They talk about the militia being well regulated. The second part of the sentence is rather hard to work around. Two things of importance here. This is all a mater of perspective as to which part of the sentence you want to take as the primary and which parts are just supporting that argument. You have chosen to take "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as the primary while others see that as supporting "A well regulated militia." All of this is some what cleared up if you use the punctuation of the original hand written constitution.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In theory in a sentence of this structure you can take only the parts outside the commas to get the meaning of the sentence and those inside the commas are just supporting data. In this case you end up with "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed." But I am not a linguist.
Your interpretation of "regulated" is an interesting one, and one I had never heard before, and I have heard 2nd Amendment arguments for a long time. But even if you interpretation is valid, why is it that it is ok to back date the word "regulated" but not "firearm." By your logic "firearm", as used in the constitution, refers to flint lock single shot rifles and low power single shot hand guns, which are basically weapons which produce less kenetic energy that many modern BB or Pellet guns. After all you even said that "regulated" means "adequate supply of ball & powder." I don't see alot of drive by shootings being done with black powder rifles.
Even if you go along with the regulated part, how do you justify the effective banning of current issue military small arms for sale to citizens? I don't, and I don't care too. I'm am neither a supporter or opponent of firearm control laws. Personally I have never been in, witnessed, or even heard about a single situation were a firearm was required to solve a problem, but this doesn't mean that I care who does or does not have firearms.
Maybe I'm a bit jaded; but if you look at my sig, you'll see that I'm a 2nd amendment advocate. I mean, they manage to work their way around 'shall not be infringed' just fine. I would assume the same way some people want to get around "well regulated."
First I want to clarify that I was not comparing Communism and Fascism, I was stating that Fascism is a form of Socialism. It so happens that Communism, as well as Anarchism are also forms of Socialism, but try not to think I confuse Communism (Marxist or Soviet for that mater) with Fascism. Second do not confuse Neo-Libertarianism, which is a product of the last 20 to 30 years with Classical Libertarianism or more specifically Libertarian Socialism.
Fascism, and its bastardized brother Nationalist Socialism, are rooted in concepts that are most definitely socialist. Even though the founders of Fascism did not specifically speak of the proletariat, or class systems at all for that matter, does not change the idea that Fascism was for the benefit of all people. By seeking what is best for the State, Fascist would necessarily seek what is best for the people since with out people there is no State. If we are to believe The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle we see there are even more similarities between Socialism and Fascism in theory that in actual practice. The Manifesto claims, in far more specific ways than Socialist theory, that there should be steps towards equality including, Universal Suffrage (including voting rights for Women), The participation of workers' representatives and Labor Unions in the functions of industry commissions as well as other issues of labor meant to relieve the worker from the threat of exploitation. The idea that individual people are expendable is certainly not unique to Fascism, and can be seen in all Political Philosophies, even Neo-Libertarianism.
You are correct to say that some of the "break down" in understanding Fascism as a form of Socialism, does come form a "misrepresentation of libertarianism" but not in the way you are thinking. When I speak of Libertarianism, which in my previous post I actually didn't, I am speaking of Classical European Libertarianism, such as was theorized in the 1800s through late-mid 1900s. Classical Libertarianism is much different than the modern western usage of the term, which is also why I previously only spoke of Libertarian Socialism specifically. Libertarian Socialism is a term that covers Anarchism, Anarcho-syndiclism and any other collectivism without government, which in theory includes Marxist Communism. Neo-Libertarianism, the modern, and incorrect, use of the term, is more a bi-product of western Narcissism than any sound political theory. The only similarities between Neo-Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism are in social freedoms, where as they are in direct contrast when it comes to economic freedoms. Libertarian Socialist believe that to be free to do as the will socially, people would need to be relieved of the need to worry about economic issues. Explaining both Libertarian Socialism and Neo-Libertarianism would take alot more space than I'm willing to take up on slashdot but I'm sure a few goggle searches would reveal the answers fairly quickly (even faster if you trust wikipedia).
xero314, there is more good advice in your post than in the entire Allison article. Thanks, I only hope that it actually has the same effect on those that it might actually help and not just the people that already understand it.
1) Installers. Writing installers sucks. What is this installer thing you are talking about? You mean on some OSes you can't just copy the package containing the executable into the location you want and execute it from there?
and patching/updating is a whole different nightmare. Again, don't you just copy the new version over the old version and execute? Sure you could write an updater, but once that is done what is the big nightmare.
2) COM Interop. Huh?
crappy desktop Windows programming Oh I get it, you hate Windows Programing. You do realize you can write windows applications without the need for COM or an Installer right? Or at least you could prior to Vista and I can't really comment on that.
If you are one of the unlucky who is being forced to write web based applications I suggest you quit. Baring quitting XUL is the only realistic solution. XUL Applications can be written so they can be used effectively remote as well as installed as a desktop application. Unlike the other frameworks it only takes a little knowledge of XBL to fix all the bugs the Mozilla foundation decided to leave in XUL. Personally I can't stand web apps or rapid development, but if you have to you might as well use the only viable option. Oh, and what every you do don't call it "Zool", regardless of the ghostbusters referencing, it's lame.
Wether envy is cause or effect of private property is a "Chicken and Egg" argument but no mater how you look at it Envy is the desire to have that which one perceives they have not. But from my limited knowledge of history it appears that very few people seek to create the inequality necessary for Envy to thrive and that the majority would be content in an equal, and improving, society. I say improving because we all seek to have better lives and as long as out lives are improving, and the social atmosphere where not the current capitalist one, then people would be content.
Although I am not alone in my association of Fascism as a branch of socialism I do realize that I am in a minority. But I think I can explain it fairly clearly and let you decided if you think the association is correct or not. According to wikipedia "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." Regardless of the source, this is a fair and broad description of socialism. Socialism can be simply summed up as the complete removal of the right to private property (notice that Socialism doesn't mandate how property is controlled or that their be equality). It is true that this is not the way Marx, Engels and others used the term in prior years but it is the current general understanding of the term. So inside Socialism there are a number of different was to implement the specifics. Anarchy for one is a specific branch of Libertarian Socialism, which can be summed up as Self Governing society where no one controls property or the means of production. The Economic system of Fascism can easily be categorized as Authoritarian Socialism, where property and the means of production are controlled by the state. Fascism differs from Communism (not to be confused with Sovietism) mostly on the grounds of who controls property. Marx expressed that government was a necessary evil and merely a means to communism and should be held in check by the people. Mussolini believed government was responsible for doing what was best for the state, which he believed was also best for the people.
Just to clarify there is no argument that Collectivism is an aspect or form of Socialism, and sometimes the terms are even used interchangeably. If this is true then Mussolini's statement in The Doctrine of Fascism "If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State" clearly shows that he envisioned Fascism is as form Collectivism. So on the socialist scale there is a far right authoritarian Fascism, the far left libertarian Anarchy and a more centrist Communism, just to name the few major factions. Interestingly enough that these were the three major systems that the Spanish Civil war was fought over.
The Fact that you equate Fascism with Capitalism by way of Corporatism and I equate it to Socialism only goes to show that any political system taken to it's extreme becomes, or appears like, it's diametrically opposed system. For example the extreme Neo-Libertarianism would be giving up the right to govern any ones actions other than your own, but in doing so you also give up the right to govern that none shall govern your actions, since the moment one demands that someone else not govern them they are taking away some of that persons Liberties. Just as unchecked Capitalism taken to the extreme must eventually end in Monarchy as a single person will eventually maintain all power.
You mean human rights? No thanks! Yes human rights is what I meant, and I also agree "No Thanks!" I was just trying to point out that you can't ever eradicate envy, but there are certainly things that can be done to minimize it. It's kind of like how not all crime is caused by income equality, but certainly a large amount of it is, and removing that causation would be good even if you can't remove them all. People will always have potential for envy as long is there is something out there that that do not or can not have, such as someone else's looks or capabilities.
Teach the Failures of Marxism... I think that has been tried. Eventually people become educated enough to realize that the so called "failures of Marxism" are either a fallacy or of little consequence when compared to the benefits. Civilization is the ongoing conflict between the Oligarchy state and the Anarchy state, Marxism is one of the proposed reconciliations of those states. Modern civilizations that hope to remain stable tend towards socialist policy.
...Get Rid of Envy The Marxist ideal is exactly what is needed to remove the consistent Envy that plagues modern societies. Until the destruction of the concepts of private property there will always be envy, or at least the potential for envy. And yes I concede that we would need to give up ones self as private property before envy could be truly eradicated, but giving up externals as private property would be a long way towards the reduction of envy.
I am not actually Marxist, but rather tends toward one of two different philosophies, being Fascism (because people are too stupid to govern themselves) and Classical Libertarianism(because people are too stupid to govern others), both of which I happen to views as branches of Socialism.
The state of being in love, either with your spouse or with your job, is necessary to the continuance of civilization, but it is not sustainable. Sorry you feel that way. After more than 10 years of marriage in a 13 year relationship I am more in love today that ever before. I have also been programing for over 25 years and enjoy it as much to as I did day one. In both circumstances my interests have changed but the overall feeling has not. In the case of programming I have even gone full circle and am back to desiring work involving machine code or even hardware design, as opposed to the higher level rapid development I have been doing for years.
If you are the kind of person who "falls" in and out of "love" I would suggest reconsidering what it is you love, since it's obviously not the person or the job, or question wether you even love at all.
If you honestly think Cambodia (where the election are well and truly *actually* rigged) has more democracy than the US The United States does not have Democracy, not Representative Democracy (regardless of the oxymoronic nature of the term),or even Corrupt Democracy. The United States is not a Democracy. The United States is a Corrupt Constitutional Republic, that believes Democracy is good for everyone else. Hopefully that makes the point a little bit clearer.
Just so you know it is possible to help your children avoid situations that will cause them harm and teach them how to respect other people. It's possible to not give your child access to violence (which I find far more damaging socially and personally than nudity) and still teach them to me a respectable person. For example one of the most respectful people I know, who holds doors for women, children and elderly, to say the least of his gentlemanly acts, was not allowed to watch certain saturday morning cartoons because of the violent content. Believe it or not you can teach you child to sit up straight while they do things other than play video games (let alone violent ones).
Actually, I can't think of a single example in the past half century that a people got fed up with a dictator, threw him out of power (with or without outside assistance) and then were still a democracy 10 years later. First of all Democracy is not necessarily the best form of government, and second I said "Malevolent Dictatorship." Not all Dictatorships are disliked by it's citizens. Many people would prefer a Benevolent Dictator over Mob Rule. The Problem in recent years is that certain world powers think they know what is best for all countries and prefer to overthrow foreign governments before their own citizens learn there may actually be other ways of living. Iraq is a fine example, but even better would be Nicaragua, Cuba or Spain during the Spanish Revolution. Going into a foreign country, removing an government that is not particularly hated by it's citizens and then putting in place your own form of government is certainly not going to last, and anyone with a brain can see this. Change must come from the inside and my previous argument was that to be sustained or even effectual that change needs to be revolutionary, but not necessarily violent.
Except there's no guarantee of "getting back on track" with a revolution, at all. Doesn't that depend on what "on track" means? Some would say that any change would be better than what we have now. Remember that Malevolent Dictatorships do not last. So either things getter or they get worse, forcing people into another revolution to improve things. Historically, revolutions have always led to "better" conditions even if they were not immediate. Remember it took genocide by the Khmer Rouge (which I in no way condone) to bring democracy to Cambodia, which is something the US has yet been able to accomplish through non-revolutionary change.
Anyone who seriously wants things to get much worse, much faster, is either a psychotic, or just isn't thinking things through. As someone that has pushed the "fuck it up so things can get better" line more than once, I have to disagree. For those that studied Plato, Marx or any other revolutionary visionary knows that real change only happens when people become fed up with their current lot. This is arguably why Soviet Communism failed and why Soviet Capitalism is showing signs of collapse, things just weren't bad enough before making the change and then change without revolution. It may be possible that we have evolved past the point of violent revolution, but there is no way an real change will happen with out the people currently in power being severely set back from their current state. Some say collectivism through unionization is a non-violent revolutionary tactic, and that's only one approach. But before any of this happens the power of the minority has to be less than the power of the majority, and that would mean, in the US, that the middle class would need to side with the lower class. But getting the lazy ass middle class to be willing to give up some of their luxuries for the sake of the country and man kind isn't going to happen with things the way they are. So that being said, "fucking things up worse than they are" may be the only way to change things for the better.
I was very much under the impression that game designers were kind of like project managers for games If designers are like project manager (not exactly they way I figured it would be) then the game industry would be the first one to get the pay scale correct.
After all it should always go People Who Mostly Work > People Who Mostly Play > People Who Do Nothing.
I HAVE a 5000, and it does NOT take 1080i and produce anything useful. You should contact Infocus Immediately since their spec claims 1080i compatibility and they have provided multiple updates for 1080i related issues such as 1080i image positioning is corrected and 720p and 1080i @ 50Hz sources sync and display correctly.
if there is some other infocus 5000 other than the SP5000 then I apologize. Just hate to see you having a faulty unit or Infocus making claims and updates for functionality that does not exist.
The bot may pound novices but high level play is exstremely difficult to program against. This is totally incorrect. Neither I nor Blizzard would need to write any AI to trounce the best players, this can be done with an Expert System (It's sad these two concepts have blended in modern usage of the terms). All RTS released to date do not require any form of adaptive learning. The is one optimal way to extract and utilize resources. An competent expert system is capable of micromanaging individual units with much greater performance than any human being could, assuming physical interface is required. With a simple Expert System running on a modern CPU it should be able to evaluate and issue millions of commands per second, something no human would be capable of since we as humans have uncountable evaluations being processed that are not part of the exact goal of winning the game and therefor take away from our ability to do so (This is why Tommy was so good at pinball).
No company has ever released the best AI/ES possible since it would be a waste of resource to build the best AI/ES possible since no one would enjoy playing against it. Just take a look at the time cost that was put into developing Deep Blue, which I should point out has not been defeated since defeating the reigning world chess champion in 1997. It is also important to note that Deep Blue was not the first computer to beat a reigning world chess champion, jut the first to do it "under standard chess tournament time controls" and that it's successors have repeatedly draw or beat current and past world champions.
So far no one has come up with a purely intellectual (unaffected by physical circumstance) scenario that has a limited number of outcomes and all information is available (this caveat is why there has been no computer to consistently beat top ranked professional poker players) where a human being was more capable than a computerized system. There are many that have yet been challenged but of those that have been challenged the computers always come out ahead.
I don't really understand how someone could be considered an 'expert' JAVA programmer without knowledge of whats happening at the lower levels Two clarifications need to be made here if this is to be believed. Human beings are only on par with artificial intelligence in regards to pure strategy scenarios when then human is give significant thinking time and the number of options is relatively limited. Event he best chess players in the world will admit that a computer can calculate the most obvious scenarios much faster than a human can. Given on 4 seconds to think a computer will almost always beat a human player. Even the Expert Systems used in Real Time strategies have to be significantly handicapped if the human player is expected to be able to compete. One thing to remember that there is a limit to the humans short term memory and absolute judgement (as discussed by Miller in the Magical Number 7 +/- 2) which is not true of computer systems. The expert systems used in RTS do not need to use check points, squad groups or anything else that is added to attempt to give the human player a fighting chance, because they can calculate the position of ever visible unit in nearly unmeasurable time, after all the computer is already doing that just to run the game.
Though the best players in the world can beat the best AI at simple strategy games, this does not translate to the typical situation where even an average Expert System can beat the average player in most other games. Most Expert Systems (very few video games use Artificial Intelligence) are dumbed (or slowed) down to make the game playable, though I'm sure most non-programmers don't believe that.
Also, you make JAVA sound like some easy language to learn which to my mind does'nt make sense. JAVA is after all a fully Object-Oriented language... No wonder the idea of Java (It's not an acronym) as an easy language is incomprehensible too you since you can't even comprehend that Java is not a fully Object-Oriented language. Try using a fully Object Oriented language, such as small talk, and then try and say that Java is fully Object Oriented. I know you going to try and say that event though the language is not fully OO it can be code in a way to be fully OO, but by that definition so can C.
I don't really understand how someone could be considered an 'expert' JAVA programmer without knowledge of whats happening at the lower levels. So to be an expert in modern english (the language not the band) you also have to have knowledge of latin? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just asking the question.
I'm guessing that you would want some info stored regarding the precision and accuracy of the value recorded. The only thing I want is that the value I set be the value returned if no operations happen on that value(190000.37f). And I expect that if any mathematical operation is performed on that value and then the exact opposite operation is performed I get back the original value (i.e multiply/divide). If the storage unit can only handle X significant digits accurately then it should only hold X significant digits regardless, not X accurately and >X with predictable, but hardly justifiable, accuracy.
Luckily I have never worked on a project where accuracy didn't matter.
...[they] are not expert programmers, they are generally self taught Java programmers... I have to take issue with the connotation that self taught programmers are not expert programmers. You do realize the only reason there are Educated programmers is because some where along the way self taught programmers decided to teach. I also don't like that you assume self taught java programmers have no knowledge of lower level development such as C, Assembly and Machine Code. It may be the fact that I learned how to programmer before there were CS degrees available, but I can tell you from experience that I would normally chose a self taught programmer or someone who has a CS degree from some prestigious school. I have actually met good programmers from both backgrounds, but to really make it and be self taught takes a lot more skill since you don't have a piece of paper to fall back on when someone points out you haven't a clue what you are doing.
...that are either very familiar with a large variety of libraries in Java, or have figured out how to put together.jsp pages and.java pages using Struts to implement the MVC model on an application server. As opposed to the numerous CS grads that can spout of the inner workings of the latest white hat security algorithm yet couldn't put together a real world business application under stringent client requirements if their life depended on it. And yes I realize that CS was not intended to teach programming, I just wish the CS grads and IT/IS managers would realize it and stop wasting real programmers time with having to deal with them.
In the end it appears that a mix of formal and self education is really the best way to go. And I'll tell you if I'm right when I get done with my CE (or CSE according to the state school I go to) degree.
The camera works great (because it's scripted). For me the fixed/scripted camera was the only part of the game I have truly disliked so far (at least technically). There are many hide items in the game and not being able to actually look around makes finding some of these things a real bitch. I don't know how many times I've had to just jump off a ledge, to my death usually, just to check and see if there were a hidden ledge below. Now this was not a problem in games like the first two OddWorlds, but since this some times means repeating a 15 minute battle in GOW2 it gets pretty annoying.
Oh and the fact that the titans don't move full body except in the cut scenes, which SoC showed would have been quite possible, even on last gen hardware.
If that isn't a bug, I don't know what is. That is because the IEEE standards for floating point values is the biggest and most prolific bug in software today.
Slashdot Mirror
Your interpretation of "regulated" is an interesting one, and one I had never heard before, and I have heard 2nd Amendment arguments for a long time. But even if you interpretation is valid, why is it that it is ok to back date the word "regulated" but not "firearm." By your logic "firearm", as used in the constitution, refers to flint lock single shot rifles and low power single shot hand guns, which are basically weapons which produce less kenetic energy that many modern BB or Pellet guns. After all you even said that "regulated" means "adequate supply of ball & powder." I don't see alot of drive by shootings being done with black powder rifles.
Even if you go along with the regulated part, how do you justify the effective banning of current issue military small arms for sale to citizens? I don't, and I don't care too. I'm am neither a supporter or opponent of firearm control laws. Personally I have never been in, witnessed, or even heard about a single situation were a firearm was required to solve a problem, but this doesn't mean that I care who does or does not have firearms.
First I want to clarify that I was not comparing Communism and Fascism, I was stating that Fascism is a form of Socialism. It so happens that Communism, as well as Anarchism are also forms of Socialism, but try not to think I confuse Communism (Marxist or Soviet for that mater) with Fascism. Second do not confuse Neo-Libertarianism, which is a product of the last 20 to 30 years with Classical Libertarianism or more specifically Libertarian Socialism.
Fascism, and its bastardized brother Nationalist Socialism, are rooted in concepts that are most definitely socialist. Even though the founders of Fascism did not specifically speak of the proletariat, or class systems at all for that matter, does not change the idea that Fascism was for the benefit of all people. By seeking what is best for the State, Fascist would necessarily seek what is best for the people since with out people there is no State. If we are to believe The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle we see there are even more similarities between Socialism and Fascism in theory that in actual practice. The Manifesto claims, in far more specific ways than Socialist theory, that there should be steps towards equality including, Universal Suffrage (including voting rights for Women), The participation of workers' representatives and Labor Unions in the functions of industry commissions as well as other issues of labor meant to relieve the worker from the threat of exploitation. The idea that individual people are expendable is certainly not unique to Fascism, and can be seen in all Political Philosophies, even Neo-Libertarianism.
You are correct to say that some of the "break down" in understanding Fascism as a form of Socialism, does come form a "misrepresentation of libertarianism" but not in the way you are thinking. When I speak of Libertarianism, which in my previous post I actually didn't, I am speaking of Classical European Libertarianism, such as was theorized in the 1800s through late-mid 1900s. Classical Libertarianism is much different than the modern western usage of the term, which is also why I previously only spoke of Libertarian Socialism specifically. Libertarian Socialism is a term that covers Anarchism, Anarcho-syndiclism and any other collectivism without government, which in theory includes Marxist Communism. Neo-Libertarianism, the modern, and incorrect, use of the term, is more a bi-product of western Narcissism than any sound political theory. The only similarities between Neo-Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism are in social freedoms, where as they are in direct contrast when it comes to economic freedoms. Libertarian Socialist believe that to be free to do as the will socially, people would need to be relieved of the need to worry about economic issues. Explaining both Libertarian Socialism and Neo-Libertarianism would take alot more space than I'm willing to take up on slashdot but I'm sure a few goggle searches would reveal the answers fairly quickly (even faster if you trust wikipedia).
If you are one of the unlucky who is being forced to write web based applications I suggest you quit. Baring quitting XUL is the only realistic solution. XUL Applications can be written so they can be used effectively remote as well as installed as a desktop application. Unlike the other frameworks it only takes a little knowledge of XBL to fix all the bugs the Mozilla foundation decided to leave in XUL. Personally I can't stand web apps or rapid development, but if you have to you might as well use the only viable option. Oh, and what every you do don't call it "Zool", regardless of the ghostbusters referencing, it's lame.
Wether envy is cause or effect of private property is a "Chicken and Egg" argument but no mater how you look at it Envy is the desire to have that which one perceives they have not. But from my limited knowledge of history it appears that very few people seek to create the inequality necessary for Envy to thrive and that the majority would be content in an equal, and improving, society. I say improving because we all seek to have better lives and as long as out lives are improving, and the social atmosphere where not the current capitalist one, then people would be content.
Although I am not alone in my association of Fascism as a branch of socialism I do realize that I am in a minority. But I think I can explain it fairly clearly and let you decided if you think the association is correct or not. According to wikipedia "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." Regardless of the source, this is a fair and broad description of socialism. Socialism can be simply summed up as the complete removal of the right to private property (notice that Socialism doesn't mandate how property is controlled or that their be equality). It is true that this is not the way Marx, Engels and others used the term in prior years but it is the current general understanding of the term. So inside Socialism there are a number of different was to implement the specifics. Anarchy for one is a specific branch of Libertarian Socialism, which can be summed up as Self Governing society where no one controls property or the means of production. The Economic system of Fascism can easily be categorized as Authoritarian Socialism, where property and the means of production are controlled by the state. Fascism differs from Communism (not to be confused with Sovietism) mostly on the grounds of who controls property. Marx expressed that government was a necessary evil and merely a means to communism and should be held in check by the people. Mussolini believed government was responsible for doing what was best for the state, which he believed was also best for the people.
Just to clarify there is no argument that Collectivism is an aspect or form of Socialism, and sometimes the terms are even used interchangeably. If this is true then Mussolini's statement in The Doctrine of Fascism "If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State" clearly shows that he envisioned Fascism is as form Collectivism. So on the socialist scale there is a far right authoritarian Fascism, the far left libertarian Anarchy and a more centrist Communism, just to name the few major factions. Interestingly enough that these were the three major systems that the Spanish Civil war was fought over.
The Fact that you equate Fascism with Capitalism by way of Corporatism and I equate it to Socialism only goes to show that any political system taken to it's extreme becomes, or appears like, it's diametrically opposed system. For example the extreme Neo-Libertarianism would be giving up the right to govern any ones actions other than your own, but in doing so you also give up the right to govern that none shall govern your actions, since the moment one demands that someone else not govern them they are taking away some of that persons Liberties. Just as unchecked Capitalism taken to the extreme must eventually end in Monarchy as a single person will eventually maintain all power.
...Get Rid of Envy The Marxist ideal is exactly what is needed to remove the consistent Envy that plagues modern societies. Until the destruction of the concepts of private property there will always be envy, or at least the potential for envy. And yes I concede that we would need to give up ones self as private property before envy could be truly eradicated, but giving up externals as private property would be a long way towards the reduction of envy.I am not actually Marxist, but rather tends toward one of two different philosophies, being Fascism (because people are too stupid to govern themselves) and Classical Libertarianism(because people are too stupid to govern others), both of which I happen to views as branches of Socialism.
If you are the kind of person who "falls" in and out of "love" I would suggest reconsidering what it is you love, since it's obviously not the person or the job, or question wether you even love at all.
Just so you know it is possible to help your children avoid situations that will cause them harm and teach them how to respect other people. It's possible to not give your child access to violence (which I find far more damaging socially and personally than nudity) and still teach them to me a respectable person. For example one of the most respectful people I know, who holds doors for women, children and elderly, to say the least of his gentlemanly acts, was not allowed to watch certain saturday morning cartoons because of the violent content. Believe it or not you can teach you child to sit up straight while they do things other than play video games (let alone violent ones).
After all it should always go People Who Mostly Work > People Who Mostly Play > People Who Do Nothing.
if there is some other infocus 5000 other than the SP5000 then I apologize. Just hate to see you having a faulty unit or Infocus making claims and updates for functionality that does not exist.
No company has ever released the best AI/ES possible since it would be a waste of resource to build the best AI/ES possible since no one would enjoy playing against it. Just take a look at the time cost that was put into developing Deep Blue, which I should point out has not been defeated since defeating the reigning world chess champion in 1997. It is also important to note that Deep Blue was not the first computer to beat a reigning world chess champion, jut the first to do it "under standard chess tournament time controls" and that it's successors have repeatedly draw or beat current and past world champions.
So far no one has come up with a purely intellectual (unaffected by physical circumstance) scenario that has a limited number of outcomes and all information is available (this caveat is why there has been no computer to consistently beat top ranked professional poker players) where a human being was more capable than a computerized system. There are many that have yet been challenged but of those that have been challenged the computers always come out ahead.
Though the best players in the world can beat the best AI at simple strategy games, this does not translate to the typical situation where even an average Expert System can beat the average player in most other games. Most Expert Systems (very few video games use Artificial Intelligence) are dumbed (or slowed) down to make the game playable, though I'm sure most non-programmers don't believe that.
Luckily I have never worked on a project where accuracy didn't matter.
...[they] are not expert programmers, they are generally self taught Java programmers... I have to take issue with the connotation that self taught programmers are not expert programmers. You do realize the only reason there are Educated programmers is because some where along the way self taught programmers decided to teach. I also don't like that you assume self taught java programmers have no knowledge of lower level development such as C, Assembly and Machine Code. It may be the fact that I learned how to programmer before there were CS degrees available, but I can tell you from experience that I would normally chose a self taught programmer or someone who has a CS degree from some prestigious school. I have actually met good programmers from both backgrounds, but to really make it and be self taught takes a lot more skill since you don't have a piece of paper to fall back on when someone points out you haven't a clue what you are doing.
...that are either very familiar with a large variety of libraries in Java, or have figured out how to put togetherIn the end it appears that a mix of formal and self education is really the best way to go. And I'll tell you if I'm right when I get done with my CE (or CSE according to the state school I go to) degree.
Oh and the fact that the titans don't move full body except in the cut scenes, which SoC showed would have been quite possible, even on last gen hardware.
If that isn't a bug, I don't know what is. That is because the IEEE standards for floating point values is the biggest and most prolific bug in software today.