There is a good deal of self-evident irony in an 'Open Internet' site run by the FCC and not prepared for lots of visitors. I worry that the site is slowing down under a deluge of AT&T employees attempting to access it and run their FUD amok.
It wasn't the number of deaths that got the Emperor to take notice, it was the fact that we did it with just one bomb each time. The alternative was to invade the Japanese home islands, which, by conservative estimates, would've meant hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and millions of dead Japanese. Truman made the right call in dropping the bombs.
It's easy to transpose a specific ideology onto history if one does not actually look at said history with its full complexity and inherent ambiguities.
The estimate of hundreds of thousands of lives lost was created after the end of the war to justify dropping the bombs. No, seriously, go look it up.
The vast majority of urban infrastructure was already destroyed, many estimates placed Japanese capitulation just weeks later if the bombs had not been dropped. The civilian population was training to fight off the invaders with bamboo poles. The civilian population was primarily women, children and the elderly at this point. How long do you think they would have lasted against Americans armed with flamethrowers and machine guns? You could base your estimate after the situation in Okinawa, but the defense in depth doctrine played out to the extreme on that island. There were no in-depth military fortifications to nearly the same extent on the home islands and the military to civilian ratio was not nearly at the same level. In addition, official Japanese government racism towards the islanders of Okinawa led them to disregard a great deal of the loss of life there. This would not have held true for Japan.
You would like to think that the Emperor looked at the atomic bombs and said "Gee, I must capitulate so these things don't destroy the World." Well, they may have played a role. The Soviet Union entering the war against Japan and immediately taking over most of Manchuria on August 8 just might have had something to do with it as well. Japan hardly expected this at the time, since they had a neutrality pact with the USSR and were working intermittently through the Soviets at trying to find some kind of ceasefire agreement with the United States. Consequently, the Soviets were poised to take over Japan in one fell swoop and were already on their way by the time Japan did get around to indicating their intent to surrender a week later.
So, while you could look at it as the Emperor surrendering to the United States due to the atomic bombs. You could also look at it as the Emperor surrendering to the United States, so he would not be forced to surrender to the USSR under much worse circumstances. Of course, the Emperor and his cabinet would claim the atomic bomb as a primary reason to surrender, because this would be the best way to save face, an excellent trump card to pull from the deck to justify 'enduring the unendurable.' Admitting to surrendering primarily because the Soviets were knocking at the door would have been far more shameful. The United States, on the other hand, needed this particular justification of the end-war scenario so they could justify their exclusive post-war occupation of Japan. They could hardly share Japan with the USSR when rumblings of the Cold War were already brewing and things were quickly going downhill in a divided Germany. The U.S. wanted Japan to itself and the atomic bomb justification was a perfect way to diplomiticize the situation.
And here I always thought it stood for "should the French unite?"
Because if an issue isn't important enough for the French to unite about it, then you should probably STFU. Then again, maybe this barrier is too low.;)
huh? what? You can resell a download perfectly legally.. the problem is more typically finding a buyer. Of course, if there's any DRM on that download, it's illegal to break it.
I was referring to reselling the license, not the download itself. Actually, I was referring to giving the license away for monetary compensation or no compensation, depending on personal preference (just like a physical disc).
Not that this will ever happen, but, if the ramifications of this decision are taken to the next level, it could enforce the consumers' right to resell the license to a given software application.
This, in turn, could mean that one could exchange and resell licenses of downloaded games and other media. Of course, the industry will likely pay off any relevant political actors in the interests of piracy prevention long before this occurs.
Then again, software companies are much more open to this type of idea than they were ten years ago. Well, we can always hope.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
Heaven forbid people in infested regions should ever go outside without their beekeeper suits on....
Heaven forbid it indeed! Going outside without a beekeeper suit is a terrible faux pas. Though I was never one to adhere to the canon of fashion, even I know that...
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
Smoke helps keep mosquitoes and other insects away.
Heaven forbid we should make use of such a thing as a net for the purpose of warding off such insects as may carry tropical diseases.
We might call such a net a "Mosquito Net." Alas, if only there were such a thing...
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
That's not really a fair argument. After all, who ever died from not smoking?
It's a perfectly fair argument. If you die from a smoking-related illness, then you have smoking to blame for your death. If you die from an obesity-related illness, then you have too many cheeseburgers to blame for your death.
Are you going to suggest that, if someone dies from a smoking-related illness, it doesn't matter because they would have died someday anyway? Well, sure, if that's the attitude, then just shoot heroin while you're driving the wrong direction on the freeway. When you die, however, be prepared for your family to resent your callous disregard for the consequences of drug abuse and reckless driving.
Re:What to do with our corporeal remains
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I wouldn't care what happened to my remains. I was a wave, and all that remains of me are ripples left behind in a shared pool of memories.
Well, in most cases, my opinion is that treating remains in a certain way helps families say goodbye.
So, of course you don't care what happens to your remains, but it's not *for* you. Whatever ceremony greets your departure from this earth is primarily for your family. So, you should at least care about your funeral for your family's sake. This is the main chance for them to say goodbye.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Do we need the anti-smoking jab
I don't know. If your sister died due to liver-failure as a result of alcoholism, wouldn't it be understandable if you disliked alcohol?
If one of my siblings died as a result of an addiction to cigarettes, I believe I too would warn people about the risks of smoking.
I don't believe it's a jab, either, just harsh reality.
The tax option looks interesting, but a little too in line with typical ideas of the conservative right in the United States to win my vote. Eliminating income tax and taxing consumption directly through sales tax would severely detriment lower income brackets and reward the affluent. The research on sales tax being more detrimental to lower income groups is pretty solid. I was actually surprised Google passed this idea through given its obvious politics.
The transportation option, on the other hand, while somewhat far-fetched, would revolutionize commerce and local economies if it were widely adopted.
Since all of the ideas are a bit of a long shot, I voted for what I would like to see in an ideal world. In addition, the idea of riding blimps to work is just too cool to pass up.
I love when the marketing department takes off to promote gimmicks like these. Who cares if there's a new gizmo in the transponder that makes the electrofuzz rain golden teardrops on your soul?
What matters in a game is if it's fun to play. Previous Ratchet & Clank games were fun, and I have reasonable hopes for this one as well. As for the gimmicks, I could care less (unless they start to detract from gameplay).
But with episodic content (Like ODST) its cheap enough that we all can grab it, IF we really want it.
I don't understand what you mean here. ODST is $60 at retail, which is, as mentioned previously, the cost of a full game. As you say, it's episodic, and this is why it's controversial to sell at the price of a full game.
The point is that the government wastes time and money on this sort of regulation when they could be using both to actually do something useful.
The California Constitution dictates that the budget must pass with a 2/3 majority in the legislature. In addition, the constitution stipulates you need a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes. Hence, the budget is impossible to pass and taxes are not raised. The republicans hold the budget hostage every year until they receive ridiculous concessions. It is basically the only time during the year when the republicans have any say in the legislature, and they use it to push through their entire conservative agenda on issues that have nothing to do with the budget. Meanwhile, the governor (Schwarzenegger) encourages this activity by threatening vetoes unless he gets exactly what he wants as well.
In an environment like this, no wonder it is easier to pass bills that don't involve the 2/3 majority clause.
Basically, these two stipulations in the state constitution are ruining the budget. How exactly would you propose to solve the situation? Sitting on the sidelines and yelling about "bureaucracy" doesn't change the fact that California voters voted for these additions to the state constitution that make it impossible to pass a budget or raise taxes.
If you're going to report solely on the basis of C02 emissions, then you should also consider that this is not a good indicator for how much a state pollutes in total. We all know there are plenty of pollutants out there besides C02, and of course the highest emitters of the gas are going to be states with large populations.
My statement was specifically refuting that California is one of the worst polluters in the nation. This simply does not stand up to the facts, if you look at the picture of environmental impact in total.
Uhh, are you responding to the right post? Which part of my post did you disagree with? Is it that I'm in favor of clean beaches, air, water, less disease and a longer lifespan?
Exactly where did you think I was suggesting that it's okay for corporations to "exploit and pollute at will?" It's funny this is the message you received from my post, since I was suggesting exactly the opposite.
I assure you that my post is in cogent English. If you read my statement carefully, there is no room for error in the interpretation of my intent. Therefore, I suggest you go back and look again.
Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious? [...] Living in Virginia and looking at how other states do things [...]
Just as an FYI, Virginia pollutes more than California.
I'm not even taking into consideration that Virginia has 30 million less people than California. If I took that into consideration and looked at per-capita pollution, then Virginia pollutes WAY more than California.
Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious?
First of all, your suggestion California is the "most polluted" is downright inaccurate. If you're referring to air pollution in LA and other cities, then you have to consider local climate plays a role in retaining certain pollutants that form smog, as does the fact the area has around eighteen million people.
As for "how" I can live here (here, for me, being in the San Francisco Bay Area), for some reason I have trouble understanding the question. Are you seriously asking how I can live in one of the most statistically desirable places in the United States? Well, I manage pretty well...
I suppose it depends on what types of "cost" you evaluate. I like clean beaches, clean air, clean water, less disease and a longer lifespan.
All of these things have value for me. Therefore, the savings I accrue in terms of the things I value in laws that benefit the environment far outweigh any potential gains in paying five dollars less for a television set.
Furthermore, devices that use less energy provide savings in your electric bill. If you can't evaluate the savings in your future health costs by breathing cleaner air, then at least evaluate the savings in your immediate energy costs by using less electricity.
who knows more about manufacturing TVs than the TV industry?
And who knows more about automobiles than the automobile industry? But, wait, the automobile industry protests practically every single time California wants to introduce stricter emissions controls. Nevertheless, California presses forward over their objections.
The result is that we have cleaner air and automobiles with higher gas mileage. The result of this TV law is that we will have TVs that don't consume as much energy. Just how is this a bad thing? Seriously...
Apparently CA whalehuggers aren't aware of those of us who like to drive our cars fast...at the racetrack or dragstrip. Or that many car enthusiasts have the best-running (and thus cleanest running) cars on the road
Last I checked, you could have the best running car on the road and still get 5 mpg.
I'm sorry that you dislike the penchant for people in California becoming annoyed at your self-righteous pollution of the atmosphere. We all happen to breathe your self-righteous fumes and are unable to jog in L.A. without becoming ill due to fumes such as yours.
If you don't support a strict effort to control such fumes and just don't realize how serious a problem they are, then I suggest you move to one of the many areas in the United States that never takes such things into consideration and you can fumigate yourself all you like.
This law will create markets blacker than the old man's beard and five times the size!
Except, no, it won't. TV manufacturers will be forced to comply with California law as a de-facto nationwide standard because of the size of the market. So, unless you buy products directly from Korea, "black markets" will not be an issue.
How is mandating energy efficiency a bad idea? Is it also a bad things that California has the best track-record in mandating greater energy efficiency in automobiles? Is it bad that California mandates energy efficiency and alternative energy use in power consumption? Explain how this is de-facto "bad."
Because all the morons polluting up the planet by leaving their AC on 24/7 make the rest of us suffer. Seriously, if it were only a matter of economics, there would be no alternative energy movement.
Slashdot Mirror
HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.
What you say is totally correct, with the one minor detail that I would change *quality* to *softcore porn*.
There is a good deal of self-evident irony in an 'Open Internet' site run by the FCC and not prepared for lots of visitors. I worry that the site is slowing down under a deluge of AT&T employees attempting to access it and run their FUD amok.
It wasn't the number of deaths that got the Emperor to take notice, it was the fact that we did it with just one bomb each time. The alternative was to invade the Japanese home islands, which, by conservative estimates, would've meant hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and millions of dead Japanese. Truman made the right call in dropping the bombs.
It's easy to transpose a specific ideology onto history if one does not actually look at said history with its full complexity and inherent ambiguities.
The estimate of hundreds of thousands of lives lost was created after the end of the war to justify dropping the bombs. No, seriously, go look it up.
The vast majority of urban infrastructure was already destroyed, many estimates placed Japanese capitulation just weeks later if the bombs had not been dropped. The civilian population was training to fight off the invaders with bamboo poles. The civilian population was primarily women, children and the elderly at this point. How long do you think they would have lasted against Americans armed with flamethrowers and machine guns? You could base your estimate after the situation in Okinawa, but the defense in depth doctrine played out to the extreme on that island. There were no in-depth military fortifications to nearly the same extent on the home islands and the military to civilian ratio was not nearly at the same level. In addition, official Japanese government racism towards the islanders of Okinawa led them to disregard a great deal of the loss of life there. This would not have held true for Japan.
You would like to think that the Emperor looked at the atomic bombs and said "Gee, I must capitulate so these things don't destroy the World." Well, they may have played a role. The Soviet Union entering the war against Japan and immediately taking over most of Manchuria on August 8 just might have had something to do with it as well. Japan hardly expected this at the time, since they had a neutrality pact with the USSR and were working intermittently through the Soviets at trying to find some kind of ceasefire agreement with the United States. Consequently, the Soviets were poised to take over Japan in one fell swoop and were already on their way by the time Japan did get around to indicating their intent to surrender a week later.
So, while you could look at it as the Emperor surrendering to the United States due to the atomic bombs. You could also look at it as the Emperor surrendering to the United States, so he would not be forced to surrender to the USSR under much worse circumstances. Of course, the Emperor and his cabinet would claim the atomic bomb as a primary reason to surrender, because this would be the best way to save face, an excellent trump card to pull from the deck to justify 'enduring the unendurable.' Admitting to surrendering primarily because the Soviets were knocking at the door would have been far more shameful. The United States, on the other hand, needed this particular justification of the end-war scenario so they could justify their exclusive post-war occupation of Japan. They could hardly share Japan with the USSR when rumblings of the Cold War were already brewing and things were quickly going downhill in a divided Germany. The U.S. wanted Japan to itself and the atomic bomb justification was a perfect way to diplomiticize the situation.
And here I always thought it stood for "should the French unite?"
Because if an issue isn't important enough for the French to unite about it, then you should probably STFU. Then again, maybe this barrier is too low. ;)
huh? what? You can resell a download perfectly legally.. the problem is more typically finding a buyer. Of course, if there's any DRM on that download, it's illegal to break it.
I was referring to reselling the license, not the download itself. Actually, I was referring to giving the license away for monetary compensation or no compensation, depending on personal preference (just like a physical disc).
Not that this will ever happen, but, if the ramifications of this decision are taken to the next level, it could enforce the consumers' right to resell the license to a given software application.
This, in turn, could mean that one could exchange and resell licenses of downloaded games and other media. Of course, the industry will likely pay off any relevant political actors in the interests of piracy prevention long before this occurs.
Then again, software companies are much more open to this type of idea than they were ten years ago. Well, we can always hope.
Heaven forbid people in infested regions should ever go outside without their beekeeper suits on....
Heaven forbid it indeed! Going outside without a beekeeper suit is a terrible faux pas. Though I was never one to adhere to the canon of fashion, even I know that...
Smoke helps keep mosquitoes and other insects away.
Heaven forbid we should make use of such a thing as a net for the purpose of warding off such insects as may carry tropical diseases.
We might call such a net a "Mosquito Net." Alas, if only there were such a thing...
That's not really a fair argument. After all, who ever died from not smoking?
It's a perfectly fair argument. If you die from a smoking-related illness, then you have smoking to blame for your death. If you die from an obesity-related illness, then you have too many cheeseburgers to blame for your death.
Are you going to suggest that, if someone dies from a smoking-related illness, it doesn't matter because they would have died someday anyway? Well, sure, if that's the attitude, then just shoot heroin while you're driving the wrong direction on the freeway. When you die, however, be prepared for your family to resent your callous disregard for the consequences of drug abuse and reckless driving.
I wouldn't care what happened to my remains. I was a wave, and all that remains of me are ripples left behind in a shared pool of memories.
Well, in most cases, my opinion is that treating remains in a certain way helps families say goodbye.
So, of course you don't care what happens to your remains, but it's not *for* you. Whatever ceremony greets your departure from this earth is primarily for your family. So, you should at least care about your funeral for your family's sake. This is the main chance for them to say goodbye.
Do we need the anti-smoking jab
I don't know. If your sister died due to liver-failure as a result of alcoholism, wouldn't it be understandable if you disliked alcohol?
If one of my siblings died as a result of an addiction to cigarettes, I believe I too would warn people about the risks of smoking.
I don't believe it's a jab, either, just harsh reality.
The tax option looks interesting, but a little too in line with typical ideas of the conservative right in the United States to win my vote. Eliminating income tax and taxing consumption directly through sales tax would severely detriment lower income brackets and reward the affluent. The research on sales tax being more detrimental to lower income groups is pretty solid. I was actually surprised Google passed this idea through given its obvious politics.
The transportation option, on the other hand, while somewhat far-fetched, would revolutionize commerce and local economies if it were widely adopted.
Since all of the ideas are a bit of a long shot, I voted for what I would like to see in an ideal world. In addition, the idea of riding blimps to work is just too cool to pass up.
I love when the marketing department takes off to promote gimmicks like these. Who cares if there's a new gizmo in the transponder that makes the electrofuzz rain golden teardrops on your soul?
What matters in a game is if it's fun to play. Previous Ratchet & Clank games were fun, and I have reasonable hopes for this one as well. As for the gimmicks, I could care less (unless they start to detract from gameplay).
But with episodic content (Like ODST) its cheap enough that we all can grab it, IF we really want it.
I don't understand what you mean here. ODST is $60 at retail, which is, as mentioned previously, the cost of a full game. As you say, it's episodic, and this is why it's controversial to sell at the price of a full game.
The point is that the government wastes time and money on this sort of regulation when they could be using both to actually do something useful.
The California Constitution dictates that the budget must pass with a 2/3 majority in the legislature. In addition, the constitution stipulates you need a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes. Hence, the budget is impossible to pass and taxes are not raised. The republicans hold the budget hostage every year until they receive ridiculous concessions. It is basically the only time during the year when the republicans have any say in the legislature, and they use it to push through their entire conservative agenda on issues that have nothing to do with the budget. Meanwhile, the governor (Schwarzenegger) encourages this activity by threatening vetoes unless he gets exactly what he wants as well.
In an environment like this, no wonder it is easier to pass bills that don't involve the 2/3 majority clause.
Basically, these two stipulations in the state constitution are ruining the budget. How exactly would you propose to solve the situation? Sitting on the sidelines and yelling about "bureaucracy" doesn't change the fact that California voters voted for these additions to the state constitution that make it impossible to pass a budget or raise taxes.
California produces about 3.5x as much CO2, for example, as Virginia.
Actually, my statement is referring to the fact that Virginia has around 71 million pounds of reported toxic chemical releases per annum. California has about 45 million pounds of reported releases.
If you're going to report solely on the basis of C02 emissions, then you should also consider that this is not a good indicator for how much a state pollutes in total. We all know there are plenty of pollutants out there besides C02, and of course the highest emitters of the gas are going to be states with large populations.
My statement was specifically refuting that California is one of the worst polluters in the nation. This simply does not stand up to the facts, if you look at the picture of environmental impact in total.
Uhh, are you responding to the right post? Which part of my post did you disagree with? Is it that I'm in favor of clean beaches, air, water, less disease and a longer lifespan?
Exactly where did you think I was suggesting that it's okay for corporations to "exploit and pollute at will?" It's funny this is the message you received from my post, since I was suggesting exactly the opposite.
I assure you that my post is in cogent English. If you read my statement carefully, there is no room for error in the interpretation of my intent. Therefore, I suggest you go back and look again.
Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious? [...] Living in Virginia and looking at how other states do things [...]
Just as an FYI, Virginia pollutes more than California.
I'm not even taking into consideration that Virginia has 30 million less people than California. If I took that into consideration and looked at per-capita pollution, then Virginia pollutes WAY more than California.
Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious?
First of all, your suggestion California is the "most polluted" is downright inaccurate. If you're referring to air pollution in LA and other cities, then you have to consider local climate plays a role in retaining certain pollutants that form smog, as does the fact the area has around eighteen million people.
As for "how" I can live here (here, for me, being in the San Francisco Bay Area), for some reason I have trouble understanding the question. Are you seriously asking how I can live in one of the most statistically desirable places in the United States? Well, I manage pretty well...
"Costing jobs" is "you're not thinking of the children!"
"Your not thinking of the children" is "costing jobs," "putting our healthcare at risk" and "letting the terrorists win." "It's socialism."
Higher cost. Seriously...
I suppose it depends on what types of "cost" you evaluate. I like clean beaches, clean air, clean water, less disease and a longer lifespan.
All of these things have value for me. Therefore, the savings I accrue in terms of the things I value in laws that benefit the environment far outweigh any potential gains in paying five dollars less for a television set.
Furthermore, devices that use less energy provide savings in your electric bill. If you can't evaluate the savings in your future health costs by breathing cleaner air, then at least evaluate the savings in your immediate energy costs by using less electricity.
who knows more about manufacturing TVs than the TV industry?
And who knows more about automobiles than the automobile industry? But, wait, the automobile industry protests practically every single time California wants to introduce stricter emissions controls. Nevertheless, California presses forward over their objections.
The result is that we have cleaner air and automobiles with higher gas mileage. The result of this TV law is that we will have TVs that don't consume as much energy. Just how is this a bad thing? Seriously...
Apparently CA whalehuggers aren't aware of those of us who like to drive our cars fast...at the racetrack or dragstrip. Or that many car enthusiasts have the best-running (and thus cleanest running) cars on the road
Last I checked, you could have the best running car on the road and still get 5 mpg.
I'm sorry that you dislike the penchant for people in California becoming annoyed at your self-righteous pollution of the atmosphere. We all happen to breathe your self-righteous fumes and are unable to jog in L.A. without becoming ill due to fumes such as yours.
If you don't support a strict effort to control such fumes and just don't realize how serious a problem they are, then I suggest you move to one of the many areas in the United States that never takes such things into consideration and you can fumigate yourself all you like.
This law will create markets blacker than the old man's beard and five times the size!
Except, no, it won't. TV manufacturers will be forced to comply with California law as a de-facto nationwide standard because of the size of the market. So, unless you buy products directly from Korea, "black markets" will not be an issue.
How is mandating energy efficiency a bad idea? Is it also a bad things that California has the best track-record in mandating greater energy efficiency in automobiles? Is it bad that California mandates energy efficiency and alternative energy use in power consumption? Explain how this is de-facto "bad."
Because all the morons polluting up the planet by leaving their AC on 24/7 make the rest of us suffer. Seriously, if it were only a matter of economics, there would be no alternative energy movement.