Rubbish. The overwhelming majority of Australians are descended (in the main) from more recent immigrants. Indeed, nearly a quarter of Australians living today were born overseas.
Which calzones selectively quoted as:
The overwhelming majority... nearly a quarter of Australians living today...
hmmm, is this the "new math?"
You might be good at math, calzones, but maybe not at English comprehension. Reread the original quote - there is no contradiction between pointing to the fact that the majority of Australians are descended from immigrants (immigrants more recent than the original batches of criminals), and also noting the significant minority that were actually born overseas.
Think about it - ALL Australians (with the exception of the original inhabitants) are either descended from immigrants or are immigrants themselves. There are more of the former than the latter. Where's the dodgy math?
Hi. I'm supposed to be working, which means that this reply is long and ranty and, near the end, maybe a bit flippant. All in good fun!:-)
Alsee said:
Ok, I was mainly explaining why my original post to
you simply focused on the fact that america was
divided, rather than trying to argue the points
over which we are divided.
Hmm, okay, though I still think that this was an odd thing to say (from the post I originally replied to):
The other issue is that the president has been lying to the public and has won the election through deception. The main thing is lying about Iraq, but it goes beyond that. I don't feel like going into it yet again, but the fact is that a HUGE number of people are saying this. There is a HUGE number of people who think they have good reason to believe this. True or not, they believe it.
I found that this statement placed too much importance on what people believed to be true rather than on what was actually true. It struck me as comical given that you were accusing Bush of lying. It still does.
It also contradicts arguments you've made since then, a bit. After all, if it's okay to go along with all those people that believe GWB lied about Iraq (regardless of whether he did or not), why isn't it equally okay to go along with all those people who believe there is a strong link between Saddam and Al Qaeda (regardless of whether it's true or not)? You don't get to pick and choose your mobs as it suits you, not if you want to remain credible.
As for the subject of Saddam/Al Qaeda links, here's some reading for you:
The article, while not actually arguing that there are strong links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, summarises and explains the problems with the arguments that there were no links, in particular the arguments made by Clarke (my bias alert: the author of the article linked above, Paul Monk, is a friend and ex-colleague (briefly) of mine).
(SNIP) I was explicitly aware that my "likely"s could turn
out wrong. That's why I did a careful second pass
to ensure that all places that needed the word had
it.
Okay, still, it made for an odd reading experience!:-)
Are you even slightly open to the idea that you
have a similar emotional investment? That you have
been misled?
Yes, I think so. I think I have been open to new
information. I have done quite a bit of reseach and
reading.
Sure, okay, but based on some of the links you provide in your post, I think you need to be a bit more critical of the quality of the stuff you read and base your opinions on (more below).
In general my "debate opponets" have
dropped the discussion when it comes to backing
anything up.(SNIP)
This is, indeed, frustrating. But backing arguments up with clearly biased and/or unreliable material is just as bad, as it not only hurts the particular point you're trying to make, but your general credibility as well (the thirteenth chime effects mentioned in the article above).
You're now providing evidence that Bush supporters
have incorrect understandings of the facts. I'm
open to the idea that this is true, but it doesn't
directly support your statement that Bush Lied
(TM). Why not blame the media?
I do substantially blame the US media, and I can
even back up the reason for it.
Okay, we broadly agree on that, though you take a much tougher view on the press than I do (given the scale of what happened, you should cut them a bit more slack, especially since they have been anything but pro-Bush more recently).
As I said, I simply got tired of going over it again and again and again in various posts. It is quite tedious trying to inform people with such an emotional investment in resisting the idea that they have been missled.
Reread your sentence above a few times. Are you even slightly open to the idea that you have a similar emotional investment? That you have been misled?
You also seem to have jumped to a few conclusions, so here are a few facts about me you should know. I'm an Australian who probably would have voted for Gore in 2000, and reluctantly for Bush in 2004 (Kerry was a terrible candidate). I realise it's tricky trying to predict who I would have voted for in someone else's election, but that's just to give you an idea that I'm not a partisan hack.
The fact is that the majority of Bush supporters have been missled about the facts. (Which only scratches the surface of systematic disinformation.)
This is a slight shift of subject. You're now providing evidence that Bush supporters have incorrect understandings of the facts. I'm open to the idea that this is true, but it doesn't directly support your statement that Bush Lied (TM). Why not blame the media? Or the Dems for being too soft?
Of course you are likely to take that paper as a personal attack.
Hardly, I'm way down under!
You will likely attack it as partisan motivated, and likely attack it on the points where you have been missled about the truth.
I have no idea if it was partisan, though after a quick scan of the document you linked to I couldn't help but notice that it was inviting those it interviewed to indulge in 20/20 hindsight. For example, it didn't ask Bush/Kerry supporters before the war whether they thought Iraq had WMD, it asked them afterwards if they thought Iraq had them before the war. You don't think that is less useful than looking at what people actually believed before the war, rather than what they are willing to admit afterwards?
After all, before the war Kerry himself thought Saddam had WMD...
I will cover the quality of the source, I will cover the fact that even if it were bias-motivated it does not change the fact that most Bush supporters WERE ill-informed
Bias doesn't matter? It's a fact all the same? We're back to one of my original responses to you - that you don't really care about the truth as long as it bolsters your beliefs - who here is really in denail?
Also, before the war we were ALL misinformed. By the intelligence agencies.
and I will refer you to US Senate Intelligence reports backing up the facts on which you were misinformed.
More 20/20 hindsight. Did these reports exist before the war?
There is a difference between passing on dodgy intel to the public and outright lying. I don't deny that the intelligence was deeply flawed. But how does it then follow that Bush Lied? No one has yet provided a shred of evidence that Bush Knew that the reports of WMD programs were false. I'm betting you don't have any either.
The fact is that the world says we have lied.
"The world"? Can you hear yourself? Even the French intel agencies thought Irag had WMD. Did Chirac lie too? Why?
You will dismiss it based on oil-for-food curruption. I will document how our relations have been wrecked with DOZENS of countries across the world, from Canada to England to Norway.
Define "wrecked". Provide links to evidence of this "wreckage".
Oil-for-food curruption was limited to companies in THREE countries,
Er... and the UN. Don't forget the UN...
and it hadly explains the rest of the planet turning aganst Bush and against us.
Are you under the impression that these people (what you histrionically call "the rest of the planet") liked Bush before September 11?
The other issue is that the president has been lying to the public and has won the election through deception. The main thing is lying about Iraq, but it goes beyond that. I don't feel like going into it yet again, but the fact is that a HUGE number of people are saying this. There is a HUGE number of people who think they have good reason to believe this. True or not, they believe it.
So you say that it's a "fact" that Bush has been "lying". You don't offer any specific examples (you can't) but you say that lots of people agree that Bush is lying. Then you say that true or not, these people believe it.
So you don't care whether it's true or not that Bush is lying, only that many people believe it.
You are a filmmaker and you wonder why audio is salted?
On a streaming web software demo? Yeah, I wonder why... why bother. It's not like the additions added anything to the experience, other than distracting me with their obvious phoniness.
And to those who thought I was offering flamebait - huh?:-)
The NAB Demo Video available on Motion's website is a bit odd. The content is fine, but the postproduction is strange.
The first thing I noticed was the stereo crowd hubbub - surely the demonstrator's headset mike didn't pick up the crowd in stereo? Was it added in post? Then I noticed that the two audience applause moments during the demo were clearly added in post as a sound effect. Why?
Anyway - Motion looks cool but it's Mac only so....
If he didn't, you could sue him for selling your poem without a license.
Except that he's probably only ever going to sell the photos to you, the copyright owner of the poem. Try that in front of a judge and see where it gets you..:-)
I don't think any of them was forced into it, was he?
Actually it seems to be more complicated than a yes or a no. I recently saw a repeat of the disturbing documentary series Horror in The East, and they dedicated an entire episode to this question (not just Kamikaze pilots, but all of the Japanese suicides as the Allies approached). The attitude of many pilots to being a Kamikaze is briefly outlined in this program summary:
Seems there were precious few volunteers, and those that did it were mostly concerned about the shame and dishonour for their families if they didn't - not to mention being executed.
I found the entire series fascinating - full of subjects that serious written histories often discuss and grapple with, but that most TV docos don't.
Hey no problem, I wasn't trying to put you down or anything. I'm a late comer to the series myself, so my "catch-up" took MANY hours, so I can imagine that you've got a lot of viewing to do if you want to watch them all before the big finale!:-)
My one complaint about BS is that it has no transport controls to jump to and from scenes. Guess I'll have to buy the DVD for that.
Actually, "animated comic" is a far more accurate description of Broken Saints (BS) than "cartoon". Cartoons usually have a lot more animation than BS does. Cartoons usually have spoken dialogue, not animated text balloons. I think you get the idea.
Have you watched/read any Broken Saints episodes? I'm not sure if "cinematic literature" or "animated comic" are the right terms for it either, but if you have seen any BS then you'd understand the grasping for terms. "Flash comic strip" is the best I can manage, but it's too web-specific and will not really apply when the series is transferred to DVD.
But waiting over an hour to back up "only" 13Gig? By the time this sort of software is ready for prime time (ie, it has a half-decent GUI), DVD blanks will be dirt cheap, as will really fast DVD burners. I'd rather send the same data to around 3 DVD disks. Especially since the stuff I like to back up is the kind of data where I often need to retrieve just a few small(ish) files from the lot. Near-instant random-access is something I've grown accustomed to.
Then again, for system backups which allow a complete restore of the whole lot, this could be handy, I guess. Especially since the "tape drives" (cameras) have lots of other uses. And I guess the speed of most DV cameras' rewind and fast-forward means that this would allow almost-speedy random-access.
It seems like this idea of backing up data to DV tape has been around for a while - but there's still no "prosumer"-ready application out there (yeah yeah, go write one yourself - but I'm not a programmer).
The question I have is whether participants are paid. I would volunteer in a heartbeat if they made it worth my while(...)
Heh. If you'll only do it if you get paid, then you wouldn't be volunteering would you?:)
But terminology pedantry aside, I agree - it always seems cheeky to me when a for-profit show pays everyone involved except the contestants - especially when the contestants are made to work so hard!
Gah, you got me. I've been trolled. So I'm not going to give a detailed quote-reply as I now believe you're just having fun. Well done!
Why do I think you're trolling? Well:
Most of your points were (again) attacking positions I don't hold and didn't state - there were enough straw men ripped apart in your post to make your own crop circles!
Also, the claims you make, like the links you provided, are just lists of assertions with little or nothing to back them up (here's a quickie - I've walked through a field of canola and I didn't turn completely yellow, even if I had turned yellow - so what? You'd have to catch me to know I was in your field) It's these kinds of small false claims that are typical of this sort of psuedo-research.
Some of the sites you provide contradict each other, surely you noticed that? (one claims the circles lead to better growth in the crop, another has pictures of stunted growth from a crop circle field - I'm betting there's no effect).
Lastly, you make the old LAME comparison to unproved theories of the past (atoms) coming true, as if the claims of the crop circle enthusiasts will one day be proven. Yeesh - even when we didn't have the technology to test for atoms, they were a testable hypothesis based on sound reasoning and a lack of better alternative explanations. If you don't get the difference with crop circles, then you don't get science.
The topper was when you said, in regard to humans making the circles, that "I'm not that paranoid to believe such a grand conspiracy". Uh huh. Got it. Strange human conspiracy with no apparent motive = unlikey. Strange alien conspiracy with no apparent motive = likely. Yeah. Right. And who said anything about conspiracies?
You're either trolling or distressingly deluded. Based on the well-written style of your post, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're just having some fun with me. You got me!
Then again, mental disturbance is not always a barrier to well-written prose...:-)
Dang, I think I'm being trolled again. You're doing it gently and politely, I'll grant, but I think you're trolling all the same. That makes the second time recently for me. Oh well. You said:
Your possibilities limits your view. You understand that I see. It makes you dismiss things, without even doing some proper research into it.
You assume too much. You assume I haven't done the research (not true). I've looked everywhere - and I can find no compelling (or even semi-compelling) evidence that these things are non-human in origin.
Have you found any? Care to share? It's not up to others to find evidence for an unconvincing case.
Also, you missed the bit about keeping an open mind, even when one has a firm position/opnion. Clearly you find it difficult to believe that one can both have an opinion on topic X and an open mind on topic X. You've certainly shown that the reverse is true - one can have no opinion on a topic and a closed mind on it!!:-)
Enough people are claiming humans did it with a plank and some strings, and enough material is out there to debunk all this.
Clearly, some of these works of art involve more than planks of wood and string, hence my reference to smart people. But I think you know this already - you were just defeating a straw man there (attacking a position I did not take).
I've read it, and am impressed enough to post this story to/.. Let me repeat: I don't know who did it.
And let me repeat my question - which do you REALLY think is more likely? C'mon - say it! You really think it's 50-50? I don't know who did it either, but I have an opinion on the most likely explanation - do you?
If it's human, I'm Very impressed (based on what I've read about cropcirlces). Now YOU show me some evidence, besides throwing in some weak dismissive arguments. But please read the links with an open mind first:-)
See above. Those making the claim need to back it up. I make no claim, I merely search (in vain) for compelling evidence that it is non-human.
Open mind does not mean empty mind...:-)
I'd say excactly the opposite is true:-) If you manage to get an empty mind, it'll be the most open mind in existance.
No, it will just be empty. Unable to form any opinion because it will not have the experience and skills to seperate the likely from the unlikely... oh wait...
;-)
An empty mind can be filled, while a full mind will reject.
Nonsense!:-) On so many levels!
I'm not saying you're wrong,
Actually you are, and that's OK! Stand firm! Express an opinion! You clearly think it's likely that I'm wrong!
but that the basis of your arguments are based on a negative attitude towards anything non/super-physical.
Close! I have a negative attitude to anything non-existent. And I take a very, VERY broad interpretation of what existence means. But if it's invisible, unmeasurable, unpredictable, with no form or substance, and no effect on the world whatsoever (all in the broadest sense), then it doesn't exist.
Just because no-one can see the invisible fairies at the bottom of the garden, doesn't mean that they aren't GREEN invisible fairies!;-)
It's obvious you haven't researched the subject.
And your evidence for that assertion? Let me guess - I disagree with you, so I mustn't have done the research!
You obviously don't see the miracle that is life here on earth.
Sure I do, that's why I don't need to make stuff up.
Maybe you think you are a robot, a complex machine? I believe (and sense) we are much more than that,
Tangent? I feel like I stepped into the middle of a different conversation.
so maybe that's really the difference between our opinions too.
Please reread my previous post. You've misinterpreted it.
You said:
> There is no point discussing this > with you.
This is quite possibly true, though probably not for the reasons you think.
> Obviously you know how > aliens *should* act and not act..
Nope. Never said I did either. So how you reach this "obvious" conclusion is beyond me.
It's all about the difference between possibilities (ultimately, anything is possible) and probabilities (looking for evidence, weighing up the evidence, deciding what is the most likely answer, but keeping an open eye and open mind for new evidence that might suggest another answer).
> That is being closed-minded.
It's likely that one of us is indeed being close-minded.:-) After all, can't I use your logic and claim that you are being dismissive of the probability that humans did it?
> An > open mind doesn't know.
Simply untrue. You're describing an undecided mind, not an open one. Or are you suggesting that to have an opinion on a topic, even an opinion tempered by being open to seeing contrary evidence or argument, is to automatically close one's mind?
I don't know about you, but I can have an opinion on a topic, even a strong opinion, and still have an open mind on it. As is often the case when discussing the opinions of others, I think you reveal more about yourself than about me when you say this.
> Unless > you don't know, you're not open > to new ideas.
Again, not true. Or to put it another way - what compelling evidence do you have that only those who don't know the answer to a question are the only ones with an open mind on that question?
Their goal is to make us wonder? By making crop circles that could easily be created by any dedicated band of clever people with spare time?
Why don't they do something more wonderous, like float the Empure State building fifty feet off the ground? Oh wait, I know, they don't do something like that because they want to make us wonder...:-)
- What difference
- would it make to THEM wether it is
- in "plain english" or in ASCII? We
- don't know their agenda.
There is no "they". Until there is ANY semi-compelling evidence that extraterristrials or other non-human forces are at work, the rational opinion must be that humans did it. Add to this the many examples of people coming clean and showing how they did these things and you have compelling reasons to believe it was humans. Boring, but most likely.
I'm open to the idea that aliens do it, about as open as I am to the possibility that I'll be hit by a meteor in the next ten minutes.
- Btw, you are the one believing here,
You seem to be (deliberately?) confusing belief with disbelief. If you're unsure of the difference then it would explain your comment.
- by ruling out possibilities without
- a sound scientific foundation.
I rule nothing out, I merely posses close-to-no belief that aliens did it because of the total lack of evidence that they might have, plus the copious evidence of humans making other crop circles. What is your "scientific foundation" for thinking that it is even plausible?
- I'm
- NOT saying aliens did this (because
- I admit I don't know).
But which do you think is the most likely explanation? Seriously. For example, I happen to think that it's very likely that extraterristrial life exists out there (for reasons not mentioned here), but the possibility that they make Earthly crop circles is vanishingly small, on a par with the possibility before that I would be hit by a meteor, and we all know meteors exist. Hey, that was nearly ten minutes ago! I'm still here!:-)
- It seems a
- very difficult thing to do for people.
Why write it in English encoded as ASCII? Why not just in English? Why on a CDROM?
Isn't it screamingly obvious that a geek scanned an image, converted it into directions for him/her and his/her mates, and they spent an evening in a field making a pattern for their own amusement?
No-one has yet to come up with an even semi-plausible argument as to why aliens would make crop circles, especially of the more elaborate kind. English encoded into ASCII portrayed as dots on a CD in a crop circle? Come on! There are much better ways to communicate with us.
Does anyone have any information of the REAL speed of this device? How much data per second can one RELIABLY pull off this thing? Or are there no prototypes out there in the hands of slashdot readers? At US$15 each, it can't be that fast, can it? Dare I hope for DV cameras with a stack of these plugged into the back instead of tapes?
I've been to their site and had a quick look, but found only this:
ISO 7816 communication speed is 9600 baud, while the StorReader supports a sustained data transfer rate of 5 megabytes per second in the 100 megabyte StorCard, and scales in the 5 gigabyte design.
Does "scales" means what I think it does? It's surely too good to be true that, if the 100 meg card is 5 megabytes a second, that the 5 gig card is 250 meg a second. Yeah, that's too good to be true. Plus knowing me my math is probably off.
I'm guessing that since they mention USB but not USB2 that it's not fast enough for broadcastable video. But I can hope.:-)
j.howard.mp@aph.gov.au might be the correct address, but I would guess it just forwards to whoever is looking after whatever Mr Howard's portfolio was at that time (you didn't give a date to the usenet posting).
A little birdy told me (I briefly worked in the Australian Federal Public Service a long time ago, and I have a few friends that still do) to try pm@pm.gov.au instead. Though I'm betting it forwards to the same place that web site form seems to go to - webmaster@pm.gov.au.
Anyway, I don't really see the point of this "competition", even from a publicity stunt point of view. No one REALLY thinks that the Australian PM (or the US President or the French President etc) sits at his desk each morning, opens up Outlook/KMail/whatever and checks his incoming email, do they?
Maybe they think the PM opens all his own mail too. And that he really does write every word of every document that has his signature on it...
This comment is probably too late as the story is already half-way down slashdot's page, but I haven't seen anyone else mention P2P streaming as an existing possible solution to the bandwidth problem.
There are several P2P streaming solutions in development. My personal favourite is:
It works quite well, considering it's only at version 0.116B, the developers say that it's going to be open sourced, and there is both a Windows and Linux version available now (Mac on the way).
Not a lot of music available yet, unless you're into Japanese Pop, computer game tunes, or speeches and debates from the EFF (the latter are quite good listening actually, keep it up whoever you are).
Each stream can have basic info about the "station" and a link to a web site. It works quite well on my 56K modem.
I can't think of a way to say this without seeming sarcastic.
Actually it was this sentence that seemed sarcastic.:-)
If it smacked to me instead of to you, we/I have a serious personality problem which has brought about the fracture of your/my/our identity.
You don't really think I meant that do you?
Your efforts to shore up your argument by obfuscating into insignificance have been most entertaining(...)
I don't have an argument or a (stated) position - just a couple of questions. Are you that keen for an opponent that you can't just take the questions I asked at face value? Yet again you talk at length about side-points (which is okay) but without addressing my questions (which is not), even when I (re)stated what my questions were.
Hmm, I think the penny has finally dropped - I think I've been trolled. Heh. You got me. Well done.:-)
But in case you're not just being silly:
are you suggesting that some form of body language or tone of voice would add further meaning and/or clarification to what you have said? Is there a substantial divorce between what you are thinking and what you are saying?
No and no. In fact I'm saying almost the reverse. I'm asking you to ignore the (imagined) tone you seem to be hearing behind my words, and focus on their plain meaning. Hence some of my previous comments - you seem to be responding to some hidden meaning behind my words, rather than their plain meaning. And what do I mean by plain meaning? Well, just try assuming that all my questions were asked in a polite tone as genuine enquiry. That's not too rare a thing is it?:-)
As I tried to say, and as I suspect you realise, plain text is fine for answering questions from a stranger based on the plain meaning of the questions, but hopless if you're trying to perceive subtle intentions (and biases!) behind the questions. You just don't know enough about me to make those assessments of underlying intent (I can assure you that you seem to be mostly wrong about them), so why not just address the questions themselves.
You've had an itchy finger on your flamethrower trigger for some time now. Why don't I go ahead and call bullshit on the whole condescending civility thing you've got going on so you can cut loose and get this out of your system.
Is it that hard to believe that someone posts to slashdot without pounding his keyboard in fury - that's certainly not how I see you. Again you read too much into my words, or perhaps I choose hostile-sounding ones? I've reread my posts and they don't strike me as hostile. I really am quite relaxed on this topic - perhaps that is what seems infuriatingly condescending to you? I have far more deserving things to get agro about (like a hard drive that recently died just before a backup, costing me three weeks work on a short film edit), and I very rarely get involved in angry debates, especially online, and especially under my real name. I asked my original (admittedly skeptically phrased) questions because I wanted to know the answers. That was the extent of my agenda. Does this really surprise you?
Nah, I think you know all this. Yeah, I've probably been trolled. Had to happen sooner or later. Nicely done though, especially the part about giving me the last word. And I went for it too. Elegant.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
What on Earth is "earther"? :-)
Think about it - ALL Australians (with the exception of the original inhabitants) are either descended from immigrants or are immigrants themselves. There are more of the former than the latter. Where's the dodgy math?
All the best,
Great Sig!
Hi. I'm supposed to be working, which means that this reply is long and ranty and, near the end, maybe a bit flippant. All in good fun! :-)
:-)
Alsee said:
Ok, I was mainly explaining why my original post to
you simply focused on the fact that america was
divided, rather than trying to argue the points
over which we are divided.
Hmm, okay, though I still think that this was an odd thing to say (from the post I originally replied to):
The other issue is that the president has been lying to the public and has won the election through deception. The main thing is lying about Iraq, but it goes beyond that. I don't feel like going into it yet again, but the fact is that a HUGE number of people are saying this. There is a HUGE number of people who think they have good reason to believe this. True or not, they believe it.
I found that this statement placed too much importance on what people believed to be true rather than on what was actually true. It struck me as comical given that you were accusing Bush of lying. It still does.
It also contradicts arguments you've made since then, a bit. After all, if it's okay to go along with all those people that believe GWB lied about Iraq (regardless of whether he did or not), why isn't it equally okay to go along with all those people who believe there is a strong link between Saddam and Al Qaeda (regardless of whether it's true or not)? You don't get to pick and choose your mobs as it suits you, not if you want to remain credible.
As for the subject of Saddam/Al Qaeda links, here's some reading for you:
The Clock Chimes Thirteen
The article, while not actually arguing that there are strong links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, summarises and explains the problems with the arguments that there were no links, in particular the arguments made by Clarke (my bias alert: the author of the article linked above, Paul Monk, is a friend and ex-colleague (briefly) of mine).
(SNIP) I was explicitly aware that my "likely"s could turn
out wrong. That's why I did a careful second pass
to ensure that all places that needed the word had
it.
Okay, still, it made for an odd reading experience!
Are you even slightly open to the idea that you
have a similar emotional investment? That you have
been misled?
Yes, I think so. I think I have been open to new
information. I have done quite a bit of reseach and
reading.
Sure, okay, but based on some of the links you provide in your post, I think you need to be a bit more critical of the quality of the stuff you read and base your opinions on (more below).
In general my "debate opponets" have
dropped the discussion when it comes to backing
anything up.(SNIP)
This is, indeed, frustrating. But backing arguments up with clearly biased and/or unreliable material is just as bad, as it not only hurts the particular point you're trying to make, but your general credibility as well (the thirteenth chime effects mentioned in the article above).
You're now providing evidence that Bush supporters
have incorrect understandings of the facts. I'm
open to the idea that this is true, but it doesn't
directly support your statement that Bush Lied
(TM). Why not blame the media?
I do substantially blame the US media, and I can
even back up the reason for it.
Okay, we broadly agree on that, though you take a much tougher view on the press than I do (given the scale of what happened, you should cut them a bit more slack, especially since they have been anything but pro-Bush more recently).
I also note that you missed the chance to commen
(sorry for the delay in replying - been away).
You said:
As I said, I simply got tired of going over it again and again and again in various posts. It is quite tedious trying to inform people with such an emotional investment in resisting the idea that they have been missled.
Reread your sentence above a few times. Are you even slightly open to the idea that you have a similar emotional investment? That you have been misled?
You also seem to have jumped to a few conclusions, so here are a few facts about me you should know. I'm an Australian who probably would have voted for Gore in 2000, and reluctantly for Bush in 2004 (Kerry was a terrible candidate). I realise it's tricky trying to predict who I would have voted for in someone else's election, but that's just to give you an idea that I'm not a partisan hack.
The fact is that the majority of Bush supporters have been missled about the facts. (Which only scratches the surface of systematic disinformation.)
This is a slight shift of subject. You're now providing evidence that Bush supporters have incorrect understandings of the facts. I'm open to the idea that this is true, but it doesn't directly support your statement that Bush Lied (TM). Why not blame the media? Or the Dems for being too soft?
Of course you are likely to take that paper as a personal attack.
Hardly, I'm way down under!
You will likely attack it as partisan motivated, and likely attack it on the points where you have been missled about the truth.
I have no idea if it was partisan, though after a quick scan of the document you linked to I couldn't help but notice that it was inviting those it interviewed to indulge in 20/20 hindsight. For example, it didn't ask Bush/Kerry supporters before the war whether they thought Iraq had WMD, it asked them afterwards if they thought Iraq had them before the war. You don't think that is less useful than looking at what people actually believed before the war, rather than what they are willing to admit afterwards?
After all, before the war Kerry himself thought Saddam had WMD...
I will cover the quality of the source, I will cover the fact that even if it were bias-motivated it does not change the fact that most Bush supporters WERE ill-informed
Bias doesn't matter? It's a fact all the same? We're back to one of my original responses to you - that you don't really care about the truth as long as it bolsters your beliefs - who here is really in denail?
Also, before the war we were ALL misinformed. By the intelligence agencies.
and I will refer you to US Senate Intelligence reports backing up the facts on which you were misinformed.
More 20/20 hindsight. Did these reports exist before the war?
There is a difference between passing on dodgy intel to the public and outright lying. I don't deny that the intelligence was deeply flawed. But how does it then follow that Bush Lied? No one has yet provided a shred of evidence that Bush Knew that the reports of WMD programs were false. I'm betting you don't have any either.
The fact is that the world says we have lied.
"The world"? Can you hear yourself? Even the French intel agencies thought Irag had WMD. Did Chirac lie too? Why?
You will dismiss it based on oil-for-food curruption. I will document how our relations have been wrecked with DOZENS of countries across the world, from Canada to England to Norway.
Define "wrecked". Provide links to evidence of this "wreckage".
Oil-for-food curruption was limited to companies in THREE countries,
Er... and the UN. Don't forget the UN...
and it hadly explains the rest of the planet turning aganst Bush and against us.
Are you under the impression that these people (what you histrionically call "the rest of the planet") liked Bush before September 11?
You will say
Alsee said:
The other issue is that the president has been lying to the public and has won the election through deception. The main thing is lying about Iraq, but it goes beyond that. I don't feel like going into it yet again, but the fact is that a HUGE number of people are saying this. There is a HUGE number of people who think they have good reason to believe this. True or not, they believe it.
So you say that it's a "fact" that Bush has been "lying". You don't offer any specific examples (you can't) but you say that lots of people agree that Bush is lying. Then you say that true or not, these people believe it.
So you don't care whether it's true or not that Bush is lying, only that many people believe it.
Heh. Good one.
Skev
You are a filmmaker and you wonder why audio is salted?
On a streaming web software demo? Yeah, I wonder why... why bother. It's not like the additions added anything to the experience, other than distracting me with their obvious phoniness.
And to those who thought I was offering flamebait - huh? :-)
Skev
The NAB Demo Video available on Motion's website is a bit odd. The content is fine, but the postproduction is strange.
The first thing I noticed was the stereo crowd hubbub - surely the demonstrator's headset mike didn't pick up the crowd in stereo? Was it added in post? Then I noticed that the two audience applause moments during the demo were clearly added in post as a sound effect. Why?
Anyway - Motion looks cool but it's Mac only so....
Skevos Mavros
http://www.mavart.com
If he didn't, you could sue him for selling your poem without a license.
:-)
Except that he's probably only ever going to sell the photos to you, the copyright owner of the poem. Try that in front of a judge and see where it gets you..
Skevos Mavros
mavart@mavart.com
http://www.mavart.com
CrankyFool said:
I don't think any of them was forced into it, was he?
Actually it seems to be more complicated than a yes or a no. I recently saw a repeat of the disturbing documentary series Horror in The East, and they dedicated an entire episode to this question (not just Kamikaze pilots, but all of the Japanese suicides as the Allies approached). The attitude of many pilots to being a Kamikaze is briefly outlined in this program summary:
Program Summary
Seems there were precious few volunteers, and those that did it were mostly concerned about the shame and dishonour for their families if they didn't - not to mention being executed.
I found the entire series fascinating - full of subjects that serious written histories often discuss and grapple with, but that most TV docos don't.
All the best,
Skevos Mavros
http://www.mavart.com
Hey no problem, I wasn't trying to put you down or anything. I'm a late comer to the series myself, so my "catch-up" took MANY hours, so I can imagine that you've got a lot of viewing to do if you want to watch them all before the big finale! :-)
My one complaint about BS is that it has no transport controls to jump to and from scenes. Guess I'll have to buy the DVD for that.
Actually, "animated comic" is a far more accurate description of Broken Saints (BS) than "cartoon". Cartoons usually have a lot more animation than BS does. Cartoons usually have spoken dialogue, not animated text balloons. I think you get the idea.
Have you watched/read any Broken Saints episodes? I'm not sure if "cinematic literature" or "animated comic" are the right terms for it either, but if you have seen any BS then you'd understand the grasping for terms. "Flash comic strip" is the best I can manage, but it's too web-specific and will not really apply when the series is transferred to DVD.
But waiting over an hour to back up "only" 13Gig? By the time this sort of software is ready for prime time (ie, it has a half-decent GUI), DVD blanks will be dirt cheap, as will really fast DVD burners. I'd rather send the same data to around 3 DVD disks. Especially since the stuff I like to back up is the kind of data where I often need to retrieve just a few small(ish) files from the lot. Near-instant random-access is something I've grown accustomed to.
Then again, for system backups which allow a complete restore of the whole lot, this could be handy, I guess. Especially since the "tape drives" (cameras) have lots of other uses. And I guess the speed of most DV cameras' rewind and fast-forward means that this would allow almost-speedy random-access.
It seems like this idea of backing up data to DV tape has been around for a while - but there's still no "prosumer"-ready application out there (yeah yeah, go write one yourself - but I'm not a programmer).
Send them all to gaol!
Heh. If you'll only do it if you get paid, then you wouldn't be volunteering would you? :)
But terminology pedantry aside, I agree - it always seems cheeky to me when a for-profit show pays everyone involved except the contestants - especially when the contestants are made to work so hard!
Gah, you got me. I've been trolled. So I'm not going to give a detailed quote-reply as I now believe you're just having fun. Well done!
Why do I think you're trolling? Well:
Most of your points were (again) attacking positions I don't hold and didn't state - there were enough straw men ripped apart in your post to make your own crop circles!
Also, the claims you make, like the links you provided, are just lists of assertions with little or nothing to back them up (here's a quickie - I've walked through a field of canola and I didn't turn completely yellow, even if I had turned yellow - so what? You'd have to catch me to know I was in your field) It's these kinds of small false claims that are typical of this sort of psuedo-research.
Some of the sites you provide contradict each other, surely you noticed that? (one claims the circles lead to better growth in the crop, another has pictures of stunted growth from a crop circle field - I'm betting there's no effect).
Lastly, you make the old LAME comparison to unproved theories of the past (atoms) coming true, as if the claims of the crop circle enthusiasts will one day be proven. Yeesh - even when we didn't have the technology to test for atoms, they were a testable hypothesis based on sound reasoning and a lack of better alternative explanations. If you don't get the difference with crop circles, then you don't get science.
The topper was when you said, in regard to humans making the circles, that "I'm not that paranoid to believe such a grand conspiracy". Uh huh. Got it. Strange human conspiracy with no apparent motive = unlikey. Strange alien conspiracy with no apparent motive = likely. Yeah. Right. And who said anything about conspiracies?
You're either trolling or distressingly deluded. Based on the well-written style of your post, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're just having some fun with me. You got me!
Then again, mental disturbance is not always a barrier to well-written prose... :-)
Dang, I think I'm being trolled again. You're doing it gently and politely, I'll grant, but I think you're trolling all the same. That makes the second time recently for me. Oh well. You said:
Your possibilities limits your view. You understand that I see. It makes you dismiss things, without even doing some proper research into it.
You assume too much. You assume I haven't done the research (not true). I've looked everywhere - and I can find no compelling (or even semi-compelling) evidence that these things are non-human in origin.
Have you found any? Care to share? It's not up to others to find evidence for an unconvincing case.
Also, you missed the bit about keeping an open mind, even when one has a firm position/opnion. Clearly you find it difficult to believe that one can both have an opinion on topic X and an open mind on topic X. You've certainly shown that the reverse is true - one can have no opinion on a topic and a closed mind on it!! :-)
Enough people are claiming humans did it with a plank and some strings, and enough material is out there to debunk all this.
Clearly, some of these works of art involve more than planks of wood and string, hence my reference to smart people. But I think you know this already - you were just defeating a straw man there (attacking a position I did not take).
I've read it, and am impressed enough to post this story to /.. Let me repeat: I don't know who did it.
And let me repeat my question - which do you REALLY think is more likely? C'mon - say it! You really think it's 50-50? I don't know who did it either, but I have an opinion on the most likely explanation - do you?
If it's human, I'm Very impressed (based on what I've read about cropcirlces). Now YOU show me some evidence, besides throwing in some weak dismissive arguments. But please read the links with an open mind first :-)
See above. Those making the claim need to back it up. I make no claim, I merely search (in vain) for compelling evidence that it is non-human.
Open mind does not mean empty mind... :-)
I'd say excactly the opposite is true :-) If you manage to get an empty mind, it'll be the most open mind in existance.
No, it will just be empty. Unable to form any opinion because it will not have the experience and skills to seperate the likely from the unlikely... oh wait...
;-)
An empty mind can be filled, while a full mind will reject.
Nonsense! :-) On so many levels!
I'm not saying you're wrong,
Actually you are, and that's OK! Stand firm! Express an opinion! You clearly think it's likely that I'm wrong!
but that the basis of your arguments are based on a negative attitude towards anything non/super-physical.
Close! I have a negative attitude to anything non-existent. And I take a very, VERY broad interpretation of what existence means. But if it's invisible, unmeasurable, unpredictable, with no form or substance, and no effect on the world whatsoever (all in the broadest sense), then it doesn't exist.
Just because no-one can see the invisible fairies at the bottom of the garden, doesn't mean that they aren't GREEN invisible fairies! ;-)
It's obvious you haven't researched the subject.
And your evidence for that assertion? Let me guess - I disagree with you, so I mustn't have done the research!
You obviously don't see the miracle that is life here on earth.
Sure I do, that's why I don't need to make stuff up.
Maybe you think you are a robot, a complex machine? I believe (and sense) we are much more than that,
Tangent? I feel like I stepped into the middle of a different conversation.
so maybe that's really the difference between our opinions too.
Hey - anything's possible! ;-)
Ah what the heck! :-)
01001001 00100000 01100100 01101111 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110011 01100101 01101110 01110011 01100101 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110111 01101111 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101100 00101110 00100000 00100000 01001001 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100110 01101001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101111 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 00100000 00101000 01101110 01101111 01101110 00101101 01100001 01101100 01101001 01100101 01101110 00101001 00100000 01110000 01100001 01110010 01110100 01110011 00100000 01110111 01101111 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 01101111 01110101 01110011 00101110
Please reread my previous post. You've misinterpreted it.
:-) After all, can't I use your logic and claim that you are being dismissive of the probability that humans did it?
:-)
You said:
> There is no point discussing this
> with you.
This is quite possibly true, though probably not for the reasons you think.
> Obviously you know how
> aliens *should* act and not act..
Nope. Never said I did either. So how you reach this "obvious" conclusion is beyond me.
It's all about the difference between possibilities (ultimately, anything is possible) and probabilities (looking for evidence, weighing up the evidence, deciding what is the most likely answer, but keeping an open eye and open mind for new evidence that might suggest another answer).
> That is being closed-minded.
It's likely that one of us is indeed being close-minded.
> An
> open mind doesn't know.
Simply untrue. You're describing an undecided mind, not an open one. Or are you suggesting that to have an opinion on a topic, even an opinion tempered by being open to seeing contrary evidence or argument, is to automatically close one's mind?
I don't know about you, but I can have an opinion on a topic, even a strong opinion, and still have an open mind on it. As is often the case when discussing the opinions of others, I think you reveal more about yourself than about me when you say this.
> Unless
> you don't know, you're not open
> to new ideas.
Again, not true. Or to put it another way - what compelling evidence do you have that only those who don't know the answer to a question are the only ones with an open mind on that question?
Open mind does not mean empty mind...
- To make us wonder.
Their goal is to make us wonder? By making crop circles that could easily be created by any dedicated band of clever people with spare time?
Why don't they do something more wonderous, like float the Empure State building fifty feet off the ground? Oh wait, I know, they don't do something like that because they want to make us wonder... :-)
- What difference
- would it make to THEM wether it is
- in "plain english" or in ASCII? We
- don't know their agenda.
There is no "they". Until there is ANY semi-compelling evidence that extraterristrials or other non-human forces are at work, the rational opinion must be that humans did it. Add to this the many examples of people coming clean and showing how they did these things and you have compelling reasons to believe it was humans. Boring, but most likely.
I'm open to the idea that aliens do it, about as open as I am to the possibility that I'll be hit by a meteor in the next ten minutes.
- Btw, you are the one believing here,
You seem to be (deliberately?) confusing belief with disbelief. If you're unsure of the difference then it would explain your comment.
- by ruling out possibilities without
- a sound scientific foundation.
I rule nothing out, I merely posses close-to-no belief that aliens did it because of the total lack of evidence that they might have, plus the copious evidence of humans making other crop circles. What is your "scientific foundation" for thinking that it is even plausible?
- I'm
- NOT saying aliens did this (because
- I admit I don't know).
But which do you think is the most likely explanation? Seriously. For example, I happen to think that it's very likely that extraterristrial life exists out there (for reasons not mentioned here), but the possibility that they make Earthly crop circles is vanishingly small, on a par with the possibility before that I would be hit by a meteor, and we all know meteors exist. Hey, that was nearly ten minutes ago! I'm still here! :-)
- It seems a
- very difficult thing to do for people.
Not at all. Use your imagination. And google. :-)
Why write it in English encoded as ASCII? Why not just in English? Why on a CDROM?
Isn't it screamingly obvious that a geek scanned an image, converted it into directions for him/her and his/her mates, and they spent an evening in a field making a pattern for their own amusement?
No-one has yet to come up with an even semi-plausible argument as to why aliens would make crop circles, especially of the more elaborate kind. English encoded into ASCII portrayed as dots on a CD in a crop circle? Come on! There are much better ways to communicate with us.
While you're pondering that, paste this:
01000011 01110010 01101111 01110000 00100000 01100011 01101001 01110010 01100011 01101100 01100101 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100100 01100101 00100000 01100010 01111001 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01110011 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101100 01100001 01110101 01100111 01101000 00100000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101111 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100010 01100101 01101100 01101001 01100101 01110110 01100101 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101101 00100001 00100000 00100000 01001000 01100001 01101000 01100001 01101000 01100001 01101000 01100001 00100001
Into this web page:
http://www.sitinthecorner.com/binary/binary.php
I've been to their site and had a quick look, but found only this:
Does "scales" means what I think it does? It's surely too good to be true that, if the 100 meg card is 5 megabytes a second, that the 5 gig card is 250 meg a second. Yeah, that's too good to be true. Plus knowing me my math is probably off.
I'm guessing that since they mention USB but not USB2 that it's not fast enough for broadcastable video. But I can hope. :-)
j.howard.mp@aph.gov.au might be the correct address, but I would guess it just forwards to whoever is looking after whatever Mr Howard's portfolio was at that time (you didn't give a date to the usenet posting).
A little birdy told me (I briefly worked in the Australian Federal Public Service a long time ago, and I have a few friends that still do) to try pm@pm.gov.au instead. Though I'm betting it forwards to the same place that web site form seems to go to - webmaster@pm.gov.au.
Anyway, I don't really see the point of this "competition", even from a publicity stunt point of view. No one REALLY thinks that the Australian PM (or the US President or the French President etc) sits at his desk each morning, opens up Outlook/KMail/whatever and checks his incoming email, do they?
Maybe they think the PM opens all his own mail too. And that he really does write every word of every document that has his signature on it...
There are several P2P streaming solutions in development. My personal favourite is:
http://www.peercast.org/
It works quite well, considering it's only at version 0.116B, the developers say that it's going to be open sourced, and there is both a Windows and Linux version available now (Mac on the way).
Not a lot of music available yet, unless you're into Japanese Pop, computer game tunes, or speeches and debates from the EFF (the latter are quite good listening actually, keep it up whoever you are).
Each stream can have basic info about the "station" and a link to a web site. It works quite well on my 56K modem.
Skev
Hmm, I think the penny has finally dropped - I think I've been trolled. Heh. You got me. Well done. :-)
But in case you're not just being silly:
No and no. In fact I'm saying almost the reverse. I'm asking you to ignore the (imagined) tone you seem to be hearing behind my words, and focus on their plain meaning. Hence some of my previous comments - you seem to be responding to some hidden meaning behind my words, rather than their plain meaning. And what do I mean by plain meaning? Well, just try assuming that all my questions were asked in a polite tone as genuine enquiry. That's not too rare a thing is it?As I tried to say, and as I suspect you realise, plain text is fine for answering questions from a stranger based on the plain meaning of the questions, but hopless if you're trying to perceive subtle intentions (and biases!) behind the questions. You just don't know enough about me to make those assessments of underlying intent (I can assure you that you seem to be mostly wrong about them), so why not just address the questions themselves.
Is it that hard to believe that someone posts to slashdot without pounding his keyboard in fury - that's certainly not how I see you. Again you read too much into my words, or perhaps I choose hostile-sounding ones? I've reread my posts and they don't strike me as hostile. I really am quite relaxed on this topic - perhaps that is what seems infuriatingly condescending to you? I have far more deserving things to get agro about (like a hard drive that recently died just before a backup, costing me three weeks work on a short film edit), and I very rarely get involved in angry debates, especially online, and especially under my real name. I asked my original (admittedly skeptically phrased) questions because I wanted to know the answers. That was the extent of my agenda. Does this really surprise you?Nah, I think you know all this. Yeah, I've probably been trolled. Had to happen sooner or later. Nicely done though, especially the part about giving me the last word. And I went for it too. Elegant. :-)
Skev