In germany you vote for a mayor by voting for your prefered candidate. Than there is a second ballot (between the two candidates which got the most votes) if nobody gets more than 50% of the votes. I think it's very easy to understand, votes are easy to count and easy to validate. The only draw back is that it's a little more time consuming than just doing a single ballot.
I have an issue with the film.
How does he happen to have so much good interview footage with a woman from his hometown whose son happened to die in Iraq... before he died.
Did Moore interview a ton of people and just got ahem.. lucky, or were the earlier interviews staged after the fact?
Chances aren't that... bad. Nearly 1000 people will never come back. Over 5000 have been wounded. So it's not very unlikely that he had some... luck (if he did quite some interviews).
That being said. I don't trust this 'documentary'. Not a second. But I don't buy a word from all this press conferences held by the administration or some general either. You have to listen to everybody carefully and build your own opinion about things.
Next, you should never rely on JavaScript to do your form validation. That's the most stupid, absurd thing I've ever heard. Leaving input validation in the hands of the client is to trust the user to not attempt to screw up your input. For forms to the useful, they have to be submitted to some kind of server-side logic. That is where the form validation should take place because then the user cannot side-step your input validation.
It's bad to rely on JavaScript for form validation but it can be a good idea to do JavaScript AND server-side validation. It can be good for the user (mainly because you save one page load if the validation fails).
And if you're in a multimedia store, you not even need to bring your own equipment.
"What did I do?" "You stand to close to the camcorder which we put up for demonstration purpose. We will arrest you until we checked if you hit any record button."
Google is about censoring in a soft way. Their whole business is about censoring. They try to filter out spam with never recovering penalties for domains etc.
So what's the big deal by adding some more sites to the blacklist? Ok, it's probably a little questionable but at the end of the day it works out great for me, if they keep child pornography and nazis away from me.
Now that's a good point. I don't want to argue for or against copyright. I just wanted to make clear, that it's a little one-sided to say, that the artists are expoited by the companies.
David Bowie became famous in a time where videos were not important. You can try it with live performance today, but it will be pretty hard and most likely in vain.
They don't control the radio stations. They spend tons of money on marketing and they try to decide who you should like but they can not control the media. They are powerful in some way but you forget that there is more than one big player. They fight against there competitors, not against artists. There is no mega-control-monopoly. Why do you think are so many videos unaired? Because mtv (or who ever) rejected them.
However there is one thing which makes me think: A show called popstars (I'm not sure if it's called the same in every country). That bothers me.
Sorry, but that's not true. They invest that much money, because they (and the artist too) have no chance to make one penny profit otherwise.
And btw. most companies respect the rights of the artist. The artist does not sell his live. He sells ONE album and maybe an option for a second. And of course(!) he gets percentage too.
The only thing you can blame the companies for is, that they don't understand that the world is changing. Well, maybe they understand it but they try to hold against it instead of trying to adjust themselves to the new situation.
Do you have an idea how much money a company like Sony invest in every artist?
e.g. they must pay for videos (you have no chance without one) and most of them are never aired. Don't get me wrong. I don't think the situation today is acceptable and the big companies have to change a lot, but let's face it there is no way without them.
I've never seen a good example of a non-determinable function/program though. The above poster thought he had, unfortunately his example wasn't very good:-)
Maybe he meant this:
while(x>1){if(x%2 == 0){x = x/2} else {n=3*n+1}}
It is not known, whether there is an x > 0 so that the program does not terminate.
Slashdot Mirror
In germany you vote for a mayor by voting for your prefered candidate. Than there is a second ballot (between the two candidates which got the most votes) if nobody gets more than 50% of the votes. I think it's very easy to understand, votes are easy to count and easy to validate. The only draw back is that it's a little more time consuming than just doing a single ballot.
That being said. I don't trust this 'documentary'. Not a second. But I don't buy a word from all this press conferences held by the administration or some general either. You have to listen to everybody carefully and build your own opinion about things.
And if you're in a multimedia store, you not even need to bring your own equipment.
"What did I do?"
"You stand to close to the camcorder which we put up for demonstration purpose. We will arrest you until we checked if you hit any record button."
Don't they feel stupid now that they just build one of these.
Hey, they even could have used the second one to find the first one.
Google is about censoring in a soft way. Their whole business is about censoring. They try to filter out spam with never recovering penalties for domains etc. So what's the big deal by adding some more sites to the blacklist? Ok, it's probably a little questionable but at the end of the day it works out great for me, if they keep child pornography and nazis away from me.
Maybe this works different in deifferent countries. Than I'm sorry for that. I can only speak for germany (you may have noticed my poor english :-).
Now that's a good point. I don't want to argue for or against copyright. I just wanted to make clear, that it's a little one-sided to say, that the artists are expoited by the companies.
David Bowie became famous in a time where videos were not important. You can try it with live performance today, but it will be pretty hard and most likely in vain.
They don't control the radio stations. They spend tons of money on marketing and they try to decide who you should like but they can not control the media. They are powerful in some way but you forget that there is more than one big player. They fight against there competitors, not against artists. There is no mega-control-monopoly. Why do you think are so many videos unaired? Because mtv (or who ever) rejected them.
However there is one thing which makes me think: A show called popstars (I'm not sure if it's called the same in every country). That bothers me.
Excuse for what?
Sorry, but that's not true. They invest that much money, because they (and the artist too) have no chance to make one penny profit otherwise.
And btw. most companies respect the rights of the artist. The artist does not sell his live. He sells ONE album and maybe an option for a second. And of course(!) he gets percentage too.
The only thing you can blame the companies for is, that they don't understand that the world is changing. Well, maybe they understand it but they try to hold against it instead of trying to adjust themselves to the new situation.
That would be useful for a new way of /. moderation too.
Do you have an idea how much money a company like Sony invest in every artist?
e.g. they must pay for videos (you have no chance without one) and most of them are never aired. Don't get me wrong. I don't think the situation today is acceptable and the big companies have to change a lot, but let's face it there is no way without them.
Good question. So is schroedinger not quite right and his cat determines her own state?
In school I always wondered why the cat does not count as observer. If she counts, we know that the uncertainty lays in the observer, don't we?
Well, I drift away a little and nobody knows THE answer, so...
Maybe he meant this:
It is not known, whether there is an x > 0 so that the program does not terminate.
"A stupid question is whether the universe is a determinstic Turing machine or not, or whether it is by very nature indeterministic :P"
I'm not that experienced in physics but I would say that the existence of quantum effects indicates to a indeterministic nature.
That would also explain how the universe can cope with the large amount of computation.