Most of them are available on Amazon Instant Video.
Most of them are available for rent (which you mention in passing later, I just wanted to highlight this). If we're comparing Netflix to Amazon's Prime Instant Video, they're largely identical movie lists (anecdotal experience only, no hard data). However, Amazon has an advantage in that it offers other films for rent. Netflix did away with its own advantage of "if you can't stream it, at least you can get it delivered on DVD" (Amazon's advantage is more instantaneous, but doesn't have the catalog of Netflix's DVDs, even for rent). I do wish Netflix had a "you can stream this other stuff for $2-3" but I think their customers would revolt (again).
So for now I'm using both. Check on Netflix (better interface on XBox), then check Amazon Prime (which I have anyway for the shipping), then look for films on Amazon Instant to rent if there's something specific I want to see. We'll see if Netflix can distinguish itself with added content.
For the lazy (note "filibuster proof" means 60 votes in the Senate):
111th U.S. Congress Senate: 58% Democrat, 42% Republican (although Democrats had 60 for about 4 months, if you count the independents and blue-dog Dems who didn't always vote along party lines)
House: 59% Democrat, 41% Republican (although there is no filibuster in the House of Representatives)
Sherrod's speech starts at 0:29 of your video, and ends at 2:11. This corresponds to 17:02 of my video to 18:44. It is not a "missing piece".
The audio is better in the video I linked, and you might describe it more as "amused murmuring" than "cheering". Perhaps that's splitting hairs, though. I took it as the crowd giving a friendly chuckle to Sherrod's comic tone about how much help she was going to give this white farmer in the context of her 1986 views. You took it as the crowd's approval of such behavior in 2010, that they were encouraging discrimination against white folk at any opportunity.
I thought we could have this discussion without calling each other names, though. By now there's nobody in this thread but you and me. There's nobody to keep score of how many times you can call me incompetent, malicious or blind.
Can you provide a time in this video that you perceive a "cheer"? Regardless, this was what the rationale was changed to once it became obvious that Sherrod was telling an uplifting (if meandering) story about her overcoming her prejudice. Is what Andrew Breitbart did to Sherrod more or less egregious than what you perceived from the NAACP (not sure what, exactly, I'll wait for a time in the video I linked to).
Racism is nasty, and we should be able to discuss it without throwing our hands up in the air and labeling it "impossible to discuss" just because conservatives pretend that all liberals think that "all whites are racist, and no person of color can be". I don't think that, and none of my liberal friends think that.
This is a common criticism of the left, and it is designed to protect members of the right from real charges of racism. Let me be clear, your comment contains no element of racism. The statement "the Tea Party are racists" is inaccurate, but "some Tea Party members, including leaders in the movement, espouse racist views" is accurate.
I could point to Mike Williams, Glenn Beck's "deap-seated hatred of white people" comment (among many other comments), or a host of others for examples of the movement in general (liberal Joan Walsh seems to have a nice summary).
What these all have in common is they are specific examples of racism, not general "they're all racists!" kind of fear-mongering. I commend the Tea Party for dealing with its racist fringe the way it has. I think that is the proper way to handle these issues, not putting your head in the sand and shouting "both sides" (a la Rand Paul when a MoveOn protestor got stomped on by his volunteer).
Liberals weren't clamoring for McCain's birth certificate. We aren't accusing John Boehner of anti-colonial sentiment driving his decisions. Sure, there are boneheaded liberals. You're welcome to bring it up. I'll take a look and decide that Olbermann's off his rocker, or that Media Matters is too whiny (which sometimes I do find).
You have to allow for the possibility that, sometimes (or often), liberals are crying racism not because it's a political gambit to appeal to "stupid voters", but because someone on your side is being a racist.
Should I get pregnant? - No, children are a hotbox for every communicable disease imaginable. - No, the planet is overpopulated as it is. - Yes, children are beautiful and can be trained to do all sorts of menial labor. - Yes, CowboyNeal will stop hitting on you. - I don't have a uterus, you insensitive clod!
True, I joke about my kids illnesses, after the fact. "WTF is croup?!? He sounds like a dying beagle! Next you'll tell me my kid has the plague, totally normal, just wait it out."
Anyway, good luck to you and your complications! Hope all goes well.
I skimmed the Rolling Stone article, and it was difficult to find any specific evidence for what Taibbi is asserting. I have no doubt that Goldman is a huge behemoth that abuses its position to affect markets in a way that benefits itself at the expense of lower-tier investors, which makes it doubly dissapointing that Taibbi mounts such a weak attack. He chooses to fill his "expose" with invectives like [t]he world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. To prove this point, he simply lists the former Goldman employees which are now, or were, in positions of power. I find the Frontline documentaries on this topic to be much more rational and informing:
First step: Jailbreak your iPhone and install an ssh server on it. I'm not willing to void my warranty while playing catchup with each firmware update, so I think I'll wait.
This is exactly what the US does, and what the FCC is advocating. Fox is arguing for the right to use "fleeting expletives" (isolated use of "fuck" and "shit", usually during live broadcasts) during a pre-10pm window that the FCC says is off limits. Post-10pm, broadcast television can say anything it wants, although it generally steers clear of "fuck" and "shit" at all times of the day.
For the record, I think the FCC's guidelines on when you can use expletives is arbitrary and capricious ("Saving Private Ryan"/news broadcasts OK, Scorcese documentary NOT OK), therefore Fox should win. I also think it's silly to let the FCC regulate broadcast television when it doesn't regulate cable ("invades your home" vs. "you subscribe"), as the distinction between accessing NBC and accessing Comedy Central from a standard US household setup is viturally zero.
That was actually a hypothesis, not a result. If it were a result than the claim that "No gap found" wouldn't make sense.
I read your included quote that it was a conclusion in the 20-year-old study that boys were better at complex math problems once they hit high school (depends on your definition of "suggests"). The "no gap found" is for elementary and middle school, not high school.
What they did find was that, in standardized tests, Asian boys and girls score fairly equally, which would appear to reverse the hypothesis from the study 20 years ago EXCEPT that the study also revealed 'very few level 3 and 4 questions' (on a scale from 1-4, 4 being the hardest).
I read that Asian girls outnumbered Asian boys 2-to-1 amoung the highest scores. From the article:
Among students with the highest test scores, the team did find that white boys outnumbered white girls by about two to one. Among Asians, however, that result was nearly reversed.
Your question:
but how could they possibly draw conclusions on complex math performance if their testing material didn't have any complex math?
They couldn't, but they only said that most state's test materials didn't include level 3 or 4 complexity math problems. This leaves open the possibility that they drew their conclusions from some state's test material, or federal test material, which did include this level of complexity.
Result 1: While previously it had been believed that boys scored (marginally) higher on standardized math tests, this small gap has recently been eliminated up until high school. For certain cultural breakdowns (white boys vs. white girls), the high scores were dominated 2 to 1 by males. For other breakdowns (Asian boys vs. Asian girls) the trend reversed. Once they hit high school, boys seem better at solving more complex problems. Researchers conclude that cultural and social factors are contributing factors to this discepency.
Result 2: Not many state tests have hard math questions. This is consistent with Result 1 if they use federal tests (eg. SAT) or those state tests which do have hard math questions to evaluate whether boys seem better at solving complex problems. They may also mean that boys are better at solving the most complex problems on the not-so-complex state tests.
My rep voted against it. Does this mean I now have to be proud of Patrick Kennedy? The other rep in RI (Jim Langevin) voted yes, though. I guess it's time for me to call Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed!
It's said that their understanding engine required a month to grok Wikipedia's 2.5M articles. The Web is currently at least 8,000 times as large. Expect the alpha release in 2675.
Did Google vote in favor of genocide or stoning dissidents? No, it voted in favour of enabling suppression of people's freedom to access information.
What they did do was to make a nuanced calculation that I think most reasonable people would agree with. I would agree that they made a decision that is good for them and bad for people in China looking for information about Tiananmen Square.
Seriously, what is it going to harm the Chinese government if Google packed up. They will be the laughing stock of the developed world, and that seems to matter to them lately.
Google is in a far better position to do good now than if they were completely out of the country. I disagree. I think they have more leverage with the government if they show a willingness to leave. What good do they do now if they agree to censor anything that the Chinese government asks them to?
Amnesty and the rest can't see the forest for the trees. Taking a stand in prinicple is just that, in principle with no effect on things in the real world. I think they realize that you can't pander to human rights violators and fight them at the same time. It's fine if Google wants a presence there, as long as they are honest about their motivations and can face the criticism. Just say that they're there out of self-interest, don't tell me they're going to "fight the Man from the inside!".
Pressure Google to use its position in China to lobby for more freedom, don't try and make them leave. They're pressuring Google to use its position globally to lobby for more freedom. Part of Google's bargaining power comes from the Chinese government's desire to have major technology players participate in its economy.
I'll tell you where they have the opportunity to innovate in this area: Fantasy Sports. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not seen any web services available for developers to build fantasy sports applications. If they open up their statistics and games for outside developers to build on, that would be huge.
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem seems to be parental controls are not turned on by default. Turning them on means kids will be required to enter a password for IAP.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201357720
Most of them are available on Amazon Instant Video.
Most of them are available for rent (which you mention in passing later, I just wanted to highlight this). If we're comparing Netflix to Amazon's Prime Instant Video, they're largely identical movie lists (anecdotal experience only, no hard data). However, Amazon has an advantage in that it offers other films for rent. Netflix did away with its own advantage of "if you can't stream it, at least you can get it delivered on DVD" (Amazon's advantage is more instantaneous, but doesn't have the catalog of Netflix's DVDs, even for rent). I do wish Netflix had a "you can stream this other stuff for $2-3" but I think their customers would revolt (again).
So for now I'm using both. Check on Netflix (better interface on XBox), then check Amazon Prime (which I have anyway for the shipping), then look for films on Amazon Instant to rent if there's something specific I want to see. We'll see if Netflix can distinguish itself with added content.
For the lazy (note "filibuster proof" means 60 votes in the Senate):
111th U.S. Congress
Senate: 58% Democrat, 42% Republican (although Democrats had 60 for about 4 months, if you count the independents and blue-dog Dems who didn't always vote along party lines)
House: 59% Democrat, 41% Republican (although there is no filibuster in the House of Representatives)
EPOCH fail!
Sherrod's speech starts at 0:29 of your video, and ends at 2:11. This corresponds to 17:02 of my video to 18:44. It is not a "missing piece".
The audio is better in the video I linked, and you might describe it more as "amused murmuring" than "cheering". Perhaps that's splitting hairs, though. I took it as the crowd giving a friendly chuckle to Sherrod's comic tone about how much help she was going to give this white farmer in the context of her 1986 views. You took it as the crowd's approval of such behavior in 2010, that they were encouraging discrimination against white folk at any opportunity.
I thought we could have this discussion without calling each other names, though. By now there's nobody in this thread but you and me. There's nobody to keep score of how many times you can call me incompetent, malicious or blind.
Can you provide a time in this video that you perceive a "cheer"? Regardless, this was what the rationale was changed to once it became obvious that Sherrod was telling an uplifting (if meandering) story about her overcoming her prejudice. Is what Andrew Breitbart did to Sherrod more or less egregious than what you perceived from the NAACP (not sure what, exactly, I'll wait for a time in the video I linked to).
Racism is nasty, and we should be able to discuss it without throwing our hands up in the air and labeling it "impossible to discuss" just because conservatives pretend that all liberals think that "all whites are racist, and no person of color can be". I don't think that, and none of my liberal friends think that.
This is a common criticism of the left, and it is designed to protect members of the right from real charges of racism. Let me be clear, your comment contains no element of racism. The statement "the Tea Party are racists" is inaccurate, but "some Tea Party members, including leaders in the movement, espouse racist views" is accurate.
I could point to Mike Williams, Glenn Beck's "deap-seated hatred of white people" comment (among many other comments), or a host of others for examples of the movement in general (liberal Joan Walsh seems to have a nice summary).
What these all have in common is they are specific examples of racism, not general "they're all racists!" kind of fear-mongering. I commend the Tea Party for dealing with its racist fringe the way it has. I think that is the proper way to handle these issues, not putting your head in the sand and shouting "both sides" (a la Rand Paul when a MoveOn protestor got stomped on by his volunteer).
Liberals weren't clamoring for McCain's birth certificate. We aren't accusing John Boehner of anti-colonial sentiment driving his decisions. Sure, there are boneheaded liberals. You're welcome to bring it up. I'll take a look and decide that Olbermann's off his rocker, or that Media Matters is too whiny (which sometimes I do find).
You have to allow for the possibility that, sometimes (or often), liberals are crying racism not because it's a political gambit to appeal to "stupid voters", but because someone on your side is being a racist.
That would have been great.
Should I get pregnant?
- No, children are a hotbox for every communicable disease imaginable.
- No, the planet is overpopulated as it is.
- Yes, children are beautiful and can be trained to do all sorts of menial labor.
- Yes, CowboyNeal will stop hitting on you.
- I don't have a uterus, you insensitive clod!
True, I joke about my kids illnesses, after the fact. "WTF is croup?!? He sounds like a dying beagle! Next you'll tell me my kid has the plague, totally normal, just wait it out."
Anyway, good luck to you and your complications! Hope all goes well.
I've had 2 babies, and I've had a couple chuckles so far in this thread. Granted, I browse at 3, but it's been pretty mild stuff about 10 comments in.
"Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom."
Wrong.
I skimmed the Rolling Stone article, and it was difficult to find any specific evidence for what Taibbi is asserting. I have no doubt that Goldman is a huge behemoth that abuses its position to affect markets in a way that benefits itself at the expense of lower-tier investors, which makes it doubly dissapointing that Taibbi mounts such a weak attack. He chooses to fill his "expose" with invectives like [t]he world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. To prove this point, he simply lists the former Goldman employees which are now, or were, in positions of power. I find the Frontline documentaries on this topic to be much more rational and informing:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/breakingthebank/view/
We now have Java and Flash on 64-bit.
No 64-bit Java browser plugin until early 2009.
In your .vimrc:
nmap :set hlsearch!
You can map it to whatever key you want. It will toggle search highlighting.
First step: Jailbreak your iPhone and install an ssh server on it. I'm not willing to void my warranty while playing catchup with each firmware update, so I think I'll wait.
This is exactly what the US does, and what the FCC is advocating. Fox is arguing for the right to use "fleeting expletives" (isolated use of "fuck" and "shit", usually during live broadcasts) during a pre-10pm window that the FCC says is off limits. Post-10pm, broadcast television can say anything it wants, although it generally steers clear of "fuck" and "shit" at all times of the day.
For the record, I think the FCC's guidelines on when you can use expletives is arbitrary and capricious ("Saving Private Ryan"/news broadcasts OK, Scorcese documentary NOT OK), therefore Fox should win. I also think it's silly to let the FCC regulate broadcast television when it doesn't regulate cable ("invades your home" vs. "you subscribe"), as the distinction between accessing NBC and accessing Comedy Central from a standard US household setup is viturally zero.
More like World of Warhammer... Craft...
That was actually a hypothesis, not a result. If it were a result than the claim that "No gap found" wouldn't make sense.
I read your included quote that it was a conclusion in the 20-year-old study that boys were better at complex math problems once they hit high school (depends on your definition of "suggests"). The "no gap found" is for elementary and middle school, not high school.
What they did find was that, in standardized tests, Asian boys and girls score fairly equally, which would appear to reverse the hypothesis from the study 20 years ago EXCEPT that the study also revealed 'very few level 3 and 4 questions' (on a scale from 1-4, 4 being the hardest).
I read that Asian girls outnumbered Asian boys 2-to-1 amoung the highest scores. From the article:
Among students with the highest test scores, the team did find that white boys outnumbered white girls by about two to one. Among Asians, however, that result was nearly reversed.
Your question:
but how could they possibly draw conclusions on complex math performance if their testing material didn't have any complex math?
They couldn't, but they only said that most state's test materials didn't include level 3 or 4 complexity math problems. This leaves open the possibility that they drew their conclusions from some state's test material, or federal test material, which did include this level of complexity.
Result 1: While previously it had been believed that boys scored (marginally) higher on standardized math tests, this small gap has recently been eliminated up until high school. For certain cultural breakdowns (white boys vs. white girls), the high scores were dominated 2 to 1 by males. For other breakdowns (Asian boys vs. Asian girls) the trend reversed. Once they hit high school, boys seem better at solving more complex problems. Researchers conclude that cultural and social factors are contributing factors to this discepency.
Result 2: Not many state tests have hard math questions. This is consistent with Result 1 if they use federal tests (eg. SAT) or those state tests which do have hard math questions to evaluate whether boys seem better at solving complex problems. They may also mean that boys are better at solving the most complex problems on the not-so-complex state tests.
I think "community standard" is the Supreme Court's way of trying not to step on states' rights:
"Ok, federally obscenity is not protected by the 1st Amendment, but we'll leave it up to you locals to figure out what's obscene."
Isn't this why most porn is produced in California?
Here's the vote.
My rep voted against it. Does this mean I now have to be proud of Patrick Kennedy? The other rep in RI (Jim Langevin) voted yes, though. I guess it's time for me to call Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed!
I'll tell you where they have the opportunity to innovate in this area: Fantasy Sports. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not seen any web services available for developers to build fantasy sports applications. If they open up their statistics and games for outside developers to build on, that would be huge.
This is what I thought, but the Wikipedia entry for the problem states otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Aids_to_understanding
I'm not quite clear on why Monty's knowledge matters, even after reading this.