Holy crap, they're up to Mach 10 now? I guess I'm going to have to throw my old razors away. You'd think that a razor with 10 blades would be rather unweildy but I sure as hell am not going to let my neighbor Jones beat me in the male-gromming-department! Man, those old Mach 3 blades were already pretty expensive. I hate to see how much this new shit is gonna cost...
Why is it that every time someone gets recognition for doing something that's not particularly useful, someone like you has to come along and insult his hobby and talk down to him about doing something more productive with his time.
argmanah, I don't know if you RTFA or not so let me point out a few choice quotes:
But I'm not obsessed with Starbucks, mind you. I'm an "enthusiast". My name is Winter, and this site is dedicated to my project to visit every Starbucks in the world, simply to be different.
It's not even clear that this guy loves Starbucks' coffee. In fact, he takes pains to distance himself from obsession with it. He is very open that his primary motivation for this idiotic escapade is to be different. That's it.
Strange though my goal might be, it is not nearly as painful as this guy's effort at being different.
Here he derides some other individual's pathetic attempt at fame, not even realizing that the guy is probably very similiar to him on a psychological level.
VCR ALERT!
I'm scheduled for a short interview on CNN Headline News Thusday, July 8, at approximately 7:45 PM EDT.
As though his pitiful pleas for attention were too subtle for the reader, here he is practially begging people to tune in and watch him.
Do you ever watch TV? Maybe you spend that time volunteering. Do you ever read Slashdot? Maybe you should spend that time volunteering. It's a ridiculous double standard you are setting when you and everyone else does pointless things to entertain themselves in their spare time, but when he chooses an activity that garners him some attention he is immediately admonished for not spending that time being productive instead.
I'm not sure you understood the point of my original post. I am not claiming that anyone who doesn't volunteer is a lesser person (and by the way, what makes you think that I *don't* volunteer?). I'm simply stating how sickened I am by this guy's desperate plea for attention and the laughable way he is trying so hard to convince himself that he's not an ordinary person. He reminds me of Meni Savari's character in American Beauty.
You ask a lot of questions about me. Fine. One of my hobbies is tae kwon do. I've been doing it for years and I'm really into it. I don't do it to be 'different'; I do it because I enjoy doing it. I don't have a website listing what time and place I practice at so that interested parties can come and watch me. I do this for myself. There's no need for me to trumpt my participation in my hobby or my accomplishments.
Don't be a hater.
I'm sorry, argmanah, but I guess part of me is a hater. I hate people like this Starbucks' guy as much as I hated all those people who stood up at my high school graduation and, one after the other, each proudly procliamed that "they had walked the road less travelled."
Being different should come naturally. If you feel the need to shove your "differentness" down everyone's throat, that's a good indication that you really are just a frightened, ordinary little man at heart.
What a sad indictment of society that people have some desperate need to be different and decide that the best way to satisfy that urge is to do something completely pointless like purchase products at every store of a multinational conglomerate. How exactly is becoming a complete and utter corporate slave a demonstration of how unique you are? I'd be much more impressed if this guy was attempting to visit every NON-Starbucks coffee shop. But that wouldn't garner him headlines, would it?
Let's face it: this guy doesn't want to be different, he wants to be famous, in his own pathetic way. You want to be different? How about volunteering for your local chapter of the non-profit organization of your choice? Not too many people do that. If that's not different enough for you, how about starting your own non-profit organization? Even fewer people do that. Hell, as long as you have this need to show everyone how different you are, might as well make it something that can benefit someone other than Starbuck's shareholders. Of course, none of these causes would get him a mention on slashdot, or the evening news, or anything else.
Call me a party-poorer but when I see stories about people following such pathetic attempts at gaining recognition, it makes me want to retch.
Udo Erasmus' monumental tome Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill is an extensive discussion about all aspects of a healthy diet and nutrition. This book cuts through all the double-speak and bullshit marketing about what is healthy and what is not. Although the emphasis is on fats, the book goes into a discussion about macronutrients (e.g., proteins, carbs), micronutrients (e.g., vitamins, minerals), and the other things you never hear about from reading the newspaper (e.g., prostaglandans). The level of detail is enough to satisfy the biochem geek in all of us. The book illustrates how our modern lifestyle and the quest for the almighty dollar has resulted in poorer food quality.
I'm not saying this book is perfect. In fact, the second half of the book starts to drift a little to the crazy side where Erasmus sees conspiracies everywhere and his claims that the human body can heal itself of any disease provided you give it the correct nutrients are a bit farfetched. But if you want a good book on all aspects of nutrition and can help you make sense of the often-confusing role of fats in a healthy diet, you owe it to yourself to read through this book.
This is the same Homeland Security that advised Americans to duct tape their windows to safeguard against a biological or chemical attack, no? I'm not sure they are really all that well-regarded by anyone with half a brain anymore. I would have been a lot happier to see some other organization -- one with more credibility -- come out with this warning.
Now the pressure is on Microsoft to get their shit together and make IE more secure, or risk losing their commanding lead in the web browser department. Even my dad, who would rather not use a computer than have to start using different programs, has asked me to put FireFox on his system. And my dad's boss, who is quite possibly one of the most computer illiterate people in the world, has expressed interest to him in moving the whole office off of IE onto another browser.
I'm not doubting what you are telling us, I would just caution against believing that this sudden urge to shore up their security is a long-term thing. First, people are lazy. They may say that they want to switch to a different browser, or lose 10 pounds by the end of summer, but that doesn't mean they are going to put forth any effort to do so. And even if they do make the switch to another browser, there are so many webpages that are "optimzed for IE" (i.e., won't render correctly with any other web browser) that I suspect many of those will switch back.
It really says something for how widespread this news is. If I was MicroSoft, I would be scared at this point.
I suspect MS is more "irked" right now than scared. I think it's too early to tell whether this story has any "legs". I strongly suspect that it's going to last for a few days and then will fall off the map. Microsoft has survived bigger problems in the past with no lasting effects. I'm really doubtful that this will have any measurable impact on them in the long term.
Call me a pessimist, but that's how I see this one.
I find that most girls are very attracted to intelligence and to guys with a passion for technology.
Would you mind tell us how you came to this determination? I'm not being an ass; I really want to know. I've never found any indication that this is true of "most girls" like you suggest. Oh sure, I find lots of women who claim they are attracted to intelligence. But I think many say this because it sounds a lot better than stating that they are attracted to good-looking morons. There's also a question of what they mean by "intelligence". Many people (not just women) seem to think that those people on Jeopardy who have crammed tons of useless trivia into their heads and can regurgitate it at will are intelligent.
While I am not a techie, I am a mathematician. And you know what? When I tell women that I'm a mathematician, they give me an obligatory "ooh" or something along like that before starting to tell me about how much they suck at math or hate math or didn't understand math. That's pretty much where the conversation ends. Sometimes, I'll get someone who still wants to know more about what I'm working on. But even that conversation doesn't go on for very long.
I'm sure some here will argue that it's unfair to expect a non-scientist to ask too many questions of a mathematician they are meeting socially because there is such a large barrier to entry in the field. I disagree. Hell, I don't know shit about marketing but when some woman tells me that she works in marketing I can ask enough questions to keep the converstation going. Hell, even generic questions like "Can you describe for me what a typical day at work for you entails?" or "How much interaction do you have with coworkers/bosses/customers?" or "How much stress is involved?" It's hard to take their lack-of-questioning to be an indication that they are secretly attracted to my intelligence.
Again, I'd really like to hear how you came to the conclusion that women are "very attracted to intelligence and to guys with a passion for technology." I haven't really seen any clear evidence of that. I think the women are mostly looking for someone who is (a) kind, (b) stable, and (c) fun to be with. I don't think your IQ or ability to recompile your linux kernal really enters their decision process to any signficant degree.
The original series challenged a lot of commonly held social values, sometimes having a hard time getting past network Standards & Practices censors. If they make the episodes topical to today's world issues they should certainly stir more interest as people either think to themselves 'Yeah, that's right, that is unfair!' or 'No, that's better the way it is, we shouldn't change!'
I think you are vastly overestimating people. The sad fact is that the majority of people do not want to be challenged by their TV. They use it as a way to unwind after a day. That's why mindless drivel such as "The Bachelor" or "Watch Random People Completely Rearrange And Fuck Up Someone's House" are such hits. I disagree with you that most people want "episodes topical to today's world issues". We geeks might want that but not the average person. They want to pull the blanket over their heads and forget about the increasingly scary world out there.
And I also suspect that people are less willing to have their beliefs challenged in this day and age. I don't have an idea why that is. But I think classic Trek episodes like Arena from TOS or the TNG episode featuring the persecution of a sexual "deviant" are more likely to infuriate a large segment of the audience then in the past. And I think executives are scared of the power that angry viewers can have. The internet allows people to organize meaningful boycotts much more effectively than in the 60s or 90s. And keep in mind that with today's array of channels to watch, if a program rubs someone the wrong way they will switch to one of the other 50 channels they have and never come back. Back when TOS was a hit, there were so few choices on what to watch that audiences probably stuck around and watched more of the show rather than clicking the channel as soon as they got a little offended.
I think the suits are playing it safe by producing bland, inoffensive, and uninteresting entertainment because it's less risky to them.
When the reviewers encounter something that might be confusing to them in the manuscript, they take it as a negative, when really a very simple explanation from the authors would clear it up. After all, its the scientific content, not 1337 wr171ng skillz that is being reviewed.
I'm not so sure you can separate the two so easily. First, consider the fact that if the reviewer cannot understand what you are saying by reading your paper, many other people who will read your paper once it's been published won't understand it either. I can just see it: the reviewer asks the author a question using this email system you describe. The author explains their intent and the reviewer understands and accepts the paper. The confusing wording in the paper is never cleared up. Expecting all those people who have to read the thing once it's published to make heads or tails out of something worded poorly is just not fair. And don't give me the "once the author sees the reviewer's confusion, s/he will take it upon themselves to fix up the wording" bit. That would be really nice but don't count on it.
Second, you seem to make the distinction between having great scientific thoughts and the ability to communicate them effectively. Brilliant physists like Richard Feynman were able to explain very complicated concepts to a wide audience. If you really, truly understand something you should be able to make it understandable to others. If you cannot describe something without falling back on a lot of jargon, then perhaps you don't really have that deep an understanding after all.
Third, writing really isn't that difficult. Let's face it: a lot of science-types look down on those who majored in literature and humanities stuff in college. The feeling among scientists is that all the writing stuff is easy compared to the hardcore technical stuff that they do. If that's so, then prove it. It really shouldn't be too difficult for them to produce something reasonably easy to read. No one is going to kill you if you don't get all the rules for comma usage correct. But you should really have the ability to communicate your thoughts clearly to others in your field.
GMD
Short resumes are a sign of a focused mind
on
Resumes for New Grads?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
as short as possible while still highlighting your skills. Remember, recruiters are busy people, and they usually spend a very small amount of time per resume(unless they are interested).
That's very true and there are other reasons for keeping your resume short. Quite frankly, if you cannot tell me the important things about yourself in a single page, I shudder to think of the mounds of documentation you will produce when I ask you to summarize your recent progress on the project you are working on. A succinct resume is a demonstration of your ability to quickly identify the most important parts of something (in this case: you) and communicate those clearly and effectively. I believe that a good resume indicates a focused mind and an ability to cut through the crap and get to the heart of what's important. In addition, when I see resumes over two pages, I get the impression that the applicant is trying to "snow" me with tons of crap. That s/he's trying to bowl me over with quantity rather than quality.
Your best bet is to make a tight, targeted resume.
Again, I agree. I'm baffled at how many people just stick a generic "goal" at the top of their resume. Something like "Seeking employment in a challenging field, allowing me to further develop my experience and capabilities" is just a bunch of crap. Who the hell doesn't want a job like that?
The cover letter can make a big difference as well. There was a recent slashdot story about handwriting and someone pointed out that a handwritten cover letter will make you stand out from the stack. That's something you might try. But definitely explain why you are interested in that particular company in your cover letter -- don't use a generic letter!
Yes and no. I love LaTeX but I really can't justify using it. I do contract work for the government and have to supply them with reports and briefings (my research is my "product"). The contracts are now specifying that the reports must be in Microsoft Word and the briefings in Powerpoint. I used to give out PDFs because I didn't like the idea of people cut-and-pasting from my work. Or -- worse yet -- changing parts of my documents or getting access to the notorious, hidden 'metadata' in Microsoft Office products. But I really don't have a choice anymore -- I MUST supply my work in Microsoft-propritary format. So LaTeX is out for me.
It's really depressing that the government is requiring me to use Microsoft products when the government found that some company guilty of using illegal monopoly powers. It's just another instance of one hand of the government not knowing (or caring, to be more accurate) what the others are doing.
Instead of laughing or sneering at those of us who are using Microsoft products instead of LaTeX, please consider pitying us instead.
How much time will it take for to Slashdot be blocked?
We just have to liberally sprinkle lots of pro-China comments in our messages to ensure that our geeky breathern in the Far East can continue to enjoy the scintillating, intellectual banter found everyday on this great site.
Lucas should have cast Jet Li as Jango Fett!
I'll bet the upper levels of Starfleet Command are all Chinese. That's why you never see them on the Enterprise. They're too important to be in harm's way.
From what little I understood, it was an extremely challenging, perhaps even overly ambitious effort to get all 192 lasers to be sufficiently well-focussed in a perfect sphere and with perfect timing, perfect power levels etc.
It's more than just that. These lasers are used to irridate the outer hell of a spherical metal shell surrounding layers of "stuff" and, ultimately, a deuterium-tritium pellet at the very center. The lasers vaporize the outer hull of the metal tamper, causing near-instantaneous stresses in the remaining metal. This causes a spherical shockwave to form and begin to implode. As it passes through the inner layers of the target, microscopic manufacturing imperfections in the spherical layers (you can never create a perfectly sphere layer) lead to instabilities in the shock wave as it passes from material to material. Fluid dynamic instabilities such as Richtmyer-Meshkov and Raleigh-Taylor causes the spherical symmetry of the shockwave and the layers to break down. Gross mixing of the layers occurs and the shockwave doesn't implode to a nice point like one would hope. Therefore, no fusion of the deuterium and tritium.
Little is known about how to control these instabilties. So even if you got all the lasers to work correctly to form a perfect shockwave, the travel of this wave through the imperfectly-created layers ultimately causes the reaction to break down anyhow.
It's a very hard problem. I would guess it would take even more time and money than it has already.
You said it. Some would argue that because of the above listed problems that magnetically-confined fusion is the way to go. But that approach has its own set of problems.
DARPA is the central research and development organization for the Department of Defense (DoD). The Agency manages and directs basic and applied research and development projects for DoD, and pursues research and technology where the risk and payoff are both very high and where success may provide dramatic advances for traditional military roles and missions.(emphasis mine)
This mission statement is important because it emphasizes that DARPA was specifically designed to fund research into hard problems. In fact, the catch-phrase "DARPA-hard problem" has surfaced as a shorthand way of labeling high-risk, high-payoff problems. A lot of people seem to be having fun laughing about the fact that none of the vehicles in this year's race came close to finishing. But as I pointed out above, that certainly doesn't make this contest a failure by any stretch of the imagination. This is a DARPA-hard problem. Certainly no private company is going to fund something like this. The risk is just too high. Really, DARPA is one of the few entities that has the resources to put on an annual contest like this.
From some of the comments posted here there seems to be the idea that because DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that we have to dislike them. I disagree. Sure, DARPA has future warfare in mind. But so many technologies developed for military use end up in the private sector anyhow. It would be pointless to list them all. Let's not look a gift-horse in the mouth. DARPA is willing to fund science and scientists are willing to work on their problems. I don't see what the problem is. Do you guys think that if scientists stop doing DARPA work that suddenly conflict in the world is going to stop and everyone is going to join hands and sing "We are the world"? Sometimes I think people complain just because the like to complain.
the same spooks that want to identify terrorists by how they walk?
No, they're the ones who created the Internet. You know, that thing you're using right now. Plus, they happen to be a huge supporter of scientific research and development. Given the fact that industry has slashed R&D in favor of raising the quarterly reports by a half a percentage point or giving the members of the Board an ivory backscratcher as an annual bonus, let's not be too quick to insult one of the few remaining patrons of science.
"Should be a very interesting Challenge next year!"...more so if anyone finishes
More interesting for who? The crowd or the researchers? Hey, if you want an exciting race, go watch NASCAR (or not). As far as the researchers are concerned, it's probably more interesting when these things fail to finish the race than if they all completed the course without difficulty. Each failure teachs the researchers something about AI. These "lessons learned" are then used for a variety of applications and theoretical extensions, not just building a better autonomous car.
DARPA is not putting on these contests because they expect someone to win. They are trying to give researchers a difficult problem to work on. Don't be looking at the fact that none of the vehicles came close to finishing the race as some sort of failure or "boring". The problem is quite exciting for the researchers and for anyone interested in AI. The fact that they are making it an annual thing is icing on the cake.
Most of the essays are available at Graham's website, but frankly I am a fan of dead trees and appreciated that this book could be read on the bus or in bed. If you would prefer something you cna read on the bus then a PDF of the second chapter, "Hackers & Painters" is available from the O'Reilly page linked above.
What about those of us who aren't necessarily a fan of "dead trees"? Is there still a reason for us to purchase the book? The reviewer doesn't say. He states that "most of the essays are available at Graham's website". How many is "most"? Are the ones only available in the book second-rate essays? Or are we missing some real gems by just perusing his website?
I don't mean to be overly harsh towards the reviewer but the question of what is the 'value added' in this book version of collected essays seems like something that really should be addressed. I've read many of the essays described in the review off the website so I'm already familiar with Graham's writing style and world view. When I read a review, I have one question uppermost in my mind: "Should I buy this book?" Alas, after reading this review I don't know if I should or not.
Can someone here (maybe the reviewer?) please give a description of what's in the book versus what's available on the website? Even a count of how many new essays are in the book would be a start.
You know, this just can't be that far off. Sex and war drive technology, and all that. Give them time, and I'm sure the adult industry will find a way to drive the costs of this down to levels where it's reasonable for everyone.
I agree that computer-generated porn is inevitable but I disagree that it is going to become so cheap as to replace the real thing (such as it is) anytime soon. Let's face it, it costs almost no money to make a porn flick. I'm sure they spend no money on the writers. There is essentially no budget for props. The actors and actresses don't have an awful lot of career choices so they can be paid a pitance. And it's recorded on videotape for chrissake. You are arguing that replacing this dirt-cheap operation with an all CGI environment is economically a great idea? I don't think so.
The question is, will people be interested in this for its own sake, or will it have to wait until things reach the point where it's indistinguishable from the real thing? I'm guessing from the preponderance of cartoon porn on the internet that it's just around the corner.
I suspect that the "real" porn will continue much as it has for decades and that if CGI evolves to the point that it is feasible to make pornos from it will satisfy a slightly different crowd or need. You pointed out the cartoon porn. That stuff is pretty different from flesh and blood porn. Those films feature fantastical characters or situations. A typical film would feature a female ninja with green hair who can change into a warewolf battling monsters on behalf of some ancient clan rivalry. You couldn't make something like this with flesh-and-blood porn without it being absolutely laughable. Now, granted, the cartoon version isn't meant to be taken seriously but the audience is more willing to accept it just because of the choice of media that is used. And the non-consensual nature of a lot of cartoon porn makes it a definite no-no for anything remotely realistic. But I think the reason cartoon porn florishes is precisely because it is not realistic. It is fantastical. I suspect that CGI porn would fill the same niche -- something completely wild rather than a substitute for mainstream porn.
One possible avenue of CGI porn is letting amateurs and hobbists make their own porn films. If easy-to-use authoring/animation tools get created, you could have guys making their porn flicks. People could play out movies for whatever crazy fantasies that they have. And with p2p software, I can easily see people trading their homemade pornos with others. This would actually be an interesting development. Let's face it: there aren't a lot of creative minds in the adult film industry. Once you give people (and there are a lot of people who secretly love porn) the ability to author what's on their mind, I think you will see an explosion of all sorts of porn. Some of it will be real sicko stuff, I'm sure. However, you'll also get people who can actually write decent stories creating some porn. CGI may end up being the greatest thing that ever happened to porn within a decade.
I confess that I don't quite understand what you are trying to say but your comment about "American culture makes this movie what it will be" struck me as somewhat interesting.
The world is a different place than it was in the late 70s and 80s. America is no longer living in the fear of the Soviet Union. Today we are faced with an enemy who, unfortunately, we have had a hand in creating. I could see someone arguing that the original trilogy appealed to an audience that had been used to seeing things in black and white, good and evil. Perhaps the current trilogy should have tried to portray the battle between the forces as a little more ambiguous. That is, why not have the Jedi really fuck up and make a mistake that leads to the Clone Wars? Or the frustrations of the Separatists? The conflict between the Republic and the Separatists doesn't seem to really generate any strong feelings in the audience. It would have been much more interesting to see the Sith arise because of the mistakes of the Jedi. Perhaps that *is* how they were created; actually, I really don't know. Lucas decided to introduce a villianous element without explaning their motivation.
I don't think 'Enterprise' has done a particularly good job of modeling their plot arc based on the threat of terrorism or 'pre-emtive strikes' but you have to give them credit for at least trying. Lucas is making a set of movies that seem out of time. If he was a little more in tune with what's going on in the world and -- more importantly -- the hidden thoughts and fears of the audience, he might have actually made some films that resonate with the audience. As it is, however, he's chosen to make a big non-interactive videogame. Boring.
As far as his "reputation as a filmmaker", I think Lucas must realize now that he really isn't a filmmaker. He knows that Star Wars will be his legacy. So he really doesn't care about looking like some kind of great director because he knows he'll never direct again. That's probably one reason he's so possessive of the films -- he knows this is the last movie he'll ever direct.
Lucas will never allow anyone to do anything with Star Wars. In fact, his best buddy Steven Spielberg has already spoken about this. Lucas feels that the Star Wars saga will be his legacy and he doesn't want anyone messing with it. Spielberg practially begged Lucas for a chance to direct a Star Wars film and Lucas said no. So I can't see Lucas willingly giving up control to anyone. And with the new copyright laws, his family will be able to control Star Wars indefinitely. So you can forget about a Star Wars film ever being made by anyone with talent.
Dude, not enough people give a damn about techie issues like copyright to get the law changed. If you want a law changed, you have to form a PAC that gives money to congressmen to support you. Or challenge the laws in court and have an expensive lawyer convince the judge that what you want is in "every bodies best interest."
You forgot one option: educate the populace and let them know that their rights have been taken away. Yes, I know it's a difficult job. That doesn't mean that it's not worth doing.
What America do you live in... the law books are already a joke. Hell, here in Texas it is still illegal to carry wire cutters because of 19th century cattle theft. Every year, tons of new laws are put on the books to appease certain factions, but many of these are dead laws from the get go. It would take centuries to clean centuries of crudded books.
So, again, because it's a difficult task, we shouldn't try to make a dent in it, right? Listen, it is completely unacceptable to let rediculous laws like the one you mention remain on the books. Let's quit sweeping this stuff under the rug and deal with it.
As Gandhi showed, massive public disobedience is the only way for the (more numerous) little guys to beat out the big dogs!
Explain how making copies of your DVDs in the privacy of your own home consitutes "massive public disobedience".
Guys, quit comparing yourselves to Gandhi and Rosa Parks. Once you get out there and start risking your ass like they did, then I'll start to listen.
That's a bit of a stretch. There's a strong case to be made for taking a stand based on disobedience. Rosa Parks was breaking the law, doesn't mean she wasn't a "true patriot."
I have the utmost respect for those patriots (yes, there's that word again) who care so much about getting a law changed that they commit acts of PUBLIC civil disobedience and face the consequences. Making an illegal copy of a DVD in the privacy of your own home DOES NOT COUNT as civil disobedience and do not, for a second, try to convince yourself that you are "striking a blow against the evil corporations on behalf of Everyman." Anyone who makes these copies is no different than a little boy trying to sneak peeks at his father's Playboy collection without being caught.
If you guys take the step of performing your illegal copying right in the presence of police or Jack Valenti or someone like that, then feel free to compare your efforts to what Rosa Parks did. Not before.
We are in this situation because some Americans, such as yourself, allow companies to use the laws of the land to push us around and take what is ours.
No, we are in this situation because there are a pitiful few number of Americans, such as myself, who will take the time to vote and write my representatives and basically get off my ass and do something to get laws changed.
They own the politicians, but if enough of us are breaking the law, then bad laws go away anyway because they are impossible to enforce.
By "go away" I assume you mean that they remain on the books but cops don't bother to enforce them most of the time. The problem is that then you have selectively-enforced laws which is obviously not good. It is better to "clean house" and get those laws off the book. Otherwise, if we end up with lots of laws that are clearly rediculous and never enforced it makes our system of law look like a damn joke.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy crap, they're up to Mach 10 now? I guess I'm going to have to throw my old razors away. You'd think that a razor with 10 blades would be rather unweildy but I sure as hell am not going to let my neighbor Jones beat me in the male-gromming-department! Man, those old Mach 3 blades were already pretty expensive. I hate to see how much this new shit is gonna cost...
GMD
Why is it that every time someone gets recognition for doing something that's not particularly useful, someone like you has to come along and insult his hobby and talk down to him about doing something more productive with his time.
argmanah, I don't know if you RTFA or not so let me point out a few choice quotes:
But I'm not obsessed with Starbucks, mind you. I'm an "enthusiast". My name is Winter, and this site is dedicated to my project to visit every Starbucks in the world, simply to be different.
It's not even clear that this guy loves Starbucks' coffee. In fact, he takes pains to distance himself from obsession with it. He is very open that his primary motivation for this idiotic escapade is to be different. That's it.
Strange though my goal might be, it is not nearly as painful as this guy's effort at being different.
Here he derides some other individual's pathetic attempt at fame, not even realizing that the guy is probably very similiar to him on a psychological level.
VCR ALERT!
I'm scheduled for a short interview on CNN Headline News Thusday, July 8, at approximately 7:45 PM EDT.
As though his pitiful pleas for attention were too subtle for the reader, here he is practially begging people to tune in and watch him.
Do you ever watch TV? Maybe you spend that time volunteering. Do you ever read Slashdot? Maybe you should spend that time volunteering. It's a ridiculous double standard you are setting when you and everyone else does pointless things to entertain themselves in their spare time, but when he chooses an activity that garners him some attention he is immediately admonished for not spending that time being productive instead.
I'm not sure you understood the point of my original post. I am not claiming that anyone who doesn't volunteer is a lesser person (and by the way, what makes you think that I *don't* volunteer?). I'm simply stating how sickened I am by this guy's desperate plea for attention and the laughable way he is trying so hard to convince himself that he's not an ordinary person. He reminds me of Meni Savari's character in American Beauty.
You ask a lot of questions about me. Fine. One of my hobbies is tae kwon do. I've been doing it for years and I'm really into it. I don't do it to be 'different'; I do it because I enjoy doing it. I don't have a website listing what time and place I practice at so that interested parties can come and watch me. I do this for myself. There's no need for me to trumpt my participation in my hobby or my accomplishments.
Don't be a hater.
I'm sorry, argmanah, but I guess part of me is a hater. I hate people like this Starbucks' guy as much as I hated all those people who stood up at my high school graduation and, one after the other, each proudly procliamed that "they had walked the road less travelled." Being different should come naturally. If you feel the need to shove your "differentness" down everyone's throat, that's a good indication that you really are just a frightened, ordinary little man at heart.
GMD
What a sad indictment of society that people have some desperate need to be different and decide that the best way to satisfy that urge is to do something completely pointless like purchase products at every store of a multinational conglomerate. How exactly is becoming a complete and utter corporate slave a demonstration of how unique you are? I'd be much more impressed if this guy was attempting to visit every NON-Starbucks coffee shop. But that wouldn't garner him headlines, would it?
Let's face it: this guy doesn't want to be different, he wants to be famous, in his own pathetic way. You want to be different? How about volunteering for your local chapter of the non-profit organization of your choice? Not too many people do that. If that's not different enough for you, how about starting your own non-profit organization? Even fewer people do that. Hell, as long as you have this need to show everyone how different you are, might as well make it something that can benefit someone other than Starbuck's shareholders. Of course, none of these causes would get him a mention on slashdot, or the evening news, or anything else.
Call me a party-poorer but when I see stories about people following such pathetic attempts at gaining recognition, it makes me want to retch.
GMD
Udo Erasmus' monumental tome Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill is an extensive discussion about all aspects of a healthy diet and nutrition. This book cuts through all the double-speak and bullshit marketing about what is healthy and what is not. Although the emphasis is on fats, the book goes into a discussion about macronutrients (e.g., proteins, carbs), micronutrients (e.g., vitamins, minerals), and the other things you never hear about from reading the newspaper (e.g., prostaglandans). The level of detail is enough to satisfy the biochem geek in all of us. The book illustrates how our modern lifestyle and the quest for the almighty dollar has resulted in poorer food quality.
I'm not saying this book is perfect. In fact, the second half of the book starts to drift a little to the crazy side where Erasmus sees conspiracies everywhere and his claims that the human body can heal itself of any disease provided you give it the correct nutrients are a bit farfetched. But if you want a good book on all aspects of nutrition and can help you make sense of the often-confusing role of fats in a healthy diet, you owe it to yourself to read through this book.
GMD
Horray for the Department of Homeland Security!
This is the same Homeland Security that advised Americans to duct tape their windows to safeguard against a biological or chemical attack, no? I'm not sure they are really all that well-regarded by anyone with half a brain anymore. I would have been a lot happier to see some other organization -- one with more credibility -- come out with this warning.
Now the pressure is on Microsoft to get their shit together and make IE more secure, or risk losing their commanding lead in the web browser department. Even my dad, who would rather not use a computer than have to start using different programs, has asked me to put FireFox on his system. And my dad's boss, who is quite possibly one of the most computer illiterate people in the world, has expressed interest to him in moving the whole office off of IE onto another browser.
I'm not doubting what you are telling us, I would just caution against believing that this sudden urge to shore up their security is a long-term thing. First, people are lazy. They may say that they want to switch to a different browser, or lose 10 pounds by the end of summer, but that doesn't mean they are going to put forth any effort to do so. And even if they do make the switch to another browser, there are so many webpages that are "optimzed for IE" (i.e., won't render correctly with any other web browser) that I suspect many of those will switch back.
It really says something for how widespread this news is. If I was MicroSoft, I would be scared at this point.
I suspect MS is more "irked" right now than scared. I think it's too early to tell whether this story has any "legs". I strongly suspect that it's going to last for a few days and then will fall off the map. Microsoft has survived bigger problems in the past with no lasting effects. I'm really doubtful that this will have any measurable impact on them in the long term.
Call me a pessimist, but that's how I see this one.
GMD
This new guy might be taking the job of Jack Valenti but I ask you who could possibly ever hope to "take the place" of good ol' Jack?
"What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law."
GMD
I find that most girls are very attracted to intelligence and to guys with a passion for technology.
Would you mind tell us how you came to this determination? I'm not being an ass; I really want to know. I've never found any indication that this is true of "most girls" like you suggest. Oh sure, I find lots of women who claim they are attracted to intelligence. But I think many say this because it sounds a lot better than stating that they are attracted to good-looking morons. There's also a question of what they mean by "intelligence". Many people (not just women) seem to think that those people on Jeopardy who have crammed tons of useless trivia into their heads and can regurgitate it at will are intelligent.
While I am not a techie, I am a mathematician. And you know what? When I tell women that I'm a mathematician, they give me an obligatory "ooh" or something along like that before starting to tell me about how much they suck at math or hate math or didn't understand math. That's pretty much where the conversation ends. Sometimes, I'll get someone who still wants to know more about what I'm working on. But even that conversation doesn't go on for very long.
I'm sure some here will argue that it's unfair to expect a non-scientist to ask too many questions of a mathematician they are meeting socially because there is such a large barrier to entry in the field. I disagree. Hell, I don't know shit about marketing but when some woman tells me that she works in marketing I can ask enough questions to keep the converstation going. Hell, even generic questions like "Can you describe for me what a typical day at work for you entails?" or "How much interaction do you have with coworkers/bosses/customers?" or "How much stress is involved?" It's hard to take their lack-of-questioning to be an indication that they are secretly attracted to my intelligence.
Again, I'd really like to hear how you came to the conclusion that women are "very attracted to intelligence and to guys with a passion for technology." I haven't really seen any clear evidence of that. I think the women are mostly looking for someone who is (a) kind, (b) stable, and (c) fun to be with. I don't think your IQ or ability to recompile your linux kernal really enters their decision process to any signficant degree.
GMD
The original series challenged a lot of commonly held social values, sometimes having a hard time getting past network Standards & Practices censors. If they make the episodes topical to today's world issues they should certainly stir more interest as people either think to themselves 'Yeah, that's right, that is unfair!' or 'No, that's better the way it is, we shouldn't change!'
I think you are vastly overestimating people. The sad fact is that the majority of people do not want to be challenged by their TV. They use it as a way to unwind after a day. That's why mindless drivel such as "The Bachelor" or "Watch Random People Completely Rearrange And Fuck Up Someone's House" are such hits. I disagree with you that most people want "episodes topical to today's world issues". We geeks might want that but not the average person. They want to pull the blanket over their heads and forget about the increasingly scary world out there.
And I also suspect that people are less willing to have their beliefs challenged in this day and age. I don't have an idea why that is. But I think classic Trek episodes like Arena from TOS or the TNG episode featuring the persecution of a sexual "deviant" are more likely to infuriate a large segment of the audience then in the past. And I think executives are scared of the power that angry viewers can have. The internet allows people to organize meaningful boycotts much more effectively than in the 60s or 90s. And keep in mind that with today's array of channels to watch, if a program rubs someone the wrong way they will switch to one of the other 50 channels they have and never come back. Back when TOS was a hit, there were so few choices on what to watch that audiences probably stuck around and watched more of the show rather than clicking the channel as soon as they got a little offended.
I think the suits are playing it safe by producing bland, inoffensive, and uninteresting entertainment because it's less risky to them.GMD
When the reviewers encounter something that might be confusing to them in the manuscript, they take it as a negative, when really a very simple explanation from the authors would clear it up. After all, its the scientific content, not 1337 wr171ng skillz that is being reviewed.
I'm not so sure you can separate the two so easily. First, consider the fact that if the reviewer cannot understand what you are saying by reading your paper, many other people who will read your paper once it's been published won't understand it either. I can just see it: the reviewer asks the author a question using this email system you describe. The author explains their intent and the reviewer understands and accepts the paper. The confusing wording in the paper is never cleared up. Expecting all those people who have to read the thing once it's published to make heads or tails out of something worded poorly is just not fair. And don't give me the "once the author sees the reviewer's confusion, s/he will take it upon themselves to fix up the wording" bit. That would be really nice but don't count on it.
Second, you seem to make the distinction between having great scientific thoughts and the ability to communicate them effectively. Brilliant physists like Richard Feynman were able to explain very complicated concepts to a wide audience. If you really, truly understand something you should be able to make it understandable to others. If you cannot describe something without falling back on a lot of jargon, then perhaps you don't really have that deep an understanding after all.
Third, writing really isn't that difficult. Let's face it: a lot of science-types look down on those who majored in literature and humanities stuff in college. The feeling among scientists is that all the writing stuff is easy compared to the hardcore technical stuff that they do. If that's so, then prove it. It really shouldn't be too difficult for them to produce something reasonably easy to read. No one is going to kill you if you don't get all the rules for comma usage correct. But you should really have the ability to communicate your thoughts clearly to others in your field.
GMD
as short as possible while still highlighting your skills. Remember, recruiters are busy people, and they usually spend a very small amount of time per resume(unless they are interested).
That's very true and there are other reasons for keeping your resume short. Quite frankly, if you cannot tell me the important things about yourself in a single page, I shudder to think of the mounds of documentation you will produce when I ask you to summarize your recent progress on the project you are working on. A succinct resume is a demonstration of your ability to quickly identify the most important parts of something (in this case: you) and communicate those clearly and effectively. I believe that a good resume indicates a focused mind and an ability to cut through the crap and get to the heart of what's important. In addition, when I see resumes over two pages, I get the impression that the applicant is trying to "snow" me with tons of crap. That s/he's trying to bowl me over with quantity rather than quality.
Your best bet is to make a tight, targeted resume.
Again, I agree. I'm baffled at how many people just stick a generic "goal" at the top of their resume. Something like "Seeking employment in a challenging field, allowing me to further develop my experience and capabilities" is just a bunch of crap. Who the hell doesn't want a job like that?
The cover letter can make a big difference as well. There was a recent slashdot story about handwriting and someone pointed out that a handwritten cover letter will make you stand out from the stack. That's something you might try. But definitely explain why you are interested in that particular company in your cover letter -- don't use a generic letter!
GMD
For people who can't handle \LaTeX
Yes and no. I love LaTeX but I really can't justify using it. I do contract work for the government and have to supply them with reports and briefings (my research is my "product"). The contracts are now specifying that the reports must be in Microsoft Word and the briefings in Powerpoint. I used to give out PDFs because I didn't like the idea of people cut-and-pasting from my work. Or -- worse yet -- changing parts of my documents or getting access to the notorious, hidden 'metadata' in Microsoft Office products. But I really don't have a choice anymore -- I MUST supply my work in Microsoft-propritary format. So LaTeX is out for me.
It's really depressing that the government is requiring me to use Microsoft products when the government found that some company guilty of using illegal monopoly powers. It's just another instance of one hand of the government not knowing (or caring, to be more accurate) what the others are doing.
Instead of laughing or sneering at those of us who are using Microsoft products instead of LaTeX, please consider pitying us instead.
GMD
How much time will it take for to Slashdot be blocked?
We just have to liberally sprinkle lots of pro-China comments in our messages to ensure that our geeky breathern in the Far East can continue to enjoy the scintillating, intellectual banter found everyday on this great site.
There, I've done my part.
GMD
From what little I understood, it was an extremely challenging, perhaps even overly ambitious effort to get all 192 lasers to be sufficiently well-focussed in a perfect sphere and with perfect timing, perfect power levels etc.
It's more than just that. These lasers are used to irridate the outer hell of a spherical metal shell surrounding layers of "stuff" and, ultimately, a deuterium-tritium pellet at the very center. The lasers vaporize the outer hull of the metal tamper, causing near-instantaneous stresses in the remaining metal. This causes a spherical shockwave to form and begin to implode. As it passes through the inner layers of the target, microscopic manufacturing imperfections in the spherical layers (you can never create a perfectly sphere layer) lead to instabilities in the shock wave as it passes from material to material. Fluid dynamic instabilities such as Richtmyer-Meshkov and Raleigh-Taylor causes the spherical symmetry of the shockwave and the layers to break down. Gross mixing of the layers occurs and the shockwave doesn't implode to a nice point like one would hope. Therefore, no fusion of the deuterium and tritium.
Little is known about how to control these instabilties. So even if you got all the lasers to work correctly to form a perfect shockwave, the travel of this wave through the imperfectly-created layers ultimately causes the reaction to break down anyhow.
It's a very hard problem. I would guess it would take even more time and money than it has already.
You said it. Some would argue that because of the above listed problems that magnetically-confined fusion is the way to go. But that approach has its own set of problems.
GMD
DARPA is the central research and development organization for the Department of Defense (DoD). The Agency manages and directs basic and applied research and development projects for DoD, and pursues research and technology where the risk and payoff are both very high and where success may provide dramatic advances for traditional military roles and missions.(emphasis mine)
This mission statement is important because it emphasizes that DARPA was specifically designed to fund research into hard problems. In fact, the catch-phrase "DARPA-hard problem" has surfaced as a shorthand way of labeling high-risk, high-payoff problems. A lot of people seem to be having fun laughing about the fact that none of the vehicles in this year's race came close to finishing. But as I pointed out above, that certainly doesn't make this contest a failure by any stretch of the imagination. This is a DARPA-hard problem. Certainly no private company is going to fund something like this. The risk is just too high. Really, DARPA is one of the few entities that has the resources to put on an annual contest like this.
From some of the comments posted here there seems to be the idea that because DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that we have to dislike them. I disagree. Sure, DARPA has future warfare in mind. But so many technologies developed for military use end up in the private sector anyhow. It would be pointless to list them all. Let's not look a gift-horse in the mouth. DARPA is willing to fund science and scientists are willing to work on their problems. I don't see what the problem is. Do you guys think that if scientists stop doing DARPA work that suddenly conflict in the world is going to stop and everyone is going to join hands and sing "We are the world"? Sometimes I think people complain just because the like to complain.
GMD
the same spooks that want to identify terrorists by how they walk?
No, they're the ones who created the Internet. You know, that thing you're using right now. Plus, they happen to be a huge supporter of scientific research and development. Given the fact that industry has slashed R&D in favor of raising the quarterly reports by a half a percentage point or giving the members of the Board an ivory backscratcher as an annual bonus, let's not be too quick to insult one of the few remaining patrons of science.
GMD
"Should be a very interesting Challenge next year!" ...more so if anyone finishes
More interesting for who? The crowd or the researchers? Hey, if you want an exciting race, go watch NASCAR (or not). As far as the researchers are concerned, it's probably more interesting when these things fail to finish the race than if they all completed the course without difficulty. Each failure teachs the researchers something about AI. These "lessons learned" are then used for a variety of applications and theoretical extensions, not just building a better autonomous car.
DARPA is not putting on these contests because they expect someone to win. They are trying to give researchers a difficult problem to work on. Don't be looking at the fact that none of the vehicles came close to finishing the race as some sort of failure or "boring". The problem is quite exciting for the researchers and for anyone interested in AI. The fact that they are making it an annual thing is icing on the cake.
GMD
Most of the essays are available at Graham's website, but frankly I am a fan of dead trees and appreciated that this book could be read on the bus or in bed. If you would prefer something you cna read on the bus then a PDF of the second chapter, "Hackers & Painters" is available from the O'Reilly page linked above.
What about those of us who aren't necessarily a fan of "dead trees"? Is there still a reason for us to purchase the book? The reviewer doesn't say. He states that "most of the essays are available at Graham's website". How many is "most"? Are the ones only available in the book second-rate essays? Or are we missing some real gems by just perusing his website?
I don't mean to be overly harsh towards the reviewer but the question of what is the 'value added' in this book version of collected essays seems like something that really should be addressed. I've read many of the essays described in the review off the website so I'm already familiar with Graham's writing style and world view. When I read a review, I have one question uppermost in my mind: "Should I buy this book?" Alas, after reading this review I don't know if I should or not.
Can someone here (maybe the reviewer?) please give a description of what's in the book versus what's available on the website? Even a count of how many new essays are in the book would be a start.
GMD
Unfortunately, that's the way we geeks get treated a lot of times.
Too bad Turning didn't chose a different approach to dealing with ungrateful masses.
GMD
You know, this just can't be that far off. Sex and war drive technology, and all that. Give them time, and I'm sure the adult industry will find a way to drive the costs of this down to levels where it's reasonable for everyone.
I agree that computer-generated porn is inevitable but I disagree that it is going to become so cheap as to replace the real thing (such as it is) anytime soon. Let's face it, it costs almost no money to make a porn flick. I'm sure they spend no money on the writers. There is essentially no budget for props. The actors and actresses don't have an awful lot of career choices so they can be paid a pitance. And it's recorded on videotape for chrissake. You are arguing that replacing this dirt-cheap operation with an all CGI environment is economically a great idea? I don't think so.
The question is, will people be interested in this for its own sake, or will it have to wait until things reach the point where it's indistinguishable from the real thing? I'm guessing from the preponderance of cartoon porn on the internet that it's just around the corner.
I suspect that the "real" porn will continue much as it has for decades and that if CGI evolves to the point that it is feasible to make pornos from it will satisfy a slightly different crowd or need. You pointed out the cartoon porn. That stuff is pretty different from flesh and blood porn. Those films feature fantastical characters or situations. A typical film would feature a female ninja with green hair who can change into a warewolf battling monsters on behalf of some ancient clan rivalry. You couldn't make something like this with flesh-and-blood porn without it being absolutely laughable. Now, granted, the cartoon version isn't meant to be taken seriously but the audience is more willing to accept it just because of the choice of media that is used. And the non-consensual nature of a lot of cartoon porn makes it a definite no-no for anything remotely realistic. But I think the reason cartoon porn florishes is precisely because it is not realistic. It is fantastical. I suspect that CGI porn would fill the same niche -- something completely wild rather than a substitute for mainstream porn.
One possible avenue of CGI porn is letting amateurs and hobbists make their own porn films. If easy-to-use authoring/animation tools get created, you could have guys making their porn flicks. People could play out movies for whatever crazy fantasies that they have. And with p2p software, I can easily see people trading their homemade pornos with others. This would actually be an interesting development. Let's face it: there aren't a lot of creative minds in the adult film industry. Once you give people (and there are a lot of people who secretly love porn) the ability to author what's on their mind, I think you will see an explosion of all sorts of porn. Some of it will be real sicko stuff, I'm sure. However, you'll also get people who can actually write decent stories creating some porn. CGI may end up being the greatest thing that ever happened to porn within a decade.
GMD
I confess that I don't quite understand what you are trying to say but your comment about "American culture makes this movie what it will be" struck me as somewhat interesting.
The world is a different place than it was in the late 70s and 80s. America is no longer living in the fear of the Soviet Union. Today we are faced with an enemy who, unfortunately, we have had a hand in creating. I could see someone arguing that the original trilogy appealed to an audience that had been used to seeing things in black and white, good and evil. Perhaps the current trilogy should have tried to portray the battle between the forces as a little more ambiguous. That is, why not have the Jedi really fuck up and make a mistake that leads to the Clone Wars? Or the frustrations of the Separatists? The conflict between the Republic and the Separatists doesn't seem to really generate any strong feelings in the audience. It would have been much more interesting to see the Sith arise because of the mistakes of the Jedi. Perhaps that *is* how they were created; actually, I really don't know. Lucas decided to introduce a villianous element without explaning their motivation.
I don't think 'Enterprise' has done a particularly good job of modeling their plot arc based on the threat of terrorism or 'pre-emtive strikes' but you have to give them credit for at least trying. Lucas is making a set of movies that seem out of time. If he was a little more in tune with what's going on in the world and -- more importantly -- the hidden thoughts and fears of the audience, he might have actually made some films that resonate with the audience. As it is, however, he's chosen to make a big non-interactive videogame. Boring.
GMD
Oh, Lucas knows that people don't like what he's done. The problem is that he thinks they are all wrong and doesn't want to hear it. In fact, CNN was refused access to Attack of the Clones based on a Connie Chung interview where she told Lucas that most people thought TPM was a disappointment. If you're going to kick the media off your property and deny them access to a major news story just because they suggested that the film didn't live up to expectations, I don't think you can honestly claim that you're open to criticism.
As far as his "reputation as a filmmaker", I think Lucas must realize now that he really isn't a filmmaker. He knows that Star Wars will be his legacy. So he really doesn't care about looking like some kind of great director because he knows he'll never direct again. That's probably one reason he's so possessive of the films -- he knows this is the last movie he'll ever direct.
GMD
Lucas will never allow anyone to do anything with Star Wars. In fact, his best buddy Steven Spielberg has already spoken about this. Lucas feels that the Star Wars saga will be his legacy and he doesn't want anyone messing with it. Spielberg practially begged Lucas for a chance to direct a Star Wars film and Lucas said no. So I can't see Lucas willingly giving up control to anyone. And with the new copyright laws, his family will be able to control Star Wars indefinitely. So you can forget about a Star Wars film ever being made by anyone with talent.
GMD
Dude, not enough people give a damn about techie issues like copyright to get the law changed. If you want a law changed, you have to form a PAC that gives money to congressmen to support you. Or challenge the laws in court and have an expensive lawyer convince the judge that what you want is in "every bodies best interest."
You forgot one option: educate the populace and let them know that their rights have been taken away. Yes, I know it's a difficult job. That doesn't mean that it's not worth doing.
What America do you live in... the law books are already a joke. Hell, here in Texas it is still illegal to carry wire cutters because of 19th century cattle theft. Every year, tons of new laws are put on the books to appease certain factions, but many of these are dead laws from the get go. It would take centuries to clean centuries of crudded books.
So, again, because it's a difficult task, we shouldn't try to make a dent in it, right? Listen, it is completely unacceptable to let rediculous laws like the one you mention remain on the books. Let's quit sweeping this stuff under the rug and deal with it.
As Gandhi showed, massive public disobedience is the only way for the (more numerous) little guys to beat out the big dogs!
Explain how making copies of your DVDs in the privacy of your own home consitutes "massive public disobedience".
Guys, quit comparing yourselves to Gandhi and Rosa Parks. Once you get out there and start risking your ass like they did, then I'll start to listen.
GMD
That's a bit of a stretch. There's a strong case to be made for taking a stand based on disobedience. Rosa Parks was breaking the law, doesn't mean she wasn't a "true patriot."
I have the utmost respect for those patriots (yes, there's that word again) who care so much about getting a law changed that they commit acts of PUBLIC civil disobedience and face the consequences. Making an illegal copy of a DVD in the privacy of your own home DOES NOT COUNT as civil disobedience and do not, for a second, try to convince yourself that you are "striking a blow against the evil corporations on behalf of Everyman." Anyone who makes these copies is no different than a little boy trying to sneak peeks at his father's Playboy collection without being caught.
If you guys take the step of performing your illegal copying right in the presence of police or Jack Valenti or someone like that, then feel free to compare your efforts to what Rosa Parks did. Not before.
GMD
We are in this situation because some Americans, such as yourself, allow companies to use the laws of the land to push us around and take what is ours.
No, we are in this situation because there are a pitiful few number of Americans, such as myself, who will take the time to vote and write my representatives and basically get off my ass and do something to get laws changed.
They own the politicians, but if enough of us are breaking the law, then bad laws go away anyway because they are impossible to enforce.
By "go away" I assume you mean that they remain on the books but cops don't bother to enforce them most of the time. The problem is that then you have selectively-enforced laws which is obviously not good. It is better to "clean house" and get those laws off the book. Otherwise, if we end up with lots of laws that are clearly rediculous and never enforced it makes our system of law look like a damn joke.
GMD