Reproducibility is part of science. So is identifying and fixing errors. But perhaps the most important aspect of science is being able to continue it.
I've worked in science labs where non-software engineers write code. They fall victim to the same problem software engineers fall victim to when they work without version control: the lose it, they overwrite it, they make mistakes and want to go backwards, they end up with 50 copies and can't remember which one was used to compile their postdoc work. And when it comes time to publish, they (may) archive it and never look at it again - despite the fact that good science should necessitate they release the code, if for no other reason than to reproduce results and ensure they are error free.
Version control is a tool. When used properly, it solves many of the above problems, all which sap productivity. In an academic setting, particularly where peer reviewed papers are being released about computationally intensive science, version control almost certainly saves more time than it creates. People just aren't willing to put the initial investment it takes to learn to use the tool.
Those bootcamps promising/guaranteeing certain performance can all be sued for fraud if they fail to live up to those promises/guarantees. For all the rest...caveat emptor.
Control, duh. In the case of private citizens, I highly disagree with the practice, as it limits liberty; however, in reference to businesses, the government should be up their asses 24/7/365 - there's a damn good reason the Constitution doesn't give any rights to corporations.
The only entity that the US Constitution gives rights to is the US Government, by design.
The department of Agriculture, which runs the Food Stamp Program, is tasked by law to make sure there is enough food for everyone and that everyone gets fed.
That's not what their mission statement says. Is this a derived requirement?
Food stamps were born by order of the Supreme Court, not Congress.
This is news to me and probably other people on here, particularly considering the legislative history of SNAP. Maybe you can enlighten people instead of belittling them?
I'm pretty sure you won't find much support for having DOA nannies standing at every dinner table to make sure everyone on food stamps eats their collard greens. I'm positive you would accomplish nothing with this approach.
There is no way you can supply food support while at the same time make sure that no budget shifting takes place.
There's an old saying "beggars can't be choosers." Why does this not apply here? During the WWII food was allocated in exactly this way. My only problem with the food stamp program is that they're hand outs. If these people are going to be greedy enough to accept a handout then is it too much to ask for them to give something back such as working at the conservation corp, cleaning up trash, community service, etc?
But do they not happen very much because of IP laws in this country? How would this change if the US didn't provide companies with legal ways to protect themselves?
Government is corrupt -> corporations own the government -> corporations are corrupt
Did you miss the steps where politicians are elected to run the government and corporations are owned and run by people?
I counter with
Governments are made of people -> people are corrupt Corporations are made of people -> people are corrupt
So yeah, it's cute that you rather naively think everything boils down to corporations being evil (you do know corrupt governments existed before corporations, right?) but the fact of the matter is both corporations and governments are corrupt because the people who own/run them are corrupt. And yes, that includes voters. Do you think everyone at your place of work would vote themselves a pay raise if they had the right? Do you honestly think your fellow voters are any different? Keep in mind 50% of them are likely dumber than you (or perhaps as dumb given your anti-corporate mouth frothing).
And if you think one side of political spectrum is more or less corrupt, you're still probably wrong. You could even make strong arguments for and against less government as a means of minimizing corruption, although in general I'll go out on a limb and say having less of something that can make it legal for you to be a slave is probably a Good Thing (TM).
So the argument against removing the laws (for all auto manufacturers) and making the dealers "sell" themselves to the auto manufacturers is what exactly? That dealerships lobbied really, really hard to sell you a product that they add no value to? Can you say "crony capitalism"?
Isn't the whole point of "equal protection under the law" to give us all the same protections of the justice system? Why should it matter who's privacy was invaded, who was beaten, or who was killed? Shouldn't all of these acts of evil be abhorrent in our society regardless of why they were committed? Isn't it hypocritical to cry for "equal rights" and then write laws which are, by definition, unequal? It's a sad, narrow minded overreaction to the injustices of the past.
Hate crime law, like the Jim Crow laws of the last century, are a backward and draconian implementation of justice and social regulation that are a slap in the face to equality. The sooner we stop drawing distinctions like these, the sooner we'll progress to a society that is open and accepting of so called "alternative lifestyles."
Incidentally, what this man did was a horrendous invasion of privacy and fully deserves to be considered a felony. He should be tried in a court of law and regardless of the outcome should be exported (obviously at the end of his sentence if found guilty).
If by "force them to do it" you mean "don't buy their products" then I'm onboard, otherwise you're just worse than the problem. And you might want to double check what protectionism is (I assume that's what you meant by "isolationism", which is fundamentally different...), because placing taxes on imported goods is pretty much what protectionism is.
Why is outsourcing everything good in the long run? Because if we didn't outsource it, you probably wouldn't be able to afford it. It's not like it's complicated; if US companies didn't/couldn't outsource, then they'd have no hope of competing with their european and asian counterparts. Period. You want to play the protectionism game? Sure, go for it. Europe and Asia will happily play that game and slap tariffs on all US goods. Do you think we can get buy as a country without the world buying our goods? Guess again, it would absolutely destroy our economy.
The sad irony is that we've always had the power of "social change", but we're too stupid as a population to us it. If you don't like something for any reason, don't buy it. If you don't think other people should buy it, tell them why. If you can't win your argument through logic and ideas and your only solution is force, you're just as bad as the barbarians who want to push creationism on this country and for the same reason. Or perhaps worse, because you seem to care but refuse any rational solution because it's not radical enough to force people to change whether they want to or not!
Any sensible man would know we shouldn't have such stupid laws. If CFLs/LEDs/etc are so superior, why do we need a law banning them? If everyone cares enough about the environment to pass a law to mandate the use of such bulbs, don't enough of us care that a law isn't necessary? The government shouldn't be passing laws for this kind of BS, guidelines and industry standard recommendations maybe, but not laws.
If you want to save electricity, how about turning off the millions of street and parking lot lights at night? How about wiring homes with DC so that damn near every piece of electric equipment doesn't have to take a >10% efficiency hit in order to operate? Or a law to limit the number of hours a TV can be used (we can all agree that that freedom isn't needed anymore, right)?
Maybe we should have laws limiting the amount of power your computer can draw or how long it can be on. Or perhaps outlaw that scourge to computer efficiency, the hard drive?
Of course everything can't be privatized; there are things that must be held in the public name or else fundamental public services would be non existant (such as courts or the military). I've never heard anyone clamoring for such an irrational view of privatization but I wouldn't put it past people. But the real reason privatization is NOT as dangerous to the common man is because 1) The government is eternal and 2) History has shown you have a lot more to fear from your government than from your asshole neighbor.
In regards to social security...how naive were people to think that this WOULDN'T happen? I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner! You've already admitted the money "didn't belong to them" and you're right - it belonged to the people who earned it. So why isn't that money in *their* control? Why was it ever under the control of the government in the first place? (Hint: it wasn't unintentional.) Why isn't the middle ground of SS "you have to put money away for retirement, but that money is in a privately held, but federally insured account for the individual"? Heck, you could even say that the money *has* to be used to purchase US Treasuries - as a method of lending to the government to fund it while hedging against inflation.
But the whole notion of SS is fundamentally flawed - it assumes that people can't think for themselves, can't plan for their own future, and can't manage their own finances. Anyone with any sense of self worth and independence should see that for what it is: a slap in the face and a command to "obey"!
Why "minorities"? Why not just "individuals"? Isn't an "individual" the ultimate minority?
This constant obsession with protecting specific groups is a deep, fundamental flaw in your thinking that is all too common. Stop categorizing people. Rights shouldn't be based on what category you fit into, they should be based on the fact that you are an individual human being with the same rights as every other human being.
No, the US constitution was important because it put THE GOVERNMENTS rights in simple English on a sheet of paper. It's supposed to list what the government can do, not what the people can do; I say supposed to because the monstrosity of government we have now is so out of scope of the original purpose of government that it's beyond defining. The Bill of Rights (which is what you're really talking about) was an afterthought introduced by Madison because it was feared that the Constitution wasn't explicit enough, i.e., people would allow the government to grow beyond its purpose and trample certain rights were key to the revolution in the first place.
The Constitution doesn't give you freedom. It gives the government freedom. Freedom isn't given to you by your government - it's something your government is supposed to protect!
So don't work for that employer. Work for yourself or work for someone else. Start a company which reverses this trend: allow innovators to keep the right to their ideas in exchange for being reimbursed the cost of developing the technology. I hope you don't consider yourself an inventor, because quite frankly you don't seem to have the balls to handle the competition (hint: if you want the government to rewrite the rules in your favor, you're doing it wrong). If you think corporations or the government has all the power, they only do because you let them have it.
There are real benefits to having a corporation fund your work. For example, there's almost zero risk for the inventor. The company will pay for the development and marketing of your idea and absorb (or default) on the loss if it fails. Sure, you might lose your job, but you're not going to go bankrupt or lose millions (and potentially more) on an idea with no guarantee of return. Your family isn't going to starve if your idea flops, or the market dries up.
If you want to create jobs, do something about the whole concept of outsourcing.
Or lower the cost of labor. Not everyone in this country is going to have a high paying job and high education is not for everyone.
Maybe if we spent more time on lowering the cost of living in this country then lower paying jobs wouldn't be so intolerable.
Well said. Right behind being popular is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" which is absolutely contrary to the principles the US was founded on. Too many people these days think that what's good for the group is good for the individual. This is rarely the case, because it puts the government in the position of picking winners and losers, which is a position the government should not be in.
Society is not government. If government wants to implement social reform, it should do so in an open forum as an exchange between citizens and government and not merely pass laws. People keep thinking government is a tool for change when it should really be a weapon of second-to-last resort (with the last being force).
A lot of private companies are founded by people who incubated their ideas at a university (the first startup I cofounded began at a University). Corporate innovation and development is *gasp* a group effort; you're rarely going to find single-man corporations doing anything serious in the tech world. Everyday I wake up, I go to work, where I personally consider it my *job* to make this world a better place (I'm an engineer), I pay my taxes, I love my country, and I support my community. The problem isn't with capitalism. The problem isn't even with socialism. The problem is that people are more focused on doing things at a national level instead of at a local level where they can make the biggest difference. People are fanatical about using the federal government to solve all the problems of the world. It's like using a fucking sledge hammer during open heart surgery.
Who gives a shit if we aren't the world's largest economy, or that we might be losing our "tech mojo", or that our standard of living isn't as high as the socialist paradises of Europe, or that every single child doesn't get a free college education. Let people know that this is still the freest country in the world: that people who come here get to keep what they earn, use it as they see fit, and find their own happiness. That's the only thing America needs to be #1 in. Everything else will follow.
Eh, I don't think being smart is considered bad in American society (plenty of popular people now are considered "smart" and have >4.0 GPAs in high school). The problem is we over-emphasize the importance of learning at a high school level in order for the young to gain entry to an overly burdened college/university system, where education is often less-emphasized relative to high school. At that level, parents generally care less about *what* their children study so long as they study *something*.
I think a symptom of the problem you're trying to describe is this: parents are more concerned with which university their children go to than what they study at that university.
I wouldn't mind a tax increase to help pay for some of these things, and I live in CA, which is already heavily taxed. Unfortunately, from a fiscal perspective, I have -zero- faith in the politicians capability to 1) Accurately estimate the cost of such a project, 2) Effectively execute and manage the project, 3) Appropriately and reasonably raise the initial funds to subsidize the project, and 4) Adjust the taxes/fees to adequately maintain the project. CA has such a poor track record that this is more a systemic failure than anything else.
That said, I'd rather see options in the cars available that include these features. I certainly don't mind paying for my own safety (and collision avoidance systems would indeed protect the safety of others as well).
Still...probably the biggest problem with American roads are the drivers, not the cars or the roads or the technology. The number of deaths could be brought down considerably if states weren't so lenient on drivers. And I'm not talking your basic speeding or stop sign rolling, but real hazards like blowing through red lights at full speed, weaving in and out of traffic on a busy freeway, or simply having no understanding of basic physics (1000 kg of steel at 100 kph has a LOT of energy). The worst offenders tend to be younger, arrogant in their thinking, misguided in their judgment, and utterly ignorant of physics.
Since you can't beat sense into reckless drivers (and boy do I wish this was possible) they should simply have the privilege of driving revoked. Less reckless drivers translates to fewer deaths, lower traffic volumes, and lower insurance premiums. Do this first and THEN evaluate whether expensive new safety mandates and technology requirements are necessary to fix public stupidity.
Yes, I understand that it's an inside joke between the audience and the writer.
I know that it's a plot device, my point is that it's not a good one. Using shitty puns in your otherwise trying to be serious movie AND not offering anything more ethically challenging than "durrrr, it's worth lots of moneys11!" should tell you that James Cameron thinks you're a child or a moron. And he's probably right.
Plot is there, it's just terrible AND unoriginal. Good movies are rarely predictable - that's why movies seem so much better when you're younger than when you're older. I could have done without the hyperbolic stereotyping. I would have actually been more impressed and somewhat surprised if the movie followed the historically accurate "white man comes in, destroys alien culture, builds mini mall" scenario.
Do you really need to get inside the guys head when you know exactly what's going to happen?
No, it could have been gold for all I care - it was just a plot element. And since no one in my theater laughed at the reference, you either saw it with a larger and older age group, or people who aren't borderline retarded.
Unobtanium wasn't my beef, my beef was with the Disneyesque story and painfully obvious stereotypes. Slightly liberal but research-only concerned scientists. Angry, butt-hurt military types who went to destroy everything. Tree hugging forest dwellers. Greedy corporations who think any means justifies their ends. And the protagonist with emotional baggage caught up in it all.
If you're under 18 or have lived a sheltered life from Disney movies, or Japanese RPGs, or generic science fiction, the history of Humanity in the last 10,000 years, then I suppose you might take the story arcs as new and refreshing and the characters seriously. But in my opinion - this movie was all bark and no bite.
Imagine one of those cheesy SciFi channel Saturday evening low budget science fiction movies on a $300 million dollar budget. That's what Avatar is.
Sure the acting is decent and the special effects are spectacular - but the story is boring and predictable. (Come on, 'unobtainium'?) It's as if James Cameron and Disney tried to Westernize a Japanese RPG storyline.
As for the science, well...if you're a neurobiologist with a flare for xenobiology, I'm sure this is a very interesting story. Otherwise, all the technology ranges from "reasonably possible in the not too distant future" to "still very much science fiction".
I can tell you're all republican-butt hurt for whatever reason, and I shouldn't feed the AC trolls, but the fact of the matter is the US State Department *routinely* warns American's traveling to these countries about violence/crime in these regions: they deserve greater caution than trips to say Europe. Yes, many of the people in latin american countries are warm and friendly to tourists, but many of them are also desperate and naive tourists are an easy mark. It's a good idea to be cautious when traveling ANYWHERE abroad, JUST like it's a good idea to be cautious when using the Internet.
Go back to posting your hate mongering rhetoric in whatever huffpost article on Digg's front page that you strayed from. You're just as bad as the extremists on the right who don't think American's should leave their borders. Maybe even worse since you seem to think you know better.
Slashdot Mirror
Reproducibility is part of science. So is identifying and fixing errors. But perhaps the most important aspect of science is being able to continue it.
I've worked in science labs where non-software engineers write code. They fall victim to the same problem software engineers fall victim to when they work without version control: the lose it, they overwrite it, they make mistakes and want to go backwards, they end up with 50 copies and can't remember which one was used to compile their postdoc work. And when it comes time to publish, they (may) archive it and never look at it again - despite the fact that good science should necessitate they release the code, if for no other reason than to reproduce results and ensure they are error free.
Version control is a tool. When used properly, it solves many of the above problems, all which sap productivity. In an academic setting, particularly where peer reviewed papers are being released about computationally intensive science, version control almost certainly saves more time than it creates. People just aren't willing to put the initial investment it takes to learn to use the tool.
Those bootcamps promising/guaranteeing certain performance can all be sued for fraud if they fail to live up to those promises/guarantees. For all the rest...caveat emptor.
Control, duh. In the case of private citizens, I highly disagree with the practice, as it limits liberty; however, in reference to businesses, the government should be up their asses 24/7/365 - there's a damn good reason the Constitution doesn't give any rights to corporations.
The only entity that the US Constitution gives rights to is the US Government, by design.
Take out the choice
The department of Agriculture, which runs the Food Stamp Program, is tasked by law to make sure there is enough food for everyone and that everyone gets fed.
That's not what their mission statement says. Is this a derived requirement?
Food stamps were born by order of the Supreme Court, not Congress.
This is news to me and probably other people on here, particularly considering the legislative history of SNAP. Maybe you can enlighten people instead of belittling them?
I'm pretty sure you won't find much support for having DOA nannies standing at every dinner table to make sure everyone on food stamps eats their collard greens. I'm positive you would accomplish nothing with this approach.
There is no way you can supply food support while at the same time make sure that no budget shifting takes place.
There's an old saying "beggars can't be choosers." Why does this not apply here? During the WWII food was allocated in exactly this way. My only problem with the food stamp program is that they're hand outs. If these people are going to be greedy enough to accept a handout then is it too much to ask for them to give something back such as working at the conservation corp, cleaning up trash, community service, etc?
But do they not happen very much because of IP laws in this country? How would this change if the US didn't provide companies with legal ways to protect themselves?
So your logic is...
Government is corrupt -> corporations own the government -> corporations are corrupt
Did you miss the steps where politicians are elected to run the government and corporations are owned and run by people?
I counter with
Governments are made of people -> people are corrupt
Corporations are made of people -> people are corrupt
So yeah, it's cute that you rather naively think everything boils down to corporations being evil (you do know corrupt governments existed before corporations, right?) but the fact of the matter is both corporations and governments are corrupt because the people who own/run them are corrupt. And yes, that includes voters. Do you think everyone at your place of work would vote themselves a pay raise if they had the right? Do you honestly think your fellow voters are any different? Keep in mind 50% of them are likely dumber than you (or perhaps as dumb given your anti-corporate mouth frothing).
And if you think one side of political spectrum is more or less corrupt, you're still probably wrong. You could even make strong arguments for and against less government as a means of minimizing corruption, although in general I'll go out on a limb and say having less of something that can make it legal for you to be a slave is probably a Good Thing (TM).
So the argument against removing the laws (for all auto manufacturers) and making the dealers "sell" themselves to the auto manufacturers is what exactly? That dealerships lobbied really, really hard to sell you a product that they add no value to? Can you say "crony capitalism"?
Why does this have to be a hate crime?
Isn't the whole point of "equal protection under the law" to give us all the same protections of the justice system? Why should it matter who's privacy was invaded, who was beaten, or who was killed? Shouldn't all of these acts of evil be abhorrent in our society regardless of why they were committed? Isn't it hypocritical to cry for "equal rights" and then write laws which are, by definition, unequal? It's a sad, narrow minded overreaction to the injustices of the past.
Hate crime law, like the Jim Crow laws of the last century, are a backward and draconian implementation of justice and social regulation that are a slap in the face to equality. The sooner we stop drawing distinctions like these, the sooner we'll progress to a society that is open and accepting of so called "alternative lifestyles."
Incidentally, what this man did was a horrendous invasion of privacy and fully deserves to be considered a felony. He should be tried in a court of law and regardless of the outcome should be exported (obviously at the end of his sentence if found guilty).
If by "force them to do it" you mean "don't buy their products" then I'm onboard, otherwise you're just worse than the problem. And you might want to double check what protectionism is (I assume that's what you meant by "isolationism", which is fundamentally different...), because placing taxes on imported goods is pretty much what protectionism is.
Why is outsourcing everything good in the long run? Because if we didn't outsource it, you probably wouldn't be able to afford it. It's not like it's complicated; if US companies didn't/couldn't outsource, then they'd have no hope of competing with their european and asian counterparts. Period. You want to play the protectionism game? Sure, go for it. Europe and Asia will happily play that game and slap tariffs on all US goods. Do you think we can get buy as a country without the world buying our goods? Guess again, it would absolutely destroy our economy.
The sad irony is that we've always had the power of "social change", but we're too stupid as a population to us it. If you don't like something for any reason, don't buy it. If you don't think other people should buy it, tell them why. If you can't win your argument through logic and ideas and your only solution is force, you're just as bad as the barbarians who want to push creationism on this country and for the same reason. Or perhaps worse, because you seem to care but refuse any rational solution because it's not radical enough to force people to change whether they want to or not!
Any sensible man would know we shouldn't have such stupid laws. If CFLs/LEDs/etc are so superior, why do we need a law banning them? If everyone cares enough about the environment to pass a law to mandate the use of such bulbs, don't enough of us care that a law isn't necessary? The government shouldn't be passing laws for this kind of BS, guidelines and industry standard recommendations maybe, but not laws.
If you want to save electricity, how about turning off the millions of street and parking lot lights at night? How about wiring homes with DC so that damn near every piece of electric equipment doesn't have to take a >10% efficiency hit in order to operate? Or a law to limit the number of hours a TV can be used (we can all agree that that freedom isn't needed anymore, right)?
Maybe we should have laws limiting the amount of power your computer can draw or how long it can be on. Or perhaps outlaw that scourge to computer efficiency, the hard drive?
Of course everything can't be privatized; there are things that must be held in the public name or else fundamental public services would be non existant (such as courts or the military). I've never heard anyone clamoring for such an irrational view of privatization but I wouldn't put it past people. But the real reason privatization is NOT as dangerous to the common man is because 1) The government is eternal and 2) History has shown you have a lot more to fear from your government than from your asshole neighbor.
In regards to social security...how naive were people to think that this WOULDN'T happen? I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner! You've already admitted the money "didn't belong to them" and you're right - it belonged to the people who earned it. So why isn't that money in *their* control? Why was it ever under the control of the government in the first place? (Hint: it wasn't unintentional.) Why isn't the middle ground of SS "you have to put money away for retirement, but that money is in a privately held, but federally insured account for the individual"? Heck, you could even say that the money *has* to be used to purchase US Treasuries - as a method of lending to the government to fund it while hedging against inflation.
But the whole notion of SS is fundamentally flawed - it assumes that people can't think for themselves, can't plan for their own future, and can't manage their own finances. Anyone with any sense of self worth and independence should see that for what it is: a slap in the face and a command to "obey"!
Why "minorities"? Why not just "individuals"? Isn't an "individual" the ultimate minority?
This constant obsession with protecting specific groups is a deep, fundamental flaw in your thinking that is all too common. Stop categorizing people. Rights shouldn't be based on what category you fit into, they should be based on the fact that you are an individual human being with the same rights as every other human being.
No, the US constitution was important because it put THE GOVERNMENTS rights in simple English on a sheet of paper. It's supposed to list what the government can do, not what the people can do; I say supposed to because the monstrosity of government we have now is so out of scope of the original purpose of government that it's beyond defining. The Bill of Rights (which is what you're really talking about) was an afterthought introduced by Madison because it was feared that the Constitution wasn't explicit enough, i.e., people would allow the government to grow beyond its purpose and trample certain rights were key to the revolution in the first place.
The Constitution doesn't give you freedom. It gives the government freedom. Freedom isn't given to you by your government - it's something your government is supposed to protect!
So don't work for that employer. Work for yourself or work for someone else. Start a company which reverses this trend: allow innovators to keep the right to their ideas in exchange for being reimbursed the cost of developing the technology. I hope you don't consider yourself an inventor, because quite frankly you don't seem to have the balls to handle the competition (hint: if you want the government to rewrite the rules in your favor, you're doing it wrong). If you think corporations or the government has all the power, they only do because you let them have it.
There are real benefits to having a corporation fund your work. For example, there's almost zero risk for the inventor. The company will pay for the development and marketing of your idea and absorb (or default) on the loss if it fails. Sure, you might lose your job, but you're not going to go bankrupt or lose millions (and potentially more) on an idea with no guarantee of return. Your family isn't going to starve if your idea flops, or the market dries up.
If you want to create jobs, do something about the whole concept of outsourcing.
Or lower the cost of labor. Not everyone in this country is going to have a high paying job and high education is not for everyone. Maybe if we spent more time on lowering the cost of living in this country then lower paying jobs wouldn't be so intolerable.
Well said. Right behind being popular is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" which is absolutely contrary to the principles the US was founded on. Too many people these days think that what's good for the group is good for the individual. This is rarely the case, because it puts the government in the position of picking winners and losers, which is a position the government should not be in.
Society is not government. If government wants to implement social reform, it should do so in an open forum as an exchange between citizens and government and not merely pass laws. People keep thinking government is a tool for change when it should really be a weapon of second-to-last resort (with the last being force).
A lot of private companies are founded by people who incubated their ideas at a university (the first startup I cofounded began at a University). Corporate innovation and development is *gasp* a group effort; you're rarely going to find single-man corporations doing anything serious in the tech world. Everyday I wake up, I go to work, where I personally consider it my *job* to make this world a better place (I'm an engineer), I pay my taxes, I love my country, and I support my community. The problem isn't with capitalism. The problem isn't even with socialism. The problem is that people are more focused on doing things at a national level instead of at a local level where they can make the biggest difference. People are fanatical about using the federal government to solve all the problems of the world. It's like using a fucking sledge hammer during open heart surgery.
Who gives a shit if we aren't the world's largest economy, or that we might be losing our "tech mojo", or that our standard of living isn't as high as the socialist paradises of Europe, or that every single child doesn't get a free college education. Let people know that this is still the freest country in the world: that people who come here get to keep what they earn, use it as they see fit, and find their own happiness. That's the only thing America needs to be #1 in. Everything else will follow.
Eh, I don't think being smart is considered bad in American society (plenty of popular people now are considered "smart" and have >4.0 GPAs in high school). The problem is we over-emphasize the importance of learning at a high school level in order for the young to gain entry to an overly burdened college/university system, where education is often less-emphasized relative to high school. At that level, parents generally care less about *what* their children study so long as they study *something*. I think a symptom of the problem you're trying to describe is this: parents are more concerned with which university their children go to than what they study at that university.
I wouldn't mind a tax increase to help pay for some of these things, and I live in CA, which is already heavily taxed. Unfortunately, from a fiscal perspective, I have -zero- faith in the politicians capability to 1) Accurately estimate the cost of such a project, 2) Effectively execute and manage the project, 3) Appropriately and reasonably raise the initial funds to subsidize the project, and 4) Adjust the taxes/fees to adequately maintain the project. CA has such a poor track record that this is more a systemic failure than anything else.
That said, I'd rather see options in the cars available that include these features. I certainly don't mind paying for my own safety (and collision avoidance systems would indeed protect the safety of others as well).
Still...probably the biggest problem with American roads are the drivers, not the cars or the roads or the technology. The number of deaths could be brought down considerably if states weren't so lenient on drivers. And I'm not talking your basic speeding or stop sign rolling, but real hazards like blowing through red lights at full speed, weaving in and out of traffic on a busy freeway, or simply having no understanding of basic physics (1000 kg of steel at 100 kph has a LOT of energy). The worst offenders tend to be younger, arrogant in their thinking, misguided in their judgment, and utterly ignorant of physics.
Since you can't beat sense into reckless drivers (and boy do I wish this was possible) they should simply have the privilege of driving revoked. Less reckless drivers translates to fewer deaths, lower traffic volumes, and lower insurance premiums. Do this first and THEN evaluate whether expensive new safety mandates and technology requirements are necessary to fix public stupidity.
Yes, I understand that it's an inside joke between the audience and the writer.
I know that it's a plot device, my point is that it's not a good one. Using shitty puns in your otherwise trying to be serious movie AND not offering anything more ethically challenging than "durrrr, it's worth lots of moneys11!" should tell you that James Cameron thinks you're a child or a moron. And he's probably right.
Plot is there, it's just terrible AND unoriginal. Good movies are rarely predictable - that's why movies seem so much better when you're younger than when you're older. I could have done without the hyperbolic stereotyping. I would have actually been more impressed and somewhat surprised if the movie followed the historically accurate "white man comes in, destroys alien culture, builds mini mall" scenario.
Do you really need to get inside the guys head when you know exactly what's going to happen?
You have seen Idiocracy, haven't you?
No, it could have been gold for all I care - it was just a plot element. And since no one in my theater laughed at the reference, you either saw it with a larger and older age group, or people who aren't borderline retarded.
Unobtanium wasn't my beef, my beef was with the Disneyesque story and painfully obvious stereotypes. Slightly liberal but research-only concerned scientists. Angry, butt-hurt military types who went to destroy everything. Tree hugging forest dwellers. Greedy corporations who think any means justifies their ends. And the protagonist with emotional baggage caught up in it all.
If you're under 18 or have lived a sheltered life from Disney movies, or Japanese RPGs, or generic science fiction, the history of Humanity in the last 10,000 years, then I suppose you might take the story arcs as new and refreshing and the characters seriously. But in my opinion - this movie was all bark and no bite.
Imagine one of those cheesy SciFi channel Saturday evening low budget science fiction movies on a $300 million dollar budget. That's what Avatar is. Sure the acting is decent and the special effects are spectacular - but the story is boring and predictable. (Come on, 'unobtainium'?) It's as if James Cameron and Disney tried to Westernize a Japanese RPG storyline.
As for the science, well...if you're a neurobiologist with a flare for xenobiology, I'm sure this is a very interesting story. Otherwise, all the technology ranges from "reasonably possible in the not too distant future" to "still very much science fiction".
I can tell you're all republican-butt hurt for whatever reason, and I shouldn't feed the AC trolls, but the fact of the matter is the US State Department *routinely* warns American's traveling to these countries about violence/crime in these regions: they deserve greater caution than trips to say Europe. Yes, many of the people in latin american countries are warm and friendly to tourists, but many of them are also desperate and naive tourists are an easy mark. It's a good idea to be cautious when traveling ANYWHERE abroad, JUST like it's a good idea to be cautious when using the Internet.
Go back to posting your hate mongering rhetoric in whatever huffpost article on Digg's front page that you strayed from. You're just as bad as the extremists on the right who don't think American's should leave their borders. Maybe even worse since you seem to think you know better.