"Modern consoles (PS2 and up) run *hot*. I've often wondered if the awkward styling is to *prevent* stacking. The cooling systems aren't designed for numerous hot boxes stacked in close quarters."
I know Microsoft came out and said the top of the Xbox 1 was specifically designed to make it difficult for the user to stack anything on top of it for this very reason.
I think that after two examples (the other being the Ardman fire) of why you should invest in proper fire suppression equipment in one month's time in one nation should be enough to make people realize that such systems are a worthwhile investment.
Then again, such things are usually put low on the list of priorities whenever possible, because "it won't happen to us".
You can even get the upper hand when explosives are present, you can get systems that will have fire suppressants leaving the discharge head before the explosion is even visible (some systems are guaranteed to have the suppressant flowing in less than 50 milliseconds of onset of the event that triggers the release.)
I suppose it just comes down to a matter of deciding how much you value your operation and assets.
The urge to see it all washed away
on
How Zombies Work
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I've noticed in recent years that a lot of people I meet secretly harbor very intense apocalyptic fantasies.
Not the "Oh wow, Threads was some crazy shit, imagine that happening" or some religiously motivated desire to bring about a biblical event, but a genuine sense of "Go on, fuck it, let the zombies rise, let the plagues spread and if I'm lucky I can ride it out."
When the fake news reports appeared regarding a disease in Cambodia that briefly animated the dead, the most common first reaction I encountered by those who believed it to be from a reputable source was "Fuck YES". For a moment, I was aghast, and then I realized part of me was whispering the same thing.
What always gets me every time we have a discussion about raises is that any call for pay increases to the rank and file is met with fierce opposition by those who claim it will obliterate the economy via inflation and will rob shareholders of their rightful gains while sending corporations reeling into bankruptcy.
So, I must pose the question, why is it perfectly fine for managers (especially those in the upper echelons) hand out massive raises to themselves and their cronies that are often the equivalent of several times the average salary of their subordinates? The typical CEO makes 450 times as much as the average person they employ. Even when business is bad, layoffs are rampant and wages stagnant, the raises for the managers continue - because according to them, poor performance is always the fault of the lower rungs, while good quarters are always thanks to their expert stewardship.
The auto parts company Delphi is asking for their non-management staff to accept 50-69% pay cuts, (these workers were described as being basically worthless in a speech the CEO gave two weeks ago) while the managers that have presided over the company sliding into bankruptcy are going to get massive raises.
Please explain who spending tons of money to compensate workers who are being asked to produce more per hour, work more hours and accept fewer fringe benefits like comprehensive healthcare coverage is some evil, evil thing that shall destroy every company and drive them into bankruptcy, while distributing the same amount of money to the higher ups is no problem whatsoever?
I have no problem with nuclear power, modern plants are safe and quite useful.
However, I do not exactly trust the upper management of such facilities to always do the right thing, after years of shoddy practices by some owner/operators. In the past, I've encountered many stories of rather remarkable safety oversights and downright irresponsible decisions that have made certain reactors unnecessarily dangerous. Sure we have the NRC, but history has shown that they are not always on the ball...or quite far from it.
As with virtually every major reactor incident that has ever occurred, the human element is the potential problem, not the technology.
So fellow nuclear power supporters, please understand when some of us have genuine concerns about construction of new plants, and please do not lump us all in the "OMG ATOMS!!!!" category. In fact, fellow environmentalists here in Florida are only asking for a large exclusion zone around a new plant that is being considered. Obviously, they are going to get the zone for a variety of reasons, theirs being that it makes a fantastic nature preserve.
The entire practice of Daylight Savings time is inane and utterly ridiculous.
The primary reason for changing it yet again is to reduce overall fuel consumption. So, instead of mandating higher fuel economy (the average being lower than it was two decades ago) we choose to change time.
Just stop and think about that for a moment. The insanity of it threatens to collapse in on itself and tear a hole in the universe.
George H.W. Bush once said in response to calls for conservation that "The American way of life is not negotiable." We want what we want, when we want it, without having to deal with the realities and consequences of acquiring it. It's too inconvenient to consider that we might be taking the wrong road. We Americans get viciously defensive when anyone questions our habits and have to largely be forced into making any changes that will benefit us in the long-term. What pleases us this instant is usually the only concern we have.
We assume that any problems can be glossed over and this stands as a prime example of glossing over a major one at our own peril. When gas prices rise, legions demand that the president "Do something about it". Just wave the magic wand, make the problem go away, let us go back to living the way we want to, even if it isn't sustainable, simply because we desire it. There is nothing wrong with desiring something, but having unrealistic expectations for receiving it is pure greed. I could stand up and demand that the local bank hand over a large sum of cash just because, but my desire alone does not validate my demand. We act as if we deserve low gas prices simply because we want them to be low and cannot reconcile the demand/price relationship whatsoever.
If you choose to drive a vehicle that gets 12mpg, you really have no leg to stand on when you bitch about rising gas prices. You are part of the problem. You cannot, and should not be protected from the widespread impact of your choice. You are not a child. Grow up.
When you buy into sprawl by moving into the latest subdivision on the edge of the city to escape the last subdivision you lived in on the old edge of the city, you do not generate much sympathy when you complain about your traffic woes, lack of greenspace or rising taxes. You are making the decision to encourage the kind of development which is unsustainable and lowers your quality of life. (Note: I know in some areas, there is little choice about the kind of neighborhood you live in - sprawl is the only option, but many, many people continue to move further and further out to the same kind of development they already live in expecting the process not to repeat and that they will somehow escape the sprawl, and become indignant when they have to deal with the consequences I mentioned above. This example referred to the active supporters of the lifestyle and not the helpless participants who have no other choice.)
I may want to eat ice cream all day, but if I choose to do that (which I do not) I cannot demand to be thin. Most people would laugh at me if I did. Yet, when we are greedy and selfish in other ways, we act as if some Constitutional amendment has been violated if we actually have to face up to the effects our actions produce.
Time to take out the pacifier and deal with matters properly.
A lot of geeks who become wealthy spend enormous sums of cash on fulfilling their long-held geek fantasies.
With that in mind, I haven't seen any commissioning games that meet their own specifications. I would think that it would be the ultimate geek dream come true and that the added bonus of being able to resell it to the masses with zero risk (because you would have spent the money on developing the game anyway) would be enough to convince someone that it is a good idea.
You wouldn't be faced with making it palatable to everyone, and could focus on the gameplay that suits you.
With indie games, you need to be able to overcome the fact that most gamers are not paying you the slightest bit of attention. To do this, you need to either get a ton of money together for a PR campaign, get a lucky break or have people naturally interested in the idea of the indie game market.
The latter is currently something where the Mac community has the advantage. The Mac community is somewhat insular due to years of neglect from major publishers. For many, many years, ports would be slow to arrive, of shoddy quality, poorly supported or simply never materialize. This worked to hurt the sales of what was ported, resulting in even fewer ports, and drove Mac users to look to their own neighborhood for software.
Ambrosia, Freeverse, GarageGames and others came in and said "We'll treat you well, please buy our stuff" and we did.
The Mac shareware market has never gone the way of the PC side of things. It is still vibrant and exciting. People still want to develop for it. Mac users still pay attention to it, and when a good indie game comes out, we spread the word. Mac news sites put it at the top of their list of stories, forums buzz, and hopefully the developers get the money that they deserve.
With the PC market, trying to get attention for your new game is like shouting for people to pay attention to you in the middle of a crowded stadium. You could be offering free money, but even then it is doubtful that you could get the attention of most people. With the Mac, people come up to you when you walk in the door and ask "What do you have for us today?" and if you have something truly interesting, then it isn't too hard for the news to spread far and wide.
So come on over, we'll reward you for the trip.
As for indie games in general, I'd like to see a few developers focus on long-underserved niches instead of developing more games in glutted categories (Puzzle). Non-shovelware sim games would be welcome as there have been very, very few of them in recent years other than "The Sims 2" and "Sim City 4". (wow, two whole games).
This is somewhat on topic, so if you disagree with me posting it, just leave it un-modded in +2 semi-obscurity
With the rise of larger and larger vehicles, and the questions that have arisen regarding their impact, most of the attention has been focused squarely on the fuel economy issues. Now, I will be the first one to admit that the matter of gas consumption needs to be taken seriously and many vehicles out there are a simply irresponsible purchase with gas prices being what they are, even if the people buying them can afford to fill them. The rise in demand is increasing prices for everyone.
So, hybrids are being rushed onto the scene as fast as possible. Great, eh?
Not quite.
By addressing the fuel economy problem and thinking that it is the end of the concerns with the larger vechicles on the road, we are ignoring the most important of them all, which is the danger they pose on the road to other drivers.
Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the car.(9) In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV.(10) In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.(11)
This study was very important because it examined how many car occupants killed in accidents with SUVs might have survived had the accidents involved passenger cars weighing the same as SUVs. This is in important finding, because auto manufacturers have maintained that the weight of SUVs make them dangerous to smaller cars, not the design. The NHTSA study concludes that 2,000 people would have survived if their vehicles had been hit by a heavy car instead of a heavy SUV. Two thousand is five percent of the nation's annual traffic fatalities. The study declares that light trucks and SUVs are twice as likely to cause a fatality in the struck car than a passenger car of comparable weight.(13)
In response to studies like this, automakers have begun saying they will make changes to make SUVs more compatible with other cars. When Ford Motor Company introduced it's new monster, the Excursion (19 feet long, 6 1/2 feet wide, and weighing in at 8,500 pounds), Ford added a front beam and a rear tow hitch to prevent other vehicles from sliding under the Excursion during an accident. The Excursion will be the largest SUV on the market and could be extremely dangerous in an accident with a smaller vehicle since almost every vehicle on the road is smaller. Ford has not added the safety beam to its other SUVs.
The compatibility issue is not confined to crashes. The size and design of SUVs raises other safety issues. For instance, placement of headlights is a serious nuisance and a potential safety problem. On large SUVs, the headlights are mounted higher than on cars. Large SUVs have headlights mounted 36 to 39 inches above the ground - the same height as the side mirror on a small car. The glare from SUVs' headlights can appear to other drivers as bright as high beams. Glare can be 10 to 20 times worse than recommended levels when headlights are at the height of a driver's eyes or side mirror, according to a study by the Society of Automotive Engineers. (14)
Yes, the site is biased, but their sources are another matter.
It's ironic to think that with the introduction of more hybrids, we will see more SUVs on the road, which will increase the death rate for drivers all across the U.S.
I was hoping that perhaps the editors had finally broken their unspecified "arraignment" with Roland Piquepaille due to the enormous outcry, but alas, they waited until things cooled-down from his 50 submissions a week, and are now once again accepting anything he submits.
This time, the only link to his "news" site is the link for his name, but I don't think that will last for long. By his 40th story this time next week we can be assured that a quick paraphrase....er..."overview" will quietly slip in again, and multiply from there.
To think, I almost became a regular/. reader again.
The really interesting thing is that if the editors came clean on a lot of things from the outset, it would allay a lot of concerns, instead they give us a wall of silence except when it comes time to ask for subscriptions.
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions.
67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for both NPR and PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers.
33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR and PBS)
35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for both NPR and PBS)
Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.
----------
I had to cut out some of the stats because of the lameness filter
Further proof that there is a direct correlation between the amount of FOX 'News' programming you watch and your level of ignorance. FOX News succeeds in the ratings because it tells people what they want to hear, it does not challenge the mindset of its viewers with facts or differing opinions. It merely presents a proverbial warm cozy blanket of facts blended seamlessly with opinion and outright fabrication.
CNN, CBS, ABC, et al are often accused of downplaying or not reporting stories because they are deathly afraid of losing access to the sources of information that they rely on. In recent years they have moved to emulate their 300lb gorilla competitor by simply swallowing the information they receive from the government and playing along with whatever policy directive has come down from the White House. The remarkable lack of investigative spirit and widespread complacency during the run up to the Iraq War was simply amazing - and utterly gutting - to witness.
None of them, however, have adopted the perfected formula devoid of credibility and objectivity that FOX News has. They are merely wannabes, as FOX has seemingly nailed it down to a science all its own.
iTunes 6 also includes 'Just For You (Beta)' which finally brings a recommendations system to iTunes.
On another note, I have to join the chorus on those that are saying ScuttleMonkey totally missed the boat on the description. The new iMacs/w integrated video camera and remote, FrontRow, downloadable TV shows, etc.
...the other patrons are my biggest problem.
There are many movies that I would be very willing to watch in the theatre if I only had the ability to do so with some guarantee of peace and quiet from those around me.
Since that is not going to happen, I prefer to hold off and wait for the DVD. Simple as that.
"This is like cell-phone jammers. What if you couldn't talk on your cell phone? "
Then I would actually go to the movie theatre instead of waiting for the DVD. The inability to watch a movie in peace and quiet is the primary factor in dissuading me from going to the local multiplex. Still waiting for the management of said multiplexes to wake up to this fact.
The ban on cellphone jammers in the U.S. needs to be lifted ASAP.
Ahem...I'm not normally one to complain about modding issues, but I think the parent is one of my most mis-modded posts ever. Some people just didn't get it.
While there are a lot of nations that I feel especially uncomfortable about having WMDs, I cannot honestly say that if the nation I led was at odds with the U.S. (Which is not a difficult position to find oneself in) a crash weapon development program would be my first priority.
The U.S. relishes their ability to project power anywhere, at any time, and takes the attitude of being offended if someone is in a position to counter that. Not "We are pissed you are developing weapons" but "That's not FAIR!! No one is allowed to counter us! Mommy!"
With preemptive invasions and a long history of questionable covert operations, we have truly made a name for ourselves with our disregard of consquences for anyone but our people and even that is a receeding threat, as our technology puts said consequences further away than at any time in history.
It is too easy to launch a war now that Congress has largely rolled over on the issue of war powers and we feel that we can use "Cruise Missle Diplomacy" at the drop of a hat.
"Screw talking, send a carrier group" is the order of the day.
No longer do we find ourselves sending large numbers of troops into harms way 99% of the time. Our risks have been minimized to the point where considering the human costs doesn't give us the pause it used to.
The technological advantage is so far on our side, that non-conventional weapons and tactics are quickly becoming the ONLY option for everyone else.
"Pretty good give away. Opera is a good third browser, after Firefox and Safari."
Let's not forget OmniWeb which is OS X-only and exists as a wonderful showcase of efficient multithreaded Cocoa programming and a damn good browser. It's not free, but after giving it a test drive I can't imagine why I wouldn't pay for it if I had the cash around to do so at the moment. I like Safari...well, actually...I love Safari, but OmniWeb makes Safari look like a broken down Land Rover on a er...nevermind. While OmniWeb is the Concorde roaring overhead.
Due to my small laptop screen, I have to say that if they added an option to display Tabs at the top of the screen (as opposed to the drawer they currently reside in), I would probably go sell crack on the street to pay for it now.
If this new policy is adopted, expect to see sales drop or at least level-off while piracy increases. Up until this point it has been a fair deal for FairPlay, and if these record companies demand more money for doing absolutely nothing but allowing Apple to sell the products and do all of the heavy lifting for them (and barely break even on it as Apple does with the iTunes store) they really are out of touch with reality.
They have found the sweet spot in the market and simply collect the checks. But the corprate mantra of constantly growing profits has taken over. Which is not a bad thing, but it should have manifested itself in the recruitment of new musicians, not the raising of prices for the hell of it. That of course, would take effort, and when you make more money off of an album than the artist does - after you have merely loaned them the money to make their next album - you get used to screwing people over as much as you can.
If banks worked like the music industry, you would pay 90% of your paycheck to whatever bank gave you a student loan 20 years ago - 15 years after they were paid off.
Slashdot Mirror
Sam's Club/ Wal-Mart fired a woman who would not smile at customers as she handed out free samples of food.
The reason she did not smile?
Her face is partially paralyzed and is no longer physically capable smiling at anyone for any reason.
I think that after two examples (the other being the Ardman fire) of why you should invest in proper fire suppression equipment in one month's time in one nation should be enough to make people realize that such systems are a worthwhile investment.
Then again, such things are usually put low on the list of priorities whenever possible, because "it won't happen to us".
You can even get the upper hand when explosives are present, you can get systems that will have fire suppressants leaving the discharge head before the explosion is even visible (some systems are guaranteed to have the suppressant flowing in less than 50 milliseconds of onset of the event that triggers the release.)
I suppose it just comes down to a matter of deciding how much you value your operation and assets.
I've noticed in recent years that a lot of people I meet secretly harbor very intense apocalyptic fantasies.
Not the "Oh wow, Threads was some crazy shit, imagine that happening" or some religiously motivated desire to bring about a biblical event, but a genuine sense of "Go on, fuck it, let the zombies rise, let the plagues spread and if I'm lucky I can ride it out."
When the fake news reports appeared regarding a disease in Cambodia that briefly animated the dead, the most common first reaction I encountered by those who believed it to be from a reputable source was "Fuck YES". For a moment, I was aghast, and then I realized part of me was whispering the same thing.
What always gets me every time we have a discussion about raises is that any call for pay increases to the rank and file is met with fierce opposition by those who claim it will obliterate the economy via inflation and will rob shareholders of their rightful gains while sending corporations reeling into bankruptcy.
So, I must pose the question, why is it perfectly fine for managers (especially those in the upper echelons) hand out massive raises to themselves and their cronies that are often the equivalent of several times the average salary of their subordinates? The typical CEO makes 450 times as much as the average person they employ. Even when business is bad, layoffs are rampant and wages stagnant, the raises for the managers continue - because according to them, poor performance is always the fault of the lower rungs, while good quarters are always thanks to their expert stewardship.
The auto parts company Delphi is asking for their non-management staff to accept 50-69% pay cuts, (these workers were described as being basically worthless in a speech the CEO gave two weeks ago) while the managers that have presided over the company sliding into bankruptcy are going to get massive raises.
Please explain who spending tons of money to compensate workers who are being asked to produce more per hour, work more hours and accept fewer fringe benefits like comprehensive healthcare coverage is some evil, evil thing that shall destroy every company and drive them into bankruptcy, while distributing the same amount of money to the higher ups is no problem whatsoever?
"Ancient myth turns out to be a myth, film at XI"
I have no problem with nuclear power, modern plants are safe and quite useful.
However, I do not exactly trust the upper management of such facilities to always do the right thing, after years of shoddy practices by some owner/operators. In the past, I've encountered many stories of rather remarkable safety oversights and downright irresponsible decisions that have made certain reactors unnecessarily dangerous. Sure we have the NRC, but history has shown that they are not always on the ball...or quite far from it.
As with virtually every major reactor incident that has ever occurred, the human element is the potential problem, not the technology.
So fellow nuclear power supporters, please understand when some of us have genuine concerns about construction of new plants, and please do not lump us all in the "OMG ATOMS!!!!" category. In fact, fellow environmentalists here in Florida are only asking for a large exclusion zone around a new plant that is being considered. Obviously, they are going to get the zone for a variety of reasons, theirs being that it makes a fantastic nature preserve.
The entire practice of Daylight Savings time is inane and utterly ridiculous.
The primary reason for changing it yet again is to reduce overall fuel consumption. So, instead of mandating higher fuel economy (the average being lower than it was two decades ago) we choose to change time.
Just stop and think about that for a moment. The insanity of it threatens to collapse in on itself and tear a hole in the universe.
George H.W. Bush once said in response to calls for conservation that "The American way of life is not negotiable." We want what we want, when we want it, without having to deal with the realities and consequences of acquiring it. It's too inconvenient to consider that we might be taking the wrong road. We Americans get viciously defensive when anyone questions our habits and have to largely be forced into making any changes that will benefit us in the long-term. What pleases us this instant is usually the only concern we have.
We assume that any problems can be glossed over and this stands as a prime example of glossing over a major one at our own peril. When gas prices rise, legions demand that the president "Do something about it". Just wave the magic wand, make the problem go away, let us go back to living the way we want to, even if it isn't sustainable, simply because we desire it. There is nothing wrong with desiring something, but having unrealistic expectations for receiving it is pure greed. I could stand up and demand that the local bank hand over a large sum of cash just because, but my desire alone does not validate my demand. We act as if we deserve low gas prices simply because we want them to be low and cannot reconcile the demand/price relationship whatsoever.
If you choose to drive a vehicle that gets 12mpg, you really have no leg to stand on when you bitch about rising gas prices. You are part of the problem. You cannot, and should not be protected from the widespread impact of your choice. You are not a child. Grow up.
When you buy into sprawl by moving into the latest subdivision on the edge of the city to escape the last subdivision you lived in on the old edge of the city, you do not generate much sympathy when you complain about your traffic woes, lack of greenspace or rising taxes. You are making the decision to encourage the kind of development which is unsustainable and lowers your quality of life. (Note: I know in some areas, there is little choice about the kind of neighborhood you live in - sprawl is the only option, but many, many people continue to move further and further out to the same kind of development they already live in expecting the process not to repeat and that they will somehow escape the sprawl, and become indignant when they have to deal with the consequences I mentioned above. This example referred to the active supporters of the lifestyle and not the helpless participants who have no other choice.)
I may want to eat ice cream all day, but if I choose to do that (which I do not) I cannot demand to be thin. Most people would laugh at me if I did. Yet, when we are greedy and selfish in other ways, we act as if some Constitutional amendment has been violated if we actually have to face up to the effects our actions produce.
Time to take out the pacifier and deal with matters properly.
A lot of geeks who become wealthy spend enormous sums of cash on fulfilling their long-held geek fantasies.
With that in mind, I haven't seen any commissioning games that meet their own specifications. I would think that it would be the ultimate geek dream come true and that the added bonus of being able to resell it to the masses with zero risk (because you would have spent the money on developing the game anyway) would be enough to convince someone that it is a good idea.
You wouldn't be faced with making it palatable to everyone, and could focus on the gameplay that suits you.
With indie games, you need to be able to overcome the fact that most gamers are not paying you the slightest bit of attention. To do this, you need to either get a ton of money together for a PR campaign, get a lucky break or have people naturally interested in the idea of the indie game market.
The latter is currently something where the Mac community has the advantage. The Mac community is somewhat insular due to years of neglect from major publishers. For many, many years, ports would be slow to arrive, of shoddy quality, poorly supported or simply never materialize. This worked to hurt the sales of what was ported, resulting in even fewer ports, and drove Mac users to look to their own neighborhood for software.
Ambrosia, Freeverse, GarageGames and others came in and said "We'll treat you well, please buy our stuff" and we did.
The Mac shareware market has never gone the way of the PC side of things. It is still vibrant and exciting. People still want to develop for it. Mac users still pay attention to it, and when a good indie game comes out, we spread the word. Mac news sites put it at the top of their list of stories, forums buzz, and hopefully the developers get the money that they deserve.
With the PC market, trying to get attention for your new game is like shouting for people to pay attention to you in the middle of a crowded stadium. You could be offering free money, but even then it is doubtful that you could get the attention of most people. With the Mac, people come up to you when you walk in the door and ask "What do you have for us today?" and if you have something truly interesting, then it isn't too hard for the news to spread far and wide.
So come on over, we'll reward you for the trip.
As for indie games in general, I'd like to see a few developers focus on long-underserved niches instead of developing more games in glutted categories (Puzzle). Non-shovelware sim games would be welcome as there have been very, very few of them in recent years other than "The Sims 2" and "Sim City 4". (wow, two whole games).
Just to get an easy, universally-agreed-upon one out of the way.... .9999 =! 1
Now we can move on to questions that can generate some real debate.
With the rise of larger and larger vehicles, and the questions that have arisen regarding their impact, most of the attention has been focused squarely on the fuel economy issues. Now, I will be the first one to admit that the matter of gas consumption needs to be taken seriously and many vehicles out there are a simply irresponsible purchase with gas prices being what they are, even if the people buying them can afford to fill them. The rise in demand is increasing prices for everyone.
So, hybrids are being rushed onto the scene as fast as possible. Great, eh?
Not quite.
By addressing the fuel economy problem and thinking that it is the end of the concerns with the larger vechicles on the road, we are ignoring the most important of them all, which is the danger they pose on the road to other drivers.
Link
Yes, the site is biased, but their sources are another matter.
It's ironic to think that with the introduction of more hybrids, we will see more SUVs on the road, which will increase the death rate for drivers all across the U.S.
I was hoping that perhaps the editors had finally broken their unspecified "arraignment" with Roland Piquepaille due to the enormous outcry, but alas, they waited until things cooled-down from his 50 submissions a week, and are now once again accepting anything he submits.
/. reader again.
This time, the only link to his "news" site is the link for his name, but I don't think that will last for long. By his 40th story this time next week we can be assured that a quick paraphrase....er..."overview" will quietly slip in again, and multiply from there.
To think, I almost became a regular
The really interesting thing is that if the editors came clean on a lot of things from the outset, it would allay a lot of concerns, instead they give us a wall of silence except when it comes time to ask for subscriptions.
Link
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions.
67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for both NPR and PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers.
33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR and PBS)
35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for both NPR and PBS)
Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.
----------
I had to cut out some of the stats because of the lameness filter
Further proof that there is a direct correlation between the amount of FOX 'News' programming you watch and your level of ignorance. FOX News succeeds in the ratings because it tells people what they want to hear, it does not challenge the mindset of its viewers with facts or differing opinions. It merely presents a proverbial warm cozy blanket of facts blended seamlessly with opinion and outright fabrication.
CNN, CBS, ABC, et al are often accused of downplaying or not reporting stories because they are deathly afraid of losing access to the sources of information that they rely on. In recent years they have moved to emulate their 300lb gorilla competitor by simply swallowing the information they receive from the government and playing along with whatever policy directive has come down from the White House. The remarkable lack of investigative spirit and widespread complacency during the run up to the Iraq War was simply amazing - and utterly gutting - to witness.
None of them, however, have adopted the perfected formula devoid of credibility and objectivity that FOX News has. They are merely wannabes, as FOX has seemingly nailed it down to a science all its own.
iTunes 6 also includes 'Just For You (Beta)' which finally brings a recommendations system to iTunes.
On another note, I have to join the chorus on those that are saying ScuttleMonkey totally missed the boat on the description. The new iMacs/w integrated video camera and remote, FrontRow, downloadable TV shows, etc.
...the other patrons are my biggest problem.
There are many movies that I would be very willing to watch in the theatre if I only had the ability to do so with some guarantee of peace and quiet from those around me.
Since that is not going to happen, I prefer to hold off and wait for the DVD. Simple as that.
"This is like cell-phone jammers. What if you couldn't talk on your cell phone? "
Then I would actually go to the movie theatre instead of waiting for the DVD. The inability to watch a movie in peace and quiet is the primary factor in dissuading me from going to the local multiplex. Still waiting for the management of said multiplexes to wake up to this fact.
The ban on cellphone jammers in the U.S. needs to be lifted ASAP.
Ahem...I'm not normally one to complain about modding issues, but I think the parent is one of my most mis-modded posts ever. Some people just didn't get it.
The crash log is so big that it's spread out over 3 states!
Brand names....I need brand names people! Err...for science!
While there are a lot of nations that I feel especially uncomfortable about having WMDs, I cannot honestly say that if the nation I led was at odds with the U.S. (Which is not a difficult position to find oneself in) a crash weapon development program would be my first priority.
The U.S. relishes their ability to project power anywhere, at any time, and takes the attitude of being offended if someone is in a position to counter that. Not "We are pissed you are developing weapons" but "That's not FAIR!! No one is allowed to counter us! Mommy!"
With preemptive invasions and a long history of questionable covert operations, we have truly made a name for ourselves with our disregard of consquences for anyone but our people and even that is a receeding threat, as our technology puts said consequences further away than at any time in history.
It is too easy to launch a war now that Congress has largely rolled over on the issue of war powers and we feel that we can use "Cruise Missle Diplomacy" at the drop of a hat.
"Screw talking, send a carrier group" is the order of the day.
No longer do we find ourselves sending large numbers of troops into harms way 99% of the time. Our risks have been minimized to the point where considering the human costs doesn't give us the pause it used to.
The technological advantage is so far on our side, that non-conventional weapons and tactics are quickly becoming the ONLY option for everyone else.
It's nice to know that someone can get reception with T-Mobile. ;)
(Yeah, I'm jaded. Hey T-Mobile, another tower in the higher elevations of 34689 would make me the happiest man alive)
"Although remember that OmniWeb is based on WebKit. That is, it essentially is Safari with a different interface.
True, and I should have remembered to point this out in my OP, but the difference between them for the enduser is truly night and day.
"Pretty good give away. Opera is a good third browser, after Firefox and Safari."
Let's not forget OmniWeb which is OS X-only and exists as a wonderful showcase of efficient multithreaded Cocoa programming and a damn good browser. It's not free, but after giving it a test drive I can't imagine why I wouldn't pay for it if I had the cash around to do so at the moment. I like Safari...well, actually...I love Safari, but OmniWeb makes Safari look like a broken down Land Rover on a er...nevermind. While OmniWeb is the Concorde roaring overhead.
Due to my small laptop screen, I have to say that if they added an option to display Tabs at the top of the screen (as opposed to the drawer they currently reside in), I would probably go sell crack on the street to pay for it now.
If this new policy is adopted, expect to see sales drop or at least level-off while piracy increases. Up until this point it has been a fair deal for FairPlay, and if these record companies demand more money for doing absolutely nothing but allowing Apple to sell the products and do all of the heavy lifting for them (and barely break even on it as Apple does with the iTunes store) they really are out of touch with reality.
They have found the sweet spot in the market and simply collect the checks. But the corprate mantra of constantly growing profits has taken over. Which is not a bad thing, but it should have manifested itself in the recruitment of new musicians, not the raising of prices for the hell of it. That of course, would take effort, and when you make more money off of an album than the artist does - after you have merely loaned them the money to make their next album - you get used to screwing people over as much as you can.
If banks worked like the music industry, you would pay 90% of your paycheck to whatever bank gave you a student loan 20 years ago - 15 years after they were paid off.