Doctrine, which did nothing to discourage America's dependence on the Middle East's oil, and possibly not looking 'Presidential' enough to win another four years.
There may be some confusion about who invented the internet, but there's none about what party's killing it.
Thank the Republicans for opposing net neutrality and supporting "Broadcasters Rights". In a few years the internet will be as open and free as a Verizon cell phone.
Hire older programmers. Its a win-win. They have the background and experience to effectively judge software patents as original. They can even telecomute and work odd hours, reducing office space. So its a win for the USPTO.
Older developers can keep their hand in the game and play to their strengths, so its a win for them.
And it will reduce the number of moronic, innovation crushing patents, so its a win for the software industry.
When an actor says he fears typecasting, what they are really saying is that they fear that their acting ability is inferior to the writing in the script.
I know of no law preventing someone from giving away what is theirs. The point of this bill is to prevent municipalities from taxing citizens to pay for a service most people will never use.
Fine. Then the law should be reworded to say exactly that, as opposed to singling out WiFi.
I pay for expensive sports stadiums that I never enter, for pampered, overpaid teams that I don't like. To add insult to injury, I have to pay again if I choose to view the welfare jocks in action.
A municipal WiFi implementation is probably the least obtrusive use of tax dollars - you don't have to sieze someone's land using 'eminent domain' to provide the service. It allows people to make use of the public radio spectrum without carving it out and selling it to the highest bidder.
Well, Apple has both, in Steve Jobs. And it's hard to separate the marketing from the innovation completely.
True, but there are a few crucial differences:
1. Jobs was a real entrepreneur, who founded several companies from scratch, as opposed to taking over the reins of an established company - ie a Manager who wants seven figures for holding the reins.
2. Jobs cut his eyeteeth building things. He could assemble a circuit board, solder the components and write base code I'd wager. Most marketing experts are great for building PowerPoint files and diaramas. And it shows when you compare Apple's stock performance vs HP's.
I just hope this is a trend that continues. Ignorant MBA weenies have completly run the United States into the ground. China is growing, the USA is shrinking. China's leader has a degree in engineering. Ours an MBA. Coincidence? I don't think so.
The sooner we clean house and start focusing on putting engineers and entrepreneurs in the driver's seat of industry and government the faster the US can get back on track. Until then, look forward to more MBA like solutions such as offshoring, IP abuses, litigation and canibalization of past achievements.
Slashdot Mirror
Nowadays we call them "Dubya Humpers".
Then they will spend 1/3 of the film time getting to the damn lions in those transporter tubes.
And here is another thing that chaffs me about Voltron - one of them was parked in the middle of a volcano, submerged in lava, right? And you needed a *KEY* to turn in on - like somebody's gonna steal the damn thing. And I thought I was obsessive compulsive.
But that's just yet another reason of the long list of why it sucked compared to Gatchaman. Which I will cover in another posting.
Is Karl Rove really that unique with respect to Republican strategists?
He seems to be just this decade's equivalent to Lee Attwater. Both men seemed to specialize in organizing people by appealing to their worst instincts - bigotry, fear, xenophobia of blacks, women, gays - this isn't really unique or difficult with humanity, sadly. Attwater attempted some half-hearted acknowledgment of how evil this strategy was on his deathbed, but now its too late - its now standard operating procedure for the GOP as illustrated by Rove. They are crippled from using this crutch too much.
Rove's unique tactic seemed to be sabotaging campaigns - initially, the opponents, then he realized how much more mileage you could get if you sabotaged YOUR side's campaign in some half hearted way, and blamed your opponent. Sure its out-of-the-box thinking, but of the kind only sociopaths applaud, like "Why not take candy from a baby?" or "Why not invade a country for oil and political points?". Most people are human enough to not go there.
Initially, I was writing this to contradict the description of Rove as a "master of politics", but the initial author was very clever with his choice of words - he was a master of politics. I'm just annoyed that the tactics he used were so successful, and that they left America poorer.
Monsanto has given me a brilliant idea.
1. Write and patent useless bit of code.
2. Insert code into virus.
3. Let virus propagate in wild, quietly.
4. Sue planet for using my code illegally.
5. Charge all PC users for 'testing services', and fine violators for using software containing my code.
6. Collect one million dollars.
7. Pinky to lip.
8. Laugh. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ahhh.
(Between 6-8, Sip cappuccino )
And I have an Business Methods patent on this! So forget you read it!!!
Da gooda news is that they are respecting the order. The bada news is that they just seized your estate in Paraguay, and put a boot on Cheney's limo.
The frontier is already here.
Cheap energy made the world smaller and more accessible to more people. As energy gets more expensive and harder to acquire your frontier will reemerge. These dark regions are momentary sigularities now, but will get larger as energy gets more expensive and information on what is going on where gets more expensive.
Then why don't these A-holes show up to steal my identity and pay my bills?
Maybe they're "ident pirates".
Sigh. Fine. Then we'll keel haul them along the bottom of an chinese transport.
Heck, this will work - China ships us crap goods, we ship them back convicted ID 'pirates' for organ harvesting.
Way to go. You just solved the US trade deficit and identity theft plague at the same time Doc.
While real problems and challenges like privacy and identity theft go ignored, they waste their time on crap like "National milk drinking day" and raising funds so they can leave more problems unsolved.
We are in the midst of an identity fraud crime wave, made possible by more intrusive technology and fewer regulations that limit the sharing of that information. There is a limit to the solutions that the individual can do - it can only be accomplished on a national level. Unfortunately, there is no leadership of any sort at the national level in the US. The head of the fish has completely rotted away.
They all usually do - they aren't the ones being shot at.
The best ones, like the Kaiser, usually go in with the question of "what's the worst thing that can happen, and how can I minimize the chances of that happening?".
But nowadays they would be considered wafflers, and not confident enough.
And if you think the audience is an uneducated, violent gang of criminals, you should see the hard core thugs that produce it!
Wait, do we hate Bush because he's spending too much money on the war, or because he didn't finance it enough to let the troops do their job? I'm so confused!
If that confuses you, you're probably also confused about why businessmen who are usually selfish, get a hard on about wars where individuals are often asked to sacrifice money, freedoms and their lives to the state. Key word - which you overlooked was 'profitability'. As in war profiteer.
Example. During the civil war, J.P. Morgan made a pretty penny selling rifles to the Union. The rifles had a tendency to explode in use and take off soldier's thumbs. Money was spent, but Morgan profited by the Union's loss of effectiveness.
Bush is attempting Military Keynesianism to boost the economy. Which is good if you have inside connections, like inflation or think you can wage war forever ala 1984. But the long term distortions that it introduces in the free market aren't worth the short term benefits.
You might want to review Argentinian history for a look at the outcomes of this economic policy. Starts with an economic boost, leads to high inflation and crime, followed by brutal military repression and finally collapse with people digging through junk yards for scrap to sell. No change in the outcome, just more resources wasted for the profit of a few.
War profiteering. See ya at the junkyard!
stupid politicians get their pants pulled down, and their asses spanked with moon rocks.
You may want to add:
"It would require me to get out of my comfortable niche in order to change my behavior or that of my elected officials. I'll just wait until there are refugees on my lawn and food is so expensive that McDonalds starts to serve 'long pork' McRibs.
After reading some of the responses, I come away amazed at how many people get their politics from a poorly written science fiction novel. A pyramid of chumps that get fed a slurry of entertainment and spin to be vomited out on cue.
Yes. There's an evil conspiracy of scientists and ecofreaks that are dead set against you eating eagle burgers while driving your Hummer with your feet.
Hmmm. Scientific process vs the profit motive of a company. Which has a better history of integrity? Tough call.
Its kind of hard for any computer hobbyist not to have a bone to pick with Microsoft.
Microsoft 'ported' a copy of Basic to some minicomputers, and when some hobbyists started copying it, Bill Gates put a n article/letter in Creative Computing that basically called them all thieves.
It kind of went downhill from there, with Microsoft bringing buisness skills and ruthless tactics to what a lot of hackers enjoyed as a hobby. Gearheads think you should be rewarded according to your innovations as opposed to business skills. Microsoft was more of an innovator from the business side of things.
And that about sums it up.
It was President Eisenhower that overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a wildly unpopular Shah that resulted in the hostage fiasco. So blame good ol 'Ike for getting us into the democracy-killing-for-oil business.
And his efforts were unfotunate. Having diminished our military ability to the point that we couldn't manage a rescue attempt without abject failure, Carter left us with not only a damaged economy, but damaged military and failed Middle East policy.
There's a saying, "Presidents fight with the army of the last administration". Why? Mainly because it takes time to train soldiers and keep them up to date.
Following Vietnam, the use of special forces fell out of favor and were downsized under the Ford administration. When the need for those forces came up under "Desert Eagle" they were not ready. (You can't blame Carter for not having filters on the helicopters. He wasn't the one that blew of the British's advice!) As a result, it was Carter who recognized the need for these units and restored funding - not Reagan. That's a matter of record - not spin.
And perhaps Clinton could be accused of being distracted from foreign affairs, having become preoccupied with his own?
Cute. But we were much more recognized and respected as a nation under Clinton. You know, back when we weren't endorsing torture and preemptive nuke strikes. Go figure.
And the army Clinton left for Bush won the battles quickly and efficiently. Now that they are essentially beat-cops in the worst neighborhood on earth, I pity the President that's going to have to restore their strength.
Paint with both hands, gang, or just be reduced to partisan whining.
Well gosh, why don't you just hustle on over to Iraq and bask in all the happy Iraqis that you helped free? They'll give you a 'warm welcome' (ala Blackwater) and make you the 'head'(minus body) of the parade.
First, 'double-didgit' inflation was initiated under Nixon, partially to pay for Vietnam, but mostly a result of Nixon's choice to make the dollar fiat, as opposed to redeemable for gold. Inflation stayed in double-digits under Ford, whose idea to beat inflation consisted of wearing buttons with "Whip Inflation Now" printed on them. Inflation was tamed under Carter thanks to Volker jacking up the interest rate. An unpopular solution, but sometimes its necessary to take the punch bowl away. Reagan took the credit, and dumped Volker for Greenspan when he had the chance to restart the 'play now pay later' budget monkeyshines.
Speaking of Greenspan, its funny how Carter gets pegged as raising taxes when payroll 'deductions' were doubled by Reagan under Greenspan's insistence that the additional money would make SS fiscally sound. Reagan ended up wasting the additional money for the Star Wars boondoggle.
Another thing Reagan gets credit for is strengthening the US military. It was infact Carter who brought back the use of Special Forces after the cuts in the programs under Ford led to the failed Desert Eagle mission.
Carter's mistakes - maybe funding the Afghanistan resistance, which gave us Bin Ladin. The Carter Doctrine, which did nothing to discourage America's dependence on the Middle East's oil, and possibly not looking 'Presidential' enough to win another four years.
There may be some confusion about who invented the internet, but there's none about what party's killing it. Thank the Republicans for opposing net neutrality and supporting "Broadcasters Rights". In a few years the internet will be as open and free as a Verizon cell phone.
My dad called it a lawnmower.
Nuff said.
Older developers can keep their hand in the game and play to their strengths, so its a win for them.
And it will reduce the number of moronic, innovation crushing patents, so its a win for the software industry.
Slam-f'in-dunk.
It can be the equivalent of the Razzie film awards - a way of singling out congressmen whose actions take away from our digital freedoms.
Just not sure what to call it...
the bon-head?
The Boner Award?
The scummy & scare? - no that's for fud.
Well, I'll let them decide...
When an actor says he fears typecasting, what they are really saying is that they fear that their acting ability is inferior to the writing in the script.
Fine. Then the law should be reworded to say exactly that, as opposed to singling out WiFi.
I pay for expensive sports stadiums that I never enter, for pampered, overpaid teams that I don't like. To add insult to injury, I have to pay again if I choose to view the welfare jocks in action.
A municipal WiFi implementation is probably the least obtrusive use of tax dollars - you don't have to sieze someone's land using 'eminent domain' to provide the service. It allows people to make use of the public radio spectrum without carving it out and selling it to the highest bidder.
Buy our laptop, and we will throw in a free posey of frankensence and muir, no additional charge.
Who else would be better suited for being DM at the HP gaming club?
Innovated just-in-time delivery of test equipment via catapult.
Dammit, The jokes just write themselves on this one...
True, but there are a few crucial differences:
1. Jobs was a real entrepreneur, who founded several companies from scratch, as opposed to taking over the reins of an established company - ie a Manager who wants seven figures for holding the reins.
2. Jobs cut his eyeteeth building things. He could assemble a circuit board, solder the components and write base code I'd wager. Most marketing experts are great for building PowerPoint files and diaramas. And it shows when you compare Apple's stock performance vs HP's.
I just hope this is a trend that continues. Ignorant MBA weenies have completly run the United States into the ground. China is growing, the USA is shrinking. China's leader has a degree in engineering. Ours an MBA. Coincidence? I don't think so.
The sooner we clean house and start focusing on putting engineers and entrepreneurs in the driver's seat of industry and government the faster the US can get back on track. Until then, look forward to more MBA like solutions such as offshoring, IP abuses, litigation and canibalization of past achievements.