Anathem would take up an entire college semester, let alone a high school one.
Besides, the students wouldn't have the appreciation for it. You need years of scientific and philosophical study to really grasp the entirety of Anathem. I just can't imagine many high schoolers have the knowledge of classical philosophy, as well as some of the advanced mathematics, to avoid having intricate details go right over their head.
So a better question is, do the astronauts have a right to hear the CORRECT figures, not the wild wishful-thinking executive estimates?
Do you really think the original badasses who fought hard to be a part of the program were concerned with the executive estimates?
THAT statement is a perfect example of the difference between now and then. They knew damn well that risk was a major part of it; they flew in the face of it anyway. Today, we care more about someone's calculated "risk aversion" numbers than we do about staring in the face of a challenge, albeit it risky, and going for it. If someone's willing to risk it all to meet the challenge, we don't need some desk jockey's numbers stopping him or her.
I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution granting free speech and/or democracy as it pertains to events on the Internet on someone's private site.
I think that when any technology - be that DVD, FaceBook, Internet Explorer - reaches a mass audience and is perceived to be good enough to meet the users needs it is more or less impossible to dislodge even when there are technically superior products out there.
Popularity may make certain products last well past their expiration date, but old junk eventually gets canned. DVD will go away, Facebook will be replaced, and IE's losing market share all the time to competitors. 10 years ago you could've argued which was the best of 5 or more search engines. Now you'd have a hard time thinking of 5...period.
Companies should focus on making money?! Outrageous!
I know what you quoted seems like an asinine statement, but if you knew the full context you'd understand the point.
Cuban's been ranting extra hard this year on YouTube, labeling it as an eventual giant bust because the model will eventually fail without profit. He's saying that people, being so used to FREE content, will feel outraged by the concept of being charged to distributed their mundane crap videos online. Thus someone will come along with a better model and replace it (he's right, it is the nature of the Internet, and only the green people who have only been surfing it for a few years now fail to realize this...they don't have the years of knowledge that accompanies seeing sites/concepts being formed and replaced by the next greatest thing).
He's lashing out against these "free" practices because they are extremely difficult to break out of. Once you offer the free content to the people, they demand it stay free. You say "Companies should focus on making money?! Outrageous!" and he's responding, "How will they make it if they don't base their model on that in the first place?"
There are always people who are late to the party on trends, and stories like these target those suckers. It convinces them that the right entrepreneurial spirit will lead them to the path of success (one of WSJ's principles...that hard work pays off).
Nevermind that the sucker needs a time machine to go back to the period when they needed to start their blog to make decent money on it at this point (2000 as the article points out in its example).
I can only picture a guy actually following me around all day, tapping me on the shoulder and saying "Hey, hey, hey--pay attention to me!" 24-hours-a-day.
Yeah, the cable news networks get on my nerves too.
Because, by god, "the Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" tell it like it really is and are the true source of news.....
In their defense, they don't proclaim to be a "good" news source. They tell you straight up that they're comedians using the news (or in more cases recently, news network's idiotic coverage of events) to make a funny show.
In this case, gov't needs to be involved. The cable/ISP providers have no intention of doing their customers a favor and have EVERY intention of preventing competition from getting a foothold.
I'm not happy about it either, but it is the truth of how things are currently handled.
This is precisely why I argued against privatized social security in the first place. You know damn well that a few million morons would piss it away and then bitch at the gov't to make it all better for them. In other words, they'll ask for the general public to insure their stupidity.
True. However, with the daytrader fad and most people being fairly untrained in terms of retirement financing 10 years ago, how many of your average joes knew that?
A few years ago when privatized social security was being discussed, where do you think most people would've told you their money would be invested? In the stock market, of course. And the media's treatment of it all didn't educate people on leaning towards fixed income/safe return investments for those approaching retirement age.
Long term investing is nice and all, but if you heavily invested 10 years ago with the idea of retiring soon...you are back where you started (in fact, you likely are worse off due to the value of stock being much below what you would've paid for it between 03-late 07). The article talks about someone who started investing nearly 40 years ago; a great idea, but that doesn't apply to the majority of the unwashed.
Side point: Yes, right now is a great time to get back into the market. Growth will be slow for a while (we may even see another short slide), but things are looking steady again.
I can remember most of the Hollywood-hating folk telling outspoken actors to GTFO and go to Canada/Europe. Hell, do you really think the 2004 election went the way it did if not for the GOP implying that most Democrats were unpatriotic?
For those who don't follow, let me make this easy for you: The term 'flip-flop' existed because Rove & Co. were using it to nail anyone who wished to support the troops but also dissented from the President's edict for fighting terrorism without question. In other words, if you said "87 Billion with no known limit might be unreasonable," but then voted for it because it was the only available option given to you by a party that had no intention to negotiate, you were nailed to the fencepost by the conservative mouthpiece machine.
There are two parts to the Fox News Channel: the journalism part and the editorial part. The journalism part is actually pretty "fair and balanced," and that's the part most people refer to when they talk about media bias.
I disagree. While their reporting often tries to eliminate bias (and I'll grant you this, the actual story details tend to be quite fair), they generate tons of stories that are absolute trash based on their overall bias.
While Fox News does do good reporting, it is the less than newsworthy news they report on that shows their bias to form concern in their viewers. I'd wager that 9/10 stories they report on are nothing more than targeted fluff.
There's a reason I stick to WSJ for my biased news. They at least report on things of general relevance. Fox News' reporting comes off as barely better than the National Inquirer most days.
A teacher of mine once said the substance of a news story should be clear by the end of the first paragraph. The april fools' joke aside, this could be a useful way to get reporters back on track with story reporting.
Yes, it is a wonder that conservatives get votes at all given that the national network are all in the tank for the Democratic National Party. No wonder Gore won in 2000.
What is amazing is that the real haters of Fox don't acknowledge the bias of the others. It's completely laughable.
No, the real hilarity is the presumption that 1) Fox News is honest about their bias (no they are not, they don't deny it but they actively avoid advertising the fact that they are strictly conservative viewpoints) and that 2) everyone else is strictly liberal (total bullshit, but knowing that fact requires remembering what media was like prior to Bush's 8 years...seems like most Fox News worshippers cannot remember it).
Even the next election when Republicans took control of both houses, they only did by a couple of votes and couldn't pass anything without Democrats filibustering it.
Between this and the Heritage foundation links, it is easy to see why your comments are so laughable.
I'll counter the quoted claim easily: Why did it take 6+ years for Bush to veto something? Answer: Because nothing got on his desk that he didn't ask for. So much for Democrats having such power over the Republican majority. Your claim is hilarious given the fact that the Republicans never let the Democrats sniff a hint of power during those 6 years. It's no wonder we're being screwed right now by a Democrat party out for revenge. Same shit, different day.
Slashdot Mirror
Anathem would take up an entire college semester, let alone a high school one.
Besides, the students wouldn't have the appreciation for it. You need years of scientific and philosophical study to really grasp the entirety of Anathem. I just can't imagine many high schoolers have the knowledge of classical philosophy, as well as some of the advanced mathematics, to avoid having intricate details go right over their head.
So a better question is, do the astronauts have a right to hear the CORRECT figures, not the wild wishful-thinking executive estimates?
Do you really think the original badasses who fought hard to be a part of the program were concerned with the executive estimates?
THAT statement is a perfect example of the difference between now and then. They knew damn well that risk was a major part of it; they flew in the face of it anyway. Today, we care more about someone's calculated "risk aversion" numbers than we do about staring in the face of a challenge, albeit it risky, and going for it. If someone's willing to risk it all to meet the challenge, we don't need some desk jockey's numbers stopping him or her.
I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution granting free speech and/or democracy as it pertains to events on the Internet on someone's private site.
Do people not understand how file-sharing works?
Correct
Bravo sir, bravo
I think that when any technology - be that DVD, FaceBook, Internet Explorer - reaches a mass audience and is perceived to be good enough to meet the users needs it is more or less impossible to dislodge even when there are technically superior products out there.
Popularity may make certain products last well past their expiration date, but old junk eventually gets canned. DVD will go away, Facebook will be replaced, and IE's losing market share all the time to competitors. 10 years ago you could've argued which was the best of 5 or more search engines. Now you'd have a hard time thinking of 5...period.
Companies should focus on making money?! Outrageous!
I know what you quoted seems like an asinine statement, but if you knew the full context you'd understand the point.
Cuban's been ranting extra hard this year on YouTube, labeling it as an eventual giant bust because the model will eventually fail without profit. He's saying that people, being so used to FREE content, will feel outraged by the concept of being charged to distributed their mundane crap videos online. Thus someone will come along with a better model and replace it (he's right, it is the nature of the Internet, and only the green people who have only been surfing it for a few years now fail to realize this...they don't have the years of knowledge that accompanies seeing sites/concepts being formed and replaced by the next greatest thing).
He's lashing out against these "free" practices because they are extremely difficult to break out of. Once you offer the free content to the people, they demand it stay free. You say "Companies should focus on making money?! Outrageous!" and he's responding, "How will they make it if they don't base their model on that in the first place?"
There are always people who are late to the party on trends, and stories like these target those suckers. It convinces them that the right entrepreneurial spirit will lead them to the path of success (one of WSJ's principles...that hard work pays off).
Nevermind that the sucker needs a time machine to go back to the period when they needed to start their blog to make decent money on it at this point (2000 as the article points out in its example).
I can only picture a guy actually following me around all day, tapping me on the shoulder and saying "Hey, hey, hey--pay attention to me!" 24-hours-a-day.
Yeah, the cable news networks get on my nerves too.
Sorry, but that's when Dan should turn to the organizer and say, "This card has the wrong answer on it."
His failure to manually make the correction means he's just as wrong as the person who wrote the index card.
Because, by god, "the Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" tell it like it really is and are the true source of news.....
In their defense, they don't proclaim to be a "good" news source. They tell you straight up that they're comedians using the news (or in more cases recently, news network's idiotic coverage of events) to make a funny show.
In this case, gov't needs to be involved. The cable/ISP providers have no intention of doing their customers a favor and have EVERY intention of preventing competition from getting a foothold.
The radar sir, it appears to be...jammed!
I'm not happy about it either, but it is the truth of how things are currently handled.
This is precisely why I argued against privatized social security in the first place. You know damn well that a few million morons would piss it away and then bitch at the gov't to make it all better for them. In other words, they'll ask for the general public to insure their stupidity.
True. However, with the daytrader fad and most people being fairly untrained in terms of retirement financing 10 years ago, how many of your average joes knew that?
A few years ago when privatized social security was being discussed, where do you think most people would've told you their money would be invested? In the stock market, of course. And the media's treatment of it all didn't educate people on leaning towards fixed income/safe return investments for those approaching retirement age.
Long term investing is nice and all, but if you heavily invested 10 years ago with the idea of retiring soon...you are back where you started (in fact, you likely are worse off due to the value of stock being much below what you would've paid for it between 03-late 07). The article talks about someone who started investing nearly 40 years ago; a great idea, but that doesn't apply to the majority of the unwashed.
Side point: Yes, right now is a great time to get back into the market. Growth will be slow for a while (we may even see another short slide), but things are looking steady again.
I can remember most of the Hollywood-hating folk telling outspoken actors to GTFO and go to Canada/Europe. Hell, do you really think the 2004 election went the way it did if not for the GOP implying that most Democrats were unpatriotic?
For those who don't follow, let me make this easy for you: The term 'flip-flop' existed because Rove & Co. were using it to nail anyone who wished to support the troops but also dissented from the President's edict for fighting terrorism without question. In other words, if you said "87 Billion with no known limit might be unreasonable," but then voted for it because it was the only available option given to you by a party that had no intention to negotiate, you were nailed to the fencepost by the conservative mouthpiece machine.
There are two parts to the Fox News Channel: the journalism part and the editorial part. The journalism part is actually pretty "fair and balanced," and that's the part most people refer to when they talk about media bias.
I disagree. While their reporting often tries to eliminate bias (and I'll grant you this, the actual story details tend to be quite fair), they generate tons of stories that are absolute trash based on their overall bias.
While Fox News does do good reporting, it is the less than newsworthy news they report on that shows their bias to form concern in their viewers. I'd wager that 9/10 stories they report on are nothing more than targeted fluff.
There's a reason I stick to WSJ for my biased news. They at least report on things of general relevance. Fox News' reporting comes off as barely better than the National Inquirer most days.
A teacher of mine once said the substance of a news story should be clear by the end of the first paragraph. The april fools' joke aside, this could be a useful way to get reporters back on track with story reporting.
Yes, it is a wonder that conservatives get votes at all given that the national network are all in the tank for the Democratic National Party. No wonder Gore won in 2000.
Oh, wait...
Well, John Kerry corrected that in '04.
Son of a...
What is amazing is that the real haters of Fox don't acknowledge the bias of the others. It's completely laughable.
No, the real hilarity is the presumption that 1) Fox News is honest about their bias (no they are not, they don't deny it but they actively avoid advertising the fact that they are strictly conservative viewpoints) and that 2) everyone else is strictly liberal (total bullshit, but knowing that fact requires remembering what media was like prior to Bush's 8 years...seems like most Fox News worshippers cannot remember it).
idle is that way --->
All may have agendas (not necessarily true), but some are more biased than others (yes, Fox News fits in that category).
Even the next election when Republicans took control of both houses, they only did by a couple of votes and couldn't pass anything without Democrats filibustering it.
Between this and the Heritage foundation links, it is easy to see why your comments are so laughable.
I'll counter the quoted claim easily: Why did it take 6+ years for Bush to veto something? Answer: Because nothing got on his desk that he didn't ask for. So much for Democrats having such power over the Republican majority. Your claim is hilarious given the fact that the Republicans never let the Democrats sniff a hint of power during those 6 years. It's no wonder we're being screwed right now by a Democrat party out for revenge. Same shit, different day.
Alas, trumped by a better joke! Touche.