Or, if you're feeling the creative urge, there's a large number of MUDs et al that are currently in development and could use some extra minds plugging away at things. I'm personally working at http://www.amberilis.org/ (the game itself is at amberilis.org:4000). If you think you might be interested, feel free to stop on by and take a look around. If you like what you see and get along with the immortal staff, you too can waste your life in a text based world.
I'm sure http://www.mudconnector.com/ has other in development games as well, in case Amberilis doesn't float your boat.
Frankly, I'm surprised more people haven't ditched email for Instant Messaging. Spam just doesn't work on it anymore because permission has to be granted before anybody can contact you. Etc etc.
It depends on your IM client and protocol. I receive spam on the MSN network and on the ICQ network. I don't recall if I've ever received spam on AIM, and I don't use Yahoo.
Furthermore, Instant Messanging is designed for quick, well...instant messages. Short little things that might replace a phone call. Email on the other hand can be utilized for long, drawn out topics, that require several pages of typing to argue through. Stuff you don't want an "instant" reply for, because you want the other person to read it, and think about it, and provide a thoughtful reply. You also don't really care if their at their computer at that moment too. If you send an IM, and they aren't present, your message likely won't go through.
The Holy Land Experience, a theme park in Orlando, based off the bible that was designed to convert Jews to Christianity by belitting their entire existence to the role of having producing Christ, and thus having fulfilled their function.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of blocking access to child pornography. There are two reasons why child pornography is considered absolutely horrific by people:
1) They think its gross that someone gets aroused looking at a child.
2) Making child pornography requires a child to be put into a sexual situation, before they are of the age to know that such a thing could possibly be wrong.
Now, legally and constitutionally, the government cannot play thought police. You're allowed to think of gross things all day, as long as you don't hurt anyone with them. So, if someone sits around jacking off to thoughts of children, its gross, but you can't stop it.
However, if you start taking pictures of it, and forcing real children into that position, you are hurting someone (the child in question). Because of that, the production of child pornography CAN be deemed completely illegal, outlawed, and censored. Its a matter of stopping children from being sexually abused.
But, simply stopping people from producing this pornography is not enough for most people. They fundamentally feel that anyone who would look at this stuff, even if they haven't produced it, is a sicko who deserves to be punished. Furthermore, they argue that by allowing existing child pornography to be obtained, even though it causes no further harm to the child, it encourages the phedophile to think about his problem even more, and ultimately, will result in more sexual child abuse. The link between viewing porn and increased chances of sexual abuse is not very well proven. Some studies say maybe. Some studies say no.
Thus, the rationale isn't to stop people from things they shouldn't be looking at. Its two fold. First, they want to stop children from being used in this abusive manner for the photo shoots. Killing the market, kills the abuse. Second, they argue that viewing child pornography makes you more likely to commit sexual child abuse, and on those grounds they try to block it, for the good of the children.
As a side note, the Supreme Court heard a case about the possibility of virtual child pornography, where you have a computer generated child being sexually depicted, without ever having a real child involved. I forget how the court ultimately ruled, but I believe they found the law to be overbroad, and struck it down.
I like Florida because it has nice beaches, warm weather, nude women, and the majority of it is uninhabited. Any state with few enough current citizens would do though.
There are so many things wrong with this statement. But I'll start at the beginning.
1) I lived in Florida for 20 years, and never once did I see nude women in the streets or on the beaches. At least, not with enough consistency to claim that Florida has nude women as an attribute.
2) The majority of uninhabited Florida is in the form of swamps and wetlands. You would have to drain the everglades to lower the flood plains to make that land inhabitable. People have been doing it for a century now, and if you have no problem destroying endangered wetlands, then go for it. I'd rather not personally.
3) Florida has few citizens? Its my understanding that they're the 4th most populated state in the US. California, New York, Texas, and Florida, no? Unless you mean breaking the state up into the Geek part and old Florida, after you've drained the wetlands.
4) Florida has some really powerful lobbying industries. Specifically, large agricultural farmers in the wetlands have an extremely large lobby (including Tobacco), and there is a rather sizable elderly population in South FLorida. Plus, you have a few movie studios in Orlando.
5) Large enough group in a small enough region also runs counter to the idea of using Florida. Florida is a rather large state. Sure, smaller then Texas and Alaska, but still its pretty large.
Actually, you might have a shot in actually taking over Alaska. They have a much smaller population, over a rather huge area. Or, why don't you just do like Sealand did and find a man-made sea structure and start a government there, and then apply to be a state?
I'm only going to deal with this issue at the moment, since I'm not awake enough to deal with the whole message at the moment. If you would like me to, please drop a reply requesting it.
3. Self-interest. Why the hell would any country want to encourage their best and brightest to waste their talent doing work that could be done for a fraction of the price by cheap labor in other countries? For that matter why would you want to waste your life doing something that is not economically productive? Find something worthwhile to do with you life, instead of trying to strong-arm your customers into paying artificially inflated prices for skills that are not needed.
First, why would people want to encourage their best and their brightest to do things that could be done cheaper elsewhere? The short answer to this is that for the local economy, its healthier to waste money on people who exist in the local economy, then to be efficient in someone else's economy. By outsourcing out of the country, the money paid leaves the country, and the overall health of a national economy declines. That is of course, unless those best and the brightest can get jobs elsewhere within your economy, now that they can't do the job that has been outsourced. Most of the time, this alternative job has a lower pay then the original job. Thus, global wages for everyone are depressed. This may be offset by lower prices, due to the free market. Or it may just continue into the Marxist spiral that leads to the paradox of capitalism, and the world system implodes as the number of people with money to support the system becomes too small.
On the other hand, why would you want to waste your life doing something that's not economically productive? There's a very easy reason for this. You don't base your life on your economic productivity. Instead, you value your life based on other factors, such as your individual happiness or contentment, how much you enjoy what you do, etc. Who cares if you're "economically productive"? Just worry about being happy. If being wealthy makes you happy, then you have a reason. But economic wealth alone isn't enough.
Something worthwhile to do with your life may be buying a farm out in the middle of nowhere doing subsistance organic farming. Its certainly not economically productive, but if it makes you happy, go for it.
Now, following all this, what's the answer? Trade tarriffs? The free market? A centrally controlled economy that builds up new markets as old ones go away? Its hard to say in a slashdot comment.
Most of the "everything" books tend to be edited editions of a lot of other people's writing compiled into a single book. At least this seems to be the case in the social sciences, and particularly Political Science. The traditions and conditions in my field might be slightly different then in the rest of the University. Generally, an Intro. Philosophy or Intro. American Political Thought book will just be a bunch of stuff written by other people, with introductions written.
And you're correct. In general, people don't make a lot of money off of a college text book. I was speaking in the cases where there is a complete lack of a good general book, and someone comes along and fills it so well that everyone else starts to use your book. Those cases tend to be particularly rare, but in my experience, that's what people try to do when they write a general book.
University books are usually written by professors, who are either trying to accomplish one of two goal: (1) Fill a niche within their discipline where there is a lack of good text books, and make a ton of money, or (2) they're doing research and their research is useful in better understanding the subject matter that is being taught. Those are generally the two kinds of University level books you'll find.
At the K-12 level, you try and provide a glossy overview of everything within the discipline, providing very little detail. No professor makes a name by being a little good at everything in the discipline, instead they become highly specialized and really good at a single aspect. To cover a lot of material, you need to have a lot of specialists, or a small number of sub-par specialists who think they know everything.
It says less about the ad industry and more about human recollection in general. Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar wrote a book called "Going Negative" about the effects of negative campaigning. As part of their laboratory experiments, they asked people "Do you recall seeing a political ad?" A large number of people didn't recall seeing one when it was shown to them, and more frighteningly, many people who were not shown an ad recalled seeing one anyway.
Re:instead of using "sound recognition technology
on
Wired's Wish List For 2013
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The way the ear plugs were described in the article, it sounds as if its more then just for getting a good night's sleep. Instead, you could set them to only hear one person, and then put them in, and have a decent conversation in an incredibly crowded room. Or you could set them to listen to a movie, so when someone's cell phone went off, you wouldn't hear it. Etc, etc.
So, what are the qualities that anime fans think raise it up as a great thing?
Nothing at all. It is just another of many mediums from which you can tell a story, just like a novel, the theatre, or live action films. Each has their own benefits and weaknesses.
The strength of anime is that it allows the creative force complete control over the visual environment, without concern for if its possible to do in terms of special effects or in terms of real life freedom. Thus, the storyteller gets the ultimate freedom to express his or her ideas. That is what makes Anime unique in contrast to other mediums.
But, its important to remember that it is still a medium, just like other mediums. As such it has its limitations.
seconds?) one could probably just about prove that the combination of name and birthdate is already unique, regardless of the SSN. Unless maybe when your name is real common.
I was born on the same day, in the same city, in the same hospital as someone else named Thomas Michael, though the last name was different. The creepy thing was I met this guy in a different state then where we were both born. So people like me with really common names, might actually be under threat. (I have met five different Thomas Michael Hugheses in my life personally. Open any phone book, you're likely to find a bunch more). So, that's one problem with utilizing name and birthdate as a unique identifier.
The other problem is I know a person (my grandmother actually) who was born on one day, but her offical birth records say it is a day later, since the birth certificate didn't get filled out until a day after she was born. So, legally, people can't agree when she was born at the level of the day. Most certainly information on the hour, minute, or second wasn't available in the offical records.
GPS, date, and time would likely be enough, though it would only work for people being born now. There isn't enough documentation to have it be retroactive.
IT Infrastructure is useful in developing other kinds of infrastructure, assuming it can be effectively used.
Most countries need better laws, courts, banks
Better laws can theoretically be attained in semi-democratic and democratic countries through providing information about current laws, and things that are going up for voting in the legislative body, as well as providing a conduit for citizens to contact their government members in order to influence policy.
Better courts can be attained, especially in countries that utilize a common law standard, by having the court system linked up, so all judicial reviews can be viewed quickly, easily and instantaneously. Thus, the court system can act more consistently as a whole across the entire nation-state, as opposed to the personal habits of each judge. Also, abuses in the system can be reported easier across great distances, if the other branches of the government are plugged in as well.
Banks are another institution that really need to be connected, and have a sharing of information between them. Computers are very useful in documenting a credit history on individuals, making it much easier to call up, so any bank can view it much faster for when determining whether or not to give an individual a loan. Transfers between institutions are better handled electronically as well.
The Internet also provides a cheap way for local nation-wide businesses to post job listings, theoretically allowing for out of work people to be put in touch easier with companies that need workers, improving the overall economy. Though, it is important to note that the US has had some serious flaws with this, but not to the point where its completely useless. I have found work off an Internet job posting before.
Along with increased mobility, you also have a better chance of affordable communication with relatives within the country. Thus, despite the physical distance potentially developing between citizens and their families, all touch won't be lost.
And of course, there is always the benefit of being able to access a wealth of information sources on the Internet that encourage people to view other places in the world and see how they function, so that they might demand change at home.
The point is, just because IT infrastructure seems like a luxury, improved and increased communication between all levels of society is an inherently good thing for democratic institutions, as well as developing market economies. It might not be as useful as building a power plant, or teaching them better farming techniques, however the companies helping here aren't farming or power companies. They're IT companies, so they're helping the way they know how to help.
I think everyone in every industry feels like this, even when they love their job. In this case, the game tester has a pretty laid back job, where all he has to do is rigorously test games for many hours a week, and attend meetings. Yeah, that sounds like a job, but not a horrible one. Similarly, a Political Science Professor who studies comparative politics gets to go off to conferences several times a year, write their own schedule for how to teach courses, see exotic places and do research on them. Sounds like a good deal doesn't it? You also have to deal with meetings, department politics, discipline politics, the competitiveness of publishing, the stress of trying to get tenure. Sure, its interesting, but its still a job.
I would imagine a US Senator has a similar problem. Sure, he gets a lot of power, and gets to make decisions at the national level that affect hundreds of millions of people (if not more), and gets to rub elbows with highly intelligent people wishing to influence his policies. Sounds great. He also has to deal with the people who don't like him, attend meetings, play politics, and run the risk of being voted out of office every 6 years. Its a job.
The point I'm trying to make is that even people who love there work (and there are many) will still occasionally bitch about how their work sucks. Back when I worked midnight shift at an ISP doing support calls, I spent most of my time playing games or watching movies and getting paid for it. There were also times when I had to deal with a huge volumn of irrate customers, because the office was understaffed in cases of a network outage at that hour. So, I'd bitch about my work when that happens, though I generally enjoyed my job.
Game testing is likely the same thing, just like every other fun job.
When did we start thinking about the future so much? Did people in the middle ages, for example, ever think much past the end of their own lives? I'm guessing they did, but I don't think they could have imagined a world much different than their own.
Other people responding to this have said its directly related to the Industrial Revolution, since people had free time after that, and they could see changes occuring within the basis of their lifetime. I don't think this is necessarily the case. Certainly the early days of the Industrial Revolution didn't lead to much free time. In fact, it probably lead to much less free time then being a peasant doing subsistence agriculture. No longer do you plant and farm based on when things need to be done, but instead, you go into the factory 12-16 hours a day, 6-7 days a week just to make ends meet. Certainly that doesn't sound like it leaves much time for pondering about the future.
However, there was another occurence during the rise of Industrialization (and Modernity) that can be traced back to Martin Luther's challenge against the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation lead to people being able to question the authority of the church, and to be able to interpret the words of God in the bible on their own. This in turn gave rise to science, and everything associated with it as well. Now, instead of having one monolithic interpretation of the Universe presented by the Catholic Church (which was unquestionable, because it came from God), a number of competing explainations of the Universe came to be, all claiming equal legitimacy.
Now, you're probably wondering why the hell I'm talking about this, but there's a very good reason. A big part of the middle age religious institution was harping on the fact that God was going to come back any day now and destroy everything, as was foretold in the book of revelations. Thus, why on earth should you care about the future if God is coming down tomorrow and killing everyone? There's no point in trying to progress if everything you're going to do is going to be destroyed by God. It wasn't until people stopped believing that God was coming really soon to destroy everything that they could develop notions of improving things within their life time.
Certainly the development of free time and money to spend on toys encouraged people to think about space ships. But thinking about actually making them isn't possible when you constantly have the threat of the end of the world seeming very real, from the unassailable Catholic Church.
"Hey man, you wanna go see this movie in 3 years when it's done?"
"I don't think so. I gotta save up for that glasses 'script I'll be renewing around then. Those lenses ain't cheap."
I wish I had your disipline.
Discipline is a good thing when you're just starting in a PhD program. Which means in 3 years, I'll still be in the University, and still won't have any significant amount of income. Figuring out how to cover food and housing over the next few years is factoring into how much I'm willing to spend now.
That is of course, unless I somehow end up out of the program before then, and presumably I'm not homeless at that point. Then I might consider the movie thing again.
for those of us not in the know, anyone wanna step up and fill us in a bit about this?
I'll leave the technical details about the show history out for someone else to fill in, but I can give you a basic rundown of the plot and the characters...
Lupin the 3rd is basically a story about the exploits of four legendary thieves and an Interpol investigator who's constantly on their trail. They seem to try to rob and rip people off more for the challenge of it then for the actual money (though, they do seem to enjoy the money as well). Central to Lupin's character is that he doesn't seem to be a killer, just an unorthodox thief.
Lupin (pronounced Loop-ON, I believe) is the grandson of a legendary criminal, and has taken on his legacy of performing impossible crimes under the very nose of authorities many times. His main ability seems to be his quick wit and extreme intelligence when it comes to stealing things. He (as well as the rest of the crew) is a fairly good master of disguise.
Jigan is a guy who tends to wear a suit and a dark hat, drinks an awful lot, and is a damn good shot with a revolver. He's generally a rather pragmatic figure who tends to just like hanging out with Lupin, because Lupin's an interesting guy.
Goemon is a legendary swordsman (a kind of stereotypical samurai), who also enjoys just hanging out with Lupin and Jigan. Of all the characters, he is probably the most outlandish, performing rather impossible feats with his sword. However, it would not be difficult to mute this down to reality's level.
Fujiko (not positive on the spelling of these names by the way) is who Lupin is particularly smitten with. She has rather um...large breasts (sorry, there's really little else to say, since they're kind of central to her character). Of the 4 criminal characters, she is probably the most in it for money. She is probably the best at disgusing herself, and will often backstab multiple people just to get more money for herself. She often attempts to pull one over on the other main characters to enrich herself. Jigan and Goemon aren't too fond of her, but put up with her because of Lupin.
Zenigata is the Interpol inspector who has gotten pretty good at figuring out where and how Lupin works, but he has some behavioral problems so the local authorities tend to not believe him or comply with him fully when he makes requests. As such, he's usually there to witness Lupin's hijinks, but he never seems to catch him. Also referred to as "Pops."
That's the basics of it. Its a pretty fun, though simple show.
Lupin III is interesting because it really doesn't need to be a cartoon. Meaning, the effects taken aren't that outlandish (ala, Scooby Doo, or Dragonball Z). In fact, Lupin III could have been a very interesting live action piece from the very beginning as far as I can tell. The main reason to go animated over live action is that you can afford a lot more animated explosions and flying planes and exotic places internationally with drawings and ink then you could with a real set.
I think the comparison with 007 is really valid in this case. Whenever I watch Lupin III, it feels really similar to watching 007, if he had a set of good friends he hung out with, and he was a master gentleman thief.
Having said all that, I won't be seeing this movie, as interesting as it might be. A tight budget means entertainment tends to get cut first.
They ARE doing something that is wrong and we have proof. What more do you need?
The closest thing I have seen to 'proof' from the US is Satellite imagry of sites that the US claims are either mobile labs producing biochemical weapons, or are stationary sites producing weapons of mass destruction. The UN Inspectors have gone to some of these sites without warning and found nothing, and has found "mobile labs" that turned out to be mobile medical facilities. That does not constitute proof, but potential circumstantial evidence, if and when it turns out to be true. Operating under the assumption that you need solid proof before you invade a country and replace its government, utilizing the UN inspectors to find actual infractions would be good in my book.
We know Iraq has biochem weapons.
We know they had some at some point, because the US sold some to them in the 1980's during a war with Iran. However, it is unclear whether the US is claiming that these are the biochemical weapons that the US wants, or if it is new ones that Iraq has developed since then. Most of the rhetoric suggests the latter. The former is unclear at this time, but Bush certainly isn't saying "Produce the nerve gas we gave you 15 years ago!"
We know they have helped Al Qaida.
This is factually untrue. Numerous people have attempted to document the link between bin Laden's group, September 11th and Iraq, and the link just does not exist. Even bin Laden calls Hussein an infidel while saying that he encourages Muslims to defend Iraq against the US. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not true in this case. They may possibly both be considered enemies of the US, but they most certainly are not allies.
We know they have killed hundreds of their own people testing these weapons.
This occured in the 1980's, and the US continued to sell biochemical weapons, and the methods to utilize them against populations after Hussein had utilized them on the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Clearly, the US didn't care about this happening back then, since the US funded it. I've not seen documented evidence that it has occured since then. Hussein certainly didn't gas the US troops during the 1990-91 war, which brings into question why he would utilize them against the US now if he didn't use them when he was under direct attack.
There is more to it then preventing a attack on the US or our Allies. It's also a fight to free people from tyranny.
Here's where I take a cheap shot and point out that the current Administration's occupation plan that was made known in October of 2002 involved a US military officer running the country for a year or more after the end of the war, as well as running Iraq's oil fields for them in the mean time. The information appeared in the New York Times, and estimates made on how many troops would be required to occupy Iraq support these claims that have never been refuted.
Your not telling me you actually believe it when you see Iraqui's in the streets proclaiming Saddam is the great leader??
I believe that there are some Iraqi's in the street supporting Saddam, yes. There are Americans in the street protesting and supporting Bush as well. Given any population, there will be people on both sides of the issue. Iraq is selectively reporting the good side, while ignoring the bad, sure. But the massive protests occuring in the US were largely unreported here as well. Does that mean that Europe should invade the US and replace Bush, because he's an unelected tyrannical leader, and then rule us with a military officer for a year or more, while taking over our oil supplies? I doubt it.
You actually believe that Saddan had an election with 100 % turnout?
You're reporting it wrong. The result was that Saddam got popularly elected unanamously, not that he had 100% turnout. I have no doubt that Hussein received 100% of the votes in his election, as he could write the electoral laws. Thus, he could make it so the law says only 1 party may be on the ballot (such as what occurs in a number of old Communist countries), and that write in candidates are not permitted. Thus, everyone who votes, votes for Hussein. Thus, Hussein gets 100% of the votes cast. Yes, its an evil, nasty, corrupt way of doing things that isn't democratic. Then again, if you want to get technical, Bush received something close to 24% of the total eligible voting population in 2000, and despite that, came in 2nd in the popular vote. When put that way, the US hardly looks democratic, does it?
I never said that Hussein was a good guy who should be upheld as a pillar of holiness. Hardly, I imagine he's a rather nasty dictator who has little regard for human life, who is willing to fight wars that he thinks he can win (Iran & Kuwait). However, my original claim is that Hussein has not done anything troubling recently. He has not gone out of his way to challenge the US militarily though he did suggest that he and Bush sit down and have a televised debate to actually talk about the issue before the US starts killing Iraqis (something that the Bush administration said was "not serious"). He has not suggested he has a right to pre-emptively strike the US (as North Korea has). He has not activated a nuclear facility capable of producing material for a nuclear weapon (as North Korea has). Nor did he have anything to do with September 11th. In fact, after the event occured, he offered his condolences to the victims and the American people, but not to President Bush. He didn't think they should have occured either.
So how exactly is he causing trouble, other then by simply existing?
But with North Korea and Iraq causing trouble, we need the ability to stop these missiles and the best way to do this is from space.
Causing trouble isn't the right way to describe Iraq. Saddam Hussein and Iraq have not actively done anything to cause Americans trouble at all that is anything different then what has been done for the past decade. They have been resistent to the destruction of the stockpiles of weapons they currently have, which is correct.
However, to the best of my knowledge, Iraq has reported all the weapons that have been found, and has begun to destroy the ones that the UN has claimed are in violation of the peace agreement after the Gulf War. It has done so under protest, yes. However, saying you don't want to do something and then doing it anyway (such as destroying illegal weapons) hardly counts as 'causing trouble'. At least not like North Korea, who is saying stuff like "We have a right to pre-emptively strike the United States."
You may not like what Iraq is doing, or who Saddam is as a person. But the truth is that Saddam is not threatening outright to attack the United States, he and they have not actively attacked the US since a decade ago, and Iraq is not invading other countries as we speak. So how exactly do you consider Iraq to be causing trouble, other then that it is dragging its feet to comply with regulations to destroy things within its own country that have no effect on anyone as long as they remain unused (and they have remain unused thus far).
Claiming a country could or might do something is a lot different then claiming that they are doing something. There are enough lies and half truths going around these days, it is wise to be careful in making ad hoc generalizations about the behavior of countries. It could result in a war for the wrong reasons.
This is yet just more stupid laws and legislation and crap that isn't needed when a little common sense on the end of the "consumer" would resolve it all.
Alright, but how do you differentiate between geology based on some understandings and geology based on Mrs. Cleo if the source is not required to say that their amateur findings are amateur? That is to say, if an unlicensed source presents themselves as knowing as much, or more, then a licensed source, even though that may be factually false, how will consumer common sense help here?
Without some limited measure of quality, it becomes impossible to employ common sense. This case is easy, because the site seems to be selling something that is only useful for entertainment purposes. However, what if Joe Anonymous decided he liked Geology, but couldn't afford to go to a University to get a degree, and as such, couldn't pass a licensing exam. But he really likes Geology, and the average person probably wouldn't know if he was talking out of his ass, since Geology isn't really a widely practiced field. So, he sets up a consulting business, takes out ads in the yellow pages and the like saying that he can perform professional geology surveys for half the price of everyone else.
Consumer sees the ad, but assumes that this guy has some qualifications, otherwise he wouldn't be in business. They go to Joe Anonymous, Joe Anonymous has no idea what he's doing, but he puts together a fancy earthquake report saying that its okay to build a hotel with no earthquake support on the San Andreas Fault (an exaggerated example, since I don't know much about geology, picture it someplace less obvious). Builder builds up to Joe Anonymous' specifications, an earthquake hits, everyone in the building dies.
In that case, how would consumer common sense have helped? Now, if Joe Anonymous was required to disclose that he was not licensed or certified prior to doing work, that would be a different case. Then a consumer could utilize common sense. They could then say "Joe Anonymous is half the price of these other guys, but he doesn't have a license and they do" while the current situation appears to be "Wow! Joe Anonymous is half the price of these other guys! That's a great deal! Who in their right mind would use them?!"
Now having said all that, there is a point that I think needs to be clarified. In this scenario, it sounds as if the government is trying to shut down the operation because they aren't licensed. That is not something I would agree with. However, I do believe that professions should be required to go out of their way to disclose their qualifications. Just as elevators are required to display their certification in a conspicious place, so too are professionals. People who aren't professional or unlicensed should have to make it conspicious that they aren't licensed, so that the consumer can make a decision to the best of their ability.
But I wonder, why on earth do you need a license to practice geology?
There are plenty of reasons. For example, an insurance company might go to a geologist in order to determine what the premiums should be like for 'earthquake insurance', and if the geologist in question is a complete quack (when they claim to be authoritative), the quack geologist can potentially cost millions of dollars to companies based on figures that they have made up. Or for example, if this site goes and claims that there will be a massive earthquake in the LA area, and millions of people flee the city, bringing the economy to a standstill, and no earthquake occurs, then the non-licensed geologist has done millions of dollars of real damage to the economy. Similarly, if they say "Oh, no earthquake will occur at this point in time" and one does occur, but people planned for one not occuring (not having buildings up to code, people not stocking up on emergency supplies, etc), real damages can also be incurred.
Now, does this mean that any random person is forbidden from saying something like "My knee is itching, an earthquake is coming soon" without a license? Of course not. The difference is when you claim to be professional, and charge money for that information. It then becomes commerce, and something that can be regulated. Licenses are usually required to show that you at least have some basic knowledge and understanding of the field that an individual or a corporation is proclaiming to be a master of. For example, there are engineering licenses, medical licenses, and so on and so forth, since failure to live up to the expectations of their field can do real damages.
Now, on the other hand if this website claimed something like "This information is for entertainment purposes only" they might be able to avoid the licensing restrictions, much like telephone pyschics do to some degree. Though, if I recall, Mrs. Cleo recently got nailed for fraud. The point is, the rules change, and you need to be somewhat accountable when you start charging money for your services.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, if you're feeling the creative urge, there's a large number of MUDs et al that are currently in development and could use some extra minds plugging away at things. I'm personally working at http://www.amberilis.org/ (the game itself is at amberilis.org:4000). If you think you might be interested, feel free to stop on by and take a look around. If you like what you see and get along with the immortal staff, you too can waste your life in a text based world.
I'm sure http://www.mudconnector.com/ has other in development games as well, in case Amberilis doesn't float your boat.
I find it amusing that one of the premium names listed for sale on the right is "hooker.la".
I knew those were robots on the Wonder Years.
Furthermore, Instant Messanging is designed for quick, well...instant messages. Short little things that might replace a phone call. Email on the other hand can be utilized for long, drawn out topics, that require several pages of typing to argue through. Stuff you don't want an "instant" reply for, because you want the other person to read it, and think about it, and provide a thoughtful reply. You also don't really care if their at their computer at that moment too. If you send an IM, and they aren't present, your message likely won't go through.
The Holy Land Experience, a theme park in Orlando, based off the bible that was designed to convert Jews to Christianity by belitting their entire existence to the role of having producing Christ, and thus having fulfilled their function.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of blocking access to child pornography. There are two reasons why child pornography is considered absolutely horrific by people:
1) They think its gross that someone gets aroused looking at a child.
2) Making child pornography requires a child to be put into a sexual situation, before they are of the age to know that such a thing could possibly be wrong.
Now, legally and constitutionally, the government cannot play thought police. You're allowed to think of gross things all day, as long as you don't hurt anyone with them. So, if someone sits around jacking off to thoughts of children, its gross, but you can't stop it.
However, if you start taking pictures of it, and forcing real children into that position, you are hurting someone (the child in question). Because of that, the production of child pornography CAN be deemed completely illegal, outlawed, and censored. Its a matter of stopping children from being sexually abused.
But, simply stopping people from producing this pornography is not enough for most people. They fundamentally feel that anyone who would look at this stuff, even if they haven't produced it, is a sicko who deserves to be punished. Furthermore, they argue that by allowing existing child pornography to be obtained, even though it causes no further harm to the child, it encourages the phedophile to think about his problem even more, and ultimately, will result in more sexual child abuse. The link between viewing porn and increased chances of sexual abuse is not very well proven. Some studies say maybe. Some studies say no.
Thus, the rationale isn't to stop people from things they shouldn't be looking at. Its two fold. First, they want to stop children from being used in this abusive manner for the photo shoots. Killing the market, kills the abuse. Second, they argue that viewing child pornography makes you more likely to commit sexual child abuse, and on those grounds they try to block it, for the good of the children.
As a side note, the Supreme Court heard a case about the possibility of virtual child pornography, where you have a computer generated child being sexually depicted, without ever having a real child involved. I forget how the court ultimately ruled, but I believe they found the law to be overbroad, and struck it down.
1) I lived in Florida for 20 years, and never once did I see nude women in the streets or on the beaches. At least, not with enough consistency to claim that Florida has nude women as an attribute.
2) The majority of uninhabited Florida is in the form of swamps and wetlands. You would have to drain the everglades to lower the flood plains to make that land inhabitable. People have been doing it for a century now, and if you have no problem destroying endangered wetlands, then go for it. I'd rather not personally.
3) Florida has few citizens? Its my understanding that they're the 4th most populated state in the US. California, New York, Texas, and Florida, no? Unless you mean breaking the state up into the Geek part and old Florida, after you've drained the wetlands.
4) Florida has some really powerful lobbying industries. Specifically, large agricultural farmers in the wetlands have an extremely large lobby (including Tobacco), and there is a rather sizable elderly population in South FLorida. Plus, you have a few movie studios in Orlando.
5) Large enough group in a small enough region also runs counter to the idea of using Florida. Florida is a rather large state. Sure, smaller then Texas and Alaska, but still its pretty large.
Actually, you might have a shot in actually taking over Alaska. They have a much smaller population, over a rather huge area. Or, why don't you just do like Sealand did and find a man-made sea structure and start a government there, and then apply to be a state?
On the other hand, why would you want to waste your life doing something that's not economically productive? There's a very easy reason for this. You don't base your life on your economic productivity. Instead, you value your life based on other factors, such as your individual happiness or contentment, how much you enjoy what you do, etc. Who cares if you're "economically productive"? Just worry about being happy. If being wealthy makes you happy, then you have a reason. But economic wealth alone isn't enough.
Something worthwhile to do with your life may be buying a farm out in the middle of nowhere doing subsistance organic farming. Its certainly not economically productive, but if it makes you happy, go for it.
Now, following all this, what's the answer? Trade tarriffs? The free market? A centrally controlled economy that builds up new markets as old ones go away? Its hard to say in a slashdot comment.
Most of the "everything" books tend to be edited editions of a lot of other people's writing compiled into a single book. At least this seems to be the case in the social sciences, and particularly Political Science. The traditions and conditions in my field might be slightly different then in the rest of the University. Generally, an Intro. Philosophy or Intro. American Political Thought book will just be a bunch of stuff written by other people, with introductions written.
And you're correct. In general, people don't make a lot of money off of a college text book. I was speaking in the cases where there is a complete lack of a good general book, and someone comes along and fills it so well that everyone else starts to use your book. Those cases tend to be particularly rare, but in my experience, that's what people try to do when they write a general book.
University books are usually written by professors, who are either trying to accomplish one of two goal: (1) Fill a niche within their discipline where there is a lack of good text books, and make a ton of money, or (2) they're doing research and their research is useful in better understanding the subject matter that is being taught. Those are generally the two kinds of University level books you'll find.
At the K-12 level, you try and provide a glossy overview of everything within the discipline, providing very little detail. No professor makes a name by being a little good at everything in the discipline, instead they become highly specialized and really good at a single aspect. To cover a lot of material, you need to have a lot of specialists, or a small number of sub-par specialists who think they know everything.
It says less about the ad industry and more about human recollection in general. Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar wrote a book called "Going Negative" about the effects of negative campaigning. As part of their laboratory experiments, they asked people "Do you recall seeing a political ad?" A large number of people didn't recall seeing one when it was shown to them, and more frighteningly, many people who were not shown an ad recalled seeing one anyway.
The way the ear plugs were described in the article, it sounds as if its more then just for getting a good night's sleep. Instead, you could set them to only hear one person, and then put them in, and have a decent conversation in an incredibly crowded room. Or you could set them to listen to a movie, so when someone's cell phone went off, you wouldn't hear it. Etc, etc.
The strength of anime is that it allows the creative force complete control over the visual environment, without concern for if its possible to do in terms of special effects or in terms of real life freedom. Thus, the storyteller gets the ultimate freedom to express his or her ideas. That is what makes Anime unique in contrast to other mediums.
But, its important to remember that it is still a medium, just like other mediums. As such it has its limitations.
The other problem is I know a person (my grandmother actually) who was born on one day, but her offical birth records say it is a day later, since the birth certificate didn't get filled out until a day after she was born. So, legally, people can't agree when she was born at the level of the day. Most certainly information on the hour, minute, or second wasn't available in the offical records.
GPS, date, and time would likely be enough, though it would only work for people being born now. There isn't enough documentation to have it be retroactive.
Better laws can theoretically be attained in semi-democratic and democratic countries through providing information about current laws, and things that are going up for voting in the legislative body, as well as providing a conduit for citizens to contact their government members in order to influence policy.
Better courts can be attained, especially in countries that utilize a common law standard, by having the court system linked up, so all judicial reviews can be viewed quickly, easily and instantaneously. Thus, the court system can act more consistently as a whole across the entire nation-state, as opposed to the personal habits of each judge. Also, abuses in the system can be reported easier across great distances, if the other branches of the government are plugged in as well.
Banks are another institution that really need to be connected, and have a sharing of information between them. Computers are very useful in documenting a credit history on individuals, making it much easier to call up, so any bank can view it much faster for when determining whether or not to give an individual a loan. Transfers between institutions are better handled electronically as well.
The Internet also provides a cheap way for local nation-wide businesses to post job listings, theoretically allowing for out of work people to be put in touch easier with companies that need workers, improving the overall economy. Though, it is important to note that the US has had some serious flaws with this, but not to the point where its completely useless. I have found work off an Internet job posting before.
Along with increased mobility, you also have a better chance of affordable communication with relatives within the country. Thus, despite the physical distance potentially developing between citizens and their families, all touch won't be lost.
And of course, there is always the benefit of being able to access a wealth of information sources on the Internet that encourage people to view other places in the world and see how they function, so that they might demand change at home.
The point is, just because IT infrastructure seems like a luxury, improved and increased communication between all levels of society is an inherently good thing for democratic institutions, as well as developing market economies. It might not be as useful as building a power plant, or teaching them better farming techniques, however the companies helping here aren't farming or power companies. They're IT companies, so they're helping the way they know how to help.
I think everyone in every industry feels like this, even when they love their job. In this case, the game tester has a pretty laid back job, where all he has to do is rigorously test games for many hours a week, and attend meetings. Yeah, that sounds like a job, but not a horrible one.
Similarly, a Political Science Professor who studies comparative politics gets to go off to conferences several times a year, write their own schedule for how to teach courses, see exotic places and do research on them. Sounds like a good deal doesn't it? You also have to deal with meetings, department politics, discipline politics, the competitiveness of publishing, the stress of trying to get tenure. Sure, its interesting, but its still a job.
I would imagine a US Senator has a similar problem. Sure, he gets a lot of power, and gets to make decisions at the national level that affect hundreds of millions of people (if not more), and gets to rub elbows with highly intelligent people wishing to influence his policies. Sounds great. He also has to deal with the people who don't like him, attend meetings, play politics, and run the risk of being voted out of office every 6 years. Its a job.
The point I'm trying to make is that even people who love there work (and there are many) will still occasionally bitch about how their work sucks. Back when I worked midnight shift at an ISP doing support calls, I spent most of my time playing games or watching movies and getting paid for it. There were also times when I had to deal with a huge volumn of irrate customers, because the office was understaffed in cases of a network outage at that hour. So, I'd bitch about my work when that happens, though I generally enjoyed my job.
Game testing is likely the same thing, just like every other fun job.
However, there was another occurence during the rise of Industrialization (and Modernity) that can be traced back to Martin Luther's challenge against the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation lead to people being able to question the authority of the church, and to be able to interpret the words of God in the bible on their own. This in turn gave rise to science, and everything associated with it as well. Now, instead of having one monolithic interpretation of the Universe presented by the Catholic Church (which was unquestionable, because it came from God), a number of competing explainations of the Universe came to be, all claiming equal legitimacy.
Now, you're probably wondering why the hell I'm talking about this, but there's a very good reason. A big part of the middle age religious institution was harping on the fact that God was going to come back any day now and destroy everything, as was foretold in the book of revelations. Thus, why on earth should you care about the future if God is coming down tomorrow and killing everyone? There's no point in trying to progress if everything you're going to do is going to be destroyed by God. It wasn't until people stopped believing that God was coming really soon to destroy everything that they could develop notions of improving things within their life time.
Certainly the development of free time and money to spend on toys encouraged people to think about space ships. But thinking about actually making them isn't possible when you constantly have the threat of the end of the world seeming very real, from the unassailable Catholic Church.
That is of course, unless I somehow end up out of the program before then, and presumably I'm not homeless at that point. Then I might consider the movie thing again.
Lupin the 3rd is basically a story about the exploits of four legendary thieves and an Interpol investigator who's constantly on their trail. They seem to try to rob and rip people off more for the challenge of it then for the actual money (though, they do seem to enjoy the money as well). Central to Lupin's character is that he doesn't seem to be a killer, just an unorthodox thief.
Lupin (pronounced Loop-ON, I believe) is the grandson of a legendary criminal, and has taken on his legacy of performing impossible crimes under the very nose of authorities many times. His main ability seems to be his quick wit and extreme intelligence when it comes to stealing things. He (as well as the rest of the crew) is a fairly good master of disguise.
Jigan is a guy who tends to wear a suit and a dark hat, drinks an awful lot, and is a damn good shot with a revolver. He's generally a rather pragmatic figure who tends to just like hanging out with Lupin, because Lupin's an interesting guy.
Goemon is a legendary swordsman (a kind of stereotypical samurai), who also enjoys just hanging out with Lupin and Jigan. Of all the characters, he is probably the most outlandish, performing rather impossible feats with his sword. However, it would not be difficult to mute this down to reality's level.
Fujiko (not positive on the spelling of these names by the way) is who Lupin is particularly smitten with. She has rather um...large breasts (sorry, there's really little else to say, since they're kind of central to her character). Of the 4 criminal characters, she is probably the most in it for money. She is probably the best at disgusing herself, and will often backstab multiple people just to get more money for herself. She often attempts to pull one over on the other main characters to enrich herself. Jigan and Goemon aren't too fond of her, but put up with her because of Lupin.
Zenigata is the Interpol inspector who has gotten pretty good at figuring out where and how Lupin works, but he has some behavioral problems so the local authorities tend to not believe him or comply with him fully when he makes requests. As such, he's usually there to witness Lupin's hijinks, but he never seems to catch him. Also referred to as "Pops."
That's the basics of it. Its a pretty fun, though simple show.
Lupin III is interesting because it really doesn't need to be a cartoon. Meaning, the effects taken aren't that outlandish (ala, Scooby Doo, or Dragonball Z). In fact, Lupin III could have been a very interesting live action piece from the very beginning as far as I can tell. The main reason to go animated over live action is that you can afford a lot more animated explosions and flying planes and exotic places internationally with drawings and ink then you could with a real set.
I think the comparison with 007 is really valid in this case. Whenever I watch Lupin III, it feels really similar to watching 007, if he had a set of good friends he hung out with, and he was a master gentleman thief.
Having said all that, I won't be seeing this movie, as interesting as it might be. A tight budget means entertainment tends to get cut first.
We know they had some at some point, because the US sold some to them in the 1980's during a war with Iran. However, it is unclear whether the US is claiming that these are the biochemical weapons that the US wants, or if it is new ones that Iraq has developed since then. Most of the rhetoric suggests the latter. The former is unclear at this time, but Bush certainly isn't saying "Produce the nerve gas we gave you 15 years ago!"
This is factually untrue. Numerous people have attempted to document the link between bin Laden's group, September 11th and Iraq, and the link just does not exist. Even bin Laden calls Hussein an infidel while saying that he encourages Muslims to defend Iraq against the US. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not true in this case. They may possibly both be considered enemies of the US, but they most certainly are not allies.
This occured in the 1980's, and the US continued to sell biochemical weapons, and the methods to utilize them against populations after Hussein had utilized them on the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Clearly, the US didn't care about this happening back then, since the US funded it. I've not seen documented evidence that it has occured since then. Hussein certainly didn't gas the US troops during the 1990-91 war, which brings into question why he would utilize them against the US now if he didn't use them when he was under direct attack.
Here's where I take a cheap shot and point out that the current Administration's occupation plan that was made known in October of 2002 involved a US military officer running the country for a year or more after the end of the war, as well as running Iraq's oil fields for them in the mean time. The information appeared in the New York Times, and estimates made on how many troops would be required to occupy Iraq support these claims that have never been refuted.
I believe that there are some Iraqi's in the street supporting Saddam, yes. There are Americans in the street protesting and supporting Bush as well. Given any population, there will be people on both sides of the issue. Iraq is selectively reporting the good side, while ignoring the bad, sure. But the massive protests occuring in the US were largely unreported here as well. Does that mean that Europe should invade the US and replace Bush, because he's an unelected tyrannical leader, and then rule us with a military officer for a year or more, while taking over our oil supplies? I doubt it.
You're reporting it wrong. The result was that Saddam got popularly elected unanamously, not that he had 100% turnout. I have no doubt that Hussein received 100% of the votes in his election, as he could write the electoral laws. Thus, he could make it so the law says only 1 party may be on the ballot (such as what occurs in a number of old Communist countries), and that write in candidates are not permitted. Thus, everyone who votes, votes for Hussein. Thus, Hussein gets 100% of the votes cast. Yes, its an evil, nasty, corrupt way of doing things that isn't democratic. Then again, if you want to get technical, Bush received something close to 24% of the total eligible voting population in 2000, and despite that, came in 2nd in the popular vote. When put that way, the US hardly looks democratic, does it?
I never said that Hussein was a good guy who should be upheld as a pillar of holiness. Hardly, I imagine he's a rather nasty dictator who has little regard for human life, who is willing to fight wars that he thinks he can win (Iran & Kuwait). However, my original claim is that Hussein has not done anything troubling recently. He has not gone out of his way to challenge the US militarily though he did suggest that he and Bush sit down and have a televised debate to actually talk about the issue before the US starts killing Iraqis (something that the Bush administration said was "not serious"). He has not suggested he has a right to pre-emptively strike the US (as North Korea has). He has not activated a nuclear facility capable of producing material for a nuclear weapon (as North Korea has). Nor did he have anything to do with September 11th. In fact, after the event occured, he offered his condolences to the victims and the American people, but not to President Bush. He didn't think they should have occured either.
So how exactly is he causing trouble, other then by simply existing?
However, to the best of my knowledge, Iraq has reported all the weapons that have been found, and has begun to destroy the ones that the UN has claimed are in violation of the peace agreement after the Gulf War. It has done so under protest, yes. However, saying you don't want to do something and then doing it anyway (such as destroying illegal weapons) hardly counts as 'causing trouble'. At least not like North Korea, who is saying stuff like "We have a right to pre-emptively strike the United States."
You may not like what Iraq is doing, or who Saddam is as a person. But the truth is that Saddam is not threatening outright to attack the United States, he and they have not actively attacked the US since a decade ago, and Iraq is not invading other countries as we speak. So how exactly do you consider Iraq to be causing trouble, other then that it is dragging its feet to comply with regulations to destroy things within its own country that have no effect on anyone as long as they remain unused (and they have remain unused thus far).
Claiming a country could or might do something is a lot different then claiming that they are doing something. There are enough lies and half truths going around these days, it is wise to be careful in making ad hoc generalizations about the behavior of countries. It could result in a war for the wrong reasons.
Without some limited measure of quality, it becomes impossible to employ common sense. This case is easy, because the site seems to be selling something that is only useful for entertainment purposes. However, what if Joe Anonymous decided he liked Geology, but couldn't afford to go to a University to get a degree, and as such, couldn't pass a licensing exam. But he really likes Geology, and the average person probably wouldn't know if he was talking out of his ass, since Geology isn't really a widely practiced field. So, he sets up a consulting business, takes out ads in the yellow pages and the like saying that he can perform professional geology surveys for half the price of everyone else.
Consumer sees the ad, but assumes that this guy has some qualifications, otherwise he wouldn't be in business. They go to Joe Anonymous, Joe Anonymous has no idea what he's doing, but he puts together a fancy earthquake report saying that its okay to build a hotel with no earthquake support on the San Andreas Fault (an exaggerated example, since I don't know much about geology, picture it someplace less obvious). Builder builds up to Joe Anonymous' specifications, an earthquake hits, everyone in the building dies.
In that case, how would consumer common sense have helped? Now, if Joe Anonymous was required to disclose that he was not licensed or certified prior to doing work, that would be a different case. Then a consumer could utilize common sense. They could then say "Joe Anonymous is half the price of these other guys, but he doesn't have a license and they do" while the current situation appears to be "Wow! Joe Anonymous is half the price of these other guys! That's a great deal! Who in their right mind would use them?!"
Now having said all that, there is a point that I think needs to be clarified. In this scenario, it sounds as if the government is trying to shut down the operation because they aren't licensed. That is not something I would agree with. However, I do believe that professions should be required to go out of their way to disclose their qualifications. Just as elevators are required to display their certification in a conspicious place, so too are professionals. People who aren't professional or unlicensed should have to make it conspicious that they aren't licensed, so that the consumer can make a decision to the best of their ability.
Now, does this mean that any random person is forbidden from saying something like "My knee is itching, an earthquake is coming soon" without a license? Of course not. The difference is when you claim to be professional, and charge money for that information. It then becomes commerce, and something that can be regulated. Licenses are usually required to show that you at least have some basic knowledge and understanding of the field that an individual or a corporation is proclaiming to be a master of. For example, there are engineering licenses, medical licenses, and so on and so forth, since failure to live up to the expectations of their field can do real damages.
Now, on the other hand if this website claimed something like "This information is for entertainment purposes only" they might be able to avoid the licensing restrictions, much like telephone pyschics do to some degree. Though, if I recall, Mrs. Cleo recently got nailed for fraud. The point is, the rules change, and you need to be somewhat accountable when you start charging money for your services.