So are you saying that Exxon did not benefit from the Iraqi production being reduced to almost nothing for a few years when the market was already tight?
As far as the actual Havana, no, you're completely wrong. Try talking to the really old Cubans, the ones who came over before the revolution to work because it was the only way to keep their children from starving to death back home.
My family came over in the 50s. They were sugarcane share croppers living in a single room hut with a dirt floor and no running water or electricity. Revolutions don't happen when everyone is happy.
Those in charge in government like to think they "create jobs". No, a government job is not a "good" job, it is a drain on the tax base because it generates no wealth.
I've heard this same exact argument on the radio a lot recently. Must be a coincidence.
I read Snowcrash on recommendation from/. Big mistake.
All the characters were one-dimensional sock puppets and the main character's name was Hiro Protagonist. Seriously. Almost Wodehouse-esque only I'm not laughing with Stephenson.
Libertarians are destroying Sci-fi. Also game writing.
The thing to understand here is that cell blades are difficult to get a hold of and cost $18k. Even the linux on cell group at IBM (where I currently work) uses ps3s for their development as a result. I know IBM is developing cell big iron to market as mmporg host. I wouldnt be surprised if this was part of that effort. Performance per watt and reliability I was told was quite favorable when compared to traditional x86 clusters.
I suggest you read the buisness news more carefully. Detroit is getting smashed by the Japanese and to a lesser extent the Germans. The only market where they are making any kind of significant money is in the US, and they have been losing market share rapidly in the last few years.
You assume government is the dominant entity here. If however you believe that government is divyed up into spheres of influence ala late 19th century China, then the corporations have their armies after all. You can't expect institutions to wield trillions of dollars of economic might and not crave more power. As Machiavelli said in the Discourses the wealthy and powerful will always wage war on the masses as "the ambition and avarice of man knows no bounds".
Actually, Socialist and anarchist philosiphys are not mutually exclusive. Although as a result of a fluke in History (by which im referring to the Bolsheviks ceasing power) socialism has now come to be seen as Marx-Leninist, heavy handed control by the majority of people. It does not mean it is so. The majority of those who claim to be socialists are social-liberatarians in that they do not believe in state interference in people's personal lives. But as far as the economy is concerned, it is necessary evil in some situations to prevent economic dictatorship (as they view large corporations) and still have the resources to acomplish certain monumental tasks (ie NASA requires alot of resources that small decentralized organizations would not be able to adequately aquire). The Majority of people who call themselves socialists would prefer small worker cooperatives and private buisnesses to state intervention where possible.
Anarchists for the most part, adhere to more or less the same philosiphy although are more anal about democratising everything (ie spanish anarchists voting whether on they feel like fighting or not before every battle). They also generally have a much smaller time scale when it comes to how fast they are going to change things, and have slightly different economic structures (see syndicalism) but all in all have the same point.
Whether or not the political theory is the same as the actual practice is a different matter. And is generally the case when it comes to any political philosiphy, even capitalism (see corporate welfare).
You are aware that you just contradicted yourself right? Naval buildup was avoided by Bismarck inorder to not antagonize Britain, a policy discontinued by Wilhelm II in an effort to cut in on the imperialist game monopolized by France and Britain. Bismarck had always felt that German Unification atained, Germany could only lose if another war were to be fought. Now im not really a great fan of Bismarck's, but to blame his diplomacy makes no sense.
In many other societies the age of consent is 11,12,or 13 years of age. I heard a story of a couple who were married in mexico, the man was 18 or 19, the women I think was 13. Anyhow they came to the US to live with the girl's parents. A couple months pass, one of her teachers discovers out what was going on and the man was arrested. Im not saying I particularly agree with the views of that society or not. I don't see how you can make a particular view of any one culture into law in a country that is supposed to be a "melting pot" of cultures. As long as you do not infringe on someone else's rights in the expression of your culture I don't see why it should be considered "wrong" in the eyes of the law.
>For one thing, it is ironic to say that mutation caused by intelligent, deliberate design proves evolution: mutation by >unintelligent, random accidents.
Natural selection operates with the environment of a species defining the course of evolution. Are you saying that we live in an entirely random environment? There is chemistry and physics to content with. This argument is really quite insane.
> Animal breeders have not been able to turn dogs, cats etc to another species.
This is very ironic that you mention dogs, as different breeds of dogs are actually so dissimilar as they do not combine to form fertile offspring. This is how taxonomists differentiate species is it not? Don't believe me? Ask a veterinarian.
>Evolution by natural selection tends to be exaggerated. What is the point of arguing selection among existing >variants? All this means is that we are looking at a form of selective extinction. No new species result from the >observed selection.
Species is really just an organizational unit nothing more. At what point are two subspecies considered different species? Biologists have run into countless examples naturally where two different sub-species can interbreed with another sub-species but not each other. As you must already know the ability to interbreed is what defines a species. Should these be considered separate species?
It should be added that although evolution is the most commonly accepted theory among experts in biology. It is not the most commonly accepted theory by those who are not. Infer what you will from that.
>Evolution benefits from a lack of scientific skepticism, and an ideology that pushes for its acceptance without >question.
Many post have depicted Darwinian evolution as conjecture, that is at based on a few debatable fossil records. This cannot be further from the truth.
Although the fossil record can be debated, genetics can not. The fact of the matter is, with the discovery of DNA and its consequences in relation to heredity, evolution enters the same level of validity as Einstein's theory of special relativity. Whether you believe it or not your genome was determined at birth. And it makes sense that you will pass on this genome if you survive to have children. That is evolution by natural selection. People breed dogs, cats, etc all the time to get a specific attribute. That is EVOLUTION by artificial selection. Evolution by natural selection is occurring as we speak, it is well documented. From salamanders in California to Peppered Moths in London to Trees in the Pacific Islands. It can then be inferred that evolution by natural selection was occurring before we were here.
Now this does not mean natural selection is the only force behind evolution. Many biologists have suggested alternative forces at play as the answer to many of the errant predictions made by the model. The lack of total consistency in predictions does not indicate evolution via natural selection is an incorrect assumption, all it means is that not all forces are accounted for. The mathematics behind the theory of relativity break down in a black hole, but this does not mean the theory is incorrect, merely that is does not account for all forces.
But does anyone debate the validity of the theory of special relativity? No, because it doesn't interfere with peoples deeply held beliefs (be they true or not). Obviously people need more science education not less.
For some reason or another the US seems to always confound racial inequality with class inequality. The fact of the matter is, Blacks are generally worse off in this country because Blacks are generally poorer because of this country's history and because in this country if you are born into poverty chances are you will die in poverty. If you do not believe this last point, just take a trip to an urban poor area and figure out how these kids are going to survive without basic utilities.
Btw, if you are planning on dying ever, you better have money. I worked at the county home for six-months for one of my pre-medicine classes, hospice is death with dignity, for those who cannot afford it, you die bed sore ridden, malnourished, and overseen by a staff without adequate education. But then again, you probably don't know any of those people.
I find it very interesting that proponents laize-faire capitalism are all for subsidizing, helping out, and bailing out US industry, but go into conniption fits when a suggestion is made that we should try to bring the bottom third of the country out of the third world. State protection for the rich, tough love for everyone else.
But wait. The reason you have had so many opportunities and such an easy life is because of your obvious genetic superiority, "they" are all just plain lasy and stupid. In order to make this trite accusation one must first have no working knowledge of modern Darwinian evolution or genetics. Will the man touting social Darwinism please pick up a book on biology! Then again, who am I to ruin your self-promoting psychological justification.
If the objectivists would only come down to reality, they would realize that capitalism is an extreme, like communism, that can never really exist off of paper in a pure form. The market must have safe guards to protect us from unwanted effects and privatization should only be used in situations suited to market competition.
It seems to me what everyone needs is a required course in Logic and statistics. CORRELATION DOES NOT NECESSITATE CAUSATION! People who kill tend to like violent movies bc PEOPLE tend to like violent movies! Not the other way around. BTW if you want to see gratuitous violence you should watch those old WB cartoons.
If anything the free market is responsible for such a Bill. To think that you can have massive private entities, with all their power, and not have them influence other institutions such as Government is as unrealistic as Mao thinking he could propel China into the modern world by having everyone smelt steel in their back yard. This bill is obviously geared towards sheilding large corporations from those who would interfer with profit margines. Us cannon fodder. This is of course nothing new in the world, classic classical liberalism if you will, it just seems people can only keep track of a couple years at a time.
If you look at all the new tnt2 ultras it seems that hercules cards actually run at the promised 175mhz where everyone else runs at 150. After overclocking, the hercs can at average get to 190 as opposed to the diamond 170 avg oc. Coincidence?
Slashdot Mirror
Air travel is actually only safer than driving a car if you compare it by fatalities per mile and not fatalities per trip.
Where have you been? This happened in 1997 when communist ideology was officially replaced with "Military First politics".
No, it's not genetic; but it is epigenetic.
So are you saying that Exxon did not benefit from the Iraqi production being reduced to almost nothing for a few years when the market was already tight?
As far as the actual Havana, no, you're completely wrong. Try talking to the really old Cubans, the ones who came over before the revolution to work because it was the only way to keep their children from starving to death back home.
My family came over in the 50s. They were sugarcane share croppers living in a single room hut with a dirt floor and no running water or electricity. Revolutions don't happen when everyone is happy.
I truly believe smoking is probably not good for me. I still smoke.
How very lucky we are that there is a continuous bijection mapping "intelligence" to the positive reals and not R2.
Those in charge in government like to think they "create jobs". No, a government job is not a "good" job, it is a drain on the tax base because it generates no wealth.
I've heard this same exact argument on the radio a lot recently. Must be a coincidence.
I disagree. I think the new ending changed the political message in a very subtle way.
1) Ozymandias comes across in the movie as ethically wrong, lanky, and not really someone to be rooted for with.
2) The ending no longer really makes much logical sense (hard to explain w/o spoiler).
3) They changed RR to Ronald Regan not Robert Redford.
I read Snowcrash on recommendation from /. Big mistake.
All the characters were one-dimensional sock puppets and the main character's
name was Hiro Protagonist. Seriously. Almost Wodehouse-esque only I'm not laughing
with Stephenson.
Libertarians are destroying Sci-fi. Also game writing.
The thing to understand here is that cell blades are difficult to get a hold of and cost $18k. Even the
linux on cell group at IBM (where I currently work) uses ps3s for their development as a result. I know
IBM is developing cell big iron to market as mmporg host. I wouldnt be surprised if this was part
of that effort. Performance per watt and reliability I was told was quite favorable when compared to
traditional x86 clusters.
Lucky for you, the slashdot "accepted collective doctrine" calls for frequent use of the word "Group-think" and a persecution complex.
I suggest you read the buisness news more carefully.
Detroit is getting smashed by the Japanese and to a lesser extent the Germans. The only market where they are making any kind of significant money is in the US, and they have been losing market share rapidly in the last few years.
You assume government is the dominant entity here. If however you believe that government is divyed up into spheres of influence ala late 19th century China, then the corporations have their armies after all. You can't expect institutions to wield trillions of dollars of economic might and not crave more power. As Machiavelli said in the Discourses the wealthy and powerful will always wage war on the masses as "the ambition and avarice of man knows no bounds".
Actually, Socialist and anarchist philosiphys are not mutually exclusive. Although as a result of a fluke in History (by which im referring to the Bolsheviks ceasing power) socialism has now come to be seen as Marx-Leninist, heavy handed control by the majority of people. It does not mean it is so. The majority of those who claim to be socialists are social-liberatarians in that they do not believe in state interference in people's personal lives. But as far as the economy is concerned, it is necessary evil in some situations to prevent economic dictatorship (as they view large corporations) and still have the resources to acomplish certain monumental tasks (ie NASA requires alot of resources that small decentralized organizations would not be able to adequately aquire). The Majority of people who call themselves socialists would prefer small worker cooperatives and private buisnesses to state intervention where possible.
Anarchists for the most part, adhere to more or less the same philosiphy although are more anal about democratising everything (ie spanish anarchists voting whether on they feel like fighting or not before every battle). They also generally have a much smaller time scale when it comes to how fast they are going to change things, and have slightly different economic structures (see syndicalism) but all in all have the same point.
Whether or not the political theory is the same as the actual practice is a different matter. And is generally the case when it comes to any political philosiphy, even capitalism (see corporate welfare).
You are aware that you just contradicted yourself right? Naval buildup was avoided by Bismarck inorder to not antagonize Britain, a policy discontinued by Wilhelm II in an effort to cut in on the imperialist game monopolized by France and Britain. Bismarck had always felt that German Unification atained, Germany could only lose if another war were to be fought. Now im not really a great fan of Bismarck's, but to blame his diplomacy makes no sense.
--Gil
In many other societies the age of consent is 11,12,or 13 years of age. I heard a story of a couple who were married in mexico, the man was 18 or 19, the women I think was 13. Anyhow they came to the US to live with the girl's parents. A couple months pass, one of her teachers discovers out what was going on and the man was arrested.
Im not saying I particularly agree with the views of that society or not. I don't see how you can make a particular view of any one culture into law in a country that is supposed to be a "melting pot" of cultures. As long as you do not infringe on someone else's rights in the expression of your culture I don't see why it should be considered "wrong" in the eyes of the law.
Uh-oh, it looks like we've entered semantics hell. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
How is it that man is separated from the natural world?
Is linguistics an "engineering" study?
>For one thing, it is ironic to say that mutation caused by intelligent, deliberate design proves evolution: mutation by >unintelligent, random accidents.
Natural selection operates with the environment of a species defining the course of evolution. Are you saying that we live in an entirely random environment? There is chemistry and physics to content with. This argument is really quite insane.
> Animal breeders have not been able to turn dogs, cats etc to another species.
This is very ironic that you mention dogs, as different breeds of dogs are actually so dissimilar as they do not combine to form fertile offspring. This is how taxonomists differentiate species is it not? Don't believe me? Ask a veterinarian.
>Evolution by natural selection tends to be exaggerated. What is the point of arguing selection among existing >variants? All this means is that we are looking at a form of selective extinction. No new species result from the >observed selection.
Species is really just an organizational unit nothing more. At what point are two subspecies considered different species? Biologists have run into countless examples naturally where two different sub-species can interbreed with another sub-species but not each other. As you must already know the ability to interbreed is what defines a species. Should these be considered separate species?
It should be added that although evolution is the most commonly accepted theory among experts in biology. It is not the most commonly accepted theory by those who are not. Infer what you will from that.
>Evolution benefits from a lack of scientific skepticism, and an ideology that pushes for its acceptance without >question.
Many post have depicted Darwinian evolution as conjecture, that is at based on a few debatable fossil records. This cannot be further from the truth.
Although the fossil record can be debated, genetics can not. The fact of the matter is, with the discovery of DNA and its consequences in relation to heredity, evolution enters the same level of validity as Einstein's theory of special relativity. Whether you believe it or not your genome was determined at birth. And it makes sense that you will pass on this genome if you survive to have children. That is evolution by natural selection. People breed dogs, cats, etc all the time to get a specific attribute. That is EVOLUTION by artificial selection. Evolution by natural selection is occurring as we speak, it is well documented. From salamanders in California to Peppered Moths in London to Trees in the Pacific Islands. It can then be inferred that evolution by natural selection was occurring before we were here.
Now this does not mean natural selection is the only force behind evolution. Many biologists have suggested alternative forces at play as the answer to many of the errant predictions made by the model. The lack of total consistency in predictions does not indicate evolution via natural selection is an incorrect assumption, all it means is that not all forces are accounted for. The mathematics behind the theory of relativity break down in a black hole, but this does not mean the theory is incorrect, merely that is does not account for all forces.
But does anyone debate the validity of the theory of special relativity? No, because it doesn't interfere with peoples deeply held beliefs (be they true or not). Obviously people need more science education not less.
For some reason or another the US seems to always confound racial inequality with class inequality. The fact of the matter is, Blacks are generally worse off in this country because Blacks are generally poorer because of this country's history and because in this country if you are born into poverty chances are you will die in poverty. If you do not believe this last point, just take a trip to an urban poor area and figure out how these kids are going to survive without basic utilities.
Btw, if you are planning on dying ever, you better have money. I worked at the county home for six-months for one of my pre-medicine classes, hospice is death with dignity, for those who cannot afford it, you die bed sore ridden, malnourished, and overseen by a staff without adequate education. But then again, you probably don't know any of those people.
I find it very interesting that proponents laize-faire capitalism are all for subsidizing, helping out, and bailing out US industry, but go into conniption fits when a suggestion is made that we should try to bring the bottom third of the country out of the third world. State protection for the rich, tough love for everyone else.
But wait. The reason you have had so many opportunities and such an easy life is because of your obvious genetic superiority, "they" are all just plain lasy and stupid. In order to make this trite accusation one must first have no working knowledge of modern Darwinian evolution or genetics. Will the man touting social Darwinism please pick up a book on biology! Then again, who am I to ruin your self-promoting psychological justification.
If the objectivists would only come down to reality, they would realize that capitalism is an extreme, like communism, that can never really exist off of paper in a pure form. The market must have safe guards to protect us from unwanted effects and privatization should only be used in situations suited to market competition.
It seems to me what everyone needs is a required course in Logic and statistics. CORRELATION DOES NOT NECESSITATE CAUSATION! People who kill tend to like violent movies bc PEOPLE tend to like violent movies! Not the other way around. BTW if you want to see gratuitous violence you should watch those old WB cartoons.
I remember zdnet had an article about these guys 2 years ago. This page hasn't changed much since then either.
If anything the free market is responsible for such a Bill. To think that you can have massive private entities, with all their power, and not have them influence other institutions such as Government is as unrealistic as Mao thinking he could propel China into the modern world by having everyone smelt steel in their back yard. This bill is obviously geared towards sheilding large corporations from those who would interfer with profit margines. Us cannon fodder. This is of course nothing new in the world, classic classical liberalism if you will, it just seems people can only keep track of a couple years at a time.
If you look at all the new tnt2 ultras it seems that hercules cards actually run at the promised 175mhz where everyone else runs at 150. After overclocking, the hercs can at average get to 190 as opposed to the diamond 170 avg oc. Coincidence?