I agree that coal is terrible... but your car engine is worse. Even a coal-powered power plant is far more efficient than a car engine. Plus, as grid power becomes more efficient and less polluting (say, by leaving coal for nuclear) those benefits would be passed on automatically to your car - your car engine will never experience such sudden increases in efficiency.
Even the dirtiest coal-fired power plant is far more efficient (read: cheaper, less polluting) a power source than your car engine is. Plus, using grid energy has the added benefit that, as grid power becomes more efficient/less polluting, your car is automatically "upgraded" along with it. While car engines will always be inefficient - grid power need not be.
As for hybrids - I agree that they are not the long term solution, but they can be a positive force. I get 60mpg in mine, and have since 2000. Tripling the national average isn't too shabby...
South Park is pretty funny, but probably not a very good database of information for this type of subject.
Clive Barker's The Undying used this cheap tactic, and I blazed through most of the game with only a haste spell and the Scythe just to spite the developers. Whenever a first person shooter makes you want to not bother and just use a melee weapon, it's just because their monsters are so pathetic they would be trivial if you had sufficient ammunition to kill them all. But that's another topic entirely.
No, it's about the game designers designing the game to be played with a variety of weapons, including melee weapons. If they wanted you had have unlimited ammo, then they would have given you unlimited ammo (and most likely would have simply upped the hit-points of the various monsters to accomodate the increased firepower). Sometimes designers force gamers to use certain weapons/items more sparingly; it's simply a matter of game balance and design.
As for Undying - how does using Haste and the Scythe spite the developers? I played the same way -- it was fun combination, and a great game.
I think, much like other animals, humans have an 'avoid corpses!' instinct (or perhaps a more general 'avoid unhealthy looking human-like objects!' instinct).
Ahh, my point exactly. People that see things that seem "alive" but are in fact "dead" confuse these two states -- dead, and alive. That is precisely where the uneasiness comes from.
My point, is that with more exposure, these misconceptions get "nipped in the bud", so to speak. The confusion is avoided (and ultimately we are only talking about confusion here, nothing more)... People used to buying half-price, life-like robots at Walmart will no longer confuse those two states. They will simply be used to such a device, just like we seem to be comfortbale with photographs from birth in our culture.
I know it takes some forward thinking, but what I am saying is obviously correct. Societies of the future that (assuming it eventually happens;) exist alongside very life-like non-alive entities, will get used to the idea. It simply won't be an issue.
Just because we have learned to overcome, through repetitive conditioning, a particular instinct, it does not follow that the instinct just disappears or does not have an impact.
I hear what you are saying, but I don't think the uncanny valley qualifies as an "instinct" that is simply being repressed through familiarity. The valley is simply a reaction to something that you are not used to seeing. The feeling of uneasiness is understandable - it is, after all, a little weird to see something appear very lifelike, when in fact it is not alive. We simply aren't used to seeing such things... But, as we see such things more and more often (and we will), that feeling will go away entirely... and children brought up in such environments will no doubt exhibit very few of these fears, because they will start out used to such sights and sounds.
I don't think this concept is all that different from some native peoples being afraid of cameras... seeing their image captured in such a way is not something they are used to seeing, and it is understandable that that could be frightening to them. The image, after all, looks like something that is alive. Increased exposure to cameras obviously gets rid of these fears... and not because they bury it down as some sort of repressed trauma (like your soldiers in war example), but instead, they simply get used to the idea, and can logically seperate out what is alive and what is not.
I can imagine (and, mind you, have made no effort in an attempt to back this up, even by meager google search;) that mirrors being introduced for the first time to a native peoples may have freaked them out... would that reaction be "instinct"? And would getting used to mirrors be repression of that instinct, or simply the acceptance of something you have never seen before, but are growing used to?
I realize your post is not an example of what I am about to complain about;) But the phrase/notion "uncanny valley" gets tossed around way too much... Roger Ebert cited it as something that affected him while watching one of those stupid animated movies with talking animals. The wiki page cites the "uncanny valley" as a possible reason for the failure of The Spirits Within at the box office. Wow... those are some stupid conclusions.
Truth be told, most people could handle seeing something that is not alive, and yet looks extremely life-like. Yes, it might make some uncomfortable for a short time... but that is common during many "first time" experiences. Once these lifelike robots are being sold half-off at Walmart -- poof! -- there goes the vaunted "uncanny valley"...
What difference would it make having a third, fourth or even fifth party when all of them have to fight over the middle anyway?
Oh, I don't know... maybe because you happen to be against the Iraq War? Or what if you happen to think that energy-independence would do more for our security than bombing people? Or what if massive education reform is your thing? What if you are an environmentalist? What if you are for gay marriage? Eh nevermind, those positions are way too "extreme"... we're fine with our two parties. USA is #1!
Not true. A simple change in priorities is all that is required.
Case in point: In most years only around 1% of the federal transportation budget is allocated for rail. That looks to me like a country that simply isn't interested in rail infrastructure investment...
The money is there. It's how we use it sometimes that is unfortunate.
Talk to the Canadians about how great national healthcare is...they love waiting 1-2 years for treatment.
Is that what Bill O'Reilly told you they do?
Look at the facts... Canada has a higher life expectancy (which is also rising at a faster rate) and lower infant mortality rate than the United States does. The United States has 40 million people without healthcare, and yet Americans spend a higher percentage of their income for healthcare than the Canadians do (because their system is so much more efficient than ours). Also, studies have shown that care received on both sides is more or less equal (assuming you have healtchare if you are American)...
There are problems with Canada's system, no doubt, and yes I have read about the occasional horror story of Person X waiting Y time for Z procedure. But you could cherry-pick a horror story from here in the U.S. as well. That is not a good way to judge the merits and problems with a healthcare system as a whole. Look at the big picture... we spend more, for less. Simple as that.
... Let me make a wild guess here. You were a Backstreet Boys fan. Their earlier stuff moved you... you laughed, you cried. Yet, as the years went by and as their popularity grew, your love for them cooled. Was their work compromised by fame or money? You weren't quite sure... but you were ready to move on, and weren't going to wait to find out.
Now, you're a Black Eyed Peas fan, and you're not looking back.
I think you are probably in the minority on this one. I think that typically cellphone conversations are *much* more distracting and dangerous than chatting with someone in the car with you. This is because there is non-verbal communication between the passengers riding in the same car, which enables you to naturally steer the conversation around the primary task of driving: e.g. they won't ask you whether next weeks meeting was moved from 4pm to 4:30 while you are merging at high speed or changing lanes; and even if they did, they would naturally allow you to complete the act before expecting an answer, whereas the person on the cell phone would start immediately with the "Hello?"'s...
I think you are discounting this a bit too much. This is somewhat unprecedented - that previous generation titles actually improve graphically on next generation consoles. Yes, I realize that is accomplished by upping the resolution and doing some anti-aliasing, and yes, we in the computer world are used to this by now... but it is still a welcome change for consoles, and I give the xBox360 credit for enabling the feature.
Of course, there may be a downside to this in some cases... I could imagine an atmospheric game like Resident Evil 4 perhaps looking worse if the resolution got bumped up too much. The fog effects that contributed so heavily to the atmosphere look very realistic, but a large part of that is because it is rendered at a low, almost blurry resolution. Bumping up the resolution might in fact decrease the net effect...
Well said... You can always peg a Rushbot/O'Reillybot inside of 5 seconds when they unleash an uninformed and simplistic statement about the ACLU. O'Reilly and his ilk are successful because they manipulate the uninformed. The best way to do this is through the creation of "enemies"... the ACLU... George Soros and his "War on Christmas"...etc.
"Dying"! Wow, that sounds like a serious problem they have up there... that might go some length in explaining why Canadians, on average, do not live as long as Americans...
Ooh, bold print. This is getting intense. My heart is racing...;)
I agree that Perot's model has some merits -- but not all "rich men" follow that model in the real world. Your blanket statement that rich men do not take contributions was flatly wrong. Sorry, it was. And of course my example was entirely relevant. It proves that the "rich men are immune from special interests" theory is incorrect.
A rich man who doesn't take contributions would make a better ruler than a politician who does.
Obviously. I never made an argument to the contrary, nor ever would. And why stop there? A working class man who doesn't take contributions would make a better ruler than a politician who does. Or, a politician who doesn't take contributions would make a better ruler than a politician who does.
Look, I see what you're getting at... in theory, a man who is already rich need not "sell out" to special interests, because he already has money. Unfortunately, it does not play out like this in the real world.
Schwarzenegger in fact ran on that very premise. And, of course, he takes in shitloads of contributions. One link from a quick google search...
Again, you are living in a fantasy world. That is not meant to attack you as a person... I just think you need to give the idea that being rich lends itself to some sort of independant morality a second thought. By national standards, a lot of these politicians are "rich"... and it how they get that way that scares me, and hurts us all.
I don't think I confused causation and correlation. I never stated that outspending an opponent will cause a candidate to always win. I simply said that money is an important part of elections, and it is.
As for the "popular candidates"... they are largely selected beforehand by the media and the two major parties. They are marketed as the only choices available, and people follow along and support those choice candidates. And yes, you are correct that these choice candidates would then be able to raise a lot of money.
But don't think for a second that money would not help out candidates who were not selected by the media. They don't get nearly the amount of press that the selected candidates do... they can pay for advertising, but that isn't cheap. And one needs to have money in order to spend all that time campaigning... hard to campaign when you're working double shifts.
I'll take the rich man any day. At least he's not 'owned' by all of his contributors.
Wake up and smell the coffee. A guy who gets rich via his contributors is certainly going to be subject to them... look at the current state of Washington. Lobbyists play a huge role in current politics. Corporations can, with enough dollars, go a long way to influence legislation. You're living in a fantasy world.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
-Noam Chomsky
The points you bring up are a great example of controlling the range of debate... The two parties talk of "election reform"... they dangle carrots, make some adjustments, argue a bit, etc. But they are not interested in the slightest in really taking money out of politics, or in introducing new ideas... and why would they? They, after all, are the beneficieries of the current system, and hence are its defenders.
Slashdot Mirror
Honda Insight... not a car for everyone, for sure, but it's a nice commuter car.
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/
I agree that coal is terrible... but your car engine is worse. Even a coal-powered power plant is far more efficient than a car engine. Plus, as grid power becomes more efficient and less polluting (say, by leaving coal for nuclear) those benefits would be passed on automatically to your car - your car engine will never experience such sudden increases in efficiency.
Even the dirtiest coal-fired power plant is far more efficient (read: cheaper, less polluting) a power source than your car engine is. Plus, using grid energy has the added benefit that, as grid power becomes more efficient/less polluting, your car is automatically "upgraded" along with it. While car engines will always be inefficient - grid power need not be.
As for hybrids - I agree that they are not the long term solution, but they can be a positive force. I get 60mpg in mine, and have since 2000. Tripling the national average isn't too shabby...
South Park is pretty funny, but probably not a very good database of information for this type of subject.
Clive Barker's The Undying used this cheap tactic, and I blazed through most of the game with only a haste spell and the Scythe just to spite the developers. Whenever a first person shooter makes you want to not bother and just use a melee weapon, it's just because their monsters are so pathetic they would be trivial if you had sufficient ammunition to kill them all. But that's another topic entirely.
No, it's about the game designers designing the game to be played with a variety of weapons, including melee weapons. If they wanted you had have unlimited ammo, then they would have given you unlimited ammo (and most likely would have simply upped the hit-points of the various monsters to accomodate the increased firepower). Sometimes designers force gamers to use certain weapons/items more sparingly; it's simply a matter of game balance and design.
As for Undying - how does using Haste and the Scythe spite the developers? I played the same way -- it was fun combination, and a great game.
I think, much like other animals, humans have an 'avoid corpses!' instinct (or perhaps a more general 'avoid unhealthy looking human-like objects!' instinct).
;) exist alongside very life-like non-alive entities, will get used to the idea. It simply won't be an issue.
Ahh, my point exactly. People that see things that seem "alive" but are in fact "dead" confuse these two states -- dead, and alive. That is precisely where the uneasiness comes from.
My point, is that with more exposure, these misconceptions get "nipped in the bud", so to speak. The confusion is avoided (and ultimately we are only talking about confusion here, nothing more)... People used to buying half-price, life-like robots at Walmart will no longer confuse those two states. They will simply be used to such a device, just like we seem to be comfortbale with photographs from birth in our culture.
I know it takes some forward thinking, but what I am saying is obviously correct. Societies of the future that (assuming it eventually happens
Just because we have learned to overcome, through repetitive conditioning, a particular instinct, it does not follow that the instinct just disappears or does not have an impact.
;) that mirrors being introduced for the first time to a native peoples may have freaked them out... would that reaction be "instinct"? And would getting used to mirrors be repression of that instinct, or simply the acceptance of something you have never seen before, but are growing used to?
I hear what you are saying, but I don't think the uncanny valley qualifies as an "instinct" that is simply being repressed through familiarity. The valley is simply a reaction to something that you are not used to seeing. The feeling of uneasiness is understandable - it is, after all, a little weird to see something appear very lifelike, when in fact it is not alive. We simply aren't used to seeing such things... But, as we see such things more and more often (and we will), that feeling will go away entirely... and children brought up in such environments will no doubt exhibit very few of these fears, because they will start out used to such sights and sounds.
I don't think this concept is all that different from some native peoples being afraid of cameras... seeing their image captured in such a way is not something they are used to seeing, and it is understandable that that could be frightening to them. The image, after all, looks like something that is alive. Increased exposure to cameras obviously gets rid of these fears... and not because they bury it down as some sort of repressed trauma (like your soldiers in war example), but instead, they simply get used to the idea, and can logically seperate out what is alive and what is not.
I can imagine (and, mind you, have made no effort in an attempt to back this up, even by meager google search
I realize your post is not an example of what I am about to complain about ;) But the phrase/notion "uncanny valley" gets tossed around way too much... Roger Ebert cited it as something that affected him while watching one of those stupid animated movies with talking animals. The wiki page cites the "uncanny valley" as a possible reason for the failure of The Spirits Within at the box office. Wow... those are some stupid conclusions.
Truth be told, most people could handle seeing something that is not alive, and yet looks extremely life-like. Yes, it might make some uncomfortable for a short time... but that is common during many "first time" experiences. Once these lifelike robots are being sold half-off at Walmart -- poof! -- there goes the vaunted "uncanny valley"...
What difference would it make having a third, fourth or even fifth party when all of them have to fight over the middle anyway?
Oh, I don't know... maybe because you happen to be against the Iraq War? Or what if you happen to think that energy-independence would do more for our security than bombing people? Or what if massive education reform is your thing? What if you are an environmentalist? What if you are for gay marriage? Eh nevermind, those positions are way too "extreme"... we're fine with our two parties. USA is #1!
Not true. A simple change in priorities is all that is required.
Case in point: In most years only around 1% of the federal transportation budget is allocated for rail. That looks to me like a country that simply isn't interested in rail infrastructure investment...
The money is there. It's how we use it sometimes that is unfortunate.
Talk to the Canadians about how great national healthcare is...they love waiting 1-2 years for treatment.
Is that what Bill O'Reilly told you they do?
Look at the facts... Canada has a higher life expectancy (which is also rising at a faster rate) and lower infant mortality rate than the United States does. The United States has 40 million people without healthcare, and yet Americans spend a higher percentage of their income for healthcare than the Canadians do (because their system is so much more efficient than ours). Also, studies have shown that care received on both sides is more or less equal (assuming you have healtchare if you are American)...
There are problems with Canada's system, no doubt, and yes I have read about the occasional horror story of Person X waiting Y time for Z procedure. But you could cherry-pick a horror story from here in the U.S. as well. That is not a good way to judge the merits and problems with a healthcare system as a whole. Look at the big picture... we spend more, for less. Simple as that.
I will buy DS if it is not that ugly...
... Let me make a wild guess here. You were a Backstreet Boys fan. Their earlier stuff moved you... you laughed, you cried. Yet, as the years went by and as their popularity grew, your love for them cooled. Was their work compromised by fame or money? You weren't quite sure... but you were ready to move on, and weren't going to wait to find out.
Now, you're a Black Eyed Peas fan, and you're not looking back.
... because the show seemed to pick up steam after its cancellation, via DVD sales.
That said, if you really want some power, I've got my Caddy up for sale. Motor is strong, needs some body and electrical work. First $500 gets it...
*sound of crickets*
I think you are probably in the minority on this one. I think that typically cellphone conversations are *much* more distracting and dangerous than chatting with someone in the car with you. This is because there is non-verbal communication between the passengers riding in the same car, which enables you to naturally steer the conversation around the primary task of driving: e.g. they won't ask you whether next weeks meeting was moved from 4pm to 4:30 while you are merging at high speed or changing lanes; and even if they did, they would naturally allow you to complete the act before expecting an answer, whereas the person on the cell phone would start immediately with the "Hello?"'s...
I think you are discounting this a bit too much. This is somewhat unprecedented - that previous generation titles actually improve graphically on next generation consoles. Yes, I realize that is accomplished by upping the resolution and doing some anti-aliasing, and yes, we in the computer world are used to this by now... but it is still a welcome change for consoles, and I give the xBox360 credit for enabling the feature.
Of course, there may be a downside to this in some cases... I could imagine an atmospheric game like Resident Evil 4 perhaps looking worse if the resolution got bumped up too much. The fog effects that contributed so heavily to the atmosphere look very realistic, but a large part of that is because it is rendered at a low, almost blurry resolution. Bumping up the resolution might in fact decrease the net effect...
Well said... You can always peg a Rushbot/O'Reillybot inside of 5 seconds when they unleash an uninformed and simplistic statement about the ACLU. O'Reilly and his ilk are successful because they manipulate the uninformed. The best way to do this is through the creation of "enemies"... the ACLU... George Soros and his "War on Christmas"...etc.
Typical conversation with a libertarian over comparisons between healthcare systems in United States and Canada:
Libertarian: I heard about some guy in Canada who had to wait like six months for [medical operation]...
Other: Yeah but 45 million Americans who don't have any healtcare coverage.
The discourse will repeat in this manner for a number of minutes. The Libertarian may grow belligerent and/or question your patriotism.
"Dying"! Wow, that sounds like a serious problem they have up there... that might go some length in explaining why Canadians, on average, do not live as long as Americans...
... oh, wait - the reverse is true. Hmm...
Um, I think you meant "... well established and traditional legal congressmen "...
It Didn't Help Them Last Time
Funny... I seem to remember Nintendo making a lot of money and great games.
Ooh, bold print. This is getting intense. My heart is racing... ;)
I agree that Perot's model has some merits -- but not all "rich men" follow that model in the real world. Your blanket statement that rich men do not take contributions was flatly wrong. Sorry, it was. And of course my example was entirely relevant. It proves that the "rich men are immune from special interests" theory is incorrect.
A rich man who doesn't take contributions would make a better ruler than a politician who does.
Obviously. I never made an argument to the contrary, nor ever would. And why stop there? A working class man who doesn't take contributions would make a better ruler than a politician who does. Or, a politician who doesn't take contributions would make a better ruler than a politician who does.
A rich man doesn't have contributors.
Yep... definitely living in a fantasy world.
Look, I see what you're getting at... in theory, a man who is already rich need not "sell out" to special interests, because he already has money. Unfortunately, it does not play out like this in the real world.
Schwarzenegger in fact ran on that very premise. And, of course, he takes in shitloads of contributions. One link from a quick google search...
Again, you are living in a fantasy world. That is not meant to attack you as a person... I just think you need to give the idea that being rich lends itself to some sort of independant morality a second thought. By national standards, a lot of these politicians are "rich"... and it how they get that way that scares me, and hurts us all.
I don't think I confused causation and correlation. I never stated that outspending an opponent will cause a candidate to always win. I simply said that money is an important part of elections, and it is.
As for the "popular candidates"... they are largely selected beforehand by the media and the two major parties. They are marketed as the only choices available, and people follow along and support those choice candidates. And yes, you are correct that these choice candidates would then be able to raise a lot of money.
But don't think for a second that money would not help out candidates who were not selected by the media. They don't get nearly the amount of press that the selected candidates do... they can pay for advertising, but that isn't cheap. And one needs to have money in order to spend all that time campaigning... hard to campaign when you're working double shifts.
I'll take the rich man any day. At least he's not 'owned' by all of his contributors.
Wake up and smell the coffee. A guy who gets rich via his contributors is certainly going to be subject to them... look at the current state of Washington. Lobbyists play a huge role in current politics. Corporations can, with enough dollars, go a long way to influence legislation. You're living in a fantasy world.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
-Noam Chomsky
The points you bring up are a great example of controlling the range of debate... The two parties talk of "election reform"... they dangle carrots, make some adjustments, argue a bit, etc. But they are not interested in the slightest in really taking money out of politics, or in introducing new ideas... and why would they? They, after all, are the beneficieries of the current system, and hence are its defenders.