It just shows you don't know your cryptozoology. The simple fact is that Sasquatch are thriving in many areas and are politically active in Cascadia. If you have any questions, contact the Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs. On a related note, if you are a Cascadian Sasquatch and want to serve your country, note that the Sasquatch Militia is recruiting.
Of course, you may have been refering to the Canadian Sasquatch instead of the Cascadian Sasquatch. If so, please accept my apologies, as we all know they can indeed carry coconuts through the air.
I'm not just concerned about the issues above, but also the impact of intended traffic on the Net's entire infrastructure. When most people have dialup and only a few have fast connections, they're more likely to pick and choose content rather than do downloads en masse. With everybody having broadband at their home, you will see more bottlenecks exposed all the time. For years, college dorm networks have had more trouble with the bandwidth challenges caused by Napster and Kazaa than the legal issues.
With more broadband use, you will see ISP costs go up and service reliability go down as backbones require upgrading. You will see site hosting costs increase as they face more demand, too. I also can't help but wonder how many coffee shop WAPs will be next to worthless in a few years if the owners aren't diligent about upgrading regularly.
Eventually, of course, the free market and Darwin will take care if these issues. Technical improvements will drop the cost of bandwidth and the bottlenecks will be upgraded one at a time. Those that fail to will find themselves going under (or, for our coffee shop owner, simply getting out of the WAP business). I figure everything will eventually work itself out, but it is going to be a very bumpy road getting there.
"This film is accidentally considered public domain (meaning that anyone with the capabilities can release it without going through any copyright laws) because the copyright notice was left off after the title changed."
Ouch! I guess that goes to show anyone who says that the guys who make the titles aren't important.
The info page indicates it has fallen into the public domain, which was a big surprise to me. Since Romero is still alive, all I can figure is that someone screwed up the paperwork for the copyright extension. A shame for him, but kinda cool for the rest of us.
Be warned that these are Very Big Files: 4.1G for MPEG2, 248.8M for MPEG4. To be expected for a 95 minute movie, though.
The above link has folding instructions and fashion advice. Just make sure your browser has cookies enabled. No real reason. Honest. Just, well, it'll enhace your AFDB experience.
Wow. It was one thing when I had the origianl article posted, but it's another when someone else references my original article. I know I have no reason to be proud (hey, the article is about OED, not the guy who posted the it), but somehow I really do.
I guess I am an even smaller, sad little man than I thought...
How many companies these days are willing to drop money into some technology that may not turn a profit for many years?
I read this and couldn't help thinking about something from Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series. In it, the Earth is invaded by a race of aliens who are accustomed to thinking in terms of millenia, with every undertaking planned generations in advance. The stories mention a formal, court-martial offense whose title translates into English as "Lack of Foresight."
While I do not advocate the stratified, stagnant mentality that Turtledove's invaders, I have to wonder if dragging a few U.S. CEOs in front of a tribunal on charges of "Lack of Foresight" might not be a good idea for American business.
(And, no, passive, placid boards to not count as a "tirbunal" here)
How many companies these days are willing to drop money into some technology that may not turn a profit for many years?
Well, I know of at least one other: Honda. There was a story on NPR last week about how they were testing the waters for lightweight jet engines. The story indicated that any profits would be decades away. I found an online story about it that also addresses Toyota's (!) advances into the market. While I could not find the exact quote I heard on the radio, this one is equally telling:
"This is a pure research-and-development program. We don't have a commercial plan" for the HondaJet.
It takes really deep pockets and big, brass cojones to think in these terms. I say more power to 'em.
Whenever anyone presents a "definition" that is clearly loaded with bias (regardless of whether I share the bias), it makes me recall an incident with Clint Eastwood (cited here):
While he was in New York on location for Bronco Billy (1980), Clint Eastwood agreed to a television interview. His host, somewhat hostile, began by defining a Clint Eastwood picture as a violent, ruthless, lawless, and bloody piece of mayhem, and then asked Eastwood himself to define a Clint Eastwood picture.
"To me," said Eastwood calmly, "what a Clint Eastwood picture is, is one that I'm in."
Apologies that I'm late to the table on this, but I have a coworker who ran in the L.A. Marathon this weekend (I believe on Sunday - the same day as the parent post). He mentioned that each runner was issued an RFID chip (he wasn't too clear, but products advertised on the web were tied to the shoelaces). They were used for registration and also to record a runner's progress. A Google search says that Boston's Marathon offers real time updating of progress on the web.
Here is a link to a product that the marketer claims was used by L.A., but I have no independent confimration of that.
Several posters have commented on how the paranormal community will deny the hoax report, instead claiming conspiracy. WHile not directly related to the bigfoot issue, I thought it might be nice to point out a few skeptic sites:
Randi has a foundation and posts a weekly commentary about the latest doings in the skeptic community, including attempts to claim the $1 million prize for reproducable paranormal phenomen. Sometimes his weekly column degenerates into a rant (he's not known for his diplomacy), but overall it's an interesting read.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I've been busy in RL and have not been able to grab a minute to reply until now. It appears we agree on more points than disagree. It was your shorthand that threw me. I consider myself a progressive, but I am also a pragmatist. Criminals violate the social contract between themselves and the rest of society. When that happens, they forfeit their rights and gloves come off.
I do agree that there is a disturbing trend in the U.S. to blindly go along with the direction (I can't bring myself to call it "leadership") put forth by the current administration. Of specific concern is the definition of "criminals," that I lay into above. That, however, is a topic far bigger than can be addressed by a simple post.
As I said, I get nervous when law enforcement approaches the line between investigation and abuse, but they are trained to walk that line. As long as we have the freedom to examine their actions under the harsh light of day and speak freely of what they are doing, we keep the balance.
Finally, I want to apologize if I came off harshly in my earlier post. As I said, your shorthand ("slashdot" instead of "many people on slashdot") got under my skin. I tried to keep my tone civil and polite, but I fear I may have let some emotions get the better of me. Again, apologies if I was anything less.
I remember playing this at our local movie theatre, circa 1977. It was fun, but the mirth was crimped when I discovered my sister was much better at it (sibling rivalry knows no bounds). I recall that my Dad thought it was hillarious, even while asking out loud if he should be letting us play the thing.
Just wanted to point out that Mr. Stallone has done quite well for himself in the Razzies (the annual "award" for the worst performances in motion pictures). With his Worst Supporting Actor award for Spy Kids 3-D, he now has a career total of 30 nominations and 10 "wins."
FYI: I recall hearing on the news that this was a record, but since I could not find it on the Razzie site, I will not make that assertion.
First, I am not slashdot. I'm just some guy on slashdot, just like you. If you complain about slashdot as if it is some monolith, you're painting yourself into a loosing corner in the argument, my friend. Don't try to set up a "me against everyone" type of discussion, because it is both false (because I am merely part of slashdot) and self defeating (because you are part of slashdot).
With that said, you bring up an excellent point. There's a.sig out there that I've been trying to find that you might want to read. It's attributed to Jerry Pournelle and reads something along the lines of "The way to make Al Queda respect our rights is for us to respect theirs." I do not know if the quote is accurate, but in general intent (understanding and respecting the rights and subtleties of the Muslim world - obviously not Al Queda per se) I agree with it. We (the West) can not expect the Muslim World to engage in a meaningful dialoge unless we are willing to listen as well as dictate. Conversely, it is the duty of every Muslim (IMHO, but then I'm no Iman, just this guy on slashdot, right?) to clean their own house and use trade, logic, and dialoge to further their agenda instead of supporting terrorists and intolerance (a Jihad of the Book, not of the Sword).
you're going to have to allow both sides the benefit of the doubt...
Agreed. However, the group known as Al Queda did not appear out of the air last weekend. They do not represent Islam (the "other side") any more than the Klu Klux Klan represents Christianity. They are an organization with a long track record of violence. As a general rule, I'm in favor of nailing any band of organized murderers (Columbia's Shining Path, American Neonazis, the various I.R.A splinter groups, etc.) to the floor with whatever tools are at hand. They are hatemongers who have forfeited the protections that the rest of civilization (you and I) is entitled to. To do any less is foolishness, as foolish as letting a rabid wolf run free in a nursery.
As far as civil liberties go, I admit I get nervous whenever police stand close to the line between investigation and invasion of privacy, but in the instances cited in the article the authorities do not appear to have crossed that line. As long as we continue to watchdog our authorities, we can see to it that the don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, you may have been refering to the Canadian Sasquatch instead of the Cascadian Sasquatch. If so, please accept my apologies, as we all know they can indeed carry coconuts through the air.
With more broadband use, you will see ISP costs go up and service reliability go down as backbones require upgrading. You will see site hosting costs increase as they face more demand, too. I also can't help but wonder how many coffee shop WAPs will be next to worthless in a few years if the owners aren't diligent about upgrading regularly.
Eventually, of course, the free market and Darwin will take care if these issues. Technical improvements will drop the cost of bandwidth and the bottlenecks will be upgraded one at a time. Those that fail to will find themselves going under (or, for our coffee shop owner, simply getting out of the WAP business). I figure everything will eventually work itself out, but it is going to be a very bumpy road getting there.
"This film is accidentally considered public domain (meaning that anyone with the capabilities can release it without going through any copyright laws) because the copyright notice was left off after the title changed."
Ouch! I guess that goes to show anyone who says that the guys who make the titles aren't important.
-
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?coll
e ction=feature_films&collectionid=night_of_the_livi ng_dead&from=collectionSpotlight.
The info page indicates it has fallen into the public domain, which was a big surprise to me. Since Romero is still alive, all I can figure is that someone screwed up the paperwork for the copyright extension. A shame for him, but kinda cool for the rest of us.Be warned that these are Very Big Files: 4.1G for MPEG2, 248.8M for MPEG4. To be expected for a 95 minute movie, though.
I thought LXG did wind up fighting Wells' Martians in volume 2?
Mildly terrifying, at least.
The above link has folding instructions and fashion advice. Just make sure your browser has cookies enabled. No real reason. Honest. Just, well, it'll enhace your AFDB experience.
Trust me on this.
in 3, 2, 1....
I guess I am an even smaller, sad little man than I thought...
I read this and couldn't help thinking about something from Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series. In it, the Earth is invaded by a race of aliens who are accustomed to thinking in terms of millenia, with every undertaking planned generations in advance. The stories mention a formal, court-martial offense whose title translates into English as "Lack of Foresight."
While I do not advocate the stratified, stagnant mentality that Turtledove's invaders, I have to wonder if dragging a few U.S. CEOs in front of a tribunal on charges of "Lack of Foresight" might not be a good idea for American business.
(And, no, passive, placid boards to not count as a "tirbunal" here)
Well, I know of at least one other: Honda. There was a story on NPR last week about how they were testing the waters for lightweight jet engines. The story indicated that any profits would be decades away. I found an online story about it that also addresses Toyota's (!) advances into the market. While I could not find the exact quote I heard on the radio, this one is equally telling:
"This is a pure research-and-development program. We don't have a commercial plan" for the HondaJet.
It takes really deep pockets and big, brass cojones to think in these terms. I say more power to 'em.
While he was in New York on location for Bronco Billy (1980), Clint Eastwood agreed to a television interview. His host, somewhat hostile, began by defining a Clint Eastwood picture as a violent, ruthless, lawless, and bloody piece of mayhem, and then asked Eastwood himself to define a Clint Eastwood picture.
"To me," said Eastwood calmly, "what a Clint Eastwood picture is, is one that I'm in."
I'm jealous. You're parents are obviously cooler than mine.
http://www.plattsys.com/ptschipa.htm is the link.
Here is a link to a product that the marketer claims was used by L.A., but I have no independent confimration of that.
Just don't tell the Sasquatch Militia!! If you do, they'll kick the fur out of you next time you visit Cascadia.
Other interesting sites are CSICOP and Skeptic Magazine.
...and scores!
<flees with hands over his ears>
I just hope they didn't get it at Fry's. God help them if they've got to return it.
I do agree that there is a disturbing trend in the U.S. to blindly go along with the direction (I can't bring myself to call it "leadership") put forth by the current administration. Of specific concern is the definition of "criminals," that I lay into above. That, however, is a topic far bigger than can be addressed by a simple post.
As I said, I get nervous when law enforcement approaches the line between investigation and abuse, but they are trained to walk that line. As long as we have the freedom to examine their actions under the harsh light of day and speak freely of what they are doing, we keep the balance.
Finally, I want to apologize if I came off harshly in my earlier post. As I said, your shorthand ("slashdot" instead of "many people on slashdot") got under my skin. I tried to keep my tone civil and polite, but I fear I may have let some emotions get the better of me. Again, apologies if I was anything less.
A trip down memory lane...
FYI: I recall hearing on the news that this was a record, but since I could not find it on the Razzie site, I will not make that assertion.
First, I am not slashdot. I'm just some guy on slashdot, just like you. If you complain about slashdot as if it is some monolith, you're painting yourself into a loosing corner in the argument, my friend. Don't try to set up a "me against everyone" type of discussion, because it is both false (because I am merely part of slashdot) and self defeating (because you are part of slashdot).
With that said, you bring up an excellent point. There's a .sig out there that I've been trying to find that you might want to read. It's attributed to Jerry Pournelle and reads something along the lines of "The way to make Al Queda respect our rights is for us to respect theirs." I do not know if the quote is accurate, but in general intent (understanding and respecting the rights and subtleties of the Muslim world - obviously not Al Queda per se) I agree with it. We (the West) can not expect the Muslim World to engage in a meaningful dialoge unless we are willing to listen as well as dictate. Conversely, it is the duty of every Muslim (IMHO, but then I'm no Iman, just this guy on slashdot, right?) to clean their own house and use trade, logic, and dialoge to further their agenda instead of supporting terrorists and intolerance (a Jihad of the Book, not of the Sword).
you're going to have to allow both sides the benefit of the doubt...
Agreed. However, the group known as Al Queda did not appear out of the air last weekend. They do not represent Islam (the "other side") any more than the Klu Klux Klan represents Christianity. They are an organization with a long track record of violence. As a general rule, I'm in favor of nailing any band of organized murderers (Columbia's Shining Path, American Neonazis, the various I.R.A splinter groups, etc.) to the floor with whatever tools are at hand. They are hatemongers who have forfeited the protections that the rest of civilization (you and I) is entitled to. To do any less is foolishness, as foolish as letting a rabid wolf run free in a nursery.
As far as civil liberties go, I admit I get nervous whenever police stand close to the line between investigation and invasion of privacy, but in the instances cited in the article the authorities do not appear to have crossed that line. As long as we continue to watchdog our authorities, we can see to it that the don't.