How many people here are looking for a 15+ lb. machine to replace their desktop priced at $2000+ USD?
My stepfather just bought one. I don't know if it weights 15 lbs, but it's a beast by portable standards. It's purpose isn't really desktop replacement, but to showoff their cpu-intensive software to customers with a setup that is relatively easy to take on a plane. It is not intended to be used while on the plane. I'm pretty sure this is a fairly uncommon requirement.
Okay, now how many people are looking for a sub-5 lb. machine in a laptop form factor that can run basic productivity software with excellent battery life priced at less than $800 USD?
Hey now, it's also gotta have enough beef in it to run freecell! But yeah, one would think there are tons of people in that group, particularly if you could knock a couple hundred dollars off that price.
Why are there so few options for the latter scenario? And an even better question: why are there so many options for the former scenario!?
My guess? Margins on the latter are much better than the former.
But doing that with your vinyl would in any case require a record player. Apple doesn't supply you one; you need it yourself. Similarly, you need an N64 to play N64 games. No, you can't 'transfer' the game to your Wii, but why do you need to when you've got a functioning N64?
They are using the iTunes example for video games, however iTunes always had the ability to import your current CD collection.
And your tape collection? And your vinyl and eight-track collection? Okay, if you had a tape/record/8-track player you could record onto your computer, encode, and then add it, but that requires compatible players and inputs, analgous to owning an older game console which you could just use instead, which brings me to the Wii virtual console:
How would this work? Without providing a way to insert a NES/SNES/N64 cartridges, the Wii itself won't be able to use your old games. So how would Nintendo know that you owned the old game? You probably don't have receipts or UPC symbols for the games... are you going to ship your old cartridges to Nintendo HQ? The shipping would cost almost as much as Nintendo has been quoting for their VC games.
It's a fine idea you have, but not really practical. Repurchasing content is fairly normal when moving to a new format especially when it drastically changes physical form factors. Compatability among multiple forms of cartridges isn't something that any console does; it only makes sense in the generations that have started to use optical disks. Nintendo seems to be offering very reasonable prices for old games -- I'd say $10 is a good price for anything N64 generation, and hopefully NES era games will be very cheap or come in bundles. I think it's unfair to call it a "black mark" that the Wii won't read your Mario64 cartridge. If that's really what you want, you should have kept your N64.
How can you read an article that starts with the question of who will win the handheld console war and COMPLETELY FAIL TO MENTION THAT PSP's PLAY MOVIES!!!
Probably because everyone has completely failed to care that the PSP plays movies.
UMD movies anyway... Playing ripped movies may be a different story, though I'm not sure if that qualifies as something only 'power users' do, like booting Linux on a PS2. UMD though has turned out to have basically zero impact on the handheld wars. You're right it probably should have been mentioned, even if dismissed quickly.
Not quite government use, but the law enforcement community is certainly employing the cell towers.
Unless you're living in the crazy libertarian equivalent of a 60s commune, law enforcement == government.
Nevertheless thanks for the article. Very interesting both for its use in gaining an arrest warrant and for the range information -- 300 yards is a little worse than I expected, but it does say "or less".
I remembered after posting about the 911 location thing, but that's because I'm pretty sure they use the triangulation technique I'm talking about to do it. Specifically because this was something being asked of the cell service providers, not cell phone makers, implying that it was something that could be done with the existing setup. It would be better this way anyway, since it wouldn't require everyone to buy a new phone to get the service.
It seems highly unlikely that all phones have GPS capabilities in them but don't advertise this feature and make it available to the consumer. GPS chips would increase the cost of the phone and it would be nuts to forgoe the opportunity to charge the customer more for them.
What I find amusing is that a lot of emperors of China, etc, in centuries past were 13 years old.
Don't consider this as implying even the remotest knowledge of Chinese history, but were any of these 13-year-old emperors actually running the empire vs simply being crowned while adult aides ran the show?
Somehow, recently, we decided an individual is too stupid to think for themselves until they turn 18.
No, not true. 18 is not the age at which we believe you are no longer too stupid to take care of yourself.
18 is the age at which we as a society stop caring if you aren't.
I strongly disagree with a lot of the blatant abuses of children done by schools; I'm just pointing out that it is wrong to view it as "under 18 is incapable of being independent, over 18 is not". It's just the legal boundary at which societal protections/restrictions are lifted regardless of the consequences.
As for the three laws, they were written in a body of fiction. I think that too much attention is paid to them.
I don't know about that. I think it's more that the three laws are believed to be more than they are by people who haven't read the book (which included me before I read "I, Robot"). They're seen as some ideal that if somehow implemented can make robots absolutely safe. However the books show that this isn't true. Given ridiculously sophisticated rules implemented in such a way as it is literally impossible for them to be violated -- i.e. complete fantasy -- robots can still act in unpredictable and indeed unsafe ways.
Thus I think Aasimov's rules are a perfect place to start when discussing robots and safety. They show that even the absolute "ideal" in robotic behavior rules cannot eliminate safety issues.
How long until we find out that every mobile phone has this feature and it has been activated by the NSA.
Consider part 1 of your question answered with "now". Every mobile phone has this feature.
If you are within range of two or more cell towers, then your position can be triangulated. The more towers nearby, the more accurate the reading will be. It's simply the nature of cell phones as broadcast devices. You can't broadcast a signal without revealing your location.
The second part is a different story. Whether or not any government agency has used this ability is unknown; whether it would be accurate enough for their purposes is unknown to me as well. Nevertheless they certainly could use it to at least roughly track you.
So if you really don't want your location known, do what the teenagers with these phones will do: Turn it off. And when mom/the G-men pick you up and want to know why they couldn't track you, tell them you couldn't get any service.
1) It's not about possible definitions or synonyms that appear in a dictionary. It is about how the word is used in reality by the countries that describe themselves as Republics. That's what matters. It's not about "bias" or "not liking" a word's usage, it's about the many countries that are Republics and not representative democracies. The second definition simply doesn't matter then. 2) Whenever I'm going to argue about a word's meaning, I look it up. It's the Internet Age; there's no reason not to. You however are correct that I made the mistake of taking a hard line in the definition based merely on the fact that this is how the word is used in the world at large, weakening my point and allowing pedants to have the opening they need to ply their useless trade.
I thought your point was that a Republic was not a Democracy, the U.S. is a Republic, and therefore the U.S. is not a Democracy, a stance your CIA source disagrees with.
But you're right, the terms are rather looseley defined. Across the globe, the most common usage of Republic in self-identification is closer to "not a monarchy" than "representative democracy". E.g. the UK which does not describe themselves as a Republic even though they are a Commonwealth. You can define them yourself, but that doesn't aid in understanding what forms of government various nations use and just leads to saying things which make no sense like "a representative democracy is not a democracy".
I did look in the dictionary before posting, the very one you linked to in your reply. I new about the second definition of the word, but it sounds like an addition made due to modern usage of the word rather than what the word has been traditionally applied to in self-identification by nations. But thank you for your concern.
Commonwealth is also a synonym for democracy. However the three terms are not identical. Synonym isn't the same as equivalence, so your argument that the U.K. is a republic is flawed.
The CIA clearly prefers the 'representative democracy' definition of republic. Either way it should be clear that Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive no matter who you take as your authority. In fact by their definitions many of the terms are not exclusive, as one would expect.
Oh, and there are states that want to have either a different voting system for their electors, or that want to split their electors. The biggest argument against this is that it would let national campaigns marginalize low-population areas. Which, somehow, is better than marginalizing citizens who live in high-population areas.
Or marginalizing citizens who live in low-population areas of high-population states!
I hear this all the time, and at some point I thought: what about rural California? What about rural New York? Even in Texas most of the population is urban. Aren't the low-population areas of these states marginalized?
If the assumption is that urbanites vs country folk have different priorities and thus different needs in representation, then lumping them all together just because they're contained within the same state boundary seems like exactly the thing we're claming we don't want.
There are several different definitions of the word "republic". Please don't pretend that your favorite definition is the only one.
It's not about favorite, it's about relevent. The second definition is a synonym for representative democracy, which is accurate for only some of the countries that are republics. In other words, in world politics it is the first definition that is relevent. And in no case are republic and democracy mutually exclusive (if you took the second definition as your "favorite" as the GP did, then republic is a subset of democracy).
Who actually votes for laws is the defining point. If those with suffrage votes directly for laws, then it is a Democracy. If representatives of those with suffrage vote for laws, then it is a Republic.
Where are you getting this from?
A Republic is a government whose head is not a monarch. This doesn't imply anything about whether the ability to vote on anything even exists, and if it does has nothing to do with what the people vote for.
A Democracy is a government controlled by the people, directly or via elected representatives. There are many kinds of Democracies in which the people control the government in different ways.
"Representative democracy" is a democracy (note the word "democracy" in "representative democracy"). It is a form of democracy in which people vote on elected officials. The form of government in which people vote directly for laws is called a "direct democracy". Both are Democracies. Both may be Republics, or they may not be. Republic vs Democracy are orthogonal axis on the spectrum of governments.
For example, the United Kingdom is a Democracy, but it is not a Republic. China is a Republic, but it is not a Democracy. The United States is both a Republic and a Democracy. The form of Democracy is Representative Democracy. This does not mean Representative Democracy == Republic.
As for whether or not any US company chooses to operate in china, what difference does it make with regards to human rights there in China? At the very least, a US company operating in China has the ability to pay a decent wage and give their Chinese employees good benefits but beyond that how could they possibly change China's human rights policies?
Oh, that's simple. They could refuse to do business with China. As could many other western businesses. Call it a boycott if you want. China is trying to grow rapidly and become a 1st-class economy. To do this they need western/democratic investment, both in the form of traditional monetary investment in Chinese assets, but also investment by western companies building facilities in China. If that investment was withdrawn, then China's economy would stagnate and their current road to Superpower would be washed out. Yahoo by themselves may not be able to change anything, except by setting an example that other companies follow. Much like a traditional boycott, or any large-group-behavior, the individual may not have much impact except as they form the part of a whole. And in this sense, refusing to do business with China could be very effective at persuading the PRC to change their human rights stance.
Unfortunately* the economic dependence goes both ways. A large-scale boycott of China could just as easily cause the U.S. to come crawling back to China, begging for access to cheap labor and products. And for such a thing to work it would require solidarity among the corporations. Difficult in a normal boycott, and with the sociopathic nature of corporations nigh impossible once they see a chance to gain an advantage by breaking the boycott.
But hey, I just said it was simple, not practical.
Still, I would like to see Google or Yahoo or somebody decide to set an example rather than cave in to the shiny Chinese Yuans with a shrug and a "what could we do?"
* In this case. Economic co-dependence is the main thing that makes me think war with China is unlikely, so I can't say it's unequivocally bad.
I think the asshole needs to reimburse us for the cost. I haven't tried it yet, but next time I'm going to propose this to the person because it's driving me nuts. You misrepresent your item, you pay for my expenses to come out to look at it.
If the guy wouldn't come clean about repainting the car after you told him that you'd know if he was lying, what makes you think he'd honor an agreement to reimburse your expenses?
I agree completely that the jerk should pay, but unless I'm just not creative enough I can't think of a way to enforce it.
i know it's far fetched, but think for a moment, if you were IBM, a major IT player with lots to gain if you make peace with microsoft (after years of a bitter relationship, see MSs monopoly trial's documents for more info), who would you prefer to help: microsoft or sony ?
i'd bet on MS. making a kick ass CPU for the 360 would make easier for IBM to extract sweeter deals from MS in other areas and to placate bill's wrath in what concerns IBM's linux business. if this means screwing up sony, so be it.
The reason IBM's relationship with MS was bitter was because IBM was simultaneously a competitor and a customer of Microsoft. It was a bitter relationship because IBM did have to do things to make MS happy that IBM would have rather not done. This is the kind of control MS has over every company that depends on their OS for sales, and IBM doesn't like it. They don't want to have to try to extract sweet deals from MS by dancing to their -- a competitor's -- tune.
IBM has for years been trying to extricate themselves from this situation. In recent years these efforts have become even more pronounced. They sold off their PC division, making all of MS's influence on the desktop irrelevent to them. That leaves MS in the server, and a major reason for IBM's investment in Linux is to fend off the advance of Windows into that space (proprietary Unix having proven ineffective at doing so).
So IBM really has no reason to make peace with MS, in so much as it doesn't stop MS from being IBM's customer. This is an arrangement I'm sure they much prefer -- MS is now buying from IBM instead of the other way around, and all they have to do to keep MS happy is provide the processors they want in the quantity they want just like every other customer.
Sony and MS are both just revenue streams as far as IBM's processor division is concerned. If there was any customer they were going to sabotage in order to benefit themselves in another space, it'd be Microsoft.
Actually, where I live--Richmond, Virginia--you have to have an adult over 18 if you are a minor and want to get into a R movie.
Every theatre I've been too in multiple states has had this rule. Yet in none of them was it a criminal act to allow an unsupervised minor in, it was voluntary action by the theatres. Is this truly a law in Virginia with criminal penalties?
As a parent, I ask how many of you parents want your 9 year old purchasing GTA?
Okay, you're a parent with a 9 year old (or at least was/will be 9 years old)...
1) How did your 9 year old get the money to buy GTA? 2) How did your 9 year old get to the mall to buy GTA? 3) How did your 9 year old get it home without you knowing? 4) How did your 9 year old play it at home without you being aware?
I see a lot of potential for parenting in there that the state is supposedly going to do for you now. So the question is: why does this need to be a crime? What if you gave your child permission to buy a game that met the three vague criteria but you didn't consider harmful?
We can talk about GTA which I'd think most people would agree is not suitable for young children, but you know there are going to be ridiculous cases where this applies -- assuming anyone knows in advance what games are affected, meaning it could be the game stores themselves which apply the rules to ridiculous cases just to cover their own asses. This is the problem with legistlating moral standards, and it isn't going to work this time.
We've gotten along fine without making it a crime to let someone under 18 into an R-rated movie. I'd be willing to bet most adults snuck into an R-rated movie at some point in their youths, and while they would rather their own kids not do the same, they probably wouldn't think criminal prosecution of the theatre is necessary if they did. Yet video games, which so many of that generation simply don't understand and thus are deathly afraid of, suddenly require a whole new set of laws to protect the children (so the parents don't have to).
I agree that it was a somewhat weak ending, but the Director's Cut has no ending.
Deckard and Rachel get in an elevator, as the door closes Deckard looks around in case they are being followed, brandishing his gun, and then... nothing. Credits roll.
It feels like a movie that stops five minutes before the story ends. That's because it is. If Scott had any real intention of ending the movie differently than the mountan ride, he never filmed what he needed in order to do so.
I disagree, it ended at a perfect spot. The closing of the elevator is the closing of that chapter of their lives. Deckard is nervously looking for pursuit, even if he isn't really expecting any after seeing the unicorn. In other words they are free, but not completely so as replicant(s) on the lam having to always look over their shoulder. Gaff's words ring in his head, reminding him how short and precious life is and the quest for survival that got him to where he is.
All this was said in less than a minute of film. What would you have added to this in another five minutes?
The unicorn which Gaff left was his way of saying, "I was here. I could have killed you both. Now would be a good time to disappear."
It clearly still meant this in the Director's Cut. Of course Gaff could have killed Deckard when he ran into him after Roy died, too, and he knew where Rachel lived. So that particular meaning was somewhat redundant.
Do you know what movie Scott bit the unicorn footage from?
(Which is silly, when you think about it. Even if Deckard was a Replicant, how would Gaff know about his dreams? Gaff was a low-level detective, not a hot-shit bladerunner. The cops didn't know shit about who was and wasn't a replicant, let alone what they dream about. If they did, they wouldn't need VK tests.)
If Deckard was a replicant, he was clearly not like the escapees. He was like Rachel, given a false memory of life as a Blade Runner. If you're going to create a replicant to be a Blade Runner and chase down other replicants, it would only make sense to have a control. Gaff, who always seemed to know where Deckard was, was that control. In this case his status as low-level detective could have been completely illusory (Gaff could in fact be the real Blade Runner), and his knowing about Deckard's dreams makes more sense than Deckard knowing about Rachel's. The interesting question in relation to the theme of the movie then becomes: Why did he let Deckard and Rachel go?
Probably because he didn't have enough other footage to keep a worthwhile run-time, especially after chopping off the ending he didn't like.
"Chopping off" or "removing the Scotch tape with which it was applied in the first place"? I could go either way on the voiceover (personally prefer without, it seemed 'noir' enough for me without the cliche expository monologue), but that ending was the most blantant and pathetic attempt to shoehorn a happy ending into a downer movie I've ever seen. From the stock mountain footage stolen from The Shining to the pathetic "Oh by the way she's special and won't die in four years and what do you mean 'what about Deckard?'" cop out.
But thank you for reminding me how "far from perfect" Mr. Scott can be as epitomized by Legend. I thought I'd killed the brain cells that remembered that crapfest with beer. Oh well, I'll try again tonight...
Slashdot Mirror
My guess? Margins on the latter are much better than the former.
Oops, I got that backwards. Hopefully it was clear that I meant that the margins are higher on the expensive desktop replacements.
How many people here are looking for a 15+ lb. machine to replace their desktop priced at $2000+ USD?
My stepfather just bought one. I don't know if it weights 15 lbs, but it's a beast by portable standards. It's purpose isn't really desktop replacement, but to showoff their cpu-intensive software to customers with a setup that is relatively easy to take on a plane. It is not intended to be used while on the plane. I'm pretty sure this is a fairly uncommon requirement.
Okay, now how many people are looking for a sub-5 lb. machine in a laptop form factor that can run basic productivity software with excellent battery life priced at less than $800 USD?
Hey now, it's also gotta have enough beef in it to run freecell! But yeah, one would think there are tons of people in that group, particularly if you could knock a couple hundred dollars off that price.
Why are there so few options for the latter scenario? And an even better question: why are there so many options for the former scenario!?
My guess? Margins on the latter are much better than the former.
But doing that with your vinyl would in any case require a record player. Apple doesn't supply you one; you need it yourself. Similarly, you need an N64 to play N64 games. No, you can't 'transfer' the game to your Wii, but why do you need to when you've got a functioning N64?
They are using the iTunes example for video games, however iTunes always had the ability to import your current CD collection.
And your tape collection? And your vinyl and eight-track collection? Okay, if you had a tape/record/8-track player you could record onto your computer, encode, and then add it, but that requires compatible players and inputs, analgous to owning an older game console which you could just use instead, which brings me to the Wii virtual console:
How would this work? Without providing a way to insert a NES/SNES/N64 cartridges, the Wii itself won't be able to use your old games. So how would Nintendo know that you owned the old game? You probably don't have receipts or UPC symbols for the games... are you going to ship your old cartridges to Nintendo HQ? The shipping would cost almost as much as Nintendo has been quoting for their VC games.
It's a fine idea you have, but not really practical. Repurchasing content is fairly normal when moving to a new format especially when it drastically changes physical form factors. Compatability among multiple forms of cartridges isn't something that any console does; it only makes sense in the generations that have started to use optical disks. Nintendo seems to be offering very reasonable prices for old games -- I'd say $10 is a good price for anything N64 generation, and hopefully NES era games will be very cheap or come in bundles. I think it's unfair to call it a "black mark" that the Wii won't read your Mario64 cartridge. If that's really what you want, you should have kept your N64.
How can you read an article that starts with the question of who will win the handheld console war and COMPLETELY FAIL TO MENTION THAT PSP's PLAY MOVIES!!!
Probably because everyone has completely failed to care that the PSP plays movies.
UMD movies anyway... Playing ripped movies may be a different story, though I'm not sure if that qualifies as something only 'power users' do, like booting Linux on a PS2. UMD though has turned out to have basically zero impact on the handheld wars. You're right it probably should have been mentioned, even if dismissed quickly.
Well, luckily for me, I have Nextel, so I guess I am safe. "No Service" should say "Safe from NSA"
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
Not quite government use, but the law enforcement community is certainly employing the cell towers.
Unless you're living in the crazy libertarian equivalent of a 60s commune, law enforcement == government.
Nevertheless thanks for the article. Very interesting both for its use in gaining an arrest warrant and for the range information -- 300 yards is a little worse than I expected, but it does say "or less".
I remembered after posting about the 911 location thing, but that's because I'm pretty sure they use the triangulation technique I'm talking about to do it. Specifically because this was something being asked of the cell service providers, not cell phone makers, implying that it was something that could be done with the existing setup. It would be better this way anyway, since it wouldn't require everyone to buy a new phone to get the service.
It seems highly unlikely that all phones have GPS capabilities in them but don't advertise this feature and make it available to the consumer. GPS chips would increase the cost of the phone and it would be nuts to forgoe the opportunity to charge the customer more for them.
What I find amusing is that a lot of emperors of China, etc, in centuries past were 13 years old.
Don't consider this as implying even the remotest knowledge of Chinese history, but were any of these 13-year-old emperors actually running the empire vs simply being crowned while adult aides ran the show?
Somehow, recently, we decided an individual is too stupid to think for themselves until they turn 18.
No, not true. 18 is not the age at which we believe you are no longer too stupid to take care of yourself.
18 is the age at which we as a society stop caring if you aren't.
I strongly disagree with a lot of the blatant abuses of children done by schools; I'm just pointing out that it is wrong to view it as "under 18 is incapable of being independent, over 18 is not". It's just the legal boundary at which societal protections/restrictions are lifted regardless of the consequences.
Nice post, re: self awareness.
As for the three laws, they were written in a body of fiction. I think that too much attention is paid to them.
I don't know about that. I think it's more that the three laws are believed to be more than they are by people who haven't read the book (which included me before I read "I, Robot"). They're seen as some ideal that if somehow implemented can make robots absolutely safe. However the books show that this isn't true. Given ridiculously sophisticated rules implemented in such a way as it is literally impossible for them to be violated -- i.e. complete fantasy -- robots can still act in unpredictable and indeed unsafe ways.
Thus I think Aasimov's rules are a perfect place to start when discussing robots and safety. They show that even the absolute "ideal" in robotic behavior rules cannot eliminate safety issues.
How long until we find out that every mobile phone has this feature and it has been activated by the NSA.
Consider part 1 of your question answered with "now". Every mobile phone has this feature.
If you are within range of two or more cell towers, then your position can be triangulated. The more towers nearby, the more accurate the reading will be. It's simply the nature of cell phones as broadcast devices. You can't broadcast a signal without revealing your location.
The second part is a different story. Whether or not any government agency has used this ability is unknown; whether it would be accurate enough for their purposes is unknown to me as well. Nevertheless they certainly could use it to at least roughly track you.
So if you really don't want your location known, do what the teenagers with these phones will do: Turn it off. And when mom/the G-men pick you up and want to know why they couldn't track you, tell them you couldn't get any service.
1) It's not about possible definitions or synonyms that appear in a dictionary. It is about how the word is used in reality by the countries that describe themselves as Republics. That's what matters. It's not about "bias" or "not liking" a word's usage, it's about the many countries that are Republics and not representative democracies. The second definition simply doesn't matter then.
2) Whenever I'm going to argue about a word's meaning, I look it up. It's the Internet Age; there's no reason not to. You however are correct that I made the mistake of taking a hard line in the definition based merely on the fact that this is how the word is used in the world at large, weakening my point and allowing pedants to have the opening they need to ply their useless trade.
I thought your point was that a Republic was not a Democracy, the U.S. is a Republic, and therefore the U.S. is not a Democracy, a stance your CIA source disagrees with.
But you're right, the terms are rather looseley defined. Across the globe, the most common usage of Republic in self-identification is closer to "not a monarchy" than "representative democracy". E.g. the UK which does not describe themselves as a Republic even though they are a Commonwealth. You can define them yourself, but that doesn't aid in understanding what forms of government various nations use and just leads to saying things which make no sense like "a representative democracy is not a democracy".
I did look in the dictionary before posting, the very one you linked to in your reply. I new about the second definition of the word, but it sounds like an addition made due to modern usage of the word rather than what the word has been traditionally applied to in self-identification by nations. But thank you for your concern.
Commonwealth is also a synonym for democracy. However the three terms are not identical. Synonym isn't the same as equivalence, so your argument that the U.K. is a republic is flawed.
The CIA clearly prefers the 'representative democracy' definition of republic. Either way it should be clear that Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive no matter who you take as your authority. In fact by their definitions many of the terms are not exclusive, as one would expect.
Oh, and there are states that want to have either a different voting system for their electors, or that want to split their electors. The biggest argument against this is that it would let national campaigns marginalize low-population areas. Which, somehow, is better than marginalizing citizens who live in high-population areas.
Or marginalizing citizens who live in low-population areas of high-population states!
I hear this all the time, and at some point I thought: what about rural California? What about rural New York? Even in Texas most of the population is urban. Aren't the low-population areas of these states marginalized?
If the assumption is that urbanites vs country folk have different priorities and thus different needs in representation, then lumping them all together just because they're contained within the same state boundary seems like exactly the thing we're claming we don't want.
There are several different definitions of the word "republic". Please don't pretend that your favorite definition is the only one.
It's not about favorite, it's about relevent. The second definition is a synonym for representative democracy, which is accurate for only some of the countries that are republics. In other words, in world politics it is the first definition that is relevent. And in no case are republic and democracy mutually exclusive (if you took the second definition as your "favorite" as the GP did, then republic is a subset of democracy).
Who actually votes for laws is the defining point. If those with suffrage votes directly for laws, then it is a Democracy. If representatives of those with suffrage vote for laws, then it is a Republic.
Where are you getting this from?
A Republic is a government whose head is not a monarch. This doesn't imply anything about whether the ability to vote on anything even exists, and if it does has nothing to do with what the people vote for.
A Democracy is a government controlled by the people, directly or via elected representatives. There are many kinds of Democracies in which the people control the government in different ways.
"Representative democracy" is a democracy (note the word "democracy" in "representative democracy"). It is a form of democracy in which people vote on elected officials. The form of government in which people vote directly for laws is called a "direct democracy". Both are Democracies. Both may be Republics, or they may not be. Republic vs Democracy are orthogonal axis on the spectrum of governments.
For example, the United Kingdom is a Democracy, but it is not a Republic. China is a Republic, but it is not a Democracy. The United States is both a Republic and a Democracy. The form of Democracy is Representative Democracy. This does not mean Representative Democracy == Republic.
As for whether or not any US company chooses to operate in china, what difference does it make with regards to human rights there in China? At the very least, a US company operating in China has the ability to pay a decent wage and give their Chinese employees good benefits but beyond that how could they possibly change China's human rights policies?
Oh, that's simple. They could refuse to do business with China. As could many other western businesses. Call it a boycott if you want. China is trying to grow rapidly and become a 1st-class economy. To do this they need western/democratic investment, both in the form of traditional monetary investment in Chinese assets, but also investment by western companies building facilities in China. If that investment was withdrawn, then China's economy would stagnate and their current road to Superpower would be washed out. Yahoo by themselves may not be able to change anything, except by setting an example that other companies follow. Much like a traditional boycott, or any large-group-behavior, the individual may not have much impact except as they form the part of a whole. And in this sense, refusing to do business with China could be very effective at persuading the PRC to change their human rights stance.
Unfortunately* the economic dependence goes both ways. A large-scale boycott of China could just as easily cause the U.S. to come crawling back to China, begging for access to cheap labor and products. And for such a thing to work it would require solidarity among the corporations. Difficult in a normal boycott, and with the sociopathic nature of corporations nigh impossible once they see a chance to gain an advantage by breaking the boycott.
But hey, I just said it was simple, not practical.
Still, I would like to see Google or Yahoo or somebody decide to set an example rather than cave in to the shiny Chinese Yuans with a shrug and a "what could we do?"
* In this case. Economic co-dependence is the main thing that makes me think war with China is unlikely, so I can't say it's unequivocally bad.
I think the asshole needs to reimburse us for the cost. I haven't tried it yet, but next time I'm going to propose this to the person because it's driving me nuts. You misrepresent your item, you pay for my expenses to come out to look at it.
If the guy wouldn't come clean about repainting the car after you told him that you'd know if he was lying, what makes you think he'd honor an agreement to reimburse your expenses?
I agree completely that the jerk should pay, but unless I'm just not creative enough I can't think of a way to enforce it.
i know it's far fetched, but think for a moment, if you were IBM, a major IT player with lots to gain if you make peace with microsoft (after years of a bitter relationship, see MSs monopoly trial's documents for more info), who would you prefer to help: microsoft or sony ?
i'd bet on MS. making a kick ass CPU for the 360 would make easier for IBM to extract sweeter deals from MS in other areas and to placate bill's wrath in what concerns IBM's linux business. if this means screwing up sony, so be it.
The reason IBM's relationship with MS was bitter was because IBM was simultaneously a competitor and a customer of Microsoft. It was a bitter relationship because IBM did have to do things to make MS happy that IBM would have rather not done. This is the kind of control MS has over every company that depends on their OS for sales, and IBM doesn't like it. They don't want to have to try to extract sweet deals from MS by dancing to their -- a competitor's -- tune.
IBM has for years been trying to extricate themselves from this situation. In recent years these efforts have become even more pronounced. They sold off their PC division, making all of MS's influence on the desktop irrelevent to them. That leaves MS in the server, and a major reason for IBM's investment in Linux is to fend off the advance of Windows into that space (proprietary Unix having proven ineffective at doing so).
So IBM really has no reason to make peace with MS, in so much as it doesn't stop MS from being IBM's customer. This is an arrangement I'm sure they much prefer -- MS is now buying from IBM instead of the other way around, and all they have to do to keep MS happy is provide the processors they want in the quantity they want just like every other customer.
Sony and MS are both just revenue streams as far as IBM's processor division is concerned. If there was any customer they were going to sabotage in order to benefit themselves in another space, it'd be Microsoft.
Actually, where I live--Richmond, Virginia--you have to have an adult over 18 if you are a minor and want to get into a R movie.
Every theatre I've been too in multiple states has had this rule. Yet in none of them was it a criminal act to allow an unsupervised minor in, it was voluntary action by the theatres. Is this truly a law in Virginia with criminal penalties?
As a parent, I ask how many of you parents want your 9 year old purchasing GTA?
Okay, you're a parent with a 9 year old (or at least was/will be 9 years old)...
1) How did your 9 year old get the money to buy GTA?
2) How did your 9 year old get to the mall to buy GTA?
3) How did your 9 year old get it home without you knowing?
4) How did your 9 year old play it at home without you being aware?
I see a lot of potential for parenting in there that the state is supposedly going to do for you now. So the question is: why does this need to be a crime? What if you gave your child permission to buy a game that met the three vague criteria but you didn't consider harmful?
We can talk about GTA which I'd think most people would agree is not suitable for young children, but you know there are going to be ridiculous cases where this applies -- assuming anyone knows in advance what games are affected, meaning it could be the game stores themselves which apply the rules to ridiculous cases just to cover their own asses. This is the problem with legistlating moral standards, and it isn't going to work this time.
We've gotten along fine without making it a crime to let someone under 18 into an R-rated movie. I'd be willing to bet most adults snuck into an R-rated movie at some point in their youths, and while they would rather their own kids not do the same, they probably wouldn't think criminal prosecution of the theatre is necessary if they did. Yet video games, which so many of that generation simply don't understand and thus are deathly afraid of, suddenly require a whole new set of laws to protect the children (so the parents don't have to).
I agree that it was a somewhat weak ending, but the Director's Cut has no ending.
Deckard and Rachel get in an elevator, as the door closes Deckard looks around in case they are being followed, brandishing his gun, and then... nothing. Credits roll.
It feels like a movie that stops five minutes before the story ends. That's because it is. If Scott had any real intention of ending the movie differently than the mountan ride, he never filmed what he needed in order to do so.
I disagree, it ended at a perfect spot. The closing of the elevator is the closing of that chapter of their lives. Deckard is nervously looking for pursuit, even if he isn't really expecting any after seeing the unicorn. In other words they are free, but not completely so as replicant(s) on the lam having to always look over their shoulder. Gaff's words ring in his head, reminding him how short and precious life is and the quest for survival that got him to where he is.
All this was said in less than a minute of film. What would you have added to this in another five minutes?
The unicorn which Gaff left was his way of saying, "I was here. I could have killed you both. Now would be a good time to disappear."
It clearly still meant this in the Director's Cut. Of course Gaff could have killed Deckard when he ran into him after Roy died, too, and he knew where Rachel lived. So that particular meaning was somewhat redundant.
Do you know what movie Scott bit the unicorn footage from?
(Which is silly, when you think about it. Even if Deckard was a Replicant, how would Gaff know about his dreams? Gaff was a low-level detective, not a hot-shit bladerunner. The cops didn't know shit about who was and wasn't a replicant, let alone what they dream about. If they did, they wouldn't need VK tests.)
If Deckard was a replicant, he was clearly not like the escapees. He was like Rachel, given a false memory of life as a Blade Runner. If you're going to create a replicant to be a Blade Runner and chase down other replicants, it would only make sense to have a control. Gaff, who always seemed to know where Deckard was, was that control. In this case his status as low-level detective could have been completely illusory (Gaff could in fact be the real Blade Runner), and his knowing about Deckard's dreams makes more sense than Deckard knowing about Rachel's. The interesting question in relation to the theme of the movie then becomes: Why did he let Deckard and Rachel go?
Probably because he didn't have enough other footage to keep a worthwhile run-time, especially after chopping off the ending he didn't like.
"Chopping off" or "removing the Scotch tape with which it was applied in the first place"? I could go either way on the voiceover (personally prefer without, it seemed 'noir' enough for me without the cliche expository monologue), but that ending was the most blantant and pathetic attempt to shoehorn a happy ending into a downer movie I've ever seen. From the stock mountain footage stolen from The Shining to the pathetic "Oh by the way she's special and won't die in four years and what do you mean 'what about Deckard?'" cop out.
But thank you for reminding me how "far from perfect" Mr. Scott can be as epitomized by Legend. I thought I'd killed the brain cells that remembered that crapfest with beer. Oh well, I'll try again tonight...