Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do, but it is also the community's responsibility to raise kids rightly.
But? But?!? Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do. PERIOD. There is no 'but.' You're just making excuses for bad parenting, and then blaming it on society. Right. It's everyone ELSE'S fault you're a shitty parent and your kids is going nuts in a public place. That kind of attitude is part of the problem.
So too is it important that industries concentrate on producing high-quality, wholesome products. Whether this be something as nutritious as breakfast cereal or as empty as your typical R-rated movie, it is important that the community standards to which a majority of a community profess are supported by the corporation's product.
It is important for industries to concentrate on goods and services that people want to pay for. Thats it. No, no, stop, really. That is ALL. If it isn't in the industry's interests to produce what you call "wholesome" products, then it has no responsibility to do so. The industry doesn't owe you anything. Why should anyone be able to hold them to their own personal standards of decency through enforced legislation? Thats just crazy. If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it.
There always seems to be a handful of outspoken activists railing against one thing or another that they consider offensive. There is always talk about common decency, community standards, etc. But you get right down to it, most of the stuff they find offensive (popular Movies, TV shows, GTA) is hugely popular. Many many many times more people are actually buying and enjoying the very things these "defenders of decency" are opposed to. This leads me to ask "Just what mythical puritan community ARE these people representing?" Because when you look at the numbers, THEY are the ones in the minority.
It is good business to provide people with things they need. But there is also a lot of money involved in selling people their vices. We do not accept people who wish to sell drugs to minors, nor do we absolve of guilt those who would ply them with alcohol.
You're comparing video games drugs and alcohol? You've got to be kidding me....
It is not always 100% the job of the parent.
Um, yes. Yes it is.
The community must be held responsible to the extent that they have offered moral corruption from beyond the purview of the child's parents.
As I said before, the community is not responsible for your child. You are.
But say you're right. What if this mythical magical "community" is responsible? What are you going to do about it? Who are you going to punish? All community is, is a group of individuals. Are you going to just start selecting subsets of individuals and punishing them for their 'irresponsibility'? In the case of GTA, who do you pick? Do you punish the head of Rockstar games? The development team? The marketing guy? Suddenly one of these people is responsible for your kid? Or what? It just doesn't make any sense. These people don't even know you, or you them. There is no way they can be blamed for your poorly raised child.
Your kid, Your problem
Imagine there was a perminant, or at least very long term disruption of these systems. How would we cope? Are people working on alternative forms of communication, electrical, and other systems that are immune to these kind of effects? Just how long would it take humanity to recover? Would it even be possible? Or would such a challenge simply encourgae us to find better, different means to implement the functionality of those systems?
I assume you're talking about nvidia and ATI being the two major players? While it's true that they are they ones really pushing the technology at the high-end, you're forgetting that Intel still has a greater market share then either ATI or nvidia when it comes to actual volume of graphics processors sold (usually integrated solutions). I imagine that this is more what S3 will be competing against. Not that competing against Intel is an easy thing to do either....
I for one hope that S3 is successful in their attempt to get back into the market. More competition is a good thing. While I don't see them necessarily competing with nvidia or ATI at this point, one can only hope that they use this as a foothold to break back into the higher end markets in a few years. It can only mean faster and cheaper videocards for everyone. I understand that the cynics have a bit of history on their side when making fun of S3, but it ticks me off a little when I see people practically rooting for them to fail.
I'm not studying the phenomina personally. I don't have access to the raw data, and devices collecting said data. Who am I supposed to trust when it comes to stuff like this anymore? Especially after Scientist Says Most Scientific Papers Are Wrong. Everyone is pushing their own agenda at this point so its hard to know just what to believe anymore, especially if the information is from anywhere other than first hand.
I agree with Greg's assessment of the shitty state of the modern gaming industry, but come on, "An audience that prizes gameplay over glitz??" HAHA!. What world does he think we live in? Has he not noticed that pretty much every form of popular media these days caters to the lowest common denominator? That's where the the money is. With the masses who don't know how to think. Most people wouldn't know quality entertainment these days if it smacked em' in the face. Why else are the airwaves filled with a hundred shitty "reality" shows? Why else are theaters showing films with cookie cutter stories, sequel after sequel, and uninspired remakes of uninspiring original material? Why else, when I turn on the radio, do I hear the worst, most talentless garbage in the history of music? These industries, despite moans and groans of executives and insiders are still making record profits! As much as they would like us to believe it is, the sky isn't falling on any of these industries. At least not yet. I can't wait until it does.
He's correct in essentially saying that the problem right now isn't that the various industry skies are falling (economically), it's that all the shit they keep pumping out is falling out of the sky and all over us. Who's to blame? Large publishers and distributers which aren't willing to take risks and only look to maximize the possible profit? Partly. But For the most part I blame individual consumers. Dumbass fucking consumers who pay a premium price for complete shit and can't get enough as smile while shoveling it down their own throats. I can't see any effort spearheaded by Greg, or anyone, changing this mentality.
This is exactly what is going on, and no one else seems to have mentioned it. Everyone knows that the much touted Killzone demo was a complete fake, and in addition, recent articles have been surfacing that completely contradict some of the outlandish things Sony has been promising. Same thing happened before PS2 came out, but gamers ate up every word marketing said. This time around, people seem a bit more wary of Sony's claims. I haven't seen one damn thing that was REAL to get me excited about Sony's new console. I think Sony realizes this and is engaging in damage control as we speak. They simply don't have shit to show but instead of coming out and saying that, we get great PR spin like "Sony is taking the PS3 underground." The term nicely coincides with their disc demo magazine thing called Playstation Underground which simply enhances the marketability of what they're saying. I can just hear all the fanboys already. "COOOOOL! Underground! Sony Rules!" In reality Sony is just buying time until they can actually get something tangible ready that comes close to meeting some of the expectations they have fostered.
"Over time, CRS products might come to be written with a large public audience in mind and could no longer be focused solely on congressional needs,"
That sounds like a problem with CRS then. If CRS Director Mulhollan can't keep CRS directed at their target audience (congress) than congress should just do away with them at that point and support a different organization that stays on task: writing reports for congress. Blaming the public because CRS wouldn't be able stick to thier mission is ridiculous, and using it as justification for keeping the public in the dark as to the information congress receives is even worse.
When does a author not consider their audience when writing a document? How hard would it be to try not to consider your audience when writing a piece?
Your absolutly correct in these statements, but once again, just because the public is reading the reports doesn't necessarily mean that the public magically becomes the target audience. If writers can't differentiate between their target audience and "someone who might read the material" they shouldn't be writing.
Furthermore, how cumbersome do you think it would be, administratively, to effectively convince one's employees not to worry about what hundreds of millions of people think about your writing, and just focus on a few hundred?
Uhhh, isn't this what they are doing already? Just focus on writing for a few hundred congressmen?
Here's a better idea: Don't worry about any of the above, because CRS's job is to inform congressman and their staffers on the issues so that they may legislative effectively.
Yes, I agree, that is exactly what CRS should do. Who is suggesting that change at all? All people want to do is read those reports. That shouldn't involve any kind of modification or dumbing down of the original process. At that point they wouldn't remain the "independent" CRS reports I was interested in in the first place. I personally think they would be useful when looking at congressional votes. Did congressman X vote for Y despite the facts in the report being critical of Y? It can potentially let citizens better grasp the motives of their representitives. Additionally such reports might help citizens form their own opinions of the issues.
In my stay at CRS, I learned a good amount about a part of our government which was previously entirely unknown to me.
I'm glad that it sounds like you had a great experience. However, I must say that parts of the government entirely unknown to probably most of the public is NOT something that we need to encourage to foster.
"It's condensed into a format that lets congressman read a lot of facts at once, without having to go read 20-30 books/magazines/publications to glean the same content."
That sounds great. I don't see why it is unreasonable to make what sounds like a very useful resource, that the taxpayers paid for, available to... the tax payers. I mean this is congress's JOB, and they don't have time to read 20-30 publications, right? How can you reasonably expect CITIZENS to read and research those same 20-30 publications just to keep up with congress, in addition to all their other responsibilities?
So I grasp what you're saying, We don't want CRS to become some politically-correct-don't-write-anything-really-us eful-the- public-might-see-it organization, but I really don't imagine that happening. It all just sounds like they're trying to justify keeping the public in the dark by saying it would be for our own good. I've had enough of that logic lately.
What about Commercial Aircraft?
on
Liquid Hydrogen UAV
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Is this technology suitable for use in commercial aircraft? The Airlines are taking a beating right now, a large part to their own incompetence, but the $60 a barrel prive for oil is driving jet fuel costs through the room. It seems like if Boeing or Airbus could get some of this type of engine technology working in large commercial aircraft, they could make a killing.
Is this the end of web usage mining? This patent really concerns me, as right now I'm in the midst of a university research project that deals with this very subject. There are lots of research papers out there right now that deal with creating recommendations based on user session history. What I really don't like is the apparent vagueness of the whole thing. There a lots of references to a "method" or the "invention" which seem very broad. There are literally hundreds of possible models and techniques that could be used to implement a recommender system based on user session history, from clustering, to neural networks, etc. This patent doesn't specify anything that is an actual specific "invention" much less something that hasn't already been presented in the literature for quite some time. It seems like this all-encompasing patent might very well spell doom for the whole field of web usage mining.
I'd say toss up on whether more bush/republican judges would help here. Both democrats were in favor, but so were three republicans.
Depsite that fact the dividing up the SCOTUS judges by party affiliation is a pretty dumb thing to do, I will say that 100% percent of the Democrats on the bench, unsurprisingly to most, voted for this. I'd much rather go with the party that fucks us 40% of the time and not 100% of the time.
Of course I would much rather have a Judge I actually AGREED with 100%, but that's never ever ever going to happen.
God, where do I begin. Lets look at your original post
Isn't it sad that a "third world" country of a billion people has a government with a labor policy that can create a surplus demand for tech workers in the hundreds of thousands, while America's got hundreds of thousands of un- and under-employed tech workers, without a competitive labor policy?
Your opening three words are "Isn't it sad." This clearly indicates dissatisfaction for the current system. Saying "Isn't it sad that they have X and we don't" in this context would indicate to anyone reading the sentence that you desire X, in this case a "labor policy" whatever that might entail.
Even though I didn't say that their policy was better than ours.
No you didn't say that. However, if you believed that our policy was better than the one in India, you wouldn't have said that the situation was "sad."
"But they clearly have articulated a labor policy that they are executing, which is better than our government, which has none (except maybe protecting the buyers' market in labor), though we need them to execute one."
I already challenged you on this in my last post when I posed the question "Why is simply having a policy, better than not having one?" What makes you think that their policy isn't even more detramental to Indian society? Furthermore, could you enlighten us as to just what India's labor policy is? I can't tell you a damn thing about it, and never claimed I could. However, you seem to have all the facts as to why it is oh so much better then what we have. I never claimed to know what India's labor policy precisely consisted of, just that a lack of quality education should be considered a prime reason for the lack of Indians filling tech jobs in their own country.
"Here's a test of your "diehard free-market capitalist libertarianism": what do you think about unchecked international traffic in nuclear weapons?"
Unchecked international traffic is a fallacy. Free markets in conjunction with free societies produce natural checks on commerce. That what it is all about. Besides, nukes are being traded internationally "unchecked" right now this very minute anyway.
"Or cocaine, heroin, machine guns, anthrax, and anything else money can buy?"
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and most certainly yes.
"How long would that free market last,
Markets are already not free in my opinion. We have government granted monopolies, government bailouts, government subsidies, import tarrifs, congressmen passing laws to protect old dinosaur businesses, etc. I doubt there has ever been a truly free market with out government meddeling.
not to mention liberty?"
What? Liberty has already been and continues to be robbed from us everyday. Patriot Act, DMCA, wiretaps, carnivore, airport screeners, commerce clauses, etc. The goverment has shown that it is more than willing to curb the freedoms of the people living in this country. It has since day one. Every new law passed is basically new things that you aren't allowed to do anymore with out being punished. Thats not what I call freedom.
Aren't you really a "I want to do anything I want, whenever, regardless of the consequences"?
There is no such thing as "regardless of consequences." Everything has consequences. I am a "I want to do anything I want, whenever, and will deal with consequences." Isn't that what freedom is? Making your own choices, and dealing with the consequences of those choices?
You saw someone complaining about American policy, and said "love it or leave it".
I tried to clarify this in my last post but you don't seem to want to believe me. Why I would lie about my position on slashdot, an internet message forum, is beyond me. I really didn't mean "love it or leave it." It was more of a "leave for India if you want, but you'll be sorry if you do." Obviously I'm not too thrilled about the way o
I assume your referring to this line
"In reality, the fact that there isn't such a huge gap between supply/demand for tech workers in the US, especially porportional to the number of people living in the country..."
This is being comparative to the situation in India. Filling 80k jobs from a pool of 300 million should be a lot more difficult than filling 100k jobs from a pool of 1 Billion. There are 3 times as many people in India and they they still can't meet demand. So in the US, there isn't such a huge gap as the one in India.
Additionally, from your own source:
"Congress capped the number of non-immigrant visas for skilled professionals at 65,000 in 2004 and 2005 in an effort to increase border security and ensure more jobs for home-grown tech workers.
That is a third of the 195,000 work visas issued annually during the high-tech boom years from 2001 to 2003."
Hmm, congress has set the cap at 65,000 for 2005. What year is it? 2005. Where do you get "at least 80,000" its nowhere to be found in the article. Additionally, there were MORE work visa's issued during the boom years. Tech jobs weren't down by an entire third, even after the bubble popped, but imported workers were cut by a third. So now the percent of tech workers who are foriegn is even less then when people didn't even consider it a problem, or even consider it period.
If I were you, I would consider working on your own skills to stay competitive instead of bitching about foriegners who evidently are doing a better job.
I didn't mean to come off as someone of the opinion "If you don't like the way its done in Americs, move." I'm all for changing America for the better as well, not simply abandoning it when things might look greener on the other side. I was more or less trying to address the number of posts I had also read declaring "Well, it's time to move to India."
This seems like the same attitude that a lot of democrats displayed when Bush was re-elected. I don't know how many times I heard or read "Well, time to move to Canada." Statements like that don't really do anything to address the problems at hand, and if acted upon, simply leave less voice for discourse, which is critical and necessary for our system to work and evolve. I want people to stay in this country, not simply jump ship when things don't quite go their way. However, I'm not going to prevent anyone who thinks "It's time to move to India" from doing so. I hate to use insults, but, at least in my opinion, anyone who thinks that right now India is a better place to be then the US is a pretty big farking moron. I'll say "good riddence, hope you enjoy your new life" and that will be that.
Having said that, I do have a few comments about your post.
"I think that they have a policy at all, that they execute, shows they're better managers than is our American government."
This statement just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Just because you have a policy doesn't make it automatically a good thing. In fact, more often then not, it seems that endless beurocratic government policies end up hurting constituents. I'd rather have nothing than a detremental something.
"Maybe if you, and others with the "love it or leave it" attitude, knew more about the tribal nations (like the Iriquois and Huron, specifically) from which American colonists (Washington and Franklin, especially) adopted federal government structures, you'd be more open to fixing America's problems with solutions proven in foreign countries.
Ok you lost me here. First off, you assume that I'm not open to fixing America's problems with solutions proven in foreign countries. I'm all for fixing America's problems (and America has its problems, no doubt) with the BEST possible solution. Why would I care where the solution came from if it was "proven" to be best around?
However, that brings us to an entirly different question of defining America's problems. Is social security a problem? Yes, no? If so, how do we fix it? Maybe someone's definiton of a "proven solution" is the same as my definition "large disaster." I'm a diehard free-market capitalist Libertarian. I would favor abolishing what I consider a blatent wealth redistribution program all together. Obviously what I consider a great solution makes others cringe. Some people suggest raising taxes. That makes me cringe. Anyway, my point isn't to debate social security. I simply want to illustrate that some of us look at other countries models and see a "proven solution" and some us look at the same thing and cry. We all want a better America, and if another country is really doing something that we ought to look at we should. Sometimes though it is hard to consider other countries models seriously when the average standard of living of someone in those countries is that of a person considered living in poverty in this country. Something just doesn't add up. But hey, like I said I'm open for any and all suggestions. That kind of discourse and debate is what this country is all about.
You think it is a good thing that in a country with a billion people, there is a labor shortage of hundreds of thousands in the tech field? This country has a BILLION people. BILLION. This isn't evidence of Indian government doing things right, its evidence of them doings going WRONG. What is wrong with these billion people that not even a fraction of a percent of them are skilled enough to fill these jobs?
The problem inherently lies in education. These billions of Indians don't (yet) have the education to fully compete in the tech field. The labor force is not up to par when it comes to actually knowing how to do the job. Oh, sure the COST of labor is what makes them competitive compared to American workers, but in terms of actually having the necessary skills to compete, its still no contest.
In reality, the fact that there isn't such a huge gap between supply/demand for tech workers in the US, especially porportional to the number of people living in the country, is a good thing. Wait, hear me out. Sure it isn't necessarily appealing at first for you, the worker as an individual. Wages are lower when your skills aren't in demand, everyone knows this. You have to look past that though. The fact that we actually have the labor supply to meet our still rather high demand for tech workers says everything about the education of people living in the US. Imagine if the US had such a labor shortage in the tech field. It would be disasterous! It would be a prime indicator that Americans were simply too dumb to fill the positions. An educated population is a good thing at home, and it is a good thing abroad. As the world becomes more educated, we all benefit.
Praising misguided government "labor policies" for a situation that is really the result of horrible education and living conditions, which have been fostered by their ass-backwards goverment for generations, is just something I won't do. If you think that Indian government policy is really so much better than what takes place in America, then feel free to move over there, as already many posts have suggested doing. I for one would rather be homeless on the streets in the US then work in India. Worker's Paradise it ain't.
from article : "the IsNot operator is described as a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two point to the same location in memory."
And you say: "!= on pointers checks the memory location. java has some sort of function to check the memory location too."
Also, != and == in java does check whether compared objects are indeed references to the same object in memory.
So != seems to me to be the appropriate choice for replacing an IsNot operator. So it looks like Frymaster's quick little refactoring script would correctly work.
So my question is. What the heck is the point of this post? Of course != on pointers checks the memory location. Thats why his refactoring script works so easily. Are you trying to claim it doesn't? Why is this modded insightful? Am I missing something?
Now that I think about it, it seems that IsNot is more of a replacement for a statment like if(&var1 != &var2). I guess in c it might provide some sort of usefullness to the uniniated where an != comparison compares values and IsNot compares the memory locations of two types without messing with pointers and the address of operator. But the more I think about it, the more it doesn't make sense.
How would 2 things refer to the same memory location in the first place with out utilization of those very constructs that IsNot would seemingly eliminate? Forgive me if my c isn't quite what it used to. Programming mainly in Java now seems to avoid this entire thing.
Anyone have any real insight?
Considering the rich pay out WAY more in social security taxes than the poor, and the poor recieve way more benefits, how can you possible call Bush's plan "galactic theft for the rich?" It's actually quite the opposite.
Whaaah. I'm a big jerk residing in a rich liberal nation. I always have plenty to eat and it costs next to nothing, thanks to outragous government subsidies to prop up my developed nations faltering agricultural industry, keeping poor developing nations poor in one of the only industries they might possibly compete. I really don't understand GM technology, but due to the social status quo of my liberal country, I think it should be banned. I might have grandchildren with the improper amount of toes! Meanwhile, I will continue to selfishly whine about GM foods and lobby to ban the technology while millions and millions of mal nourished, hungry people in the third world continue their daily struggle to find enough food for themselves and their children. Unlike my country, there is no abundance of food in stores at every street corner. No hundreds of restraunts to choose from at any given time. So while I'm stuffing my face until my belly is full (With only ORGANIC foods by the way), I will continue to selfishly oppose GM technology that could assist in the survival of Millions of people. Millions. I think that they just be forced to starve so GM foods can't possible "ruin" natural strains foods. Hmm, the possibility that the social backlash in my country against GM foods is propogated by our state owned media, reflecting the fact that we have no representatives in this field, therefore garnishing no benefits for our country's economy never occured to me. No, I'm not a sheep, or an elitist liberal fuck. Not at all.
Because:
1. Most cars have more than one seat.
2. Most cars are occupied by only one person.
3. Most people drive with their car doors unlocked.
Then: When a car stops next to me, I can ask the driver if they would give me a lift to wherever they happen to be going. The driver is free to say yes or no, and continue on their journy accordingly. Actually, the point if the doors are locked or unlocked is irrelavent, because you ask permission from the driver.
In terms of a wireless access point, I'm free to ask it "Can I have an IP?" It is free to respond "yes" and give me one, granting me access to the network, or "no" and not give me one, denying me access. In this case though, negligent owners of access points have determined that they should always reply "Yes" to this question, giving me permission to use their wireless signal. That's their own fault and nobody elses. So don't go blaming anyone else when someone decides to hop on their network.
Ok, I'll try to address your rebuttals with a few of my own. Well first my opinion is that a wardriver should be free to access any open access point which allows them to do so without employing additional tools to break encryption, or 'side-step' the normal handshaking rules. This includes spoofing MACs, etc. Any special "tricks" required to get access is a good indication that you shouldn't use the AP. Breaking security is a comepletly different issue that I'm not supporting.
On the the points
1) TV's do NOT only respond to a remote from a single manufacturer. If this were the case, the concept of the universal remote would simply not work. I don't know how many times as a younger kid I used a IR wristwatch to take control of a friends or schools television. In a system such as ethernet which uses MAC, each device on the network has a truly unique ID number which can be used to specify valid devices which gain access (yes it can be spoofed, but I already said that was off limits in terms of what I think is appropriate) Remote controls do not have this level of uniqueness. You can simply program your universal remote with the correct code for the model of television and off you go changing channels. Many remotes have a feature that allows you to autodetect which code is appropriate for controlling the television it is pointed at. While I see what you are getting at, these are hardly at all the same mechanisms.
2)You are not going to miss bits and pieces of a video because of your router. Your router can route packets way faster then can be recieved over the incoming transmission line. Additionally, most people with broadband simply do NOT usually max out the speeds. Usually, especially when downstreaming large media, there is some sort of bottleneck on the other end of the line. Your aren't likely going to miss any of the broadcast due to someone on your wireless connection. Maybe if they were running Kazaa or something, but at that point I'd agree that they were an asshole, but certainly still not a criminal.
3)This is simply a matter of what we define as being "broadcast." I consider the signal from CBS to my television a broadcast, or the signal from my access point to my network interface a broadcast. I don't really consider the images from the television traveling over the electromagnetic spectrum until it hits my eyes a "broadcast" in any more sense that I consider the image of a flower in a garden reaching my eyes when I look at it a "broadcast" of the flower.
4)Here you've changed the issue. Now you're saying window peeping is illegal. Fine, but that has nothing to do with getting assigned an IP from an access point. You're getting away from the point. What do you mean you *COULD* put up a firewall? If you aren't already running behind one, and you additionally are allowing open access to your wireless network, you're a bigger moron than I thought. Additionally, if you KNOW that it is someone accessing through your wireless access point, than you should KNOW better than to allow open acces to it. Refusing to do anything about it just makes you seem lazy.
5)In this last point you start talking about people getting around security measures. Well this is where I draw the line. As I said before, I don't agree with taking any measures that circumvent someone's security policy. Proper end-user behavior involves simply configuring the access point to not allow any connectivity that comes outside trusted sources through basic secuirty configurations that are included with the device. Getting around these protections is ALREADY illegal for unauthorized users. That is what the current security protocols and laws are for. We don't need more laws and legislation to protect people too stupid to use the mechanisms already in place. However, when people configure their wireless access points to allow access, what else should you expect other than they either want to let people use their access point, or that they are a big moron. I'm thankful to those who fall in the former catego
Slashdot Mirror
Posts like this just make my head spin...
Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do, but it is also the community's responsibility to raise kids rightly.
But? But?!? Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do. PERIOD. There is no 'but.' You're just making excuses for bad parenting, and then blaming it on society. Right. It's everyone ELSE'S fault you're a shitty parent and your kids is going nuts in a public place. That kind of attitude is part of the problem.
So too is it important that industries concentrate on producing high-quality, wholesome products. Whether this be something as nutritious as breakfast cereal or as empty as your typical R-rated movie, it is important that the community standards to which a majority of a community profess are supported by the corporation's product.
It is important for industries to concentrate on goods and services that people want to pay for. Thats it. No, no, stop, really. That is ALL. If it isn't in the industry's interests to produce what you call "wholesome" products, then it has no responsibility to do so. The industry doesn't owe you anything. Why should anyone be able to hold them to their own personal standards of decency through enforced legislation? Thats just crazy. If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it.
There always seems to be a handful of outspoken activists railing against one thing or another that they consider offensive. There is always talk about common decency, community standards, etc. But you get right down to it, most of the stuff they find offensive (popular Movies, TV shows, GTA) is hugely popular. Many many many times more people are actually buying and enjoying the very things these "defenders of decency" are opposed to. This leads me to ask "Just what mythical puritan community ARE these people representing?" Because when you look at the numbers, THEY are the ones in the minority.
It is good business to provide people with things they need. But there is also a lot of money involved in selling people their vices. We do not accept people who wish to sell drugs to minors, nor do we absolve of guilt those who would ply them with alcohol.
You're comparing video games drugs and alcohol? You've got to be kidding me....
It is not always 100% the job of the parent.
Um, yes. Yes it is.
The community must be held responsible to the extent that they have offered moral corruption from beyond the purview of the child's parents.
As I said before, the community is not responsible for your child. You are.
But say you're right. What if this mythical magical "community" is responsible? What are you going to do about it? Who are you going to punish? All community is, is a group of individuals. Are you going to just start selecting subsets of individuals and punishing them for their 'irresponsibility'? In the case of GTA, who do you pick? Do you punish the head of Rockstar games? The development team? The marketing guy? Suddenly one of these people is responsible for your kid? Or what? It just doesn't make any sense. These people don't even know you, or you them. There is no way they can be blamed for your poorly raised child.
Your kid, Your problem
I still play with my Pocket Pikachu.
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
Imagine there was a perminant, or at least very long term disruption of these systems. How would we cope? Are people working on alternative forms of communication, electrical, and other systems that are immune to these kind of effects? Just how long would it take humanity to recover? Would it even be possible? Or would such a challenge simply encourgae us to find better, different means to implement the functionality of those systems?
I assume you're talking about nvidia and ATI being the two major players? While it's true that they are they ones really pushing the technology at the high-end, you're forgetting that Intel still has a greater market share then either ATI or nvidia when it comes to actual volume of graphics processors sold (usually integrated solutions). I imagine that this is more what S3 will be competing against. Not that competing against Intel is an easy thing to do either....
I for one hope that S3 is successful in their attempt to get back into the market. More competition is a good thing. While I don't see them necessarily competing with nvidia or ATI at this point, one can only hope that they use this as a foothold to break back into the higher end markets in a few years. It can only mean faster and cheaper videocards for everyone. I understand that the cynics have a bit of history on their side when making fun of S3, but it ticks me off a little when I see people practically rooting for them to fail.
C'mon guys, this news is WAY old. All of the plans have been on display for fifty years at the local planning office on Alpha Centauri.
I'm not studying the phenomina personally. I don't have access to the raw data, and devices collecting said data. Who am I supposed to trust when it comes to stuff like this anymore? Especially after Scientist Says Most Scientific Papers Are Wrong. Everyone is pushing their own agenda at this point so its hard to know just what to believe anymore, especially if the information is from anywhere other than first hand.
I agree with Greg's assessment of the shitty state of the modern gaming industry, but come on, "An audience that prizes gameplay over glitz??"
HAHA!. What world does he think we live in? Has he not noticed that pretty much every form of popular media these days caters to the lowest common denominator? That's where the the money is. With the masses who don't know how to think. Most people wouldn't know quality entertainment these days if it smacked em' in the face. Why else are the airwaves filled with a hundred shitty "reality" shows? Why else are theaters showing films with cookie cutter stories, sequel after sequel, and uninspired remakes of uninspiring original material? Why else, when I turn on the radio, do I hear the worst, most talentless garbage in the history of music? These industries, despite moans and groans of executives and insiders are still making record profits! As much as they would like us to believe it is, the sky isn't falling on any of these industries. At least not yet. I can't wait until it does.
He's correct in essentially saying that the problem right now isn't that the various industry skies are falling (economically), it's that all the shit they keep pumping out is falling out of the sky and all over us. Who's to blame? Large publishers and distributers which aren't willing to take risks and only look to maximize the possible profit? Partly. But For the most part I blame individual consumers. Dumbass fucking consumers who pay a premium price for complete shit and can't get enough as smile while shoveling it down their own throats. I can't see any effort spearheaded by Greg, or anyone, changing this mentality.
This is exactly what is going on, and no one else seems to have mentioned it. Everyone knows that the much touted Killzone demo was a complete fake, and in addition, recent articles have been surfacing that completely contradict some of the outlandish things Sony has been promising. Same thing happened before PS2 came out, but gamers ate up every word marketing said. This time around, people seem a bit more wary of Sony's claims. I haven't seen one damn thing that was REAL to get me excited about Sony's new console. I think Sony realizes this and is engaging in damage control as we speak. They simply don't have shit to show but instead of coming out and saying that, we get great PR spin like "Sony is taking the PS3 underground." The term nicely coincides with their disc demo magazine thing called Playstation Underground which simply enhances the marketability of what they're saying. I can just hear all the fanboys already. "COOOOOL! Underground! Sony Rules!" In reality Sony is just buying time until they can actually get something tangible ready that comes close to meeting some of the expectations they have fostered.
"Over time, CRS products might come to be written with a large public audience in mind and could no longer be focused solely on congressional needs,"
s eful-the- public-might-see-it organization, but I really don't imagine that happening. It all just sounds like they're trying to justify keeping the public in the dark by saying it would be for our own good. I've had enough of that logic lately.
That sounds like a problem with CRS then. If CRS Director Mulhollan can't keep CRS directed at their target audience (congress) than congress should just do away with them at that point and support a different organization that stays on task: writing reports for congress. Blaming the public because CRS wouldn't be able stick to thier mission is ridiculous, and using it as justification for keeping the public in the dark as to the information congress receives is even worse.
When does a author not consider their audience when writing a document? How hard would it be to try not to consider your audience when writing a piece?
Your absolutly correct in these statements, but once again, just because the public is reading the reports doesn't necessarily mean that the public magically becomes the target audience. If writers can't differentiate between their target audience and "someone who might read the material" they shouldn't be writing.
Furthermore, how cumbersome do you think it would be, administratively, to effectively convince one's employees not to worry about what hundreds of millions of people think about your writing, and just focus on a few hundred?
Uhhh, isn't this what they are doing already? Just focus on writing for a few hundred congressmen?
Here's a better idea: Don't worry about any of the above, because CRS's job is to inform congressman and their staffers on the issues so that they may legislative effectively.
Yes, I agree, that is exactly what CRS should do. Who is suggesting that change at all? All people want to do is read those reports. That shouldn't involve any kind of modification or dumbing down of the original process. At that point they wouldn't remain the "independent" CRS reports I was interested in in the first place. I personally think they would be useful when looking at congressional votes. Did congressman X vote for Y despite the facts in the report being critical of Y? It can potentially let citizens better grasp the motives of their representitives. Additionally such reports might help citizens form their own opinions of the issues.
In my stay at CRS, I learned a good amount about a part of our government which was previously entirely unknown to me.
I'm glad that it sounds like you had a great experience. However, I must say that parts of the government entirely unknown to probably most of the public is NOT something that we need to encourage to foster.
"It's condensed into a format that lets congressman read a lot of facts at once, without having to go read 20-30 books/magazines/publications to glean the same content."
That sounds great. I don't see why it is unreasonable to make what sounds like a very useful resource, that the taxpayers paid for, available to... the tax payers. I mean this is congress's JOB, and they don't have time to read 20-30 publications, right? How can you reasonably expect CITIZENS to read and research those same 20-30 publications just to keep up with congress, in addition to all their other responsibilities?
So I grasp what you're saying, We don't want CRS to become some politically-correct-don't-write-anything-really-u
Is this technology suitable for use in commercial aircraft? The Airlines are taking a beating right now, a large part to their own incompetence, but the $60 a barrel prive for oil is driving jet fuel costs through the room. It seems like if Boeing or Airbus could get some of this type of engine technology working in large commercial aircraft, they could make a killing.
Is this the end of web usage mining? This patent really concerns me, as right now I'm in the midst of a university research project that deals with this very subject. There are lots of research papers out there right now that deal with creating recommendations based on user session history. What I really don't like is the apparent vagueness of the whole thing. There a lots of references to a "method" or the "invention" which seem very broad. There are literally hundreds of possible models and techniques that could be used to implement a recommender system based on user session history, from clustering, to neural networks, etc. This patent doesn't specify anything that is an actual specific "invention" much less something that hasn't already been presented in the literature for quite some time. It seems like this all-encompasing patent might very well spell doom for the whole field of web usage mining.
Same thing happened to me. I tried to post a comment in on the Amazon patent and then it was gone.
I'd say toss up on whether more bush/republican judges would help here. Both democrats were in favor, but so were three republicans.
Depsite that fact the dividing up the SCOTUS judges by party affiliation is a pretty dumb thing to do, I will say that 100% percent of the Democrats on the bench, unsurprisingly to most, voted for this. I'd much rather go with the party that fucks us 40% of the time and not 100% of the time. Of course I would much rather have a Judge I actually AGREED with 100%, but that's never ever ever going to happen.
God, where do I begin. Lets look at your original post
Isn't it sad that a "third world" country of a billion people has a government with a labor policy that can create a surplus demand for tech workers in the hundreds of thousands, while America's got hundreds of thousands of un- and under-employed tech workers, without a competitive labor policy?
Your opening three words are "Isn't it sad." This clearly indicates dissatisfaction for the current system. Saying "Isn't it sad that they have X and we don't" in this context would indicate to anyone reading the sentence that you desire X, in this case a "labor policy" whatever that might entail.
Even though I didn't say that their policy was better than ours.
No you didn't say that. However, if you believed that our policy was better than the one in India, you wouldn't have said that the situation was "sad."
"But they clearly have articulated a labor policy that they are executing, which is better than our government, which has none (except maybe protecting the buyers' market in labor), though we need them to execute one."
I already challenged you on this in my last post when I posed the question "Why is simply having a policy, better than not having one?" What makes you think that their policy isn't even more detramental to Indian society? Furthermore, could you enlighten us as to just what India's labor policy is? I can't tell you a damn thing about it, and never claimed I could. However, you seem to have all the facts as to why it is oh so much better then what we have. I never claimed to know what India's labor policy precisely consisted of, just that a lack of quality education should be considered a prime reason for the lack of Indians filling tech jobs in their own country.
"Here's a test of your "diehard free-market capitalist libertarianism": what do you think about unchecked international traffic in nuclear weapons?"
Unchecked international traffic is a fallacy. Free markets in conjunction with free societies produce natural checks on commerce. That what it is all about. Besides, nukes are being traded internationally "unchecked" right now this very minute anyway.
"Or cocaine, heroin, machine guns, anthrax, and anything else money can buy?"
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and most certainly yes.
"How long would that free market last,
Markets are already not free in my opinion. We have government granted monopolies, government bailouts, government subsidies, import tarrifs, congressmen passing laws to protect old dinosaur businesses, etc. I doubt there has ever been a truly free market with out government meddeling.
not to mention liberty?"
What? Liberty has already been and continues to be robbed from us everyday. Patriot Act, DMCA, wiretaps, carnivore, airport screeners, commerce clauses, etc. The goverment has shown that it is more than willing to curb the freedoms of the people living in this country. It has since day one. Every new law passed is basically new things that you aren't allowed to do anymore with out being punished. Thats not what I call freedom.
Aren't you really a "I want to do anything I want, whenever, regardless of the consequences"?
There is no such thing as "regardless of consequences." Everything has consequences. I am a "I want to do anything I want, whenever, and will deal with consequences." Isn't that what freedom is? Making your own choices, and dealing with the consequences of those choices?
You saw someone complaining about American policy, and said "love it or leave it".
I tried to clarify this in my last post but you don't seem to want to believe me. Why I would lie about my position on slashdot, an internet message forum, is beyond me. I really didn't mean "love it or leave it." It was more of a "leave for India if you want, but you'll be sorry if you do." Obviously I'm not too thrilled about the way o
I assume your referring to this line "In reality, the fact that there isn't such a huge gap between supply/demand for tech workers in the US, especially porportional to the number of people living in the country..." This is being comparative to the situation in India. Filling 80k jobs from a pool of 300 million should be a lot more difficult than filling 100k jobs from a pool of 1 Billion. There are 3 times as many people in India and they they still can't meet demand. So in the US, there isn't such a huge gap as the one in India. Additionally, from your own source: "Congress capped the number of non-immigrant visas for skilled professionals at 65,000 in 2004 and 2005 in an effort to increase border security and ensure more jobs for home-grown tech workers. That is a third of the 195,000 work visas issued annually during the high-tech boom years from 2001 to 2003." Hmm, congress has set the cap at 65,000 for 2005. What year is it? 2005. Where do you get "at least 80,000" its nowhere to be found in the article. Additionally, there were MORE work visa's issued during the boom years. Tech jobs weren't down by an entire third, even after the bubble popped, but imported workers were cut by a third. So now the percent of tech workers who are foriegn is even less then when people didn't even consider it a problem, or even consider it period. If I were you, I would consider working on your own skills to stay competitive instead of bitching about foriegners who evidently are doing a better job.
I didn't mean to come off as someone of the opinion "If you don't like the way its done in Americs, move." I'm all for changing America for the better as well, not simply abandoning it when things might look greener on the other side. I was more or less trying to address the number of posts I had also read declaring "Well, it's time to move to India."
This seems like the same attitude that a lot of democrats displayed when Bush was re-elected. I don't know how many times I heard or read "Well, time to move to Canada." Statements like that don't really do anything to address the problems at hand, and if acted upon, simply leave less voice for discourse, which is critical and necessary for our system to work and evolve. I want people to stay in this country, not simply jump ship when things don't quite go their way. However, I'm not going to prevent anyone who thinks "It's time to move to India" from doing so. I hate to use insults, but, at least in my opinion, anyone who thinks that right now India is a better place to be then the US is a pretty big farking moron. I'll say "good riddence, hope you enjoy your new life" and that will be that.
Having said that, I do have a few comments about your post.
"I think that they have a policy at all, that they execute, shows they're better managers than is our American government."
This statement just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Just because you have a policy doesn't make it automatically a good thing. In fact, more often then not, it seems that endless beurocratic government policies end up hurting constituents. I'd rather have nothing than a detremental something.
"Maybe if you, and others with the "love it or leave it" attitude, knew more about the tribal nations (like the Iriquois and Huron, specifically) from which American colonists (Washington and Franklin, especially) adopted federal government structures, you'd be more open to fixing America's problems with solutions proven in foreign countries.
Ok you lost me here. First off, you assume that I'm not open to fixing America's problems with solutions proven in foreign countries. I'm all for fixing America's problems (and America has its problems, no doubt) with the BEST possible solution. Why would I care where the solution came from if it was "proven" to be best around?
However, that brings us to an entirly different question of defining America's problems. Is social security a problem? Yes, no? If so, how do we fix it? Maybe someone's definiton of a "proven solution" is the same as my definition "large disaster." I'm a diehard free-market capitalist Libertarian. I would favor abolishing what I consider a blatent wealth redistribution program all together. Obviously what I consider a great solution makes others cringe. Some people suggest raising taxes. That makes me cringe. Anyway, my point isn't to debate social security. I simply want to illustrate that some of us look at other countries models and see a "proven solution" and some us look at the same thing and cry. We all want a better America, and if another country is really doing something that we ought to look at we should. Sometimes though it is hard to consider other countries models seriously when the average standard of living of someone in those countries is that of a person considered living in poverty in this country. Something just doesn't add up. But hey, like I said I'm open for any and all suggestions. That kind of discourse and debate is what this country is all about.
You're killing me.
You think it is a good thing that in a country with a billion people, there is a labor shortage of hundreds of thousands in the tech field? This country has a BILLION people. BILLION. This isn't evidence of Indian government doing things right, its evidence of them doings going WRONG. What is wrong with these billion people that not even a fraction of a percent of them are skilled enough to fill these jobs?
The problem inherently lies in education. These billions of Indians don't (yet) have the education to fully compete in the tech field. The labor force is not up to par when it comes to actually knowing how to do the job. Oh, sure the COST of labor is what makes them competitive compared to American workers, but in terms of actually having the necessary skills to compete, its still no contest.
In reality, the fact that there isn't such a huge gap between supply/demand for tech workers in the US, especially porportional to the number of people living in the country, is a good thing. Wait, hear me out. Sure it isn't necessarily appealing at first for you, the worker as an individual. Wages are lower when your skills aren't in demand, everyone knows this. You have to look past that though. The fact that we actually have the labor supply to meet our still rather high demand for tech workers says everything about the education of people living in the US. Imagine if the US had such a labor shortage in the tech field. It would be disasterous! It would be a prime indicator that Americans were simply too dumb to fill the positions. An educated population is a good thing at home, and it is a good thing abroad. As the world becomes more educated, we all benefit.
Praising misguided government "labor policies" for a situation that is really the result of horrible education and living conditions, which have been fostered by their ass-backwards goverment for generations, is just something I won't do. If you think that Indian government policy is really so much better than what takes place in America, then feel free to move over there, as already many posts have suggested doing. I for one would rather be homeless on the streets in the US then work in India. Worker's Paradise it ain't.
For once, I can actually sympathise with our Canadian neighbors. I wish that US politicians would stay the fuck out of our laws too.
from article : "the IsNot operator is described as a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two point to the same location in memory."
And you say: "!= on pointers checks the memory location. java has some sort of function to check the memory location too."
Also, != and == in java does check whether compared objects are indeed references to the same object in memory.
So != seems to me to be the appropriate choice for replacing an IsNot operator. So it looks like Frymaster's quick little refactoring script would correctly work.
So my question is. What the heck is the point of this post? Of course != on pointers checks the memory location. Thats why his refactoring script works so easily. Are you trying to claim it doesn't? Why is this modded insightful? Am I missing something? Now that I think about it, it seems that IsNot is more of a replacement for a statment like if(&var1 != &var2). I guess in c it might provide some sort of usefullness to the uniniated where an != comparison compares values and IsNot compares the memory locations of two types without messing with pointers and the address of operator. But the more I think about it, the more it doesn't make sense. How would 2 things refer to the same memory location in the first place with out utilization of those very constructs that IsNot would seemingly eliminate? Forgive me if my c isn't quite what it used to. Programming mainly in Java now seems to avoid this entire thing. Anyone have any real insight?
Considering the rich pay out WAY more in social security taxes than the poor, and the poor recieve way more benefits, how can you possible call Bush's plan "galactic theft for the rich?" It's actually quite the opposite.
Whaaah. I'm a big jerk residing in a rich liberal nation. I always have plenty to eat and it costs next to nothing, thanks to outragous government subsidies to prop up my developed nations faltering agricultural industry, keeping poor developing nations poor in one of the only industries they might possibly compete. I really don't understand GM technology, but due to the social status quo of my liberal country, I think it should be banned. I might have grandchildren with the improper amount of toes! Meanwhile, I will continue to selfishly whine about GM foods and lobby to ban the technology while millions and millions of mal nourished, hungry people in the third world continue their daily struggle to find enough food for themselves and their children. Unlike my country, there is no abundance of food in stores at every street corner. No hundreds of restraunts to choose from at any given time. So while I'm stuffing my face until my belly is full (With only ORGANIC foods by the way), I will continue to selfishly oppose GM technology that could assist in the survival of Millions of people. Millions. I think that they just be forced to starve so GM foods can't possible "ruin" natural strains foods. Hmm, the possibility that the social backlash in my country against GM foods is propogated by our state owned media, reflecting the fact that we have no representatives in this field, therefore garnishing no benefits for our country's economy never occured to me. No, I'm not a sheep, or an elitist liberal fuck. Not at all.
First rule of Louis Vuitton Club: You do not talk about Louis Vuitton.
Second rule of Louis Vuitton Club: You do not talk about Louis Vuitton.
any indication you acknowledge the existance of Louis Vuitton, you will be sued for copyright infringement..
Your logic is awful. Let me try:
Because:
1. Most cars have more than one seat.
2. Most cars are occupied by only one person.
3. Most people drive with their car doors unlocked.
Then: When a car stops next to me, I can ask the driver if they would give me a lift to wherever they happen to be going. The driver is free to say yes or no, and continue on their journy accordingly. Actually, the point if the doors are locked or unlocked is irrelavent, because you ask permission from the driver.
In terms of a wireless access point, I'm free to ask it "Can I have an IP?" It is free to respond "yes" and give me one, granting me access to the network, or "no" and not give me one, denying me access. In this case though, negligent owners of access points have determined that they should always reply "Yes" to this question, giving me permission to use their wireless signal. That's their own fault and nobody elses. So don't go blaming anyone else when someone decides to hop on their network.
Ok, I'll try to address your rebuttals with a few of my own. Well first my opinion is that a wardriver should be free to access any open access point which allows them to do so without employing additional tools to break encryption, or 'side-step' the normal handshaking rules. This includes spoofing MACs, etc. Any special "tricks" required to get access is a good indication that you shouldn't use the AP. Breaking security is a comepletly different issue that I'm not supporting. On the the points
1) TV's do NOT only respond to a remote from a single manufacturer. If this were the case, the concept of the universal remote would simply not work. I don't know how many times as a younger kid I used a IR wristwatch to take control of a friends or schools television. In a system such as ethernet which uses MAC, each device on the network has a truly unique ID number which can be used to specify valid devices which gain access (yes it can be spoofed, but I already said that was off limits in terms of what I think is appropriate) Remote controls do not have this level of uniqueness. You can simply program your universal remote with the correct code for the model of television and off you go changing channels. Many remotes have a feature that allows you to autodetect which code is appropriate for controlling the television it is pointed at. While I see what you are getting at, these are hardly at all the same mechanisms.
2)You are not going to miss bits and pieces of a video because of your router. Your router can route packets way faster then can be recieved over the incoming transmission line. Additionally, most people with broadband simply do NOT usually max out the speeds. Usually, especially when downstreaming large media, there is some sort of bottleneck on the other end of the line. Your aren't likely going to miss any of the broadcast due to someone on your wireless connection. Maybe if they were running Kazaa or something, but at that point I'd agree that they were an asshole, but certainly still not a criminal.
3)This is simply a matter of what we define as being "broadcast." I consider the signal from CBS to my television a broadcast, or the signal from my access point to my network interface a broadcast. I don't really consider the images from the television traveling over the electromagnetic spectrum until it hits my eyes a "broadcast" in any more sense that I consider the image of a flower in a garden reaching my eyes when I look at it a "broadcast" of the flower.
4)Here you've changed the issue. Now you're saying window peeping is illegal. Fine, but that has nothing to do with getting assigned an IP from an access point. You're getting away from the point. What do you mean you *COULD* put up a firewall? If you aren't already running behind one, and you additionally are allowing open access to your wireless network, you're a bigger moron than I thought. Additionally, if you KNOW that it is someone accessing through your wireless access point, than you should KNOW better than to allow open acces to it. Refusing to do anything about it just makes you seem lazy.
5)In this last point you start talking about people getting around security measures. Well this is where I draw the line. As I said before, I don't agree with taking any measures that circumvent someone's security policy. Proper end-user behavior involves simply configuring the access point to not allow any connectivity that comes outside trusted sources through basic secuirty configurations that are included with the device. Getting around these protections is ALREADY illegal for unauthorized users. That is what the current security protocols and laws are for. We don't need more laws and legislation to protect people too stupid to use the mechanisms already in place. However, when people configure their wireless access points to allow access, what else should you expect other than they either want to let people use their access point, or that they are a big moron. I'm thankful to those who fall in the former catego