In the UK it seems the majority of people favor the high saturation of security cameras. So even if there were a vote there would still be cameras everywhere. What you guys need is some huge scandal involving the police abusing the system for the political gain of someone or through some other type of corruption. I'm sure papers like The Guardian would pick up on it and people would start to change their views on this. Then again there have been proven, systematic abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI here in the US and most people don't seem to be too concerned about it (but we don't have The Guardian and like papers either). The abuses haven't lead to anyone being sent to jail as far as I've read which may be part of the reason it isn't on most people's radar.
I appreciate the recommendations. However, it seems to be impossible to rent 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' since it hasn't been released on DVD (or if it has it isn't available on netflix). Based on what I've read on wikipedia it seems that it isn't really worth watching. Most (if not all) of the main points in the movie seem to be based on dated material that have already been debunked. I read the wikipedia article for 'An Inconvenient Truth' as well and couldn't find any significant counter-claims or criticisms to even most of its main arguments.
In 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' they claimed that volcanoes emitted more CO2 than human activity. However, this is false (and has been known to be false) for quite some time and even the director has admitted that this claim wasn't true. A couple of plots in the movie were also wrong (with one plot showing a time series that seemed to end at the present rather than 1988). Frankly, for this and the other reasons listed on the wikipedia article I see no reason to watch this movie. I have watched other movies on 'controversial' topics such as how the world is believed to be only 6000 years old or so according to Creationists (yes, they make movies too). It is rather tedious writing down their claims, doing some simple research, and subsequently debunking one after another one of their claims. Unless the movie is made with significantly better quality-control than the one you mentioned I will be happy to just read the summary.
Brief excerpt from wikipedia article:
The Times reported that Durkin had seriously fallen out with a scientist who had been considering working with him. Armand Leroi was concerned that Durkin had used data about a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures which had subsequently been found to be flawed. Leroi sent Durkin an e-mail saying, "To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways". He copied the e-mail to scientific author Simon Singh. Durkin responded to Leroi saying "You're a big daft cock". Singh sent an email to Durkin urging him to engage in serious debate. Durkin responded stating, "Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing", and concluded with, "Go and fuck yourself". Durkin later apologised for his language, saying that he had sent the e-mails when tired and had just finished making the programme, and that (despite his comments) he was "eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas".
Umm, how is it responsible to 'think we can dictate what/how our climate will do/will change'? What are the adverse consequences of believing this? It is not naive to believe that humans have no control over the climate. In the ice core samples from Antarctica it is clearly visible when the Clean Air act was passed for example.
How do you explain the significant melting of glaciers? The drying of the Amazon River? What about how the ozone hole was steadily getting larger until CFCs were significantly reduced, at which point the hole has been shrinking since? You may call me naive but unless I am shown some FACTS and some damn good explanations I won't be changing my opinion.
And, for the record, there's a difference between being motivated and being hysterical. When people were sick and tired of the lousy air they were breathing they weren't hysterical. They were motivated and forced Congress to do something about it. That's exactly what we are doing now and Congress will be forced to do something about this issue.
There are several predictions by the global warming theory that would have a very severe, immediate impact on humans as well as other species. Even if they are wrong on most things, if they are correct on any one of these items the consequences would be very serious and irreversible (at least not reversible in any short amount of time).
Several key, non-controversial observations of the world we are living in:
The glaciers of the world are disappearing. Based on photographic evidence from 100 years ago or less the world's glaciers were much larger than they are now.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased rapidly over the last several decades (really longer than this but the amount of CO2 prior to this may be disputed by a few people).
The tundra is thawing in Alaska as well as other locations.
The ice sheet over Greenland and Antarctica is melting.
Several large lakes in Africa and Asia have disappeared over the last few decades. Some were directly related to over irrigation but not all of them.
The list could go on. Now for the potential consequences:
Severe local climate changes. This is already happening in several places, such as the Alps where they had one of the warmest winters ever recorded. Other areas are getting worse floods than they have ever experienced while very sever droughts occur elsewhere (such as in Africa).
If the thawing of the tundra continues a large amount of methane frozen in the soil in Russia could be released very quickly, doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
A large amount of Greenland's or Antarctica's ice sheet could be released into the ocean. Just recently a very large amount of ice (larger than Rode Island) fell into the sea from Antarctica in less than 6 weeks. Ocean levels would rise (but what amount is debated but they will definitely rise). It's possible that the Gulf Stream would stop due to a sudden decrease in salinity if Greenland's ice were to quickly dip into the ocean.
So, why should we risk these severe consequences? We have the technology and resources to significantly dampen the rate at which greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. Oil companies certainly have the resources to help out in this regard (considering they made billions in pure profit last year alone). Frankly, I think it is the height of irresponsibility to just keep going along and doing nothing until some catastrophic event occurs.
The motivation for most, if not all, of the prominent critics is quite clear. They are almost always funded directly or indirectly by oil companies. Some executives go so far as to describe the benefits of global warming while simultaneously claiming humans aren't the primary cause of the current trend.
What motivation would all of these scientists have to deceive everyone? You could say they wouldn't get research grants if they were to try to publish reports that countered the global-warming theory. But how did it get to this point? Global warming wasn't commonly believed until relatively recently (only the last couple of decades). Meaning that scientists changed their minds. In whose interests would it have been to change these scientists' minds? How could they have convinced them without sound scientific data? The great majority of climate scientists are payed by public funds and aren't easily fired so there really is not an incentive for them to knowingly lie to or deceive their peers.
So I repeat: watch 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean he's wrong. And if you doubt Al Gore's intentions consider that his professor in college was one of the original proponents of global warming and Gore has been pressing this issue for decades. What would motivate him to do this if he didn't honestly believe in it?
Not necessarily. In this case it wouldn't take much to prevent this behavior. Simply write the software the employees use in such a way that they can only send the password to the e-mail on file. If the client wants the password sent to an e-mail not associated with the account then the employee would need some sort of identification (such as credit card number and perhaps some other info) which they would then enter into the program they're using. If it matches, then the software would allow them to send the password to the client. This isn't exactly rocket science and this logic could be written into the software with very little effort by any competent developer.
When would you consider that you are using RAM directly? Do you mean when you are using low-level functions like malloc() and free() or any time you access an object on the heap? Heck, even the stack is in RAM for that matter. It makes sense to be cautious when allocating memory and accessing it without a memory manager, but when using higher-level languages like Java or C# it doesn't seem to be as critical (since an exception will be thrown which is easily caught when trying to access invalid memory areas). That's one of the primary reasons I prefer writing code in C# and Java, it's much easier to write bullet-proof code (so long as the implementation of the underlying libraries and just-in-time compiler are similarly bullet-proof).
One other question: How do you handle 3rd-party libraries that your application uses? Do you try to run unit tests for them as well? You seem to be pretty thorough in your security approach and I was just wondering how far you are willing to go to keep your app secure. Personally I haven't ever written a unit test for a 3rd-party library (but I haven't ever saturated my app's code with unit tests either--critical code, sure, but other items--especially GUI-related logic--less so).
I still think it is a fairly low-priority issue. If the US were to disable or degrade service over Europe then it would directly affect American companies too, specifically airlines and shipping companies. Also, the US manufactures a significant portion (perhaps even most) of the consumer and almost all of the professional level GPS units used around the world. If GPS couldn't be relied upon then the sale of GPS equipment would surely be aversely affected.
If you would want to be fully independent of the US then you would also need to address these issues:
Securing shipping lanes. The US is especially the world police when it comes to international waters, having a navy that is significantly larger than any other nation.
Rerouting the internet backbone. A significant amount of traffic still goes through US-controlled nodes in US territory.
If you think the Galileo project is expensive you should see how expensive it would be for the EU to build and maintain a fleet large enough to patrol all of the shipping lanes in the world. Frankly I'm a bit disappointed in the EU. The US screws up (especially lately) with international affairs but it also provides a good amount of free services that the rest of the world benefits from (such as the above mentioned items). Why doesn't the EU spend its billions on something that will help the rest of us out for once. The Galileo project will (theoretically) improve accuracy of positioning but not nearly enough given the amount of money being spent on the project. Surely the money could be better spent on medical research/lowering unemployment/etc.
I know the TSA isn't working. That's why it will take more money to change the system or add better detecting equipment. I don't think it makes people fearful though. I fly fairly often and the only time I recall people being fearful or anxious about flying was during the 6-12 months after 9/11.
I don't see how getting rid of Medicaid and Social Security solves the problem. That is, the problem of people getting health care that they can't afford to pay for. If you can afford to pay for your own healthcare and retirement then sure, you get to pay less taxes without adverse consequences. Otherwise you're screwed. And then there's public education to consider. Yes, it is broken but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed with taxpayer money. We just need better leaders who will focus more on problems here rather than starting new ones abroad (at great expense no less).
Just to show a historical example of government leaders actually doing something to solve national problems: Back in the 50s they were aware that there was going to be an acute shortage of doctors within a decade or two. The solution? They started a national program to create new medical schools across the country. Within 10 years they had trained enough doctors to prevent a shortage. For the last 10-20 years there has been a shortage of doctors which has only worsened over time. The solution? Umm, there doesn't seem to be one (at least not one I've heard about). The consequences? People need to wait longer for needed care, doctors need to go through an awful internship process where they work 80 hours or more per week for a few of years, patients get worse care (due to overworked doctors), etc.
Where are your numbers coming from? The IRS keeps a large number of statistics publicly available but I haven't been able to find a document that verifies or contradicts what you stated yet (there's a large number of tables available). Also, an increase in revenue is irrelevant if it doesn't keep up with expenditures. Inflation also needs to be considered.
I can't imagine Federal taxes getting any lower than they already are. Even if we were to pull out of Iraq and reduce the military budget by half we would then need to spend more money on port and airport security as well as the social security program. Medicaid is also going to need a lot more money if it is going to function when all of the baby boomers retire. Otherwise we'll be right back where we were back before social security existed with the poor getting little if any health care while the rich prosper. Or we'll just run the national deficit up to the point that America's credit is ruined for a very long time (which would almost certainly lead to a worldwide recession).
I usually don't care how far off they are on the science but I do cringe when they make an elementary mistake. For example, they once tested a myth of a person surviving a fall from a plane by his fall being cushioned by a large explosion. As an initial step they needed to figure out how high they needed to place Buster before dropping him so that he would be at terminal velocity when he reached the impact area. Adam calculated this by using a rough assumption of the terminal velocity of a falling person and then calculating how long it would take to reach this velocity by falling in a vacuum. This may have seemed like a simple approximation that won't greatly change the result. However, he was off by 100% (they would have needed to drop Buster from about twice as high to get within 5% of terminal velocity). The more precise calculation was much more complicated (since it was a limit problem and the terminal velocity of an object depends on its area as well as its mass) but with the help of Wikipedia it only took me about 10 minutes to perform. He would have been blown up all the same but with such horrible accuracy with your calculation why even bother whipping out your calculator in the first place?
It looks like everyone responding to your post claims that if you rear-end someone you are automatically at fault. I know that at least here in Colorado that is not true. The mother of a friend of mine was found at fault for being rear-ended some years ago. An ambulance was coming from behind so she pulled over to the right lane and slowed down. However she was rather reckless because she slammed on her brakes to slow down, causing the person she had just pulled in front of to crash into her. I agree that in most situations you should be found at fault for rear-ending someone (especially when approaching a known stop point) but there are situations where there's absolutely nothing you can do from rear-ending some reckless driver.
As for your suggestion of increasing the speed limit to skilled drivers I disagree. The main reason I disagree is due to the much greater likelihood of fatalities and damage caused by accidents at that speed. The other is due to the enormously reduced fuel economy. I know rich people can afford to buy a Hummer or sports car and have 10mpg or less going 120mph down the road but come on, do we really need to be purposefully wasting oil and adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere at this point? This would be a terrible policy by the government to encourage an even more dangerous driving environment and would cause greater CO2 emissions rather than a reduction which is greatly needed at this point.
I agree. It would be cool if you could customize the items you create with your crafting skills in LOTRO. At least they have a way of allowing you to play instruments in the game. I haven't been too keen on that though since I have a real instrument at my house (a piano). Trying to play a song on the keyboard just isn't that much fun in comparison and not nearly as challenging (due to the limits imposed by the game/keyboard). Now if they allowed music to be given by a MIDI input source that would be awesome.
Thanks. Ultimately I did manage to get one. I tried another weekend at a local Gamestop that knew ahead of time that they would have some. Unfortunately they only had 3 so that was a wasted effort. When Nintendo started shipping the Wiis with the new wrist straps there was a sort of re-launch day (so all of the stores simultaneously had them in stock). I showed up to Best Buy at about 7am and finally managed to nab one for a friend of mine while my roommate bought one.
Not here (in Colorado). I tried to get a Wii at 6am at the local Wal-Mart on launch day but they had already sold out. I then waited in line for hours at a nearby Target but ultimately missed it (I was 33rd in line and they only had 29 units).
OK, clarification: for $600 it's too much for what you get right now. What I mean by that is there isn't enough fun gameplay to warrant $600 plus the cost of the game currently. When there is a really fun game for the PS3 that isn't available anywhere else (or at least would have significantly inferior gameplay on other platforms) then I'll reconsider. Or if down the road blue-ray becomes the next defacto format for videos. Otherwise I'll wait and see.
I agree that Microsoft hasn't been helping the RPG genre. Hopefully that guy that founded the Final Fantasy series that is now working for Microsoft will turn things around. I'm glad they have some good retro games available on Live Arcade though. Geometry Wars is a really fun game if you ever liked the old Asteroids and I play it several times every week.
Who hates the PS3? Seriously, if it were $200 I would consider it. At $600 it's simply too expensive for what you get. (and for most it's simply too expensive for what they have to spend with)
Frankly, I wouldn't buy it even if it were the same price as the 360 because:
I like the 360 games better (especially XBox Live Arcade ones that I can buy for ~$5).
I prefer the 360 controllers over the PS3 ones.
Nothing currently competes with XBox Live.
Halo3
This doesn't really enter the decision process but I also appreciate that the 360 comes with component cables with support for digital audio output.
You are referring to this episode. It was effectively an arms race between the Klingong, Cardassian, Romulans and Federation to figure out this hidden code in the DNA of various humanoid species in the galaxy. They didn't know what the data was but some assumed it was instructions for building some sort of devistating weapon. It turns out to be a holograph program recording set by the 'founders' of the galaxy that had seeded each planet with dna.
Re:Misses the point
on
PMD Applied
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Your idea has merit but I disagree that the files should be stored in this way. This would probably either be some binary format that would make it more difficult to track changes using version-control software or an XML file that would also be more difficult to keep track of. This would also prevent common text editors from being able to edit the file.
However, it would be cool if your text editor automatically cleaned up the code for your display without actually changing the file. The trick here though would be maintaining a reasonably readable file if two people are editing it with different style settings (such as shift-width=4 versus 3, etc.). The reason you would like for it to not change the code is to make version tracking easier (otherwise every time someone with a different style made a commit tons of lines of code would change due to style differences).
There's already text editors that can clean up code (such as the one in Visual Studio.Net) but I'm not aware of any that can do this in the background without changing the file.
I know where you're coming from but I don't think there will be a significant drop in the 360 price anytime soon (anything over $50). The problem is that the graphics card is much more complicated than entire consoles of previous generations. So you are effectively paying for the complexity of two previous generations for a 360 or PS3.
I bought a 360 over the holidays and my roommate finally managed to get a Wii a couple of weeks ago. While the Wii is certainly fun and I would buy it myself even though I have a 360, it is not at all at the same graphics level of the 360 (it honestly doesn't even seem to be at the level of the old Xbox to me). So for cartoon style games its fun (really fun). But if you want to play online with some friends with voice chat with intense gameplay then you really need to look for a PC or 360. Also the online capabilities of the 360 far surpass those of the Wii.
I wonder if they'll make another version where a sniper rifle is attached with an digital scope so that the robot could spin around, aim and the robot operator could view the LCD remotely and determine whether to do the shot or not. If he chooses to shoot, the whole process from time of the shot by the enemy sniper to the return shot by the robot could take less than a couple of seconds.
10. Yes: modern search engines. (Although possibly not as 'intelligent' as was hoped.)
Actually, for simple questions like that it works just fine. See this search result when asked how far Saturn is from the sun or this to see the results for the population of Fiji. Answer: 905,949 (July 2006 Est.)
I tried getting a Wii a couple of times but haven't been successful yet. I planned on getting a 360 eventually so decided to get one now so that I'd at least have something new to play with. It's actually pretty fun (I played a few arcade games as well as the Legos Starwars game). I also like how they have integrated Live into the console.
As soon as Wii starts showing up on the shelves for hours at a time I'll get one but I'm sure I'll still be playing plenty of 360 games too. If I didn't have broadband then I might have just waited for the Wii though.
True, but if he's on a two-lane road where passing is not possible the polite thing to do would be to pull over to the shoulder to let people pass (assuming he is going significantly slower than everyone else). I used to see this happen often on country roads in Texas.
and you have no indication as to whether they are applying the brake -- though maybe there should be.
Now there's an idea. It would be cool to hook up a small laser range finder that points backwards on your motorcycle. If someone approaches too rapidly from too short of a distance it would sound an alarm so you know to jump off your bike and hope for the best. I doubt such a device would be helpful for cars though since you can't accelerate the car or abandon it quickly enough, although I guess it could help you brace for impact.
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK it seems the majority of people favor the high saturation of security cameras. So even if there were a vote there would still be cameras everywhere. What you guys need is some huge scandal involving the police abusing the system for the political gain of someone or through some other type of corruption. I'm sure papers like The Guardian would pick up on it and people would start to change their views on this. Then again there have been proven, systematic abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI here in the US and most people don't seem to be too concerned about it (but we don't have The Guardian and like papers either). The abuses haven't lead to anyone being sent to jail as far as I've read which may be part of the reason it isn't on most people's radar.
I appreciate the recommendations. However, it seems to be impossible to rent 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' since it hasn't been released on DVD (or if it has it isn't available on netflix). Based on what I've read on wikipedia it seems that it isn't really worth watching. Most (if not all) of the main points in the movie seem to be based on dated material that have already been debunked. I read the wikipedia article for 'An Inconvenient Truth' as well and couldn't find any significant counter-claims or criticisms to even most of its main arguments.
In 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' they claimed that volcanoes emitted more CO2 than human activity. However, this is false (and has been known to be false) for quite some time and even the director has admitted that this claim wasn't true. A couple of plots in the movie were also wrong (with one plot showing a time series that seemed to end at the present rather than 1988). Frankly, for this and the other reasons listed on the wikipedia article I see no reason to watch this movie. I have watched other movies on 'controversial' topics such as how the world is believed to be only 6000 years old or so according to Creationists (yes, they make movies too). It is rather tedious writing down their claims, doing some simple research, and subsequently debunking one after another one of their claims. Unless the movie is made with significantly better quality-control than the one you mentioned I will be happy to just read the summary.
Brief excerpt from wikipedia article:
The Times reported that Durkin had seriously fallen out with a scientist who had been considering working with him. Armand Leroi was concerned that Durkin had used data about a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures which had subsequently been found to be flawed. Leroi sent Durkin an e-mail saying, "To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways". He copied the e-mail to scientific author Simon Singh. Durkin responded to Leroi saying "You're a big daft cock". Singh sent an email to Durkin urging him to engage in serious debate. Durkin responded stating, "Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing", and concluded with, "Go and fuck yourself". Durkin later apologised for his language, saying that he had sent the e-mails when tired and had just finished making the programme, and that (despite his comments) he was "eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas".Umm, how is it responsible to 'think we can dictate what/how our climate will do/will change'? What are the adverse consequences of believing this? It is not naive to believe that humans have no control over the climate. In the ice core samples from Antarctica it is clearly visible when the Clean Air act was passed for example.
How do you explain the significant melting of glaciers? The drying of the Amazon River? What about how the ozone hole was steadily getting larger until CFCs were significantly reduced, at which point the hole has been shrinking since? You may call me naive but unless I am shown some FACTS and some damn good explanations I won't be changing my opinion.
And, for the record, there's a difference between being motivated and being hysterical. When people were sick and tired of the lousy air they were breathing they weren't hysterical. They were motivated and forced Congress to do something about it. That's exactly what we are doing now and Congress will be forced to do something about this issue.
There are several predictions by the global warming theory that would have a very severe, immediate impact on humans as well as other species. Even if they are wrong on most things, if they are correct on any one of these items the consequences would be very serious and irreversible (at least not reversible in any short amount of time).
Several key, non-controversial observations of the world we are living in:
The list could go on. Now for the potential consequences:
So, why should we risk these severe consequences? We have the technology and resources to significantly dampen the rate at which greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. Oil companies certainly have the resources to help out in this regard (considering they made billions in pure profit last year alone). Frankly, I think it is the height of irresponsibility to just keep going along and doing nothing until some catastrophic event occurs.
The motivation for most, if not all, of the prominent critics is quite clear. They are almost always funded directly or indirectly by oil companies. Some executives go so far as to describe the benefits of global warming while simultaneously claiming humans aren't the primary cause of the current trend.
What motivation would all of these scientists have to deceive everyone? You could say they wouldn't get research grants if they were to try to publish reports that countered the global-warming theory. But how did it get to this point? Global warming wasn't commonly believed until relatively recently (only the last couple of decades). Meaning that scientists changed their minds. In whose interests would it have been to change these scientists' minds? How could they have convinced them without sound scientific data? The great majority of climate scientists are payed by public funds and aren't easily fired so there really is not an incentive for them to knowingly lie to or deceive their peers.
So I repeat: watch 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean he's wrong. And if you doubt Al Gore's intentions consider that his professor in college was one of the original proponents of global warming and Gore has been pressing this issue for decades. What would motivate him to do this if he didn't honestly believe in it?
Not necessarily. In this case it wouldn't take much to prevent this behavior. Simply write the software the employees use in such a way that they can only send the password to the e-mail on file. If the client wants the password sent to an e-mail not associated with the account then the employee would need some sort of identification (such as credit card number and perhaps some other info) which they would then enter into the program they're using. If it matches, then the software would allow them to send the password to the client. This isn't exactly rocket science and this logic could be written into the software with very little effort by any competent developer.
When would you consider that you are using RAM directly? Do you mean when you are using low-level functions like malloc() and free() or any time you access an object on the heap? Heck, even the stack is in RAM for that matter. It makes sense to be cautious when allocating memory and accessing it without a memory manager, but when using higher-level languages like Java or C# it doesn't seem to be as critical (since an exception will be thrown which is easily caught when trying to access invalid memory areas). That's one of the primary reasons I prefer writing code in C# and Java, it's much easier to write bullet-proof code (so long as the implementation of the underlying libraries and just-in-time compiler are similarly bullet-proof).
One other question: How do you handle 3rd-party libraries that your application uses? Do you try to run unit tests for them as well? You seem to be pretty thorough in your security approach and I was just wondering how far you are willing to go to keep your app secure. Personally I haven't ever written a unit test for a 3rd-party library (but I haven't ever saturated my app's code with unit tests either--critical code, sure, but other items--especially GUI-related logic--less so).
I still think it is a fairly low-priority issue. If the US were to disable or degrade service over Europe then it would directly affect American companies too, specifically airlines and shipping companies. Also, the US manufactures a significant portion (perhaps even most) of the consumer and almost all of the professional level GPS units used around the world. If GPS couldn't be relied upon then the sale of GPS equipment would surely be aversely affected.
If you would want to be fully independent of the US then you would also need to address these issues:
If you think the Galileo project is expensive you should see how expensive it would be for the EU to build and maintain a fleet large enough to patrol all of the shipping lanes in the world. Frankly I'm a bit disappointed in the EU. The US screws up (especially lately) with international affairs but it also provides a good amount of free services that the rest of the world benefits from (such as the above mentioned items). Why doesn't the EU spend its billions on something that will help the rest of us out for once. The Galileo project will (theoretically) improve accuracy of positioning but not nearly enough given the amount of money being spent on the project. Surely the money could be better spent on medical research/lowering unemployment/etc.
I know the TSA isn't working. That's why it will take more money to change the system or add better detecting equipment. I don't think it makes people fearful though. I fly fairly often and the only time I recall people being fearful or anxious about flying was during the 6-12 months after 9/11.
I don't see how getting rid of Medicaid and Social Security solves the problem. That is, the problem of people getting health care that they can't afford to pay for. If you can afford to pay for your own healthcare and retirement then sure, you get to pay less taxes without adverse consequences. Otherwise you're screwed. And then there's public education to consider. Yes, it is broken but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed with taxpayer money. We just need better leaders who will focus more on problems here rather than starting new ones abroad (at great expense no less).
Just to show a historical example of government leaders actually doing something to solve national problems: Back in the 50s they were aware that there was going to be an acute shortage of doctors within a decade or two. The solution? They started a national program to create new medical schools across the country. Within 10 years they had trained enough doctors to prevent a shortage. For the last 10-20 years there has been a shortage of doctors which has only worsened over time. The solution? Umm, there doesn't seem to be one (at least not one I've heard about). The consequences? People need to wait longer for needed care, doctors need to go through an awful internship process where they work 80 hours or more per week for a few of years, patients get worse care (due to overworked doctors), etc.
Where are your numbers coming from? The IRS keeps a large number of statistics publicly available but I haven't been able to find a document that verifies or contradicts what you stated yet (there's a large number of tables available). Also, an increase in revenue is irrelevant if it doesn't keep up with expenditures. Inflation also needs to be considered.
I can't imagine Federal taxes getting any lower than they already are. Even if we were to pull out of Iraq and reduce the military budget by half we would then need to spend more money on port and airport security as well as the social security program. Medicaid is also going to need a lot more money if it is going to function when all of the baby boomers retire. Otherwise we'll be right back where we were back before social security existed with the poor getting little if any health care while the rich prosper. Or we'll just run the national deficit up to the point that America's credit is ruined for a very long time (which would almost certainly lead to a worldwide recession).
I usually don't care how far off they are on the science but I do cringe when they make an elementary mistake. For example, they once tested a myth of a person surviving a fall from a plane by his fall being cushioned by a large explosion. As an initial step they needed to figure out how high they needed to place Buster before dropping him so that he would be at terminal velocity when he reached the impact area. Adam calculated this by using a rough assumption of the terminal velocity of a falling person and then calculating how long it would take to reach this velocity by falling in a vacuum. This may have seemed like a simple approximation that won't greatly change the result. However, he was off by 100% (they would have needed to drop Buster from about twice as high to get within 5% of terminal velocity). The more precise calculation was much more complicated (since it was a limit problem and the terminal velocity of an object depends on its area as well as its mass) but with the help of Wikipedia it only took me about 10 minutes to perform. He would have been blown up all the same but with such horrible accuracy with your calculation why even bother whipping out your calculator in the first place?
It looks like everyone responding to your post claims that if you rear-end someone you are automatically at fault. I know that at least here in Colorado that is not true. The mother of a friend of mine was found at fault for being rear-ended some years ago. An ambulance was coming from behind so she pulled over to the right lane and slowed down. However she was rather reckless because she slammed on her brakes to slow down, causing the person she had just pulled in front of to crash into her. I agree that in most situations you should be found at fault for rear-ending someone (especially when approaching a known stop point) but there are situations where there's absolutely nothing you can do from rear-ending some reckless driver.
As for your suggestion of increasing the speed limit to skilled drivers I disagree. The main reason I disagree is due to the much greater likelihood of fatalities and damage caused by accidents at that speed. The other is due to the enormously reduced fuel economy. I know rich people can afford to buy a Hummer or sports car and have 10mpg or less going 120mph down the road but come on, do we really need to be purposefully wasting oil and adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere at this point? This would be a terrible policy by the government to encourage an even more dangerous driving environment and would cause greater CO2 emissions rather than a reduction which is greatly needed at this point.
I agree. It would be cool if you could customize the items you create with your crafting skills in LOTRO. At least they have a way of allowing you to play instruments in the game. I haven't been too keen on that though since I have a real instrument at my house (a piano). Trying to play a song on the keyboard just isn't that much fun in comparison and not nearly as challenging (due to the limits imposed by the game/keyboard). Now if they allowed music to be given by a MIDI input source that would be awesome.
Thanks. Ultimately I did manage to get one. I tried another weekend at a local Gamestop that knew ahead of time that they would have some. Unfortunately they only had 3 so that was a wasted effort. When Nintendo started shipping the Wiis with the new wrist straps there was a sort of re-launch day (so all of the stores simultaneously had them in stock). I showed up to Best Buy at about 7am and finally managed to nab one for a friend of mine while my roommate bought one.
Not here (in Colorado). I tried to get a Wii at 6am at the local Wal-Mart on launch day but they had already sold out. I then waited in line for hours at a nearby Target but ultimately missed it (I was 33rd in line and they only had 29 units).
OK, clarification: for $600 it's too much for what you get right now. What I mean by that is there isn't enough fun gameplay to warrant $600 plus the cost of the game currently. When there is a really fun game for the PS3 that isn't available anywhere else (or at least would have significantly inferior gameplay on other platforms) then I'll reconsider. Or if down the road blue-ray becomes the next defacto format for videos. Otherwise I'll wait and see.
I agree that Microsoft hasn't been helping the RPG genre. Hopefully that guy that founded the Final Fantasy series that is now working for Microsoft will turn things around. I'm glad they have some good retro games available on Live Arcade though. Geometry Wars is a really fun game if you ever liked the old Asteroids and I play it several times every week.
Who hates the PS3? Seriously, if it were $200 I would consider it. At $600 it's simply too expensive for what you get. (and for most it's simply too expensive for what they have to spend with) Frankly, I wouldn't buy it even if it were the same price as the 360 because: I like the 360 games better (especially XBox Live Arcade ones that I can buy for ~$5). I prefer the 360 controllers over the PS3 ones. Nothing currently competes with XBox Live. Halo3 This doesn't really enter the decision process but I also appreciate that the 360 comes with component cables with support for digital audio output.
You are referring to this episode. It was effectively an arms race between the Klingong, Cardassian, Romulans and Federation to figure out this hidden code in the DNA of various humanoid species in the galaxy. They didn't know what the data was but some assumed it was instructions for building some sort of devistating weapon. It turns out to be a holograph program recording set by the 'founders' of the galaxy that had seeded each planet with dna.
Your idea has merit but I disagree that the files should be stored in this way. This would probably either be some binary format that would make it more difficult to track changes using version-control software or an XML file that would also be more difficult to keep track of. This would also prevent common text editors from being able to edit the file.
.Net) but I'm not aware of any that can do this in the background without changing the file.
However, it would be cool if your text editor automatically cleaned up the code for your display without actually changing the file. The trick here though would be maintaining a reasonably readable file if two people are editing it with different style settings (such as shift-width=4 versus 3, etc.). The reason you would like for it to not change the code is to make version tracking easier (otherwise every time someone with a different style made a commit tons of lines of code would change due to style differences).
There's already text editors that can clean up code (such as the one in Visual Studio
I know where you're coming from but I don't think there will be a significant drop in the 360 price anytime soon (anything over $50). The problem is that the graphics card is much more complicated than entire consoles of previous generations. So you are effectively paying for the complexity of two previous generations for a 360 or PS3.
I bought a 360 over the holidays and my roommate finally managed to get a Wii a couple of weeks ago. While the Wii is certainly fun and I would buy it myself even though I have a 360, it is not at all at the same graphics level of the 360 (it honestly doesn't even seem to be at the level of the old Xbox to me). So for cartoon style games its fun (really fun). But if you want to play online with some friends with voice chat with intense gameplay then you really need to look for a PC or 360. Also the online capabilities of the 360 far surpass those of the Wii.
I wonder if they'll make another version where a sniper rifle is attached with an digital scope so that the robot could spin around, aim and the robot operator could view the LCD remotely and determine whether to do the shot or not. If he chooses to shoot, the whole process from time of the shot by the enemy sniper to the return shot by the robot could take less than a couple of seconds.
10. Yes: modern search engines. (Although possibly not as 'intelligent' as was hoped.)
Actually, for simple questions like that it works just fine. See this search result when asked how far Saturn is from the sun or this to see the results for the population of Fiji. Answer: 905,949 (July 2006 Est.)
I tried getting a Wii a couple of times but haven't been successful yet. I planned on getting a 360 eventually so decided to get one now so that I'd at least have something new to play with. It's actually pretty fun (I played a few arcade games as well as the Legos Starwars game). I also like how they have integrated Live into the console.
As soon as Wii starts showing up on the shelves for hours at a time I'll get one but I'm sure I'll still be playing plenty of 360 games too. If I didn't have broadband then I might have just waited for the Wii though.
True, but if he's on a two-lane road where passing is not possible the polite thing to do would be to pull over to the shoulder to let people pass (assuming he is going significantly slower than everyone else). I used to see this happen often on country roads in Texas.
and you have no indication as to whether they are applying the brake -- though maybe there should be.
Now there's an idea. It would be cool to hook up a small laser range finder that points backwards on your motorcycle. If someone approaches too rapidly from too short of a distance it would sound an alarm so you know to jump off your bike and hope for the best. I doubt such a device would be helpful for cars though since you can't accelerate the car or abandon it quickly enough, although I guess it could help you brace for impact.