This is getting blown way out of proportion. Every few months it seems we hear of a new journalist scandal. Photoshopping pictures. Making up movie reviews. Journalistic integrity is at an all time low. So of course the mainstream media is going to attack amateur sources of information in an attempt to improve their own image.
If a professional media source doesn't present an advantage over free amateur sources of information, there is no reason for anyone to pay attention to the professionals. These advantages can include quality, accuracy, and time to deliver the information. The professionals will usually have the advantage in time delivery, but the other two are slowly slipping away from them. Instead of improve their quality, they rely on sensationalism stories to shock or guilt viewers into watching. They instill fear and uncertainty into their viewers to create a sense of dependence. Instead of improve accuracy, they report with a strategy of false confidence. If you sound right, you are right. By the time anyone cares to correct the issue, the story is long forgotten and no harm was ever done to your credibility. If the story is still in the memory of the public, other stories will be moved to the front page, to the top story, in order to distract from the previous problems.
Professional media feels threatened that the public can get their information from other sources. So they attack the problems with amateur sources. Sure wikipedia can be innacurate. It can be downright false. It can have quality issues. It can be slow to deliver information. But those are all problems that the regular media has as well. So they attack it anyway and discredit it, using the very same tactic that wikipedia editors attempt to use. False confidence. The public believes what is presented as confident.
The professional media has just as many problems as the amateur media. Fact checking is at an all time low. Errors are at an all time high. Corrections are a thing of the past. But why bother improving when you can launch a smear campaign and discredit alternative sources with one fell swoop? Fox news is particularly guilty of this. Watch fox news shows like Bill O'Reilly. They'll take other cable news clips and edit them to make them appear inaccurate or unbalanced. They'll take clips of the Daily Show, or the Colbert Report and edit them to discredit any news value the segment might have. Those two programs use satire and wit to make points and present news or make a political commentary. But when you watch an edited clip of one of those programs on Fox News, all you see is the silly actions of the hosts and they are made into goons rather than smart political commentary. If you don't watch either program, you can find some user submitted comparisons of these video clips on youtube with some searching. (I would post links, however I am at work and youtube is blocked).
All in all, most of the media out there is just plain horrible. Information is hard to come by. You can't trust any single news source or source of factual information these days. You have to look at several sources to get a full picture. Fair and balanced news just doesn't come from one source just because they say so. None of the media outlets are fair and balanced, and if you care to follow a money trail to who owns the parent companies, and what time of campaign contributions they make, you'll see that none of the major news sources can be trusted for anything.
The information wars are here, and I don't think there are really any winners.
For all the people crying foul of hawking for saying that something came of nothing, let's look at the logic process: (note this is rather simplified for the sake of logic and process of elimination).
We can observe "something". That "something" being the universe around us.
So the three options about the known "something" is that it either came from "something", or came from "nothing", or that the "something" was both "always" and "never".
Hawking postulate simply rules out that "something" came from "something else", because ultimately if "something" came from "something else", then you never answered the original question, because you are now trapped in a loop asking what the original "something else" came from. Which whittles the issue down to two options: "Something" came from "nothing" or "something" was "always".
It's easier to rule out that something was always given that E=MC^2 and C^2 is actually just another way of representing the other two dimensions, time and space (C is the minimum plank space and minimum plank time reference frame). If those measurements are observed and other physics tells us that time, and energy has constraints, as well as time being finite on the "something" end, then I would agree with the logic that it is unlikely that "something" was "always".
Which leaves the last option of that "something" came from "nothing".
It's always funny to see how people that work-out assume that because it makes them feel good, it must make everyone feel good. This is usually followed up by some thinly veiled self-righteousness.
Thinly vieled self-righteousness? Screw that mate. It's a statement of fact that I feel better after working-out. That's not self-righteousness. It's also a statement of fact that I used to not work out on a regular basis. I notice a huge difference in my quality of health and life now that I do work out. I'll never go back.
Also, any Doctor will tell you that excercise is better than no excercise.
People who don't exercise are often the way they are because exercise makes them feel HORRIBLE.
If you are exteremly out of shape or have health conditions then yes, it might make you feel horrible. For a while. But eventually mate, I promise that'll pass. If you just feel sore, or have a hard time getting motivated that is one thing. If you feel HORRIBLE, enough to warrant putting HORRIBLE in all caps, and you are not exagerating, then you should see a doctor. Talk to your doctor about excercise and what he/she recommends. A doctor can give you a phsyical and determine if you have some kind of condition where excercise is not right for you.
Trust me, there is a reason why people say "no pain, no gain". When you are out of shape, getting into shape is a tough up hill battle. But it's worth it in the end.
See a doctor first. Then talk to a personal trainer. I will bet you 100 dollars that you could be in great shape in 6 months and feel better both physically and mentally. This isn't self-righteousness, this is human science and health.
I'm not some jock asshole. I'm every bit as geek as you. Click this link to gain a new perspective on geek excercise. http://xkcd.com/c189.html
This sounds like a no brainer to me. The brain needs oxygen to make chemical and electrical reactions. The brain will get the most blood circulation, thus carrying the most fresh oxygen, during and after exercise. Furthermore lots of exercise promotes a healthy cardiovascular and central nervous system. Something that can only improve the brain.
I know that after I complete a heavy lifting routine or a good cardio work out, I feel great for the rest of the day. I think clearer. I don't feel any craving for caffeinated beverages. I focus more.
I can't find the study, but I read a story about a study that said exercise produces the same effect that energy drink ingredients provide to the brain. While that might be true in some fashion, I've never consumed an energy drink that gave me as good of feeling as a post work-out. I do consume sugar free energy drinks from time to time, I think they can be a good pick me up when you are low on sleep or just feel drained. Of course, that's in moderation. Drinking one every day will build a tolerance and you'll just be throwing money down the drain. Of course, drinking a good cup of stout tea will do just about the same thing.
I would love to see a study where a bunch of similarly talented gamers (that relied on critical thinking and reaction, not like an MMO) were divided up. One group would exercise, and one group would not. I would be willing to bet that after a month, the group that would exercise would have increased in skill and results over the group that did not.
I believe killing off Captain America was just a metaphor.
Captian America was a bit different than your gadern variety superhero. He didn't fight super villians, evil geniuses, and/or monsters/aliens. He fought for civil liberty, freedom, and rights. Analogies of those at times, but those were his core reason to fight.
Imagine then the writers dillema when they realize in order for Captian America to fight for those things, he must fight America itself. Instead of be faced with that overwhelming irony, they took the easy way out and killed him off. I would have preferred they make a stand and actually had Captain America turn his shield on the White House for a few issues. Mr. Smith goes to Washington squared.
Look people this is not some grand case of censorship, it's moderation pure and simple and that is something Slashdotters should be able to appreciate. The site, idea storm, is a website soliciting ideas. It is NOT for posting criticisms and off-topic crap.
This is the equivalant of a slashdot moderator moderating a post -1 off-topic or -1 troll. With the obvious exception is that there is no ability to read at -1 on dellideastorm.
Ideas and suggestions are one thing. Posting an off-topic criticism is another.
Note: I do not agree with the choice to remove the post. But I also understand the reasoning behind the decision.
I swear, the bias and overeacting around here is as bad as fox news lately. Censorship... please. China has censorship. This little Dell forum moderation is peanuts compared to REAL censorship. Get a grip, Slashdot.
The math used in the paradox is flawed. It only contains a linear probability using only one variable: quantity. Wikipedia states that there are an estimated 250 billion visible stars in the milky way and 70 sextillion in the visible universe. What it does not take into consideration is time. For every lightyear of distance a potential life carrying solar system away from Earth is, a year is subtracted from the amount of time it took that potential system to reach space maturity.
In other words, it has taken primates some-odd half a million years to evolve into humans capable of inventing devices that can decipher energy waves from space. It has taken the Earth some 200 million years (from early life to humans) to evolve life on this scale. Assuming other planets have roughly the same time scale, we can only assume those planets inside a 200 (give or take a 100) million lightyear radius contains no life.
The paradox with the paradox is as follows: Earth contains intelligent life. Earth has not colonized the galaxy. Earth's evidence in space only reaches back into the 1930s when the very first signals were sent into space.
. How about selecting based on the candidate's good qualities, not the bad qualities of the other candidates?
Bravo, well said. I agree with you 100%. The above is a large contributor to what is wrong with the election system in this country. The problem is, as of late, we American's have been having a bit of trouble with the good qualities part. The only politicians worth voting for aren't even on the party tickets. And even if they were, if you don't live in a swing vote state, your vote is basically wasted. I live in Texas, Austin, the capitol of Texas to be exact. We voted overwhemingly blue the last few elections. But Texas votes overwhemingly red because, let's face it, Texans aren't the most educated batch of voters (my opinion, if it's not a fact, I don't care...). So my vote did not truly count.
People, let's use logic here. I know how much the slashdot group think loves to hate dell but consider the following:
1. A lot of home fires are caused by faulty wiring and electronics.
2. A battery recall was issued. Every owner of an affected battery was notified. Dell sent out a recall for the batter months ago, and before any other company I might add.
3. It's sony's battery, not dells. If you want to act like a five year old and blame a company, blame them.
4. Fires are caused by all sorts of reasons, this is why you have insurance.
"Why did Susie get cancer and die?" God did it.
"Why did Joe get cancer and live?" God... err no wait, that was probably cancer treatment given by a Doctor.
So that's been the problem with the DNF release! As soon as you talk about it, it disapears. If only Daikatana had been programmed with quantum computers. That one didn't disapear fast enough.
I couldn't help but laugh reading this part from TFA:
So, yes, it took us longer, and they had what we were doing, user interface-wise. Let's be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]? Do you want to go back to the original Mac and think about where those interface concepts came from?
Yes Bill, let's talk about where those interface concepts come from. I'll give you a hint, it starts with an X and ends in an EROX. Man, I wish I had zero ethics and no sense of irony. Maybe I could be a billionare too.
There are 3.654 football fields in a kilometer.
A light year is ~ 9,460,730,472,580.80 kilometers.
There are 2,595,267,579,293.56 football fields in a light year.
There are 2.59527E+21 or 2,595,267,579,293,560,000,000 football fields in a billion lightyears.
Other imperial measurments you might find usefull:
Dime widths to the lightyear: 38,448,408.68
Buicks to the lightyear: 48,060,510,849.73
Hamsters to the lightyear: 961,210,216.99
Goldfish to the lightyear: 120,151,277.12
Obese Americans (Average of obese waist size) to the lightyear: 11,053,917,495.44
'Your Momma's so fat' to the lightyear: 6
You have every right to refuse to provide a phone number or identification at best buy. That's current consumer law and if Best Buy fails to sell you something because you refuse to provide that information, you can sue.
And they have every right to refuse to sell you the item on your credit card. They can't refuse to sell it to you, but they can refuse your credit card if you don't provide identification. I know because they did that to me about 4 years ago and I have refused to shop there since. If you give them cash they don't need to ask for ID, no. But it is(was at least) their business policy to require my ID for credit card payments.
This lawsuit is just plain stupid. Asking for IDs for boarding a flight is not the same as asking for identification papers ala Soviet Russia. It's a business policy, plain and simple. Does Best Buy have to have legislation to ask for your ID when you pay by credit card? No. Do they? Yes. Why? Business policies. Do stores have to have national laws enacted when they enforce their return policies? No. Do they? Yes. Why? Business policies.
Airlines are commercial enterprises and they can set whatever policies they want. Yes I know the analogy isn't perfect because the Airline industry is federally regulated, but it's still the same thing. It's a business policy to present valid ID before boarding a pressurized aluminum tube carrying a ton of highly volatile fuel, and that's that.
No rights are being violated because there are no expressed rights to purchase fare on an airplane. That's a privilege and a luxury. Travel on foot next time if you're so worried about your papers.
Note: It is my opinion that presenting IDs actually makes security worse. If having a valid ID automatically clears the bearer into a lower level of suspicion the system is already broken. "... He was white AND had a drivers license. How were we supposed to know he was a terrorist!"
AFAIK, the last I checked the legality or effectiveness of signing statements (of which Bush has made hundreds of by now, pretty much attaching one to nearly every bill he has signed since he has been in office) was extremely dubious at best.
It's not so much legality as it is accountability. Try this scenario on for size: The FBI, CIA, or NSA (or some sect of one) begin opening up tons of United States Citizen mail without warrants. The reason doesn't matter at all, but just imagine they started opening up federal mail without warrants. If the American public finds out, there would be an outrage, much like the one about warrant less wiretapping and warrant less phone record data. There would be debates about what is legal and what isn't. But here's the catch. No matter which way the debate goes, no one who committed the crime will be held accountable. If the debate agrees with the signing statement, then the law is altered and everyone is cleared. But the scary part is, if the debate disagrees with the signing statement and the actions by the agency is agreed to be illegal the offenders will still get a pass because of the signing statement. It's not quite an executive-order, but it's pretty much an executive-commit-this-crime-for-free statement.
President Bush isn't trying to change the law. He's doing something much much worse. He's creating a process where by it can be ignored openly without accountability. If there is no accountability for violating the law, it will be violated.
No matter what happens in the end, a government agency who opens up mail from now on can refer back to the signing statement and will not be prosecuted. Their careers probably won't even be jepordized in the slightest.
With advertisements becomming harder and harder to shove down people's throats, CRN has a solution for you. Clevery disguised as a top 10 list, we will include your product, written by your own marketing department, for a nominal fee. Be sure to include plenty of buzzwords and acronyms about how it will transform your life, but try not to include any real technical information on why this product is the best!
A lot of you expressing outrage about this game are being hypocrits. First we defend violent video games because they have nothing to do with real life and say they don't teach anyone anything. But as soon as a religion we don't agree with comes into play everyone cries foul and says it teaches kids intolerance. Well it works both ways people! If GTA doesn't teach kids to kill cops, steal cars, and beat up hookers with a baseball bat, this game doesn't teach kids to be intolerant.
I think this game is retarded as much as the next bloke. As a firm believer in humanity over religion and science over spirituality, I think this game is hilarious and will probably be terrible. But those of you out there who disagree with the Christian religion (as I do) are wrongly lashing out at the context of the game.
You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say the entire point of this game being made was to prove a point to everyone who says games do not influence people. If you guys cry fowl on this game, you lose the right to defend games like GTA.
You guys should know better. Logic people, logic. A lot of you sound just as bad as radical Christians when talking about this game. Slashdot groupthink: So long as I agree with it, it is O.K.! If I don't, BOOOOO HISSSS BOOOO. This kind of thing isn't about agreement or disagreement. It's about what is right and what is wrong. And what is right here is simple: Freedom of expression and speech. This ideal is the most important thing, no matter what the subject matter is.
P.S. I'm totally going to buy this game and play it with my friends turning it into quite possibly the most hilarious drinking game of all time.
Alright, but suppose next time they do nothing and many more British citizens are killed? Would you be willing to cut the government some slack for having lax security measures or would you blame the government for not acting decisively?
No one is asking them to do nothing. This is the type of polarized, black & white, only-two-sides-of-the-story, you're either with us or agin' us, attitude that leads to this problem in the first place. All I'm asking is that when confronted with a silly implausible plot that has almost zero chance of sucess and that is stopped in the early stages that the government doesn't over react. The fact that this plot was caught so early shows that the system in place already works. So why the need for extra security? The only logical answer? To instill fear in the masses in order to influence opinion. Keep stopping the plots, don't use them as tools for political gain, especially when the end motive is to increase government powers.
Part of me wants to think this is a good thing. That consumers don't deserve to have products shoved down their throats and be saturated by advertisement all day long. This part of me also thinks that if companies could, they would advertise directly into our dreams ala that one Futarama episode: http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/1acv06 .shtml
Fry: So you're telling me they broadcast commercials into people's dreams?
Leela: Of course.
Fry: But, how is that possible?
Farnsworth: It's very simple. The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg. [He holds up an egg and injects it with liquid. The egg explodes, covering him and Leela in yolk.] Although, in reality, it's not liquid, but gamma radiation.
Fry: That's awful. It's like brainwashing.
Allthough the other part of me thinks that you get what you deserve. If you aren't smart enough to make your own purchasing decisions and are easily swayed by ANY marketing, be it on the Television, Radio, directly in your brian, or some hobo on the subway telling you how bad ass the new PSP is; then as a fool, you deserve to be parted with your money.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but to ignore the political knee-jerk reaction that occurred when these events happened is just ignorant. I seriously doubt the plot was engineered by political entities using fear in an attempt to sway public opinion. Having said that, I also have very little doubt this entire scenario was a knee-jerk reaction from political pressure to law enforcement agencies (both British and American) to find a real plot in the making, ANY plot no matter how far-fetched or improbable to acctually happen, and blow it way out of proportion. This allowed them convince the public that we are always on the verge of a major terrorist attack and we need to give the government more powers in order to protect us.
The fact that the courts are not finding enough evidence to convict only support this theory. Combine that with timing of the event, and the new scare policies implemented in Airports, along with the speeches made by certain political parties (i.e. better not vote for our opponents or next time this would have killed your newborn child, puppy dog, and a baby seal) and you have yourself what appears to be a bonified piece of engineered political propaganda.
Interesting, are the times we live; the methods used to influence public opinion, and therefore events and public control, are no different than they were 50-60 years ago when the world was in turmoil. We never really learn do we?
This strategy is no different than offering a free search. When you search, google knows what you're looking for and gives you advertisements based on that. Now they are adding the where.
Google is going to become the premier marketing company in the future. They are really good at providing a service that people want or need, but at the same time, that service also helps them collect data on you. Is this a good or bad thing? I can't really tell yet. However, I just had a flash back to Minority Report where people are getting customer advertisements based on who they are.
Let's look at what google can know about you, if you use all of their services (present and future):
Google Search: What kind of things you search on a regular basis. Your interests and hobbies.
Gmail: What kind of content you get in your email.
Google Cache Proxy: Where you surf the web and how often.
Google Maps: Where do you want to go?
Google Dodgeball: Where do you and your friends actually go?
Think about it. I could easily forsee LCD screens on streets, in bars, at your restuarant table which display custom google ads. As soon as you pass by them, your bluetooth enabled phone broadcasts your cell phone number to the receiver which transmits to the Google Person Database. This database spiders out and looks up your most recent searches, your friends searches, other people who search like you, accesses your e-mail indexes, looks up what locations you visit on a regular basis, and gives you a custom advertisement which has the best probability to sell to the thousands of other people who have a similar demographic to you.
I'm starting to think of Google as marketing powerhouse with really smart technology, rather a technology powerhouse with really slick marketing.
I'm struggling to find the answer: What can't Google figure out or make damned good assumptions about you, based on your Google use?
There are a number of things you can add to that list. Google's motto of do no evil is smoke and mirrors. They want information and lots of it. Why? So they can sell it. Google is no different than any other company. Are they bad and evil? No, not really. But they aren't some magical company where they fight the hordes of evil either like some nerds would love to believe. They only offer their servers for one reason and one reason ONLY. To collect information about you in order to make a profit. And they are damn good at it too.
Or is it that there are a few loud, obnoxious people that want to force their viewpoint on everone else? Perhaps the government is trying to preserve the freedom of the many quiet people that do not want to have to obey the wims of the liberals...
Arguement does not compute. If people are demonstrating, even if they are loud and obnoxious, they are not trying to FORCE their viewpoint on anyone. If they were, they would go out and invent some Radiation Gun Gizmos and FORCE their viewpoint that way. Your thinking is entirely backwards.
When was the last conservative march, btw? They do seem to be right around 50% of the population, why don't they march? They do seem to have most of the guns, however... so maybe those that say they will "fight the man" better take a chill pill;-}
Conservatives don't march for a variety of reasons. The one at the top of list is basically because they don't need to protest. In most parts of America they seem to have run of the mill already. Secondly because a general conservative group think is that any form of protest is dissent and dissent is unpatriotic. Which of course could not be further from the truth.
This isn't about fighting the man. This isn't about fighting the government because we have nothing better to do. It's about securing our individual freedoms and liberties. It's about defending the principles this country was built on. It's about being able to live in a country where the laws aren't written your way, but being allowed to try and do something about it. It's one thing if majority rules because most of the population agrees with the majority. It's another thing entirely if the minority rules because they have the authority, and the force to enforce the minority. I believe the United States is currently being run by a small minority who prey on the ignorant, use disinformation to sell their party line, incite fear among the masses, and generally sell everyone a sweet lie to remain on top of the world. And they are afraid of losing their place in society. Which is why they build shit like this.
The powers that be should be afraid of the people. But not because the people will lynch them, only remove them from office. The people are thier superior. Not the other way around. We shouldn't be the ones afraid that the powers that be will lynch us if we don't agree with their viewpoint.
In short, where the laws agreed with the majority even if I didn't. I'd rather suffer some minor inconviences and not have things my way if I knew that "the way" was earned by people just like me who would fight for a certain way of life. Idealy, there would be segments, or "states" if you will of a population where different people who lived different ways of life could get together and enjoy their lives without having to force their view on others and vice versa. Once upon a time the United States of America was like this. Now it's more like the Federal Grouping of Interconnected Geographic Regions of America.
Slashdot Mirror
If a professional media source doesn't present an advantage over free amateur sources of information, there is no reason for anyone to pay attention to the professionals. These advantages can include quality, accuracy, and time to deliver the information. The professionals will usually have the advantage in time delivery, but the other two are slowly slipping away from them. Instead of improve their quality, they rely on sensationalism stories to shock or guilt viewers into watching. They instill fear and uncertainty into their viewers to create a sense of dependence. Instead of improve accuracy, they report with a strategy of false confidence. If you sound right, you are right. By the time anyone cares to correct the issue, the story is long forgotten and no harm was ever done to your credibility. If the story is still in the memory of the public, other stories will be moved to the front page, to the top story, in order to distract from the previous problems.
Professional media feels threatened that the public can get their information from other sources. So they attack the problems with amateur sources. Sure wikipedia can be innacurate. It can be downright false. It can have quality issues. It can be slow to deliver information. But those are all problems that the regular media has as well. So they attack it anyway and discredit it, using the very same tactic that wikipedia editors attempt to use. False confidence. The public believes what is presented as confident.
The professional media has just as many problems as the amateur media. Fact checking is at an all time low. Errors are at an all time high. Corrections are a thing of the past. But why bother improving when you can launch a smear campaign and discredit alternative sources with one fell swoop? Fox news is particularly guilty of this. Watch fox news shows like Bill O'Reilly. They'll take other cable news clips and edit them to make them appear inaccurate or unbalanced. They'll take clips of the Daily Show, or the Colbert Report and edit them to discredit any news value the segment might have. Those two programs use satire and wit to make points and present news or make a political commentary. But when you watch an edited clip of one of those programs on Fox News, all you see is the silly actions of the hosts and they are made into goons rather than smart political commentary. If you don't watch either program, you can find some user submitted comparisons of these video clips on youtube with some searching. (I would post links, however I am at work and youtube is blocked).
All in all, most of the media out there is just plain horrible. Information is hard to come by. You can't trust any single news source or source of factual information these days. You have to look at several sources to get a full picture. Fair and balanced news just doesn't come from one source just because they say so. None of the media outlets are fair and balanced, and if you care to follow a money trail to who owns the parent companies, and what time of campaign contributions they make, you'll see that none of the major news sources can be trusted for anything.
The information wars are here, and I don't think there are really any winners.
We can observe "something". That "something" being the universe around us.
So the three options about the known "something" is that it either came from "something", or came from "nothing", or that the "something" was both "always" and "never".
Hawking postulate simply rules out that "something" came from "something else", because ultimately if "something" came from "something else", then you never answered the original question, because you are now trapped in a loop asking what the original "something else" came from. Which whittles the issue down to two options: "Something" came from "nothing" or "something" was "always".
It's easier to rule out that something was always given that E=MC^2 and C^2 is actually just another way of representing the other two dimensions, time and space (C is the minimum plank space and minimum plank time reference frame). If those measurements are observed and other physics tells us that time, and energy has constraints, as well as time being finite on the "something" end, then I would agree with the logic that it is unlikely that "something" was "always".
Which leaves the last option of that "something" came from "nothing".
Thinly vieled self-righteousness? Screw that mate. It's a statement of fact that I feel better after working-out. That's not self-righteousness. It's also a statement of fact that I used to not work out on a regular basis. I notice a huge difference in my quality of health and life now that I do work out. I'll never go back.
Also, any Doctor will tell you that excercise is better than no excercise.
If you are exteremly out of shape or have health conditions then yes, it might make you feel horrible. For a while. But eventually mate, I promise that'll pass. If you just feel sore, or have a hard time getting motivated that is one thing. If you feel HORRIBLE, enough to warrant putting HORRIBLE in all caps, and you are not exagerating, then you should see a doctor. Talk to your doctor about excercise and what he/she recommends. A doctor can give you a phsyical and determine if you have some kind of condition where excercise is not right for you.
Trust me, there is a reason why people say "no pain, no gain". When you are out of shape, getting into shape is a tough up hill battle. But it's worth it in the end.
See a doctor first. Then talk to a personal trainer. I will bet you 100 dollars that you could be in great shape in 6 months and feel better both physically and mentally. This isn't self-righteousness, this is human science and health.
I'm not some jock asshole. I'm every bit as geek as you. Click this link to gain a new perspective on geek excercise. http://xkcd.com/c189.html
I know that after I complete a heavy lifting routine or a good cardio work out, I feel great for the rest of the day. I think clearer. I don't feel any craving for caffeinated beverages. I focus more.
I can't find the study, but I read a story about a study that said exercise produces the same effect that energy drink ingredients provide to the brain. While that might be true in some fashion, I've never consumed an energy drink that gave me as good of feeling as a post work-out. I do consume sugar free energy drinks from time to time, I think they can be a good pick me up when you are low on sleep or just feel drained. Of course, that's in moderation. Drinking one every day will build a tolerance and you'll just be throwing money down the drain. Of course, drinking a good cup of stout tea will do just about the same thing.
I would love to see a study where a bunch of similarly talented gamers (that relied on critical thinking and reaction, not like an MMO) were divided up. One group would exercise, and one group would not. I would be willing to bet that after a month, the group that would exercise would have increased in skill and results over the group that did not.
Captian America was a bit different than your gadern variety superhero. He didn't fight super villians, evil geniuses, and/or monsters/aliens. He fought for civil liberty, freedom, and rights. Analogies of those at times, but those were his core reason to fight.
Imagine then the writers dillema when they realize in order for Captian America to fight for those things, he must fight America itself. Instead of be faced with that overwhelming irony, they took the easy way out and killed him off. I would have preferred they make a stand and actually had Captain America turn his shield on the White House for a few issues. Mr. Smith goes to Washington squared.
R.I.P.
Captain America
1941-2007
Crushed by Irony
This is the equivalant of a slashdot moderator moderating a post -1 off-topic or -1 troll. With the obvious exception is that there is no ability to read at -1 on dellideastorm.
Ideas and suggestions are one thing. Posting an off-topic criticism is another.
Note: I do not agree with the choice to remove the post. But I also understand the reasoning behind the decision.
I swear, the bias and overeacting around here is as bad as fox news lately. Censorship... please. China has censorship. This little Dell forum moderation is peanuts compared to REAL censorship. Get a grip, Slashdot.
In other words, it has taken primates some-odd half a million years to evolve into humans capable of inventing devices that can decipher energy waves from space. It has taken the Earth some 200 million years (from early life to humans) to evolve life on this scale. Assuming other planets have roughly the same time scale, we can only assume those planets inside a 200 (give or take a 100) million lightyear radius contains no life.
The paradox with the paradox is as follows: Earth contains intelligent life. Earth has not colonized the galaxy. Earth's evidence in space only reaches back into the 1930s when the very first signals were sent into space.
Bravo, well said. I agree with you 100%. The above is a large contributor to what is wrong with the election system in this country. The problem is, as of late, we American's have been having a bit of trouble with the good qualities part. The only politicians worth voting for aren't even on the party tickets. And even if they were, if you don't live in a swing vote state, your vote is basically wasted. I live in Texas, Austin, the capitol of Texas to be exact. We voted overwhemingly blue the last few elections. But Texas votes overwhemingly red because, let's face it, Texans aren't the most educated batch of voters (my opinion, if it's not a fact, I don't care...). So my vote did not truly count.
1. A lot of home fires are caused by faulty wiring and electronics. 2. A battery recall was issued. Every owner of an affected battery was notified. Dell sent out a recall for the batter months ago, and before any other company I might add. 3. It's sony's battery, not dells. If you want to act like a five year old and blame a company, blame them. 4. Fires are caused by all sorts of reasons, this is why you have insurance.
"Why did Susie get cancer and die?" God did it.
"Why did Joe get cancer and live?" God... err no wait, that was probably cancer treatment given by a Doctor.
So that's been the problem with the DNF release! As soon as you talk about it, it disapears. If only Daikatana had been programmed with quantum computers. That one didn't disapear fast enough.
Dude you just used: ...media companies... and ...lawmakers to reign them in... in the same paragraph. Wish I had mod points. +5 funny to you.
Yes Bill, let's talk about where those interface concepts come from. I'll give you a hint, it starts with an X and ends in an EROX. Man, I wish I had zero ethics and no sense of irony. Maybe I could be a billionare too.
There are 1093.6 yards in a kilometer.
There are 3.654 football fields in a kilometer.
A light year is ~ 9,460,730,472,580.80 kilometers.
There are 2,595,267,579,293.56 football fields in a light year.
There are 2.59527E+21 or 2,595,267,579,293,560,000,000 football fields in a billion lightyears.
Other imperial measurments you might find usefull:
Dime widths to the lightyear: 38,448,408.68
Buicks to the lightyear: 48,060,510,849.73
Hamsters to the lightyear: 961,210,216.99
Goldfish to the lightyear: 120,151,277.12
Obese Americans (Average of obese waist size) to the lightyear: 11,053,917,495.44
'Your Momma's so fat' to the lightyear: 6
And they have every right to refuse to sell you the item on your credit card. They can't refuse to sell it to you, but they can refuse your credit card if you don't provide identification. I know because they did that to me about 4 years ago and I have refused to shop there since. If you give them cash they don't need to ask for ID, no. But it is(was at least) their business policy to require my ID for credit card payments.
Airlines are commercial enterprises and they can set whatever policies they want. Yes I know the analogy isn't perfect because the Airline industry is federally regulated, but it's still the same thing. It's a business policy to present valid ID before boarding a pressurized aluminum tube carrying a ton of highly volatile fuel, and that's that.
No rights are being violated because there are no expressed rights to purchase fare on an airplane. That's a privilege and a luxury. Travel on foot next time if you're so worried about your papers.
Note: It is my opinion that presenting IDs actually makes security worse. If having a valid ID automatically clears the bearer into a lower level of suspicion the system is already broken. "... He was white AND had a drivers license. How were we supposed to know he was a terrorist!"
It's not so much legality as it is accountability. Try this scenario on for size: The FBI, CIA, or NSA (or some sect of one) begin opening up tons of United States Citizen mail without warrants. The reason doesn't matter at all, but just imagine they started opening up federal mail without warrants. If the American public finds out, there would be an outrage, much like the one about warrant less wiretapping and warrant less phone record data. There would be debates about what is legal and what isn't. But here's the catch. No matter which way the debate goes, no one who committed the crime will be held accountable. If the debate agrees with the signing statement, then the law is altered and everyone is cleared. But the scary part is, if the debate disagrees with the signing statement and the actions by the agency is agreed to be illegal the offenders will still get a pass because of the signing statement. It's not quite an executive-order, but it's pretty much an executive-commit-this-crime-for-free statement.
President Bush isn't trying to change the law. He's doing something much much worse. He's creating a process where by it can be ignored openly without accountability. If there is no accountability for violating the law, it will be violated.
No matter what happens in the end, a government agency who opens up mail from now on can refer back to the signing statement and will not be prosecuted. Their careers probably won't even be jepordized in the slightest.
-- Jeff P. Realname
I think this game is retarded as much as the next bloke. As a firm believer in humanity over religion and science over spirituality, I think this game is hilarious and will probably be terrible. But those of you out there who disagree with the Christian religion (as I do) are wrongly lashing out at the context of the game.
You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say the entire point of this game being made was to prove a point to everyone who says games do not influence people. If you guys cry fowl on this game, you lose the right to defend games like GTA.
You guys should know better. Logic people, logic. A lot of you sound just as bad as radical Christians when talking about this game. Slashdot groupthink: So long as I agree with it, it is O.K.! If I don't, BOOOOO HISSSS BOOOO. This kind of thing isn't about agreement or disagreement. It's about what is right and what is wrong. And what is right here is simple: Freedom of expression and speech. This ideal is the most important thing, no matter what the subject matter is.
P.S. I'm totally going to buy this game and play it with my friends turning it into quite possibly the most hilarious drinking game of all time.
Part of me wants to think this is a good thing. That consumers don't deserve to have products shoved down their throats and be saturated by advertisement all day long. This part of me also thinks that if companies could, they would advertise directly into our dreams ala that one Futarama episode: http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/1acv06 .shtml
Fry: So you're telling me they broadcast commercials into people's dreams?
Leela: Of course.
Fry: But, how is that possible?
Farnsworth: It's very simple. The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg. [He holds up an egg and injects it with liquid. The egg explodes, covering him and Leela in yolk.] Although, in reality, it's not liquid, but gamma radiation.
Fry: That's awful. It's like brainwashing.
Allthough the other part of me thinks that you get what you deserve. If you aren't smart enough to make your own purchasing decisions and are easily swayed by ANY marketing, be it on the Television, Radio, directly in your brian, or some hobo on the subway telling you how bad ass the new PSP is; then as a fool, you deserve to be parted with your money.
The fact that the courts are not finding enough evidence to convict only support this theory. Combine that with timing of the event, and the new scare policies implemented in Airports, along with the speeches made by certain political parties (i.e. better not vote for our opponents or next time this would have killed your newborn child, puppy dog, and a baby seal) and you have yourself what appears to be a bonified piece of engineered political propaganda.
Interesting, are the times we live; the methods used to influence public opinion, and therefore events and public control, are no different than they were 50-60 years ago when the world was in turmoil. We never really learn do we?
There are a number of things you can add to that list. Google's motto of do no evil is smoke and mirrors. They want information and lots of it. Why? So they can sell it. Google is no different than any other company. Are they bad and evil? No, not really. But they aren't some magical company where they fight the hordes of evil either like some nerds would love to believe. They only offer their servers for one reason and one reason ONLY. To collect information about you in order to make a profit. And they are damn good at it too.
This isn't about fighting the man. This isn't about fighting the government because we have nothing better to do. It's about securing our individual freedoms and liberties. It's about defending the principles this country was built on. It's about being able to live in a country where the laws aren't written your way, but being allowed to try and do something about it. It's one thing if majority rules because most of the population agrees with the majority. It's another thing entirely if the minority rules because they have the authority, and the force to enforce the minority. I believe the United States is currently being run by a small minority who prey on the ignorant, use disinformation to sell their party line, incite fear among the masses, and generally sell everyone a sweet lie to remain on top of the world. And they are afraid of losing their place in society. Which is why they build shit like this.
The powers that be should be afraid of the people. But not because the people will lynch them, only remove them from office. The people are thier superior. Not the other way around. We shouldn't be the ones afraid that the powers that be will lynch us if we don't agree with their viewpoint.
In short, where the laws agreed with the majority even if I didn't. I'd rather suffer some minor inconviences and not have things my way if I knew that "the way" was earned by people just like me who would fight for a certain way of life. Idealy, there would be segments, or "states" if you will of a population where different people who lived different ways of life could get together and enjoy their lives without having to force their view on others and vice versa. Once upon a time the United States of America was like this. Now it's more like the Federal Grouping of Interconnected Geographic Regions of America.