Although it has many of the limitations that something like JS or JavaScript has, I personally think that PHP is a great first language. It does require an installation of the language (unlike JS), but I think that it has better syntax.
I am also far from being a pro, and much of my code really stinks in terms of readability (I am working on it), but speaking from the perspective of someone who had a really rough time with my one programming (we used C) class, I think PHP is better than Javascript for a first language.
Yes, but they CAN all be wrong together. I suspect that Wolfram is, at the very least, unoriginal--especially if he refused all peer review as one poster claims.
personally, I know NOTHING of the man, so he could be the world's smartest guy, and I wouldn't know it.
Obviously you and your colleagues are not getting enough spam to motivate you to integrate this. Perhaps if you started getting 100-200 junk emails a day you would be a little more interested. Better yet, why not your whole family? Post your email, along with your entire adressbook of emails. Then we'll see how long it takes you to become interested in integration. </sarcasm>
Seriously, though, I think that your solution is interesting. I like the idea of a solid filter, though currently Mozilla catches about 95% of my spam. I think that's great, but if you have a better technique, I would like to have that.
Yeah, we don't particularly like BB&T, and we *may* switch to Wachovia soon (My wife has a separate account there, and they have much better banking practices).
Better Bank and Trust is my bank. You CANNOT log in withou IE. Mozilla fails to display correctly. I mailed them, and got a BS answer about the "wrong" type of java being used since greater than netscape 4.x!
As near as I can tell, it is related to the good ol' layer tag, but I am not certain. If you want to, take a look!
This is a case where it comes down to a simple question: do we, as humans, have a "right" to make money off our efforts?
At the outset, this seems like a simple question, and I think most people would say yes. However, I wouldn't be posing this question if I thought it was that easy.
You see, copyright law is based on this idea--that ideas are good, inventions are good, and if people are paid for them, then they will be more likely to produce them. Therefore we should protect the ability to make money off of these ideas for the person who creates them!
This is a simple concept, and I can agree with the basic ideas, but it is VERY different from saying that we have a RIGHT to make money off of our ideas.
Think about this: the only reason money/barter systems exist is to enable the gathering of materials to those who do not directly produce them. For some, this means that you don't have to grow your own potatos and corn, slaughter your own beef, etc. Others can use this to get clothing, and other items that are useful.
Now if, as a society, we agree to this system of barter, we should then be willing to give a person these things in return for their contribution to society. In our day and age, this is given as money, and it permits those who come up with ideas to spend their time producing them, and those who labor to use the ideas (ideally speaking of course).
Now, as to what value we, as a society, place on these ideas, I cannot say that that is right or wrong, only that we do, in fact place a certain value on musical ideas (songs). Therefore, we should recompense those who produce these ideas for their effort.
Does that mean that it is worth $500,000/year/artist to produce these ideas (or more, or even less)? Perhaps, but the point is that as long as they produce something that we deem worthwhile, then we should try to give back to them, so that they can continue to get the materials they need for survival (and even _some_ comfort).
Now, just for completeness, let me discuss the concept of copyrights again. The idea is that if we protect intellectual property, it will encourage further development of that property. This is flawed thinking at best. As far as I know, DaVinci didn't have any such benefit. Neither did the bards of several centuries past. Both seemed to manage to find people to pay them for their effort.
I am not advocating a return to earlier times, but I do suggest that the concept is unnecessary, and in the long run may harm innovation.
Authors, like musicians, have the right, if they so desire, to earn a living. But just like like everyone else, there is nothing that entitles them to a living that is extravagant.
I am beginning to ramble, but please think about this.
I think this is probably the first coherent answer to the question. It makes a defense based on the supposed nature of the universe we are supposedly watching.
Until I read this, I was agreeing with the parent. All in all, it is unrealistic, but if you consider the force and all that, maybe such jazz would be necessary.
Thank you. That's what I wanted to do. Would some one PLEASE mod this up.
Further more, 60 people are far more than is necessary. Many master's thesis projects have only around 40, and some (mostly human factors psychology) only have around 5-20.
yes, a misdiagnosis can occur, and yes meds are extremely troublesome. I just feel that it is VERY important that a person who may have a schizophrenic type disorder to see either a psychologist or psychiatrist (there is a difference, although in some states (AZ) some psychologists can now give meds) and make sure that they are taken care of.
Coming from a background in psychology, I am not especially enamored with the idea of medication as THE solution to ANY mental disorder. Sometimes it can help, but I am aware of the debilitating effects. I have also seen a number of cases (generally NOT schizophrenia), where it took functioning from a nearly incapable level to an actually stable level. Meds, unfortunately, have a lot of undesirable side effects. I think this is largely due to the fact that we are using a "shotgun approach" to treating schizophrenia.
Think about it like this. We know that certain areas of the brain are affected by schizophrenia. But we don't really know why, or the order (which causes which). We also don't know exactly what causes the trouble. In fact, about all we do know is that some people are more likely to end up schizophrenic than others (close family members, etc), and that some medicines seem to helpful. Beyond that, we are just playing in the dark, so when a medicine seems to help, we aren't always sure why.
Another interesting point is the statistics involved in drug testing. When you are calculating your probability, you are inferring to a supposedly infinite population to guess the true statistic. The larger the sample size, the smaller the adjustment relative to the overall picture. Also, the p-value is very much affected by the size of your sample. Medical testing tends to have extremely large sample sizes (50,000 is not uncommon), and therefore even the slightest effect will show up.
Now, in dealing with psychotropics, sample sizes are smaller (for the simple fact that there are fewer available subjects), but they are still quite large. Therefore we conclude that medicines are effective based on a very small p-value. Unfortunately, it is easy to get a lower p-value when you have a large sample.
To counter-act this, one should always look at the effect size (R^2) to see _how_ effective a medicine is. Unfortunately this information is NOT readily available to consumers (or even physicians), because drug companies don't want you to know that they only have an effect size of.03 (or whatever).
Don't misinterpret this, however. I do think it is necessary to seek assistance if you have ever had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Even if you have had such a diagnosis, your employer should NEVER have access to this information. Period. There are too many possibilities for discrimination.
Okay, I am done rambling. I have said far more than I needed too.
Thank you. I once read (in the 9th grade, which has been a few years), that we are much closer to death every day on the way to work (if we work outside of our own house), than we ever were with the TMI incident.
That said, it all comes down to basic psychology--we use an availability heuristic to determine what we are afraid of. Unfortunately it feeds off of the most available information, which is generally those issues which get the most news coverage.
Stop and think about it--its EXACTLY the same reason that some people are afraid to fly, but don't mind driving, but statistically are much safer flying. BUT because plane crashes are liable to get far more coverage than even 1 fatality in a car wreck, many people believe flying is more dangerous. (As a note, there are some other reasons for being afraid of flying, but agoraphobia is rarely one of them (although I suppose claustrophobia might be)).
When you hear about nuclear power, people freak out about wierd possibilities that are frequently unsubstantiated (that is, the liklihood of a meltdown spewing radiation across the country).
I do have a theory though--one of the reasons that it is politically so unpopular is that so many politicians have strong ties to oil wealth. Now, anyone who knows my posting history can tell you that I am generally a Republican supporter, in this case I have to wonder. Not that democrats are any better in this sense--there are some very strange workings on Capitol hill, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they ALL hated nuclear power for the same reason--money.
I call either troll or real schizophrenia. But I incline to troll.
I've worked with enough schizophrenics (see some of my other posts) to know that what you are saying is exactly what someone with schizophrenia would say--and that you are wrong. Medication is effective, and if you are not trolling, you NEED to go see a competent clinical psychologist. Even if the embezzeling is real, I strongly urge you to seek help from a clinician.
Of course, but only after we ran out of witches and vampires (but we hadn't really started burning those until after we tried some prophets, but they don't seem to burn as well as witches for some reason).
That said, my worst working environment wasn't too bad. You see, I can deal with poor environment, it's the PEOPLE that get to me. I had a supervisor who was just plain impossible (I almost said crazy, but I was working in a mental health facility for schizophrenics, and she wasn't even qualified for that level of intelligence...).
This thread is loaded with flames and trolls, but I have to say that my recent experience has been interesting. When I upgraded mobos, ram and cpu, all my windows crashes dissappeared completely. I still prefer linux for a variety of reasons, but generally speaking, windows has ben much more stable.
I am beginning to think that some of the trouble is not just windows, but also tied to poor hardware. All said, I am glad that my machine is more stable.
I agree with on most points--the truth of the matter is that most people agree with you. I haven't watched ST since TNG (DS9 was lame, as was voyager, although it stuck closer to the original idea than some of the other series (as in the TREK)).
Me, I haven't watched any of the enterprise shows, but I did go and watch Nemesis, which I enjoyed (even though popular opinion is against me), but I recognize that it had certain plot holes that made it less than it could have been.
One of the troubles facing Hollywood these days is that audiences expect more--better plot, better effects, and better acting. Unfortunately, their solution is to throw more money at it, and with the writing, that doesn't always work. Maybe it's time for fans to step in. Imagine if their were a community web site that allowed fans to submit and then vote for thier favorite plots.
There would need to be a certain number of guidelines for submission, but generally, the more plot detail, the better. Fans could then rate the plots based on how interesting it is, consistency with the star trek theme, and possibly some other areas.
I would like to see this, but I know there are some problems with the idea.
Back to the OP, I disagree that the original story was all about the plot. Having watched some of the commentary by the original actors and writers, it was also very political (having Kirk kiss Uhura, for instance). I had never really noticed this, but they insist that it was a big deal. Who knows?
So in some ways, the ST series have always been political. It's kind of difficult to think of it like that, but I would say that so many of us, myself included, were only around for the reruns of TOS, that we don't see the political side as well. Any *ahem* older, perhaps wiser, folks want to chip in with their thoughts?
Thank you. You sir, just explained what I have tried to tell people before, but much better than I could have.
Diplomacy is great, so is compromise, but there are times when the other side is not willing to use either. The only question is, when do you say, okay, i've tried diplomacy, and it failed, now I'm gonna wipe your scumbag face off the planet?
In fact, I don't want to see the Little Mermaid at all. Ever. Disney ruined a perfectly good fairy tale in that case. Even if I was into pr0n, I wouldn't want to see "The Little Mermaid does Atlantis in 56-4D"!
You see, the thing about the Little Mermaid is that in the original story SHE DIES for being an IDIOT that doesn't follow directions!!!! Like most of the original fairy tales, this one is sad, and is meant to instruct little kids what to do, not make them feel good.
Disney, in most of thier reproductions of classic fairy tales, have played with the story to the point that only the most liberal interpretation allows them to use the original name.
Now, if Disney wants to tell the story of a mermaid (who always wears shells over her boobs (which, though I am not female, still sounds painful--imagine the chafing!), and is willing to trust anyone in order to get her "one true love" (what garbage), even a rather fat meroctupus(???what is up with Ursula anyway?)), THAT'S FINE, but they shouldn't be allowed to call it "The Little Mermaid", after the original, where all those stupid things are missing (it has its own garbage, but never mind that).
Okay, I know I am ranting, but you know what? I don't care. As near as I can tell Disney currently has no talent working for them. Pixar does (witness A Toy Story and Finding Nemo), as do several other companies (Spirited Away is an awesome story--my son (who was about 18mos. old at the time) laughed hysterically at the witch in the house (whatever her name was)). But the folks at disney haven't put anything decent out in a while (Tarzan being the best it quite some time), but IMO, the Lion King was a pointless waste of time. And not even very entertaining at that!
Okay, I'm done. If anyone want's to borrow my soapbox, its free now.
That's right in line with his comments. I know that there is a certain army general who wants to replace the M16 with something else, and has used the Jessica Lynch story to make a push.
The truly interesting part of this is that He already has a contractor. Between a desire to use this for promotion pushing (he's a one star, with aims to become five-star), and what might be an industry kickback, you come up with an ugly picture.
Not being military myself, I don't feel qualified to say much about the weapons, but the politics seem dirty. In some ways it sounds like the plot for a Hollywood-style military flick that ends up combining lots of explosions, several one-night stands, and terroristic plots into one mangled mash.
Thanks for the input though on the weapon--sounds like a good one to have. Now if only I could get one (yeah right--no way it would be legal), becuase while I don't like gun registration (sorry folks, but it only tracks the law abiding citizens, not criminals), I also don't think that civilians, such as myself, have any need for an M16!
Just out of curiousity, what is your opinion of the M16?
The reason I ask is because I know there is some debate about the weapon (re: Jessica Lynch) and its effectiveness. My brother in law, who is in the Army (US), was recently in Iraq investing that weapon along with some other guns.
His take on it is that it's a great weapon in the right circumstances, but it wasn't designed for sandy/desert environments, and if you want one to function there, you need to either a) clean it constantly or b) keep it dry (no oil) until just before use (this is what most of the US soldiers seem to be doing, due to the fact that it is easier).
I was just curious what you (or anyone else) know about the weapon.
Now, to keep this somewhat On Topic, I think that the idea of using a laser to cut cheese (or anything else) is great, but only if it can be done faster and easier than with other methods. Personally I do a lot of woodworking, and would love precision cutting tools (like a laser) that didn't leave scoring on the wood (like EVERY saw will). A hand-held laser saw that could replace the skill saw would be awesome!
Another potential use would be similar--just ask anyone who does drywall what it would like to be able to do near seamless joins. I know a very few who can without something like this, but the majority cannot. The one guy actually doesn't like tape or mud on drywall, and his work is impeccable (and he's FAST!).
Slashdot Mirror
Although it has many of the limitations that something like JS or JavaScript has, I personally think that PHP is a great first language. It does require an installation of the language (unlike JS), but I think that it has better syntax.
I am also far from being a pro, and much of my code really stinks in terms of readability (I am working on it), but speaking from the perspective of someone who had a really rough time with my one programming (we used C) class, I think PHP is better than Javascript for a first language.
Yes, but they CAN all be wrong together. I suspect that Wolfram is, at the very least, unoriginal--especially if he refused all peer review as one poster claims.
personally, I know NOTHING of the man, so he could be the world's smartest guy, and I wouldn't know it.
Obviously you and your colleagues are not getting enough spam to motivate you to integrate this. Perhaps if you started getting 100-200 junk emails a day you would be a little more interested. Better yet, why not your whole family?
Post your email, along with your entire adressbook of emails. Then we'll see how long it takes you to become interested in integration.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, though, I think that your solution is interesting. I like the idea of a solid filter, though currently Mozilla catches about 95% of my spam. I think that's great, but if you have a better technique, I would like to have that.
LOL.
Yeah, we don't particularly like BB&T, and we *may* switch to Wachovia soon (My wife has a separate account there, and they have much better banking practices).
Better Bank and Trust is my bank. You CANNOT log in withou IE. Mozilla fails to display correctly. I mailed them, and got a BS answer about the "wrong" type of java being used since greater than netscape 4.x! As near as I can tell, it is related to the good ol' layer tag, but I am not certain. If you want to, take a look!
oops--my bad! NOW I see it. (I was referring to the plug tag, which unfortunately does not seem to be recognized by the browser I am using...)
hey you forgot the closing tag...
you trying to breaj my computer or somethin?
thank you, i wondered if someone would think of that!!!
Yes, but computers are much faster now...
if you own one. Honestly, I can't get gentoo to install, so the point is moot.
This is a case where it comes down to a simple question: do we, as humans, have a "right" to make money off our efforts?
At the outset, this seems like a simple question, and I think most people would say yes. However, I wouldn't be posing this question if I thought it was that easy.
You see, copyright law is based on this idea--that ideas are good, inventions are good, and if people are paid for them, then they will be more likely to produce them. Therefore we should protect the ability to make money off of these ideas for the person who creates them!
This is a simple concept, and I can agree with the basic ideas, but it is VERY different from saying that we have a RIGHT to make money off of our ideas.
Think about this: the only reason money/barter systems exist is to enable the gathering of materials to those who do not directly produce them. For some, this means that you don't have to grow your own potatos and corn, slaughter your own beef, etc. Others can use this to get clothing, and other items that are useful.
Now if, as a society, we agree to this system of barter, we should then be willing to give a person these things in return for their contribution to society. In our day and age, this is given as money, and it permits those who come up with ideas to spend their time producing them, and those who labor to use the ideas (ideally speaking of course).
Now, as to what value we, as a society, place on these ideas, I cannot say that that is right or wrong, only that we do, in fact place a certain value on musical ideas (songs). Therefore, we should recompense those who produce these ideas for their effort.
Does that mean that it is worth $500,000/year/artist to produce these ideas (or more, or even less)? Perhaps, but the point is that as long as they produce something that we deem worthwhile, then we should try to give back to them, so that they can continue to get the materials they need for survival (and even _some_ comfort).
Now, just for completeness, let me discuss the concept of copyrights again. The idea is that if we protect intellectual property, it will encourage further development of that property. This is flawed thinking at best. As far as I know, DaVinci didn't have any such benefit. Neither did the bards of several centuries past. Both seemed to manage to find people to pay them for their effort.
I am not advocating a return to earlier times, but I do suggest that the concept is unnecessary, and in the long run may harm innovation.
Authors, like musicians, have the right, if they so desire, to earn a living. But just like like everyone else, there is nothing that entitles them to a living that is extravagant.
I am beginning to ramble, but please think about this.
I think this is probably the first coherent answer to the question. It makes a defense based on the supposed nature of the universe we are supposedly watching.
Until I read this, I was agreeing with the parent. All in all, it is unrealistic, but if you consider the force and all that, maybe such jazz would be necessary.
Then again, maybe not. Who knows.
I have, and that's why I agree that it is unlikely. THese days, though, it is hard to tell.
Perhaps its because they have come up with an encryption scheme that is even better (from the industry standpoint) and tougher.
This is frightening because it may mean that all movies after a certain date are going to require newer dvd players.
I don't know (absolutely 0 connections in the field), but it is a frightening thought.
Thank you. That's what I wanted to do. Would some one PLEASE mod this up.
Further more, 60 people are far more than is necessary. Many master's thesis projects have only around 40, and some (mostly human factors psychology) only have around 5-20.
yes, a misdiagnosis can occur, and yes meds are extremely troublesome. I just feel that it is VERY important that a person who may have a schizophrenic type disorder to see either a psychologist or psychiatrist (there is a difference, although in some states (AZ) some psychologists can now give meds) and make sure that they are taken care of.
.03 (or whatever).
Coming from a background in psychology, I am not especially enamored with the idea of medication as THE solution to ANY mental disorder. Sometimes it can help, but I am aware of the debilitating effects. I have also seen a number of cases (generally NOT schizophrenia), where it took functioning from a nearly incapable level to an actually stable level. Meds, unfortunately, have a lot of undesirable side effects. I think this is largely due to the fact that we are using a "shotgun approach" to treating schizophrenia.
Think about it like this. We know that certain areas of the brain are affected by schizophrenia. But we don't really know why, or the order (which causes which). We also don't know exactly what causes the trouble. In fact, about all we do know is that some people are more likely to end up schizophrenic than others (close family members, etc), and that some medicines seem to helpful. Beyond that, we are just playing in the dark, so when a medicine seems to help, we aren't always sure why.
Another interesting point is the statistics involved in drug testing. When you are calculating your probability, you are inferring to a supposedly infinite population to guess the true statistic. The larger the sample size, the smaller the adjustment relative to the overall picture. Also, the p-value is very much affected by the size of your sample. Medical testing tends to have extremely large sample sizes (50,000 is not uncommon), and therefore even the slightest effect will show up.
Now, in dealing with psychotropics, sample sizes are smaller (for the simple fact that there are fewer available subjects), but they are still quite large. Therefore we conclude that medicines are effective based on a very small p-value. Unfortunately, it is easy to get a lower p-value when you have a large sample.
To counter-act this, one should always look at the effect size (R^2) to see _how_ effective a medicine is. Unfortunately this information is NOT readily available to consumers (or even physicians), because drug companies don't want you to know that they only have an effect size of
Don't misinterpret this, however. I do think it is necessary to seek assistance if you have ever had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Even if you have had such a diagnosis, your employer should NEVER have access to this information. Period. There are too many possibilities for discrimination.
Okay, I am done rambling. I have said far more than I needed too.
Thank you. I once read (in the 9th grade, which has been a few years), that we are much closer to death every day on the way to work (if we work outside of our own house), than we ever were with the TMI incident.
That said, it all comes down to basic psychology--we use an availability heuristic to determine what we are afraid of. Unfortunately it feeds off of the most available information, which is generally those issues which get the most news coverage.
Stop and think about it--its EXACTLY the same reason that some people are afraid to fly, but don't mind driving, but statistically are much safer flying. BUT because plane crashes are liable to get far more coverage than even 1 fatality in a car wreck, many people believe flying is more dangerous. (As a note, there are some other reasons for being afraid of flying, but agoraphobia is rarely one of them (although I suppose claustrophobia might be)).
When you hear about nuclear power, people freak out about wierd possibilities that are frequently unsubstantiated (that is, the liklihood of a meltdown spewing radiation across the country).
I do have a theory though--one of the reasons that it is politically so unpopular is that so many politicians have strong ties to oil wealth. Now, anyone who knows my posting history can tell you that I am generally a Republican supporter, in this case I have to wonder. Not that democrats are any better in this sense--there are some very strange workings on Capitol hill, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they ALL hated nuclear power for the same reason--money.
I call either troll or real schizophrenia. But I incline to troll.
I've worked with enough schizophrenics (see some of my other posts) to know that what you are saying is exactly what someone with schizophrenia would say--and that you are wrong. Medication is effective, and if you are not trolling, you NEED to go see a competent clinical psychologist. Even if the embezzeling is real, I strongly urge you to seek help from a clinician.
Of course, but only after we ran out of witches and vampires (but we hadn't really started burning those until after we tried some prophets, but they don't seem to burn as well as witches for some reason).
That said, my worst working environment wasn't too bad. You see, I can deal with poor environment, it's the PEOPLE that get to me. I had a supervisor who was just plain impossible (I almost said crazy, but I was working in a mental health facility for schizophrenics, and she wasn't even qualified for that level of intelligence...).
So, what's your worst supervisor?
This thread is loaded with flames and trolls, but I have to say that my recent experience has been interesting. When I upgraded mobos, ram and cpu, all my windows crashes dissappeared completely. I still prefer linux for a variety of reasons, but generally speaking, windows has ben much more stable.
I am beginning to think that some of the trouble is not just windows, but also tied to poor hardware. All said, I am glad that my machine is more stable.
I agree with on most points--the truth of the matter is that most people agree with you. I haven't watched ST since TNG (DS9 was lame, as was voyager, although it stuck closer to the original idea than some of the other series (as in the TREK)).
Me, I haven't watched any of the enterprise shows, but I did go and watch Nemesis, which I enjoyed (even though popular opinion is against me), but I recognize that it had certain plot holes that made it less than it could have been.
One of the troubles facing Hollywood these days is that audiences expect more--better plot, better effects, and better acting. Unfortunately, their solution is to throw more money at it, and with the writing, that doesn't always work. Maybe it's time for fans to step in. Imagine if their were a community web site that allowed fans to submit and then vote for thier favorite plots.
There would need to be a certain number of guidelines for submission, but generally, the more plot detail, the better. Fans could then rate the plots based on how interesting it is, consistency with the star trek theme, and possibly some other areas.
I would like to see this, but I know there are some problems with the idea.
Back to the OP, I disagree that the original story was all about the plot. Having watched some of the commentary by the original actors and writers, it was also very political (having Kirk kiss Uhura, for instance). I had never really noticed this, but they insist that it was a big deal. Who knows?
So in some ways, the ST series have always been political. It's kind of difficult to think of it like that, but I would say that so many of us, myself included, were only around for the reruns of TOS, that we don't see the political side as well. Any *ahem* older, perhaps wiser, folks want to chip in with their thoughts?
Thanks
Thank you. You sir, just explained what I have tried to tell people before, but much better than I could have.
Diplomacy is great, so is compromise, but there are times when the other side is not willing to use either. The only question is, when do you say, okay, i've tried diplomacy, and it failed, now I'm gonna wipe your scumbag face off the planet?
No, not me.
In fact, I don't want to see the Little Mermaid at all. Ever. Disney ruined a perfectly good fairy tale in that case. Even if I was into pr0n, I wouldn't want to see "The Little Mermaid does Atlantis in 56-4D"!
You see, the thing about the Little Mermaid is that in the original story SHE DIES for being an IDIOT that doesn't follow directions!!!! Like most of the original fairy tales, this one is sad, and is meant to instruct little kids what to do, not make them feel good.
Disney, in most of thier reproductions of classic fairy tales, have played with the story to the point that only the most liberal interpretation allows them to use the original name.
Now, if Disney wants to tell the story of a mermaid (who always wears shells over her boobs (which, though I am not female, still sounds painful--imagine the chafing!), and is willing to trust anyone in order to get her "one true love" (what garbage), even a rather fat meroctupus(???what is up with Ursula anyway?)), THAT'S FINE, but they shouldn't be allowed to call it "The Little Mermaid", after the original, where all those stupid things are missing (it has its own garbage, but never mind that).
Okay, I know I am ranting, but you know what? I don't care. As near as I can tell Disney currently has no talent working for them. Pixar does (witness A Toy Story and Finding Nemo), as do several other companies (Spirited Away is an awesome story--my son (who was about 18mos. old at the time) laughed hysterically at the witch in the house (whatever her name was)). But the folks at disney haven't put anything decent out in a while (Tarzan being the best it quite some time), but IMO, the Lion King was a pointless waste of time. And not even very entertaining at that!
Okay, I'm done. If anyone want's to borrow my soapbox, its free now.
That's right in line with his comments. I know that there is a certain army general who wants to replace the M16 with something else, and has used the Jessica Lynch story to make a push.
The truly interesting part of this is that He already has a contractor. Between a desire to use this for promotion pushing (he's a one star, with aims to become five-star), and what might be an industry kickback, you come up with an ugly picture.
Not being military myself, I don't feel qualified to say much about the weapons, but the politics seem dirty. In some ways it sounds like the plot for a Hollywood-style military flick that ends up combining lots of explosions, several one-night stands, and terroristic plots into one mangled mash.
Thanks for the input though on the weapon--sounds like a good one to have. Now if only I could get one (yeah right--no way it would be legal), becuase while I don't like gun registration (sorry folks, but it only tracks the law abiding citizens, not criminals), I also don't think that civilians, such as myself, have any need for an M16!
Just out of curiousity, what is your opinion of the M16?
The reason I ask is because I know there is some debate about the weapon (re: Jessica Lynch) and its effectiveness. My brother in law, who is in the Army (US), was recently in Iraq investing that weapon along with some other guns.
His take on it is that it's a great weapon in the right circumstances, but it wasn't designed for sandy/desert environments, and if you want one to function there, you need to either a) clean it constantly or b) keep it dry (no oil) until just before use (this is what most of the US soldiers seem to be doing, due to the fact that it is easier).
I was just curious what you (or anyone else) know about the weapon.
Now, to keep this somewhat On Topic, I think that the idea of using a laser to cut cheese (or anything else) is great, but only if it can be done faster and easier than with other methods. Personally I do a lot of woodworking, and would love precision cutting tools (like a laser) that didn't leave scoring on the wood (like EVERY saw will). A hand-held laser saw that could replace the skill saw would be awesome!
Another potential use would be similar--just ask anyone who does drywall what it would like to be able to do near seamless joins. I know a very few who can without something like this, but the majority cannot. The one guy actually doesn't like tape or mud on drywall, and his work is impeccable (and he's FAST!).
Just a few thoughts.
16GB for the dual proc, 20 for the quad..which isn't available yet