In the novel Catch 22 by Joseph Heller, there is a character whose father named him "Major Major Major". When he enlists, an administrative screw-up gives him a promotion to that rank, resulting in the personage of "Major Major Major Major". It results in obvious hilarity at bootcamp.
Listen to what hobbit wrote. I second his point completely - friends are much better at picking up the subtle signals.
I can completely understand your complaint - dammit, there's no protocol reference for subtle communication! Like a formal standard, or RFC - clear rules, maybe a nice grammar reference, etc.. There actually is, apprently - it's mostly on the intuitive level, though.
In general, consider this: girls are funny creatures. As guys (I'm limiting my comments to heterosexual relationships, as I lack experience/understanding of other kinds), we think girls are great, but very strange. But when it comes to attraction (especially of the kind that's liable to land you in someone's bed), it's not all that complicated. Girls are very conscious of their appearance - they feel they age quickly, and thereby become unattractive. Time works against them in a decisive and devastating way (they feel). Thus, the older they get, the less certain they are of themselves (i.e. "does he find me attractive enough"). (Note: at some point, they do realize looks are *all that* important, that actually happens in your age bracket. But they still feel they must be attractive). Plus, there's a cultural impulse for guys to take the initiative.
Summary: your being shy might very well be perceived as "he likes me as a friend, but doesn't find me attractive enough". In other words, you might very well be uncosciously projecting the "you're not attractive enough" signal. A mature, and very self-assured woman would see the signal for what it is - you're shy. But people are selfish when it comes to taking a chance - they'll think it's their own fault, not someone else's. Thus, even if a girl likes you and would otherwise be a bit more obvious about it, by projecting what she perceives as the "you're not attractive enough" signal, you are removing any will she has for taking a chance. After all, who wants to get rejected, right?:-)
Is this annoying, and possibly counter-intuitive? Yes. Is it true? I think there's a high probability that it is - older guys with more experience, please support or debunk as appropriate.
So, now you know at least one signal in the interaction protocol. Here's another - if you're friends with a girl for a long time, have alot of history together, yet you remain close even if she has other boyfriends (and winds up crying on your shoulder when those relationships go wrong), and this keeps happening for a long enough time - here's a hint: she might like you, but seeing as you're unavailable, might be trying with other people (she's not getting any younger). What to do about the situation, is, of course, left as an exercise for the interested reader:-)
Good luck!
Re:Japanese space tourist wants to cosplay in orbi
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 1
You know, as an anime otaku, I can totally understand that. You need to be Japanese in order to make it really big, get lots of money, be taken seriously - and then blow $20M on a space joyride, dressed up as an anime character you admire. I wonder, if he paid another $20M, would they paint the rocket red and call it "Zaku II Custom".
I am not sure I completely agree with your conclusions. Is it that you genuinely *don't* want anyone else in your life, or is it that you do, but can't make that step? If it's the latter case (as I suspect, based on "...otherwise the perfect person for me..."), then you will either die very disappointed, or (as seems a bit more likely), some assertive girl who likes you will squint at you mischievously, waggle her finger, and that'll be the end of your single days. (Besides, I can't really believe you've never been in a situation where a girl has given you a 'Come hither' look. If you're shy, you'd run away from that. Short answer: don't run away.)
The first time is a total rush. Enjoy it when it happens. Just don't let it FUBAR your life. That can happen the first time you realize another person wants you close.
(Disclaimer: I am 25, had a girlfriend about 3 years ago, single since. I understand the AC's attitude, but only after you've experienced the whole SO thing at least once.)
Thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading the paper. Very well written, and the shpiel about "psychology and mythology" in Comp Sci people was great.
I couldn't help noticing thought:
Your company shelled out close to a million on hardware. You use java, and the article does specifically discuss numeric benchmarks.... so either you're from the NSA, or (I think more likely) doing some kind of financial/market prediction/analysis.
I know. I should've seen the signs earlier. But despite the commercialism, the product spinoffs, I kept hoping that there would something semi-decent there, in Star Wars. I even saw SWIII in theaters.
But this....this is just unbelievable. Follow the imdb link....it gives all time boxoffice highs. For goodness sakes! SWIII is at number 7. Yes, $380M ranks 7th. Titanic is first, hell, the original Star Wars is ranked 2nd. Of the first 7 entries THREE are Star Wars! All 6 Star Wars are in the top 25! What the hell's he got to complain about?
And now this..... individual is going to sue people because the movie didn't make as much *money*? Not because it sucked, or was stereotyped, or that watching Natalie Portman interact with what's his name was physically painful? It wasn't just the bad dialog, the stupid premise, or the utterly unbelievable story. We could tolerate that. But how does this moron (Lucas) manage to get two relatively decent actors (Natalie Portman actually acts fairly well in other movies) to play their parts with all the artistic talent of two autistic clams fornicating? How can anyone take a legacy so good and make the moment of dramatic tension so very very bad? It felt like watching the mindless fighting sequences was more interesting than paying attention to the "storyline".
But no, we're not gonna blame it on any of that. We're going to blame "eeevil internet pirates". Just a thought: did anyone ever watch interviews with this bastard? How he pontificates about the "mythology" of star wars, and the art, and all that crap? For someone who is supposedly a creator and an artist, doesn't he seem to care a wee bit too much about the whole money thing?
George Lucas is a complete hypocrite. I will never again EVER watch anything he has ever done or will ever do in the future. I will never spend any money on any product associated with Lucas, Lucasfilms, Lucas's games, or anything else. Yes, I know that ILM is part of the Lucas empire and they do special effects for other films... this will be tough. But honestly, this move is the last fucking straw. I encourage everyone else to forever boycott George Lucas. How do the Catholics do their thing?
-Do you renounce George Lucas and all his works? -I do.
Right when I read that, I realized the article was... well, if not nonsense, then at least half-way there.
I think Palm's biggest mistake was being idealistic. They had a great concept - zero start time, a low-power, very long-life device that works as a powerful memo book with some automagic features.
Their documentation is solid, the OS was great - simple, straightforward, and geared toward exactly the ideas that were a part of the hardware design. They even wrote a book - "The Zen of Palm" describing the guidelines and software design considerations that were to go into writing software for the platform. They said from the very beginning - this is not a palmtop notebook. It's a low-power digital memo pad/calendar.
Compare this with other PDA's - iPaq's, Dell's Axims, etc. - bulky, overpowered monstrosities. Oh yeah, great - I can read word documents on the PDA. Sweet. But someone better be running behind me with a diesel generator to power it. Axims have 5-10 hour battery lives. Palms could go for a month (sometimes more, depending on usage) on a pair of AA's.
But I guess the WinCE systems do have one advantage - you get to write windows code (oh joy) for them. Oh wait...there's something wrong with that statement.
So, palm in it's conception of the purpose of a PDA was just too naive - they thought people would realize that current technology doesn't let you have a portable workstation, and tried to get the best of what was available. But Joe Schmoe can't live without checking his email on his PDA - god forbid he should miss that all-important email from the President of the US. Basically, the windows devices got ahead on the whiz-bang factor, by pandering to people's sense of self-importance, and by counting on people to be stupid and not realize what they truly needed. How typical. So, to the extent that palm failed to recognize all this, they were too idealistic. What a pity.
It wasn't supposed to be funny. It's called "wry humor". Admittedly, my attempt may have failed. Anyway, tastes differ. In any case, I didn't mod it "Insightful". Talk to the mods. (Also, the mod may have been for other things, you know. Although you're not seeing them this way)
About the Republican party being destroyed and all that....Nixon happened. Florida 2000 happened. They're still around. They're not going down even if they were linked with the Devil himself. And yes. The risk *is* worth it.
I'll ignore the personal jibes about "conspiracy theorists". Just one note: an unpopular opinion about underhanded dealings by powerful people is not automagically a conspiracy theory. Ok? Please stop accusing anyone who doesn't worship the CNN and New York Times versions of reality as being a conspiracy nutjob. Honestly.
As far as the watching...please describe exactly what you have in mind here.....by watching do you mean "Why didn't you march into Diebold and get their sourcecode, at gunpoint if necessary?" Or "Why didn't you post someone next to every election official". Maybe because they'd object? And have some BS regulation on their side?
But ultimately, you're right. Why didn't *I* personally do it? Honestly, I just don't give a shit. By the time I got to this country, it had been fucked beyond belief by responsible, serious people that my elders put into office. And those same elders really believed in their elected officials. They seriously believed pieces of shit like Nixon and Johnson that they are "moral, sober people". Just like some of them believe that Bush is an intelligent articulate leader. They also perpetrated massacres across the globe. As far as I am concerned this place is beyond redemption. It has violated it's own principles. What we're seeing is the fallout as this country collapses under the weight of karma, if you like. Or maybe because it's been living off the rest of the world for so long it can't do anything except posture. And when the world finishes waking up, USians will be sitting there hugging their knees and wondering "Why do they hate us?". So frankly, I just don't give a shit. US is getting what it deserves as it collapses under it's inner contradictions. And yes, it hurts good people. Yes it does. And that sucks. But good people always get hurt. And assholes profit. The wonderful thing is that here in the US - you, the good people, elected the assholes. The suggestion of corrupted elections at least lifts that burden. But if you want it - great! Carry it.
If I could offer solid proof of actual voting corrupt - I'd be dead. Obvious reasons. And yes, I'm sure people on local levels would be horrified. This is the beauty of Diebold - no need to corrupt all over the place. Corrupt the 1 person who administers the counting server. (Ok, I know it's not that simple, but really, the numbers of involved people is far lower). Google for "Votergate" - it gives some lurid detail about how Diebold works. I believe this: the system *is* wildly insecure. It has no audit trail. It's counting is done in Access, for chrissakes! It's made by a company with ties to the Bush campaign and the Bush fortunes. It's president stated (though later retracted) "We'll hand Ohio over to Bush". The systems were used in a politically charged elections during the most blatantly corrupt administration in relatively recent memory. If I could get you solid evidence that someone changed the numbers, I would. I honestly would. But that's why it's called "conspiracy". If they've done their job well, there is no proof. I am aware of the fundamental weakness of circumstantial evidence. But I hope you will agree that the motive and the means were there, and opporutnities can be made.
Finally, making a difference. That's a beautiful thought. As well as your having actually convinced ``several'' people. I mean that sincerely. You get right at the root of the problem. Education. However, it is not in the interests of the established powers that people should think and vote. Then, the people might actually make a difference. They might throw the bunch of rotten scoundrels in Federal Pound-You-In-The-Ass prison for committing high treason and conspiracy against the People of the United States (notice how the accusations are always "Treason against the Government of the United States" or "Conspiracy to wage war against the Government of the United States"?) But have you also noticed how there is a steady policy of making people stupid, blindly accepting, and brainwashed using the media? How media firms research the best psychoanalytical means of convincing people to do this or that? How opinions can be shaped and bought? How the media is a many multi-billion dollar business? I'm sorry, but you and I don't have the reasources to take that on.
Alot of people seem to be suggesting that this bill introduces censorship. However, I actually RTFMed, and I don't understand what the article is actually *about*. It is complete hot air, and is utterly un-informative. Think about it - *who* is being regulated here? Even that's not clear.
Now, it's something the government is doing. By default, that suggests it's evil and stupid. However, I am not sure whether it aims to regulate people who blog about politics or politicians who blog. If the regulations say "A given candidate can spend only X amount of money on internet ads promoting their campaign, or can only discuss subjects Y,Z,W,U in their official blogs", I am not sure that's a bad idea. The Internet does reach alot of people. Politicoes should have at least some nominal limitations on what they can and can't do.
On the other hand, if the regulations say "If you are Joe Schmoe and you blog about the current election campaign in favor of Candidate X , we'll come and sue you" then that's quite different, and obviously pernicious.
Now, this being the real world, and these are FEC regulations, and further considering that the FEC is a steaming pile of ineffectual excrement that is corrupt enough to give Wall Street a boner, it's safe to say that the regulations
1) Will be stupid 2) Will be Evil 3) Will not control the candidates 4) Will not be enforced against candidates 5) Will have tons of loop-holes 6) Will be broad enough to cover anyone who writes anything political 7) Will be ruthlessly enforced against non-candidates and non-politicians (i.e. everyone else) who happen to discuss uncomfortable truths 8) Will be used as a bullshit excuse by whatever Fascist law enforcement agency happens to be having a fit of pique that day 9) Will be promoted by bottom-feeding scum-sucking politicians as ensuring our "Freedoms" (tm)
and finally
10) Will be passed over objections of the ACLU, EFF, and every awake individual.
You are aware that most things you *can't* vote for?
I love this argument - ``Well, you can vote''.
1) Not with Diebold you can't. Using Diebold, the vote decides you.
2) Consider the following model: You ``elect'' a congressman. He then goes off and starts sucking political dick and voting whichever way the wind is blowing. Someone like you says: "Well, you can vote". Ok. So we vote the idiot out (probably not, but suppose). Great. Notice how the stupid law the idiot passed is still on the books? Notice how it'll take a courtcase that's appealed, re-appealed, that must get to the Supreme Court, which must decide to hear it, and only *THEN* is there a chance the Court may use the power of Judicial Review to repeal the law. That's the only forceful way. Oh yes, I hear you say, but Congress could repeal the law by itself. Yes. In theory. In practice, whichever bunch of money-grubbing assholes paid for the original law will simply bribe the next congressman you ``elect''. Excuse me. That's probably libel. I apologize. I *meant* to say, whichever bunch of money grubbing assholes paid for the original law will simply make campaign contributions, use lobbyists, and sponsor think-tanks to "re-educate" the next congressman you ``elect''.
3) Conclusion: Yes, we're aware we can vote in principle. You're apparently not aware how little effect voting actually has in practice.
.....Eurasia. Boys (and the hypothetical girls) - don't get sucked into the "Yes man" mentality that Washington is advocating. The Pentagon is promoting a unilateral space arms race - perhaps they believe no other country would do something like this. Please consider the hypothetical - "China launches a space jamming satellite to disable communications for... blah blah blah". What would happen?
The US would have a fit! They'd be adding the Chinese wheel to the already overburdened Axle of Evil. Articles in the New York Times: "Chinese - they are among us". Senate committe on un-American activities: "Are you now, or have you ever been, Chinese?" No more Chinese resaurants - now they'd be... well, they can't use Freedom, since that means French, so how about... Patriotism. The All You Can Eat Patriatism Buffet! The Lucky Star Patriot Restaurant. Chop sticks would now be Democracy sticks. The Department of Homeland Insecurity would have to go into the infra-red range to denote the danger levels. And some dumb hick from Bumfuck Alabama would get up in the Senate and say "We need to go git them Chinks fer good!", to be rewarded by a standing ovation from a bunch of political moral degenerates.
But instead, it's us that's launching something like that - just your friendly neighborhood bringers of peace and democracy. So there's nothing to worry about. Right?
Guys, in the 50's America went apeshit because they thought Sputnik was carrying nucular (hehe) missiles to kill Americans. Now, America is launching a weapon (it is something that is intended for offensive action against foreign states) and justifying it with "Well, we need it". I am beginning to think that getting away with things is simply a matter of chosing actions so blatantly hypocritical that no normal person could find the words to express the enormity of the arrogance such an action belies. And a normal person wouldn't use profanity either. So, dear politicos, since irony and subtlety are lost on you: "Fuck you. You *don't* need that weapon. Go shoot some crack and die of an overdose, you stupid Washington crotch-sniffers".
Seriously, though - perhaps the scariest thing about Orwell's 1984 is that he is describing a model whereby society can never break free of tyranny - effectively the endgame of humanity. And this is done with 1) altering the past, to prevent people from learning and 2) perpetual war to promote fear. Something like this satellite furthers the latter. Lack of good education and promotion of media control encourages the former. I am not suggesting that tomorrow we'll have Comrade Big Brother. But it's a safe bet that some media firm is doing preliminary sketch designs of a man with a mustache.
Your argument regarding cooperation between Stalin and Hitler as evidence ot the former's lack of intention to attack is completely false.
You assume that a) Stalin trusted Hitler and b) was consequently an idiot. Stalin was neither. He was a brutal and ruthless tyrant, but he did come out on top after a 10 year internal power struggle. The man was not stupid.
The Molotov-Ribbentropp pact was a stalling tactic on both sides - Hitler wanted Stalin to believe that he would not attack. Stalin wanted the pact to stall for time.
The Soviet army was very ill-equipped to handle the war. Stalin knew the war was inevitable, and had been preparing for it. The army was being modernized, although the scale of the problem was enormous. Many of the "experienced officers" that were executed (and used as an argument for how stupid Stalin was) were, in fact, murderous incompetents who perpetrated the initial slaughter of the 1917 revolution - in other words Lenin's old guard. Their only "experience" was killing anyone with an educated look. The previous leadership (pre-Stalin) did nothing to develop the army, and that task was on Stalin's shoulders.
Finally, the events from July through December 1941 indicate only one thing: the vaunted German army, with it's wonderful mechanized infantry, and true German dedication and punctuality lost. They failed in the blitzkrieg to (what you would probably argue) were a bunch of incompetent, unprepared fools. (Yes, I'm aware of the approach to Moscow to within 19km (along the Volokalamskoe Road). Yes Russia dodged a bullet there - true. It was, however, an advance division, not the full army, and they were beaten back (incidentally by troops sent from the Far East, who had just finished kicking the crap out of Japan at Khalkhingol). The rest is history). And please don't try to explain the German loss away by the weather factor alone.
Also: evidence to how the country *was* prepared: factories and military units had detailed evacuation plans and time tables worked out years in advance (pre 1940). And those timetables worked. Factories and workers were evacuated successfully, without panic, and relocated beyond the Urals, where places were prepared for them, generators were placed, etc.. If you have 2 brain cells to rub together, you'll know this is an immense traffic management problem that's not solved in 2 weeks.
Summary: Stalin knew what he was doing, he stalled for time to get people as ready as he could - not because he was going to sit back and play buddy-buddy with Hitler. Lots of bad things happened during the initial 1941 attack - not unreasonable given that Germany was very experienced in this kind of thing. Germany failed in its objectives, not by accident.
Oh, almost forgot! Speaking of cooperation between Axis powers and Allies...as I recall, it was America that desired a separatist peace with Germany. It was Allen Dulles's people that conduced talks with Himmler's representatives in Sweden and Switzerland. Check out Count Folke Bernadotte's history sometime. The wikipedia article is a little brief on those details.
The Soviet shuttle project was *very* successful. As an earlier poster pointed out, it launched, orbited, and landed, on fully automatic control (not remote). (Actually, a portion of the design committee disagreed with the fully automatic controls, saying they were not safe - the automatic design team won the argument and proved themselves right). The Buran shuttle made the landing in weather conditions considered "unflyable" by NASA.
And then yes - politics happened and the program got killed. There was a tiny matter of a change of government and crashed economy. But, to be fair, I believe the Russian's aren't the only ones whose funding difficulties led to unfortunate consequences for their space programs. I won't name names:-)
I thought you were going to say "Only two things come out of Florida: spammers and cockroaches. You don't look like a cochroach to me, boy, so you *must* be a spammer"
I think Jar-Jar will survive, unfortunately. Lucas can't kill him - he's cute, see, and funny, and goofy. (Please note sarcarsm there). Jar-Jar will survive by bearing Luke and Leia away to safety, or something like that. He's not going to be in the big bloodbath. In fact, some jedis will stay behind and get killed just to save his butt. It will make the fans howl in rage, but hey, do you honestly think Lucas will miss an opportunity to shove a turd like that down everyone's collective throat? Of course he won't.
Perhaps I've read too much Patrick O'Brian (author of the Aubrey-Maturin novels), but I read the title as "Microsoft Taps Buggers To Promote Longhorn" (for those not in the know, expressions such as "grass combing bugger", apparently abounded in the 18th century Royal Navy).
Not only did that sound wrong, but even somewhat surprising in view of the recent story about Microsoft and the gay rights bill i.e.
recent discussion
Good call - political bitches and political pimps.
This underscores the fundamental point here - constituents are the people that a senator is supposed to be responsible to. That she is from a state which hosts rich media conglomerates who, perhaps "lobby" her, or help "finance" her campaign makes them a source of influence which explains her voting patterns, and makes her a political prostitute.
To all of you who are writing things along the lines of "it's just 3 years, doesn't seem so bad, considering the heinous crime", something to tell you:
unless you've personally done 3 years, or, in fact, any time, kindly STFU. I have not served any time, so I can not speak from experience on how bad it is. All I know are witness accounts.
After 3 years in jail, your life is over. Period. You are permanently unemployable (no one wants to hire an ex-con). You are facing a choice of flipping burgers for the rest of your life, or becoming a hard-core criminal. You can never vote again (as an ex-felon, anyone with >1 jail time). Your psyche will be permanently altered, and most likely destroyed. You will be abused by whoever happens to be bored. If you resist, you will get beaten and then abused. And by abused I mean serially raped anally and orally. All of your conceptions of decency, honesty, and goodwill of all men will get crushed. Your personality may potentially survive somewhat intact if 1) you are phenomenally, exceptionally strong inside, and 2) you don't turn into a raving maniac as a self-defense mechanism. The chances of surviving as something close to your former self - almost 0. You will leave prison a burned-out husk, a grey shadow of your former self. Don't let the kindly, heartwarming prison movies fool you. You will turn into the most dreaded image of yourself, a living, breathing zombie that's totally dead inside. That's the good case. The bad case is you'll become a hardened criminal with no regard for human life, and will spend the rest of your pathetic existence taking advantage of normal people as a means of psychological revenge.
I base my comments on descriptions of prison life both in the US and the former USSR, as written by inmates who have survived.
So, this debate is essentially the following: is sharing a movie worth destroying a person's life? It is contended that their actions result in financial loss for some company. The exact amount, or even the fact of loss is *highly* questionable, and is disputed. Is the action of sharing a movie sufficiently grave that we see it fit to strip the offender of their humanity as punishment? What this law contends is that someone who infringes on a copyright has rejected the social contract to the same extent as, say, a rapist, a child molesterer or a murderer. 3 or 10 isn't relevant, guys. The person's just as dead either way. Longer sentences are a means of 1) isolation, or 2) giving the inmate more of a chance to become a hardened criminal. So the question stands: is the loss of corporate profit a grave enough offence to remove someone's humanity?
Slashdot Mirror
But there is definitely no such thing as a "Final" Fantasy.
In the novel Catch 22 by Joseph Heller, there is a character whose father named him "Major Major Major". When he enlists, an administrative screw-up gives him a promotion to that rank, resulting in the personage of "Major Major Major Major". It results in obvious hilarity at bootcamp.
Misattribution:
The original quoate is said by Leia to Moff Tarkin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=853
Enjoy
Listen to what hobbit wrote. I second his point completely - friends are much better at picking up the subtle signals.
:-)
:-)
I can completely understand your complaint - dammit, there's no protocol reference for subtle communication! Like a formal standard, or RFC - clear rules, maybe a nice grammar reference, etc.. There actually is, apprently - it's mostly on the intuitive level, though.
In general, consider this: girls are funny creatures. As guys (I'm limiting my comments to heterosexual relationships, as I lack experience/understanding of other kinds), we think girls are great, but very strange. But when it comes to attraction (especially of the kind that's liable to land you in someone's bed), it's not all that complicated. Girls are very conscious of their appearance - they feel they age quickly, and thereby become unattractive. Time works against them in a decisive and devastating way (they feel). Thus, the older they get, the less certain they are of themselves (i.e. "does he find me attractive enough"). (Note: at some point, they do realize looks are *all that* important, that actually happens in your age bracket. But they still feel they must be attractive). Plus, there's a cultural impulse for guys to take the initiative.
Summary: your being shy might very well be perceived as "he likes me as a friend, but doesn't find me attractive enough". In other words, you might very well be uncosciously projecting the "you're not attractive enough" signal. A mature, and very self-assured woman would see the signal for what it is - you're shy. But people are selfish when it comes to taking a chance - they'll think it's their own fault, not someone else's. Thus, even if a girl likes you and would otherwise be a bit more obvious about it, by projecting what she perceives as the "you're not attractive enough" signal, you are removing any will she has for taking a chance. After all, who wants to get rejected, right?
Is this annoying, and possibly counter-intuitive? Yes. Is it true? I think there's a high probability that it is - older guys with more experience, please support or debunk as appropriate.
So, now you know at least one signal in the interaction protocol. Here's another - if you're friends with a girl for a long time, have alot of history together, yet you remain close even if she has other boyfriends (and winds up crying on your shoulder when those relationships go wrong), and this keeps happening for a long enough time - here's a hint: she might like you, but seeing as you're unavailable, might be trying with other people (she's not getting any younger). What to do about the situation, is, of course, left as an exercise for the interested reader
Good luck!
You know, as an anime otaku, I can totally understand that. You need to be Japanese in order to make it really big, get lots of money, be taken seriously - and then blow $20M on a space joyride, dressed up as an anime character you admire. I wonder, if he paid another $20M, would they paint the rocket red and call it "Zaku II Custom".
I am not sure I completely agree with your conclusions. Is it that you genuinely *don't* want anyone else in your life, or is it that you do, but can't make that step? If it's the latter case (as I suspect, based on "...otherwise the perfect person for me..."), then you will either die very disappointed, or (as seems a bit more likely), some assertive girl who likes you will squint at you mischievously, waggle her finger, and that'll be the end of your single days. (Besides, I can't really believe you've never been in a situation where a girl has given you a 'Come hither' look. If you're shy, you'd run away from that. Short answer: don't run away.)
The first time is a total rush. Enjoy it when it happens. Just don't let it FUBAR your life. That can happen the first time you realize another person wants you close.
(Disclaimer: I am 25, had a girlfriend about 3 years ago, single since. I understand the AC's attitude, but only after you've experienced the whole SO thing at least once.)
I apologize for falling afoul of Godwin's law, but you do know what other country had "National Socialism" as it's economic doctrine?
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - The National Socialist German Workers Party, (NSDAP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP
i.e. the Third Reich.
Heil Bush!
-Zig Heil, Zig Heil, Zig Heil!
Heinlein has them biting down a certain number of times on a given side of the mouth.
Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
By James Prendergast
Did anyone else read that as "James Pederast"?
Thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading the paper. Very well written, and the shpiel about "psychology and mythology" in Comp Sci people was great.
.... so either you're from the NSA, or (I think more likely) doing some kind of financial/market prediction/analysis.
I couldn't help noticing thought:
Your company shelled out close to a million on hardware. You use java, and the article does specifically discuss numeric benchmarks
I know. I should've seen the signs earlier. But despite the commercialism, the product spinoffs, I kept hoping that there would something semi-decent there, in Star Wars. I even saw SWIII in theaters.
..... individual is going to sue people because the movie didn't make as much *money*? Not because it sucked, or was stereotyped, or that watching Natalie Portman interact with what's his name was physically painful? It wasn't just the bad dialog, the stupid premise, or the utterly unbelievable story. We could tolerate that. But how does this moron (Lucas) manage to get two relatively decent actors (Natalie Portman actually acts fairly well in other movies) to play their parts with all the artistic talent of two autistic clams fornicating? How can anyone take a legacy so good and make the moment of dramatic tension so very very bad? It felt like watching the mindless fighting sequences was more interesting than paying attention to the "storyline".
But this....this is just unbelievable. Follow the imdb link....it gives all time boxoffice highs. For goodness sakes! SWIII is at number 7. Yes, $380M ranks 7th. Titanic is first, hell, the original Star Wars is ranked 2nd. Of the first 7 entries THREE are Star Wars! All 6 Star Wars are in the top 25! What the hell's he got to complain about?
And now this
But no, we're not gonna blame it on any of that. We're going to blame "eeevil internet pirates". Just a thought: did anyone ever watch interviews with this bastard? How he pontificates about the "mythology" of star wars, and the art, and all that crap? For someone who is supposedly a creator and an artist, doesn't he seem to care a wee bit too much about the whole money thing?
George Lucas is a complete hypocrite. I will never again EVER watch anything he has ever done or will ever do in the future. I will never spend any money on any product associated with Lucas, Lucasfilms, Lucas's games, or anything else. Yes, I know that ILM is part of the Lucas empire and they do special effects for other films... this will be tough. But honestly, this move is the last fucking straw. I encourage everyone else to forever boycott George Lucas. How do the Catholics do their thing?
-Do you renounce George Lucas and all his works?
-I do.
Right when I read that, I realized the article was ... well, if not nonsense, then at least half-way there.
I think Palm's biggest mistake was being idealistic. They had a great concept - zero start time, a low-power, very long-life device that works as a powerful memo book with some automagic features.
Their documentation is solid, the OS was great - simple, straightforward, and geared toward exactly the ideas that were a part of the hardware design. They even wrote a book - "The Zen of Palm" describing the guidelines and software design considerations that were to go into writing software for the platform. They said from the very beginning - this is not a palmtop notebook. It's a low-power digital memo pad/calendar.
Compare this with other PDA's - iPaq's, Dell's Axims, etc. - bulky, overpowered monstrosities. Oh yeah, great - I can read word documents on the PDA. Sweet. But someone better be running behind me with a diesel generator to power it. Axims have 5-10 hour battery lives. Palms could go for a month (sometimes more, depending on usage) on a pair of AA's.
But I guess the WinCE systems do have one advantage - you get to write windows code (oh joy) for them. Oh wait...there's something wrong with that statement.
So, palm in it's conception of the purpose of a PDA was just too naive - they thought people would realize that current technology doesn't let you have a portable workstation, and tried to get the best of what was available. But Joe Schmoe can't live without checking his email on his PDA - god forbid he should miss that all-important email from the President of the US. Basically, the windows devices got ahead on the whiz-bang factor, by pandering to people's sense of self-importance, and by counting on people to be stupid and not realize what they truly needed. How typical. So, to the extent that palm failed to recognize all this, they were too idealistic. What a pity.
It wasn't supposed to be funny. It's called "wry humor". Admittedly, my attempt may have failed. Anyway, tastes differ. In any case, I didn't mod it "Insightful". Talk to the mods. (Also, the mod may have been for other things, you know. Although you're not seeing them this way)
About the Republican party being destroyed and all that....Nixon happened. Florida 2000 happened. They're still around. They're not going down even if they were linked with the Devil himself. And yes. The risk *is* worth it.
I'll ignore the personal jibes about "conspiracy theorists". Just one note: an unpopular opinion about underhanded dealings by powerful people is not automagically a conspiracy theory. Ok? Please stop accusing anyone who doesn't worship the CNN and New York Times versions of reality as being a conspiracy nutjob. Honestly.
As far as the watching...please describe exactly what you have in mind here.....by watching do you mean "Why didn't you march into Diebold and get their sourcecode, at gunpoint if necessary?" Or "Why didn't you post someone next to every election official". Maybe because they'd object? And have some BS regulation on their side?
But ultimately, you're right. Why didn't *I* personally do it? Honestly, I just don't give a shit. By the time I got to this country, it had been fucked beyond belief by responsible, serious people that my elders put into office. And those same elders really believed in their elected officials. They seriously believed pieces of shit like Nixon and Johnson that they are "moral, sober people". Just like some of them believe that Bush is an intelligent articulate leader. They also perpetrated massacres across the globe. As far as I am concerned this place is beyond redemption. It has violated it's own principles. What we're seeing is the fallout as this country collapses under the weight of karma, if you like. Or maybe because it's been living off the rest of the world for so long it can't do anything except posture. And when the world finishes waking up, USians will be sitting there hugging their knees and wondering "Why do they hate us?". So frankly, I just don't give a shit. US is getting what it deserves as it collapses under it's inner contradictions. And yes, it hurts good people. Yes it does. And that sucks. But good people always get hurt. And assholes profit. The wonderful thing is that here in the US - you, the good people, elected the assholes. The suggestion of corrupted elections at least lifts that burden. But if you want it - great! Carry it.
If I could offer solid proof of actual voting corrupt - I'd be dead. Obvious reasons. And yes, I'm sure people on local levels would be horrified. This is the beauty of Diebold - no need to corrupt all over the place. Corrupt the 1 person who administers the counting server. (Ok, I know it's not that simple, but really, the numbers of involved people is far lower). Google for "Votergate" - it gives some lurid detail about how Diebold works. I believe this: the system *is* wildly insecure. It has no audit trail. It's counting is done in Access, for chrissakes! It's made by a company with ties to the Bush campaign and the Bush fortunes. It's president stated (though later retracted) "We'll hand Ohio over to Bush". The systems were used in a politically charged elections during the most blatantly corrupt administration in relatively recent memory. If I could get you solid evidence that someone changed the numbers, I would. I honestly would. But that's why it's called "conspiracy". If they've done their job well, there is no proof. I am aware of the fundamental weakness of circumstantial evidence. But I hope you will agree that the motive and the means were there, and opporutnities can be made.
Finally, making a difference. That's a beautiful thought. As well as your having actually convinced ``several'' people. I mean that sincerely. You get right at the root of the problem. Education. However, it is not in the interests of the established powers that people should think and vote. Then, the people might actually make a difference. They might throw the bunch of rotten scoundrels in Federal Pound-You-In-The-Ass prison for committing high treason and conspiracy against the People of the United States (notice how the accusations are always "Treason against the Government of the United States" or "Conspiracy to wage war against the Government of the United States"?) But have you also noticed how there is a steady policy of making people stupid, blindly accepting, and brainwashed using the media? How media firms research the best psychoanalytical means of convincing people to do this or that? How opinions can be shaped and bought? How the media is a many multi-billion dollar business? I'm sorry, but you and I don't have the reasources to take that on.
Alot of people seem to be suggesting that this bill introduces censorship. However, I actually RTFMed, and I don't understand what the article is actually *about*. It is complete hot air, and is utterly un-informative. Think about it - *who* is being regulated here? Even that's not clear.
Now, it's something the government is doing. By default, that suggests it's evil and stupid. However, I am not sure whether it aims to regulate people who blog about politics or politicians who blog. If the regulations say "A given candidate can spend only X amount of money on internet ads promoting their campaign, or can only discuss subjects Y,Z,W,U in their official blogs", I am not sure that's a bad idea. The Internet does reach alot of people. Politicoes should have at least some nominal limitations on what they can and can't do.
On the other hand, if the regulations say "If you are Joe Schmoe and you blog about the current election campaign in favor of Candidate X , we'll come and sue you" then that's quite different, and obviously pernicious.
Now, this being the real world, and these are FEC regulations, and further considering that the FEC is a steaming pile of ineffectual excrement that is corrupt enough to give Wall Street a boner, it's safe to say that the regulations
1) Will be stupid
2) Will be Evil
3) Will not control the candidates
4) Will not be enforced against candidates
5) Will have tons of loop-holes
6) Will be broad enough to cover anyone who writes anything political
7) Will be ruthlessly enforced against non-candidates and non-politicians (i.e. everyone else) who happen to discuss uncomfortable truths
8) Will be used as a bullshit excuse by whatever Fascist law enforcement agency happens to be having a fit of pique that day
9) Will be promoted by bottom-feeding scum-sucking politicians as ensuring our "Freedoms" (tm)
and finally
10) Will be passed over objections of the ACLU, EFF, and every awake individual.
Enjoy!
You are aware that most things you *can't* vote for?
I love this argument - ``Well, you can vote''.
1) Not with Diebold you can't. Using Diebold, the vote decides you.
2) Consider the following model: You ``elect'' a congressman. He then goes off and starts sucking political dick and voting whichever way the wind is blowing. Someone like you says: "Well, you can vote". Ok. So we vote the idiot out (probably not, but suppose). Great. Notice how the stupid law the idiot passed is still on the books? Notice how it'll take a courtcase that's appealed, re-appealed, that must get to the Supreme Court, which must decide to hear it, and only *THEN* is there a chance the Court may use the power of Judicial Review to repeal the law. That's the only forceful way. Oh yes, I hear you say, but Congress could repeal the law by itself. Yes. In theory. In practice, whichever bunch of money-grubbing assholes paid for the original law will simply bribe the next congressman you ``elect''. Excuse me. That's probably libel. I apologize. I *meant* to say, whichever bunch of money grubbing assholes paid for the original law will simply make campaign contributions, use lobbyists, and sponsor think-tanks to "re-educate" the next congressman you ``elect''.
3) Conclusion: Yes, we're aware we can vote in principle. You're apparently not aware how little effect voting actually has in practice.
.....Eurasia. Boys (and the hypothetical girls) - don't get sucked into the "Yes man" mentality that Washington is advocating. ... blah blah blah". What would happen?
... well, they can't use Freedom, since that means French, so how about ... Patriotism. The All You Can Eat Patriatism Buffet! The Lucky Star Patriot Restaurant. Chop sticks would now be Democracy sticks. The Department of Homeland Insecurity would have to go into the infra-red range to denote the danger levels. And some dumb hick from Bumfuck Alabama would get up in the Senate and say "We need to go git them Chinks fer good!", to be rewarded by a standing ovation from a bunch of political moral degenerates.
The Pentagon is promoting a unilateral space arms race - perhaps they believe no other country would do something like this. Please consider the hypothetical - "China launches a space jamming satellite to disable communications for
The US would have a fit! They'd be adding the Chinese wheel to the already overburdened Axle of Evil. Articles in the New York Times: "Chinese - they are among us". Senate committe on un-American activities: "Are you now, or have you ever been, Chinese?" No more Chinese resaurants - now they'd be
But instead, it's us that's launching something like that - just your friendly neighborhood bringers of peace and democracy. So there's nothing to worry about. Right?
Guys, in the 50's America went apeshit because they thought Sputnik was carrying nucular (hehe) missiles to kill Americans. Now, America is launching a weapon (it is something that is intended for offensive action against foreign states) and justifying it with "Well, we need it". I am beginning to think that getting away with things is simply a matter of chosing actions so blatantly hypocritical that no normal person could find the words to express the enormity of the arrogance such an action belies. And a normal person wouldn't use profanity either. So, dear politicos, since irony and subtlety are lost on you: "Fuck you. You *don't* need that weapon. Go shoot some crack and die of an overdose, you stupid Washington crotch-sniffers".
Seriously, though - perhaps the scariest thing about Orwell's 1984 is that he is describing a model whereby society can never break free of tyranny - effectively the endgame of humanity. And this is done with 1) altering the past, to prevent people from learning and 2) perpetual war to promote fear. Something like this satellite furthers the latter. Lack of good education and promotion of media control encourages the former. I am not suggesting that tomorrow we'll have Comrade Big Brother. But it's a safe bet that some media firm is doing preliminary sketch designs of a man with a mustache.
Your argument regarding cooperation between Stalin and Hitler as evidence ot the former's lack of intention to attack is completely false.
You assume that a) Stalin trusted Hitler and b) was consequently an idiot. Stalin was neither. He was a brutal and ruthless tyrant, but he did come out on top after a 10 year internal power struggle. The man was not stupid.
The Molotov-Ribbentropp pact was a stalling tactic on both sides - Hitler wanted Stalin to believe that he would not attack. Stalin wanted the pact to stall for time.
The Soviet army was very ill-equipped to handle the war. Stalin knew the war was inevitable, and had been preparing for it. The army was being modernized, although the scale of the problem was enormous. Many of the "experienced officers" that were executed (and used as an argument for how stupid Stalin was) were, in fact, murderous incompetents who perpetrated the initial slaughter of the 1917 revolution - in other words Lenin's old guard. Their only "experience" was killing anyone with an educated look. The previous leadership (pre-Stalin) did nothing to develop the army, and that task was on Stalin's shoulders.
Finally, the events from July through December 1941 indicate only one thing: the vaunted German army, with it's wonderful mechanized infantry, and true German dedication and punctuality lost. They failed in the blitzkrieg to (what you would probably argue) were a bunch of incompetent, unprepared fools. (Yes, I'm aware of the approach to Moscow to within 19km (along the Volokalamskoe Road). Yes Russia dodged a bullet there - true. It was, however, an advance division, not the full army, and they were beaten back (incidentally by troops sent from the Far East, who had just finished kicking the crap out of Japan at Khalkhingol). The rest is history). And please don't try to explain the German loss away by the weather factor alone.
Also: evidence to how the country *was* prepared: factories and military units had detailed evacuation plans and time tables worked out years in advance (pre 1940). And those timetables worked. Factories and workers were evacuated successfully, without panic, and relocated beyond the Urals, where places were prepared for them, generators were placed, etc.. If you have 2 brain cells to rub together, you'll know this is an immense traffic management problem that's not solved in 2 weeks.
Summary: Stalin knew what he was doing, he stalled for time to get people as ready as he could - not because he was going to sit back and play buddy-buddy with Hitler. Lots of bad things happened during the initial 1941 attack - not unreasonable given that Germany was very experienced in this kind of thing. Germany failed in its objectives, not by accident.
Oh, almost forgot! Speaking of cooperation between Axis powers and Allies...as I recall, it was America that desired a separatist peace with Germany. It was Allen Dulles's people that conduced talks with Himmler's representatives in Sweden and Switzerland. Check out Count Folke Bernadotte's history sometime. The wikipedia article is a little brief on those details.
I'd like to make a small point here:
:-)
The Soviet shuttle project was *very* successful. As an earlier poster pointed out, it launched, orbited, and landed, on fully automatic control (not remote). (Actually, a portion of the design committee disagreed with the fully automatic controls, saying they were not safe - the automatic design team won the argument and proved themselves right). The Buran shuttle made the landing in weather conditions considered "unflyable" by NASA.
And then yes - politics happened and the program got killed. There was a tiny matter of a change of government and crashed economy. But, to be fair, I believe the Russian's aren't the only ones whose funding difficulties led to unfortunate consequences for their space programs. I won't name names
I thought you were going to say "Only two things come out of Florida: spammers and cockroaches. You don't look like a cochroach to me, boy, so you *must* be a spammer"
I think Jar-Jar will survive, unfortunately. Lucas can't kill him - he's cute, see, and funny, and goofy. (Please note sarcarsm there). Jar-Jar will survive by bearing Luke and Leia away to safety, or something like that. He's not going to be in the big bloodbath. In fact, some jedis will stay behind and get killed just to save his butt. It will make the fans howl in rage, but hey, do you honestly think Lucas will miss an opportunity to shove a turd like that down everyone's collective throat? Of course he won't.
Not only did that sound wrong, but even somewhat surprising in view of the recent story about Microsoft and the gay rights bill i.e. recent discussion
Good call - political bitches and political pimps.
This underscores the fundamental point here - constituents are the people that a senator is supposed to be responsible to. That she is from a state which hosts rich media conglomerates who, perhaps "lobby" her, or help "finance" her campaign makes them a source of influence which explains her voting patterns, and makes her a political prostitute.
To all of you who are writing things along the lines of "it's just 3 years, doesn't seem so bad, considering the heinous crime", something to tell you:
unless you've personally done 3 years, or, in fact, any time, kindly STFU. I have not served any time, so I can not speak from experience on how bad it is. All I know are witness accounts.
After 3 years in jail, your life is over. Period. You are permanently unemployable (no one wants to hire an ex-con). You are facing a choice of flipping burgers for the rest of your life, or becoming a hard-core criminal. You can never vote again (as an ex-felon, anyone with >1 jail time). Your psyche will be permanently altered, and most likely destroyed. You will be abused by whoever happens to be bored. If you resist, you will get beaten and then abused. And by abused I mean serially raped anally and orally. All of your conceptions of decency, honesty, and goodwill of all men will get crushed. Your personality may potentially survive somewhat intact if 1) you are phenomenally, exceptionally strong inside, and 2) you don't turn into a raving maniac as a self-defense mechanism. The chances of surviving as something close to your former self - almost 0. You will leave prison a burned-out husk, a grey shadow of your former self. Don't let the kindly, heartwarming prison movies fool you. You will turn into the most dreaded image of yourself, a living, breathing zombie that's totally dead inside. That's the good case. The bad case is you'll become a hardened criminal with no regard for human life, and will spend the rest of your pathetic existence taking advantage of normal people as a means of psychological revenge.
I base my comments on descriptions of prison life both in the US and the former USSR, as written by inmates who have survived.
So, this debate is essentially the following: is sharing a movie worth destroying a person's life? It is contended that their actions result in financial loss for some company. The exact amount, or even the fact of loss is *highly* questionable, and is disputed. Is the action of sharing a movie sufficiently grave that we see it fit to strip the offender of their humanity as punishment? What this law contends is that someone who infringes on a copyright has rejected the social contract to the same extent as, say, a rapist, a child molesterer or a murderer. 3 or 10 isn't relevant, guys. The person's just as dead either way. Longer sentences are a means of 1) isolation, or 2) giving the inmate more of a chance to become a hardened criminal. So the question stands: is the loss of corporate profit a grave enough offence to remove someone's humanity?
The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.