Might be a good reason for every computer professional to take a simultaneous unannounced one week vacation at some point. The stuffed shirts might reverse the trend of treating IT people like meat popcycles. This is one real good example of a job that when done well is like pissing yourself in a pair of black pants: you get the nice warm feeling, but most people don't notice. Most people don't want to understand the work that goes into making sure everything works.
I also believe the book was a discussion on 'whether mass empathy creates God' as opposed to the more commonly recognized theme of 'does mass consciousness create God?'. Especially the way in which 'Mercer', the character formed during the shared empathy sessions appears as a literal Deus Ex Machina.
The Star Wars Blasters that the Storm Troopers carried on the battlestar in the original movie were actually Sterling submachine guns that were in current use by the British and Canadian armed forces. They had their folding butt stock folded up, a 10 round magazine inserted, and a fake scope on the top. They made plastic copies that were easier to carry and point etc later on. Although it probably would have been better to keep them heavy... adds more realism when you see the actors have to work to 'aim' them.
The bigger weapons that the storm troopers carried were German MG-34s
Star Wars did OK, and no-one complained much about the weapons. It's all about suspension of disbelief. You could argue that the movie sucked because they had guys in space ships going between planets in less than a year. Ya right, like that would ever happen.:-)
The original versions were simply not as fleshed-out as the enhanced versions. The colors in the newer ones were more lively and the little digital effects (I particularly remember some little droid doo-dads floating by a stormtrooper)
More special effects makes the movie better? That is what you seem to be implying. The reason the original SW movies from the 70s are better is certainly not because of the special effects (even thought they do stand the test of time). The stories were better, and had less character and plot development geared to marketing. Except for those fucking Ewoks of course which is the point at which the fanchise started going downhill fast. As for the special effects of the second batch of movies, much of it was overdone. Jar Jar Dink, the 'Oh so cool' Darth Moll face paint, etc. All marketing CRAP!
I put your arguement in the same box with the Star Trek NG as being better than TOS because it had better special effects. When I believe the TOS was better because the writing was. They relied on the story more than the effects. Admittedely because they had to, but a lesson should be learned from that. Less is more.
English, no matter how long it evolves is always going to be a pig. There are so many inconsitencies, grammatical and spelling traps etc that it can not really be considered the ideal for an International language.
English is the Cobol of spoken languages. It has been here forever (and will stay for a long time). Therefore its 'programs' have been patched, modified, and conglomerated until it has become a functional but highly complex mechanism that does things that users and even the originators didn't know it could (ever) do.
For that price you can hire a cleaner to come in once a week and vacuum... and straighten up and was the bathroom. And they can figure out how to vacuum around stuff pretty quickly.
You can be as poor as you want and you're still free, unless somehow our vision of "free" has been warped into having HDTV's and iPods.
I guess on this side of the world the old saw can be changed then to 'some people are more free than others'. Obviously you've never had it tough in your life before. Good for you. And I don't mean you couldn't afford that game console you wanted.
I don't like welfare abuse either. I can tell you I was on welfare once for 6 weeks when some bad things happened. Yes I got a job, went back to school, and am doing well now. But I did learn in the only real way that is possible that money has a bigger role in society than providing food and shelter. You can conjecture academically, and be high and mighty all you want, it doesn't change what I learned.
These guys were pursuing happiness and their horse just broke it's leg. They better shoot the damn thing and go get another job/horse
That is what circuit city is doing. As I said earlier, no-one told them how much to pay those employees. But now, to use your analogy, they figure they are hobbled by an earlier agreement they made and want to break, so they are going to shoot the horse they are riding since they have the freedom to do so with no chance of any repercussions. It's the golden rule: whoever has the gold, rules. So are the "rulees" more or less free than the rulers?
They did go for it themselves. No-one said that Circuit City had to pay those people what they did in the first place. Not that working at Circuit city can be classified as happiness either.
But there is a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last two are pretty hard when you get fired because some CEO wants to make another $10,000,000 bonus. Liberty: you are only truly free in a capitalist society if you have money. Tough without a job. Happiness: money doesn't buy happiness, but living in a box because you have no job actively contributes to unhappiness.
While it's used to make semi-conductors, silicon on its own can't conduct at normal (human) working temperatures. Due to its negative temperature coefficient of resistance it will be able to effectively conduct at temperatures over roughly 1200C, but not at room temperature. You need to highly purify and dope the silicon in order to get it to produce semi-conductors that function at 'normal' working temperatures (which I don't think include 4 digit temperatures;-) ). So maybe depending on what they do to the plastic, it could have the same properties as doped silicon.
Many are making the assumption that only people with pieces of paper can be experts. It also looks to me like people are assuming that all countries' university systems are set up the same, so there is one universal way to validate people with pieces of paper. Another thing, the only thing that piece of paper qualifies the person as an expert on is the limited subject printed on the paper (and it doesn't say anything about whether they are current in that field). It also doesn't mean they might not be experts in other areas, but in those cases will they be held in the same light as the rest of the unwashed illiteratti. And if or if not so, why?
And then there is the next step of validating whether the institution meets the required level of academic eliteness (I know this is inflammatory, but academicia is rife with elitism). What will happen when an American or Canadian engineer or doctor 'expert' is vetting an application to give a Kenyan engineer or doctor 'expert' status? Many of the first world 'professionals' won't allow professionals from other countries to practise their trade when if they immigrate into [substitute first world country name here]. Why would it be any better on Wikipedia. Would people with 'first world' degrees generally be held above others? Can you say disenfranchisement of whole regions?
What really bothers me are the thousands of articles on items that should be covered but aren't in many publications. This is because there aren't any so called academic 'experts' in these areas. For example, we generally know that St. Louis has a strong musical history of blues music that helped shape the genre. But there are not a lot of university educated experts on obscure St. Louis blues musicians who genuinely shaped the sound in the city (which shaped the sound in the region, which...). It is important not to lose the ability to ensure that these types of articles don't get lost or never created. And this will happen if people who really are experts in the smaller areas have to wait for non-experts (with their degree in some other field as their authority) to vet the article
Finally, what kind of piece of paper qualifies you as an expert. Does a PhD with passing experience in a field over-ride a BSc who works in the field more often? What about the guy with a college diploma who is quite intelligent and works in that field extensively, with deep insight into it? What about the self trained person who might know more than all the other three combined? That is the beauty of Wikipedia, that all are included. The proposal might be rather naive or maybe it is just admitting that the Wikipedia concept doesn't work, but if accepted, I think the point of Wikipedia is lost.
I think further thought on this is needed. And I am very thankful I'm not the one making the decision.
Profiling is not allowed in America... even when there are elements of truth in it. Now I have to go make sure that the skinny old 85 year old granny isn't carrying an HK onto the plane... excuse me ma'am, please bend over [rubber glove snap/].
Tell that to Dell and other PC makers who have to cave in to Microsoft. (I'm not MS bashing here, it is the first example that came to mind.) If you have a true or effective monopoly you can dictate price, especially if the manufacturer chooses to abuse the monopoly. Even more so if the government/courts choose to ignore and/or abet the abuse. In the case of MS, the republican direction to the justice department was to basically ignore the fact that MS was found guilty of abusing their effective monopoly.
It sounds like if the SCOTUS finds in favour of the manufacturers, they will inadvertently abet monopoly abuse. So cases similar to MS's monopoly abuse might be harder to prosecute since the monopolist will be able to legally dictate conditions to the downstream consumers... retailers and their customers. All they have to do is come up with some excuse as to why they keep raising prices, and no-one can stop them. Or they might insist on lower prices that huge volume retailers can subsist on because of the volume, but modest businesses will die because they need to have a higher markup due to lower volume sales... when it should be the choice of the retail business only.
If you notice, many night vision goggles have one lens for capturing the 'input' (actually the intensifier) which is split and fed to the two lenses for your eyes. So, yes, in many cases they are getting the same image for both eyes. i.e. it is not true binocular vision.
It's typical modern American capitalism. Short term gains don't necessarily mean long term pains... at least not for the CEO involved. Take the million+ dollar bonus, cash out stock options, run/quit/get fired, and who cares if the company dies later.
While whites did enough evil, like stealing the whole country,
For Christ's sake, get over it already. That is the way the world worked back then... there was no evil involved. How come I don't hear protesters freaking out about how the Saxons and Angles came out of Europe and stole the UK from the Celts and Picts? Or how the Normans stole it from the Angles and Saxons? I don't see anyone paying treaty money to anyone in Whales or Scotland.
Every place on the globe was invaded by one group or another over history. Even in North America, one tribe would take out another. Some of the bloodiest wars were between the different tribes in what is now Ontario and New York/Pennsylvania. The Iroquois and the Hurons used to skin each other... The Haida were known to come down and eat the odd Tsawwassen every now and then. Why should North American natives be held up as more wronged than any other people that were conquered and assimilated over the years? Just because it happened only a couple hundred years ago? I repeat that is the way the world worked, we can't change it, get over it and stop asking people to pay for our great great great great grandparents deeds. And by the way, the natives often took sides in things hoping to get a better deal. They often took sides hoping to take down rival tribes... they're not so innocent either.
You want to judge history by the morals of today. Get a grip. Even the morals of today only count if you can afford it. Treat your neighbour as you would have him treat you... but if you are starving to death, it is pretty much OK to steal his food. Stop judging whole peoples by what their ancestors did, and even then stop getting high and mighty and calling them evil. That was life back then. They did what they did because the logic back then said they must if they wanted their country and way of life to survive and prosper. Now we are all here. Scrap the guilt, scrap the treaty money, everyone get a job, earn your own way, and shut the fuck up. If you want to live the old way, no-one is stopping you are anyone else from grabbing a spear and forgoing modern medicine in case you stick yourself. Everyone immigrated here to North America at one time or another. There were multiple waves. How come we don't hear complaints about those who came 3000 years taking over things from those who came 5000 years ago? Enough with the guilt trip already.
And don't forget, there are no mammoths or camels in North America because the 'natives' killed them to extinction... not the the 'white man'. So much for the 'guardians of the earth' bullshit that some of you no brain whiners like to come up with. People are people, you don't have to be white to be selfish enough to kill off an entire species, only ignorant. And that does not make them evil. No more so than the wave of immigrants to come here in the last 400 years... the 'white man'.
First: I didn't say everyone who has an unpopular theory does not get funding. Don't misquote me.
If you think it is easy for researchers/scientists to get funding for unpopular ideas, especially when a great majority of the scientific community is calling you down, then you are very naive. Most of the time great scientists are not just great because of their ideas, it's also because of the adversity they went through to get those ideas accepted. Which often didn't happen till many years later. e.g. Einstein's special relativity theory was not accepted for years (and he didn't receive a Nobel Prize for it either). His work on it was not funded by anyone... he originally wrote it and many other papers in his apartment in Berne CH. The ones who persevere do so because they find other ways and other people to fund their work.
Here are some I found with little or no effort:
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar - This University of Chicago page indicates he moved to Chicago because of the intense ridicule he received in England over his theory... about the existence of black holes. Maybe not a lack of funding, but when it is bad enough to cause you to move to a different continent...
Robert Goddard - rockets... look up Wikipedia and check out the "criticism" section.
Lynn Margulis - I read somewhere the NSF even denied funding her before.
Galileo
Einstein - In 1933 Planck had to ask for Einstein's resignation because of Einstein's criticisms of the politics of Germany at the time (read Einstein: A Life by Denis Brian). The same year Philipp Lenard who always disagreed with Einstein used influence with the nationalists to finally drive Einstein to stay away from Germany. Granted it was a good thing, but it is still a good example of what can happen to anybody prominent, not just scientists, if you don't fit in. Thank goodness he didn't fit in.
How about embryonic stem cell research
Yes, they all had funding. But the point is that life is made very tough if your 'peers', or even just one prominent person, castigate you.
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein
Slashdot Mirror
Might be a good reason for every computer professional to take a simultaneous unannounced one week vacation at some point. The stuffed shirts might reverse the trend of treating IT people like meat popcycles. This is one real good example of a job that when done well is like pissing yourself in a pair of black pants: you get the nice warm feeling, but most people don't notice. Most people don't want to understand the work that goes into making sure everything works.
I also believe the book was a discussion on 'whether mass empathy creates God' as opposed to the more commonly recognized theme of 'does mass consciousness create God?'. Especially the way in which 'Mercer', the character formed during the shared empathy sessions appears as a literal Deus Ex Machina.
The Star Wars Blasters that the Storm Troopers carried on the battlestar in the original movie were actually Sterling submachine guns that were in current use by the British and Canadian armed forces. They had their folding butt stock folded up, a 10 round magazine inserted, and a fake scope on the top. They made plastic copies that were easier to carry and point etc later on. Although it probably would have been better to keep them heavy... adds more realism when you see the actors have to work to 'aim' them.
The bigger weapons that the storm troopers carried were German MG-34s
Star Wars did OK, and no-one complained much about the weapons. It's all about suspension of disbelief. You could argue that the movie sucked because they had guys in space ships going between planets in less than a year. Ya right, like that would ever happen. :-)
More special effects makes the movie better? That is what you seem to be implying. The reason the original SW movies from the 70s are better is certainly not because of the special effects (even thought they do stand the test of time). The stories were better, and had less character and plot development geared to marketing. Except for those fucking Ewoks of course which is the point at which the fanchise started going downhill fast. As for the special effects of the second batch of movies, much of it was overdone. Jar Jar Dink, the 'Oh so cool' Darth Moll face paint, etc. All marketing CRAP!
I put your arguement in the same box with the Star Trek NG as being better than TOS because it had better special effects. When I believe the TOS was better because the writing was. They relied on the story more than the effects. Admittedely because they had to, but a lesson should be learned from that. Less is more.
English is the Cobol of spoken languages. It has been here forever (and will stay for a long time). Therefore its 'programs' have been patched, modified, and conglomerated until it has become a functional but highly complex mechanism that does things that users and even the originators didn't know it could (ever) do.
:-)
For that price you can hire a cleaner to come in once a week and vacuum... and straighten up and was the bathroom. And they can figure out how to vacuum around stuff pretty quickly.
I guess on this side of the world the old saw can be changed then to 'some people are more free than others'. Obviously you've never had it tough in your life before. Good for you. And I don't mean you couldn't afford that game console you wanted.
I don't like welfare abuse either. I can tell you I was on welfare once for 6 weeks when some bad things happened. Yes I got a job, went back to school, and am doing well now. But I did learn in the only real way that is possible that money has a bigger role in society than providing food and shelter. You can conjecture academically, and be high and mighty all you want, it doesn't change what I learned.
That is what circuit city is doing. As I said earlier, no-one told them how much to pay those employees. But now, to use your analogy, they figure they are hobbled by an earlier agreement they made and want to break, so they are going to shoot the horse they are riding since they have the freedom to do so with no chance of any repercussions. It's the golden rule: whoever has the gold, rules. So are the "rulees" more or less free than the rulers?
They did go for it themselves. No-one said that Circuit City had to pay those people what they did in the first place. Not that working at Circuit city can be classified as happiness either.
But there is a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last two are pretty hard when you get fired because some CEO wants to make another $10,000,000 bonus. Liberty: you are only truly free in a capitalist society if you have money. Tough without a job. Happiness: money doesn't buy happiness, but living in a box because you have no job actively contributes to unhappiness.
While it's used to make semi-conductors, silicon on its own can't conduct at normal (human) working temperatures. Due to its negative temperature coefficient of resistance it will be able to effectively conduct at temperatures over roughly 1200C, but not at room temperature. You need to highly purify and dope the silicon in order to get it to produce semi-conductors that function at 'normal' working temperatures (which I don't think include 4 digit temperatures ;-) ). So maybe depending on what they do to the plastic, it could have the same properties as doped silicon.
Many are making the assumption that only people with pieces of paper can be experts. It also looks to me like people are assuming that all countries' university systems are set up the same, so there is one universal way to validate people with pieces of paper. Another thing, the only thing that piece of paper qualifies the person as an expert on is the limited subject printed on the paper (and it doesn't say anything about whether they are current in that field). It also doesn't mean they might not be experts in other areas, but in those cases will they be held in the same light as the rest of the unwashed illiteratti. And if or if not so, why?
And then there is the next step of validating whether the institution meets the required level of academic eliteness (I know this is inflammatory, but academicia is rife with elitism). What will happen when an American or Canadian engineer or doctor 'expert' is vetting an application to give a Kenyan engineer or doctor 'expert' status? Many of the first world 'professionals' won't allow professionals from other countries to practise their trade when if they immigrate into [substitute first world country name here]. Why would it be any better on Wikipedia. Would people with 'first world' degrees generally be held above others? Can you say disenfranchisement of whole regions?
What really bothers me are the thousands of articles on items that should be covered but aren't in many publications. This is because there aren't any so called academic 'experts' in these areas. For example, we generally know that St. Louis has a strong musical history of blues music that helped shape the genre. But there are not a lot of university educated experts on obscure St. Louis blues musicians who genuinely shaped the sound in the city (which shaped the sound in the region, which...). It is important not to lose the ability to ensure that these types of articles don't get lost or never created. And this will happen if people who really are experts in the smaller areas have to wait for non-experts (with their degree in some other field as their authority) to vet the article
Finally, what kind of piece of paper qualifies you as an expert. Does a PhD with passing experience in a field over-ride a BSc who works in the field more often? What about the guy with a college diploma who is quite intelligent and works in that field extensively, with deep insight into it? What about the self trained person who might know more than all the other three combined? That is the beauty of Wikipedia, that all are included. The proposal might be rather naive or maybe it is just admitting that the Wikipedia concept doesn't work, but if accepted, I think the point of Wikipedia is lost.
I think further thought on this is needed. And I am very thankful I'm not the one making the decision.
So you can profile the profiling? ... anyway, the GP was talking about racism... ;-)
Profiling is not allowed in America... even when there are elements of truth in it. Now I have to go make sure that the skinny old 85 year old granny isn't carrying an HK onto the plane... excuse me ma'am, please bend over [rubber glove snap /].
Tell that to Dell and other PC makers who have to cave in to Microsoft. (I'm not MS bashing here, it is the first example that came to mind.) If you have a true or effective monopoly you can dictate price, especially if the manufacturer chooses to abuse the monopoly. Even more so if the government/courts choose to ignore and/or abet the abuse. In the case of MS, the republican direction to the justice department was to basically ignore the fact that MS was found guilty of abusing their effective monopoly.
It sounds like if the SCOTUS finds in favour of the manufacturers, they will inadvertently abet monopoly abuse. So cases similar to MS's monopoly abuse might be harder to prosecute since the monopolist will be able to legally dictate conditions to the downstream consumers... retailers and their customers. All they have to do is come up with some excuse as to why they keep raising prices, and no-one can stop them. Or they might insist on lower prices that huge volume retailers can subsist on because of the volume, but modest businesses will die because they need to have a higher markup due to lower volume sales... when it should be the choice of the retail business only.
home brew kit = open source
3000 grit paper will polish that like glass. I thought they said rough it up a bit.
If you notice, many night vision goggles have one lens for capturing the 'input' (actually the intensifier) which is split and fed to the two lenses for your eyes. So, yes, in many cases they are getting the same image for both eyes. i.e. it is not true binocular vision.
Now Paris Hilton and company can really start distributing porn in style.
Now you have to work 'hump' into this.
That's not what your girlfriend says. :-D
It's typical modern American capitalism. Short term gains don't necessarily mean long term pains... at least not for the CEO involved. Take the million+ dollar bonus, cash out stock options, run/quit/get fired, and who cares if the company dies later.
It's the shizzle.
For Christ's sake, get over it already. That is the way the world worked back then... there was no evil involved. How come I don't hear protesters freaking out about how the Saxons and Angles came out of Europe and stole the UK from the Celts and Picts? Or how the Normans stole it from the Angles and Saxons? I don't see anyone paying treaty money to anyone in Whales or Scotland.
Every place on the globe was invaded by one group or another over history. Even in North America, one tribe would take out another. Some of the bloodiest wars were between the different tribes in what is now Ontario and New York/Pennsylvania. The Iroquois and the Hurons used to skin each other... The Haida were known to come down and eat the odd Tsawwassen every now and then. Why should North American natives be held up as more wronged than any other people that were conquered and assimilated over the years? Just because it happened only a couple hundred years ago? I repeat that is the way the world worked, we can't change it, get over it and stop asking people to pay for our great great great great grandparents deeds. And by the way, the natives often took sides in things hoping to get a better deal. They often took sides hoping to take down rival tribes... they're not so innocent either.
You want to judge history by the morals of today. Get a grip. Even the morals of today only count if you can afford it. Treat your neighbour as you would have him treat you... but if you are starving to death, it is pretty much OK to steal his food. Stop judging whole peoples by what their ancestors did, and even then stop getting high and mighty and calling them evil. That was life back then. They did what they did because the logic back then said they must if they wanted their country and way of life to survive and prosper. Now we are all here. Scrap the guilt, scrap the treaty money, everyone get a job, earn your own way, and shut the fuck up. If you want to live the old way, no-one is stopping you are anyone else from grabbing a spear and forgoing modern medicine in case you stick yourself. Everyone immigrated here to North America at one time or another. There were multiple waves. How come we don't hear complaints about those who came 3000 years taking over things from those who came 5000 years ago? Enough with the guilt trip already.
And don't forget, there are no mammoths or camels in North America because the 'natives' killed them to extinction... not the the 'white man'. So much for the 'guardians of the earth' bullshit that some of you no brain whiners like to come up with. People are people, you don't have to be white to be selfish enough to kill off an entire species, only ignorant. And that does not make them evil. No more so than the wave of immigrants to come here in the last 400 years... the 'white man'.
No, it's Colmes. Or did you mean...
First: I didn't say everyone who has an unpopular theory does not get funding. Don't misquote me.
If you think it is easy for researchers/scientists to get funding for unpopular ideas, especially when a great majority of the scientific community is calling you down, then you are very naive. Most of the time great scientists are not just great because of their ideas, it's also because of the adversity they went through to get those ideas accepted. Which often didn't happen till many years later. e.g. Einstein's special relativity theory was not accepted for years (and he didn't receive a Nobel Prize for it either). His work on it was not funded by anyone... he originally wrote it and many other papers in his apartment in Berne CH. The ones who persevere do so because they find other ways and other people to fund their work.
Here are some I found with little or no effort:
Yes, they all had funding. But the point is that life is made very tough if your 'peers', or even just one prominent person, castigate you.