Obama has called on people to actually track and rate the honesty of his platform. That's a first amongst presidents (to my knowledge). You can track the results.
Out of 254 evaluated statements, 208 have been found to be true, in varying degrees. 208 are know to be true, 44 are known to be false. That's a truthfulness rating of about 80%. I don't know about you, but in my book (for a politician) that's incredibly high. Even if you count the "barely true" category as being false, which technically it isn't, then your still left with 176 true to 76 false.
Out of the 500+ campaign promises, he's only broken 19. Certainly not all promises are weighted equally, but again we are talking about breaking less than 5% of his promises. By scientific testing standards, that's an acceptably low enough number to prove he's keeping his promises.
He has compromised on 39 of the 500+ campaign promises, which shows that the United States still has a President, and not a Dictator. Even with the compromises added to the broken promises, he's kept or working on keeping 90%+ of his promises.
Of course, this is the USA, where we ignore facts and vote on the latest smear campaign. At the rate we are going, we will vote in office Sarah Palin. Her numbers are sobering. 27 true items to 13 false items, or about 67% true. Counting the barely true against her (as we did previously) brings the numbers to 22 true to 18 false, a mere 55% truthfulness.
A more important issue, do you really want your president to be 100% truthful? How fast do you think the economic recovery would progress if the President of the United States motivated the entire nation with, "Well we are totally fucked, and hundreds of millions of people will probably lose their jobs." How do you think we would fare in trade agreements if we said, "We're going to use our status and military power to bully you into giving us a better cut of the pie."? Both of these statements are true, but they much better told in half-truths, ie. "We are working on a plan which will increase our financial stability at home and abroad." and "We feel we could assist you with your problems more if you removed a few trade barriers."
Blaming Obama for lying is like blaming Obama for being a good negotiator. The fact that he has managed to not lie on 90% of his campaign promises is not just remarkable, it's incredible. In fact, it is so good that Republicans have voted against bills they sponsored to try to decrease his approval rating. They then use that "evidence" as a weakness of the Presidency, knowing full well that the public doesn't associate the passage of laws with Congress, they "feel" the President does it all.
Somehow the idea of light rail on stilts makes me wonder what is to prevent a car slamming into one of those impressively rendered stilts? While I understand that they are attempting to find a solution that can retrofit roads without altering the existing dimensions, it would seem that the stilts would take up some of the road space, making the likelihood of collision even greater.
My first 3d movie was one of the "Ice Age" films. The story was what you would expect; a mind numbing experience unless you're under 12. Leaving the theater my senses were appropriately dulled by the slow action and glacial story line progression, yet I still had a headache.
For those of us who know why I might be watching such a film, I can say that the subsequent multiple watchings in 2d didn't remove the dullness of the action or speed up the glacial story line progression. Fortunately, the post-Ice Age stupor in 2d doesn't come with a complimentary headache.
Call me back when they fix the depth of field issue. The whole scene needs to be in focus so that when my eyes aren't looking at precisely what the director wants, my eyes don't try to focus on something that can't be focused on.
I'm unclear: is this a problem you have specifically with 3D, or with cinema in general? Every imaging system has limited depth of field. What you're asking for is technically impossible except in animated films.
In a regular movie, the whole screen registers with one depth, so an out-of-focus section doesn't have a better (or worse) depth than an in-focus section. In a 3d movie, at least one section of the screen has correct depth and focus, which makes the other sections that have correct depth but wrong focus bewildering.
Imagine if you were walking around and I could decide what was in focus for you. As long as we both were thinking the same thing was interesting, there wouldn't be a problem. The issues come up when I am sure you want to look at something, but you find something else to be interesting (if even only for a moment).
The sweeping battle scenes in Avatar where foreground characters are repeating the tired lines about the difficulties of the battle's progress where what made me intensely aware of the issue. Having spent six years with the Marines in a field infantry unit, I wanted to look at the battle. Since that was behind the main characters, you could see the battle behind them at the correct depth, but it was permanently out of focus. Such an effect was quite disorienting, and I realized that 3d movies have a particular limitation; they punish you for not following the focus the director intended.
With 2d movies, the interesting bits probably won't be in focus either; but at least looking at them won't inflict pain.
Exactly. That's why I hate 3d movies, before I get the possible headache.
With 3d movies, since the screen is still flat, only one item can be in focus at any given time. The items in focus are those in the plane where the action is typically taking place, but sometimes something interesting is happening in the background. Attempts to view the background have you focusing on something that will never come into focus. This causes eyestrain and an uncomfortable visual feeling.
Most of the time people want to see what the director wants them to see; however, there were several scenes in Avatar where I wanted to look at the squad tactics in the background. It was quite disconcerting to know that they were permanently rendered out of focus.
If there wasn't part of the screen being rendered with tricks to simulate depth, I doubt I would have been so put off by the other parts of the screen failing to simulate depth in the same way.
I too have worn glasses since childhood. I've never had a problem wearing the 3d glasses over my normal ones, and I purchase my frames from the "big" sized rack at the eye doctor's shop. Don't you think that, maybe, you're just being a little bit of a drama queen?
Let's see. There are three general descriptions of eye defects, shortsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism. They can be present in varying degrees. Astigmatism and short (or near) sightedness can be mixed in the same eye. Astigmatism involves an axis which will vary from person to person. There are literally tens of thousands of frames, each with their own dimensions. The standardized parts of the dimensions only extend to critical areas like the nose width and frame arm length.
Having an eye defect, and having been exposed to the world of corrected vision your whole life, how can you honestly tell me that a complete stranger shouldn't have a problem because you don't? Do you lack enough empathy for a person similar to yourself that you want to rub their affliction into their face), or are you actually so undereducated about your own condition that you believe the rest of the eyeglass wearing world is exactly like you?
Is this over the lifetime of Gnome or that of Canonical. If it's the former, then your argument doesn't hold water. Yay for statistics without methodology!
The ripping RedHat / Fedora / everything else because Unbuntu is "so much better" probably started after Canonical was formed. At our LUG, I just ask, "So what other distros have you used?" and that shuts them up. I'd wager that 90% of all Unbuntu users haven't used anything else, but are certain that it's the best distro in the world because they are implicitly comparing it to Windows.
Large? According to Canonical's own website, they NOW have 350 staff, and that's spread out over 30 countries. A smallish to medium sized company is more like it, the average amusement park hires more personnel. For comparison, RedHat employs 3200 people.
Don't confuse your love of a product with love of the company.
I would take it one step further. If they are going to provide equal access to alternative theories, then that's fine. Let them truly provide equal access. Have them teach a 100% un-altered scientifically backed evolution class during Sunday school, along with all of the "other" creation stories.
That's about the only way to drive this point home to these dunces. Once they realize that what they do to others can be done to them, they'll stop messing around in other people's backyards for fear of what will be done in theirs.
For something to be a science, you must have the ability to prove it false. Not believe it might be false, but actually have a way that you could know 100% it is false. That doesn't mean that you will ever find it will be false, it just means that there has to be the ABILITY for it to be false.
With creationism, you can never find that God didn't make everything (in however many days you wish to believe). That's because there's no means of proving that God didn't make everything. If you find dinosaur bones, then you can't say that it's proof of God NOT making everything; because, it's just proof that God did a little more work (by making dinosaur bones for you to discover).
With science, you can never make a scientific statement unless you have the ability to prove it false. One example is global warming. We have records of the outdoors temperature stretching back nearly two hundred years, and in the last twenty years or so, the entire planet is hotter. We could argue that the entire planet isn't hotter, it is actually cooler; but, the data doesn't support the argument that the planet cooled down.
It is very important to know the difference between scientific proof and logical proof. Logical proof makes a statement true, but scientific proof is different. It means, "We haven't seen anything that makes this statement false, yet." To defeat an undesirable scientific proof, you must find a real world example. Since science is tied to what we see in the observable world, it is very useful for anything that involves living in the observable world.
Science doesn't care about the un-observable world, because it is impossible to prove anything false if you can't observe it.
I seem to recall the Chinese basically imprisoning or possibly killing anyone who attempted to copy via transportation their silk/silkworm farms. Even today the Chinese aren't offering ownership of pandas to properly equipped zoos. China isn't exporting their trade secrets, and I doubt they lenient on those who attempt to steal them. I'd say that your prejudice is showing, because you think that China should protect its assets and steal from others too.
Add to the mix that many hybrids have an incredible track-record for average maintenance costs. Mine (according to Consumer Reports) averages nearly $1000 less per year in expected repair and maintenance costs.
Initially I was skeptical of the maintenance number, as it could easily be manipulated. However, my experience so far has supported the numbers. Even without a service plan, my first maintenance visit cost me $20; because, the only required item was a rotation of the tires. I expected to pay more, because you would think that the oil would need changing too. And that's at-the-dealership prices, without any "extended" service plan or discount.
I can buy a 30,000 dollar car and a ton of gas, so what's the point? Car prices don't reflect the value of the gasoline. If they did, we would all be driving Yugos, instead I'm driving in my $30,000 car which is damn nicer than your $18,000 entry level car.
I'm glad to hear about this customized education. Now that I've received my results, it is clear that I should have been a telephone switchboard operator.
Seriously, brains may be more attuned to different tasks, either by genetics, environment, or some combination; but, careers don't really account for those in them. The ideal job might not be the best career due to a number of social issues, like abundance of qualified applicants, advances in technology, work-life balance, social contacts, and ability to obtain the entry prerequisites. There is a lot of possible social mobility in the USA, but if you don't make some pretty difficult choices that mobility may be out of reach.
One friend once mentioned that he realized he wouldn't be able to achieve in his hometown, so he sold all of his possessions and his car, bought a one way plane ticket to Houston, and with the remaining money rented a room for two weeks. Within a week he had a job, and years later when he visits his relatives he knows he made the right decision.
As admirable as his actions were, it wouldn't matter what his brain scan found if he didn't own a dilapidated car that was worth just enough to cover the cost of the airline ticket.
Asperger's, you never cease to amaze me. Somehow used as a sign of genius amongst hackers while at the same time being reason you should have charges dropped.
While that might be true to understanding computers, a good EQ score will allow you to have a good understanding of how to accomplish tasks that require more than just your own two hands. I've seen scant few development teams of one these days; probably, because the dreams of what the programs are meant to accomplish are getting broader.
The good thing is that anyone with a sense of history would realize that EQ is just manners in a new fashionable garb. That means it can be learned.
Bullshit. The test is related to what grade you should be in compared to what grade you are actually in. Feynman took the test (as did most people) as a child. History has proved time and again that the only thing an IQ test does well at is whether you take tests well. That's a kind of intelligence, but if you read enough of Feynman's works, you realize that his intelligence excels in how inter-related things interact, and how to express ideas without corrupting them. There's no "explain this to me" section of the IQ test.
I agree, but only up to a point. There are times in real life experience where you just get hit by problems that look like the walls of Troy. On those occasions, having a degree is like pulling out a map which shows you where the unlocked back door is.
I have had the (dis)pleasure of interacting with journalists on three occasions. Each time they took a rather minor point and framed it as the entire focus of the whole effort. It's really quite shocking to read an article on something you did; random story writing might actually be more accurate.
Imagine you're doing kidney research, about a disease that prevents people from recovering water as it passes through the kidneys. You tell them that there aren't many affected people, probably under 200 (to your knowledge) in the USA. You tell them how these people need to drink about eight gallons of water a day to prevent dehydration. You explain that you suspect a protein in the kidney isn't working right, and that's the protein you are looking for. You mention that despite the need for massive quantities of water; otherwise a person can live a normal life. They ask about the most unusual affected person you know, and you mention that one person has managed his condition so well that he is able to run marathons provided he hides gallons of water along the route prior to the race.
The reporter then reports that you are researching a kidney protein to make better athletes and wraps up the article with a high-tech spin on performance enhancing drugs leading to lab designed human triathlon participants.
Slashdot Mirror
Hate to reply to my own post, but some dummy will ask for sources instead of using google to expand their consciousness.
Obama has called on people to actually track and rate the honesty of his platform. That's a first amongst presidents (to my knowledge). You can track the results.
Out of 254 evaluated statements, 208 have been found to be true, in varying degrees. 208 are know to be true, 44 are known to be false. That's a truthfulness rating of about 80%. I don't know about you, but in my book (for a politician) that's incredibly high. Even if you count the "barely true" category as being false, which technically it isn't, then your still left with 176 true to 76 false.
Out of the 500+ campaign promises, he's only broken 19. Certainly not all promises are weighted equally, but again we are talking about breaking less than 5% of his promises. By scientific testing standards, that's an acceptably low enough number to prove he's keeping his promises.
He has compromised on 39 of the 500+ campaign promises, which shows that the United States still has a President, and not a Dictator. Even with the compromises added to the broken promises, he's kept or working on keeping 90%+ of his promises.
Of course, this is the USA, where we ignore facts and vote on the latest smear campaign. At the rate we are going, we will vote in office Sarah Palin. Her numbers are sobering. 27 true items to 13 false items, or about 67% true. Counting the barely true against her (as we did previously) brings the numbers to 22 true to 18 false, a mere 55% truthfulness.
A more important issue, do you really want your president to be 100% truthful? How fast do you think the economic recovery would progress if the President of the United States motivated the entire nation with, "Well we are totally fucked, and hundreds of millions of people will probably lose their jobs." How do you think we would fare in trade agreements if we said, "We're going to use our status and military power to bully you into giving us a better cut of the pie."? Both of these statements are true, but they much better told in half-truths, ie. "We are working on a plan which will increase our financial stability at home and abroad." and "We feel we could assist you with your problems more if you removed a few trade barriers."
Blaming Obama for lying is like blaming Obama for being a good negotiator. The fact that he has managed to not lie on 90% of his campaign promises is not just remarkable, it's incredible. In fact, it is so good that Republicans have voted against bills they sponsored to try to decrease his approval rating. They then use that "evidence" as a weakness of the Presidency, knowing full well that the public doesn't associate the passage of laws with Congress, they "feel" the President does it all.
Somehow the idea of light rail on stilts makes me wonder what is to prevent a car slamming into one of those impressively rendered stilts? While I understand that they are attempting to find a solution that can retrofit roads without altering the existing dimensions, it would seem that the stilts would take up some of the road space, making the likelihood of collision even greater.
Of course Schrodinger's cat always posts as AC; it stands for Alternating Cat.
My first 3d movie was one of the "Ice Age" films. The story was what you would expect; a mind numbing experience unless you're under 12. Leaving the theater my senses were appropriately dulled by the slow action and glacial story line progression, yet I still had a headache.
For those of us who know why I might be watching such a film, I can say that the subsequent multiple watchings in 2d didn't remove the dullness of the action or speed up the glacial story line progression. Fortunately, the post-Ice Age stupor in 2d doesn't come with a complimentary headache.
Call me back when they fix the depth of field issue. The whole scene needs to be in focus so that when my eyes aren't looking at precisely what the director wants, my eyes don't try to focus on something that can't be focused on.
I'm unclear: is this a problem you have specifically with 3D, or with cinema in general? Every imaging system has limited depth of field. What you're asking for is technically impossible except in animated films.
In a regular movie, the whole screen registers with one depth, so an out-of-focus section doesn't have a better (or worse) depth than an in-focus section. In a 3d movie, at least one section of the screen has correct depth and focus, which makes the other sections that have correct depth but wrong focus bewildering.
Imagine if you were walking around and I could decide what was in focus for you. As long as we both were thinking the same thing was interesting, there wouldn't be a problem. The issues come up when I am sure you want to look at something, but you find something else to be interesting (if even only for a moment).
The sweeping battle scenes in Avatar where foreground characters are repeating the tired lines about the difficulties of the battle's progress where what made me intensely aware of the issue. Having spent six years with the Marines in a field infantry unit, I wanted to look at the battle. Since that was behind the main characters, you could see the battle behind them at the correct depth, but it was permanently out of focus. Such an effect was quite disorienting, and I realized that 3d movies have a particular limitation; they punish you for not following the focus the director intended.
With 2d movies, the interesting bits probably won't be in focus either; but at least looking at them won't inflict pain.
Exactly. That's why I hate 3d movies, before I get the possible headache.
With 3d movies, since the screen is still flat, only one item can be in focus at any given time. The items in focus are those in the plane where the action is typically taking place, but sometimes something interesting is happening in the background. Attempts to view the background have you focusing on something that will never come into focus. This causes eyestrain and an uncomfortable visual feeling.
Most of the time people want to see what the director wants them to see; however, there were several scenes in Avatar where I wanted to look at the squad tactics in the background. It was quite disconcerting to know that they were permanently rendered out of focus.
If there wasn't part of the screen being rendered with tricks to simulate depth, I doubt I would have been so put off by the other parts of the screen failing to simulate depth in the same way.
I too have worn glasses since childhood. I've never had a problem wearing the 3d glasses over my normal ones, and I purchase my frames from the "big" sized rack at the eye doctor's shop. Don't you think that, maybe, you're just being a little bit of a drama queen?
Let's see. There are three general descriptions of eye defects, shortsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism. They can be present in varying degrees. Astigmatism and short (or near) sightedness can be mixed in the same eye. Astigmatism involves an axis which will vary from person to person. There are literally tens of thousands of frames, each with their own dimensions. The standardized parts of the dimensions only extend to critical areas like the nose width and frame arm length.
Having an eye defect, and having been exposed to the world of corrected vision your whole life, how can you honestly tell me that a complete stranger shouldn't have a problem because you don't? Do you lack enough empathy for a person similar to yourself that you want to rub their affliction into their face), or are you actually so undereducated about your own condition that you believe the rest of the eyeglass wearing world is exactly like you?
Is this over the lifetime of Gnome or that of Canonical. If it's the former, then your argument doesn't hold water. Yay for statistics without methodology!
The ripping RedHat / Fedora / everything else because Unbuntu is "so much better" probably started after Canonical was formed. At our LUG, I just ask, "So what other distros have you used?" and that shuts them up. I'd wager that 90% of all Unbuntu users haven't used anything else, but are certain that it's the best distro in the world because they are implicitly comparing it to Windows.
Large? According to Canonical's own website, they NOW have 350 staff, and that's spread out over 30 countries. A smallish to medium sized company is more like it, the average amusement park hires more personnel. For comparison, RedHat employs 3200 people.
Don't confuse your love of a product with love of the company.
I don't think so. They forgot to properly mold the C4 into friendly forest animals.
I would take it one step further. If they are going to provide equal access to alternative theories, then that's fine. Let them truly provide equal access. Have them teach a 100% un-altered scientifically backed evolution class during Sunday school, along with all of the "other" creation stories.
That's about the only way to drive this point home to these dunces. Once they realize that what they do to others can be done to them, they'll stop messing around in other people's backyards for fear of what will be done in theirs.
... at Sunday School.
Which begs the question, if they are allowed to teach creationism in a Science class, may I teach evolution in their Sunday school?
For something to be a science, you must have the ability to prove it false. Not believe it might be false, but actually have a way that you could know 100% it is false. That doesn't mean that you will ever find it will be false, it just means that there has to be the ABILITY for it to be false.
With creationism, you can never find that God didn't make everything (in however many days you wish to believe). That's because there's no means of proving that God didn't make everything. If you find dinosaur bones, then you can't say that it's proof of God NOT making everything; because, it's just proof that God did a little more work (by making dinosaur bones for you to discover).
With science, you can never make a scientific statement unless you have the ability to prove it false. One example is global warming. We have records of the outdoors temperature stretching back nearly two hundred years, and in the last twenty years or so, the entire planet is hotter. We could argue that the entire planet isn't hotter, it is actually cooler; but, the data doesn't support the argument that the planet cooled down.
It is very important to know the difference between scientific proof and logical proof. Logical proof makes a statement true, but scientific proof is different. It means, "We haven't seen anything that makes this statement false, yet." To defeat an undesirable scientific proof, you must find a real world example. Since science is tied to what we see in the observable world, it is very useful for anything that involves living in the observable world.
Science doesn't care about the un-observable world, because it is impossible to prove anything false if you can't observe it.
Go's failure is an obvious conspiracy for everyone attempting to make him Stop.
I seem to recall the Chinese basically imprisoning or possibly killing anyone who attempted to copy via transportation their silk/silkworm farms. Even today the Chinese aren't offering ownership of pandas to properly equipped zoos. China isn't exporting their trade secrets, and I doubt they lenient on those who attempt to steal them. I'd say that your prejudice is showing, because you think that China should protect its assets and steal from others too.
Add to the mix that many hybrids have an incredible track-record for average maintenance costs. Mine (according to Consumer Reports) averages nearly $1000 less per year in expected repair and maintenance costs.
Initially I was skeptical of the maintenance number, as it could easily be manipulated. However, my experience so far has supported the numbers. Even without a service plan, my first maintenance visit cost me $20; because, the only required item was a rotation of the tires. I expected to pay more, because you would think that the oil would need changing too. And that's at-the-dealership prices, without any "extended" service plan or discount.
I can buy a 30,000 dollar car and a ton of gas, so what's the point? Car prices don't reflect the value of the gasoline. If they did, we would all be driving Yugos, instead I'm driving in my $30,000 car which is damn nicer than your $18,000 entry level car.
I'm glad to hear about this customized education. Now that I've received my results, it is clear that I should have been a telephone switchboard operator.
Seriously, brains may be more attuned to different tasks, either by genetics, environment, or some combination; but, careers don't really account for those in them. The ideal job might not be the best career due to a number of social issues, like abundance of qualified applicants, advances in technology, work-life balance, social contacts, and ability to obtain the entry prerequisites. There is a lot of possible social mobility in the USA, but if you don't make some pretty difficult choices that mobility may be out of reach.
One friend once mentioned that he realized he wouldn't be able to achieve in his hometown, so he sold all of his possessions and his car, bought a one way plane ticket to Houston, and with the remaining money rented a room for two weeks. Within a week he had a job, and years later when he visits his relatives he knows he made the right decision.
As admirable as his actions were, it wouldn't matter what his brain scan found if he didn't own a dilapidated car that was worth just enough to cover the cost of the airline ticket.
Asperger's, you never cease to amaze me. Somehow used as a sign of genius amongst hackers while at the same time being reason you should have charges dropped.
That's the genius of it!
While that might be true to understanding computers, a good EQ score will allow you to have a good understanding of how to accomplish tasks that require more than just your own two hands. I've seen scant few development teams of one these days; probably, because the dreams of what the programs are meant to accomplish are getting broader.
The good thing is that anyone with a sense of history would realize that EQ is just manners in a new fashionable garb. That means it can be learned.
Bullshit. The test is related to what grade you should be in compared to what grade you are actually in. Feynman took the test (as did most people) as a child. History has proved time and again that the only thing an IQ test does well at is whether you take tests well. That's a kind of intelligence, but if you read enough of Feynman's works, you realize that his intelligence excels in how inter-related things interact, and how to express ideas without corrupting them. There's no "explain this to me" section of the IQ test.
Funny how my batteries still won't fit, sideways.
I agree, but only up to a point. There are times in real life experience where you just get hit by problems that look like the walls of Troy. On those occasions, having a degree is like pulling out a map which shows you where the unlocked back door is.
I have had the (dis)pleasure of interacting with journalists on three occasions. Each time they took a rather minor point and framed it as the entire focus of the whole effort. It's really quite shocking to read an article on something you did; random story writing might actually be more accurate.
Imagine you're doing kidney research, about a disease that prevents people from recovering water as it passes through the kidneys. You tell them that there aren't many affected people, probably under 200 (to your knowledge) in the USA. You tell them how these people need to drink about eight gallons of water a day to prevent dehydration. You explain that you suspect a protein in the kidney isn't working right, and that's the protein you are looking for. You mention that despite the need for massive quantities of water; otherwise a person can live a normal life. They ask about the most unusual affected person you know, and you mention that one person has managed his condition so well that he is able to run marathons provided he hides gallons of water along the route prior to the race.
The reporter then reports that you are researching a kidney protein to make better athletes and wraps up the article with a high-tech spin on performance enhancing drugs leading to lab designed human triathlon participants.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.