No. I characterized the movie as Marxist. Which it was. Half the time was spent blaming capitalism and Corporate America as the source of the problem, and right or wrong, that is generally a Marxist sort of argument.
After watching a video tape by Noam Chomsky in my Political Science class, I wrote the attached response. It is wholly relevant, so don't dismiss it on the basis of the first paragraph.
-----
Is there ever such a thing as a truly unique and novel idea? Is it that unreasonable to believe that nearly all our thoughts are ultimately rooted in (or limited by) our culture, books, language, body of sciences, collection of arts, and so on? Albert Einstein, hailed as one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time once said, "If I have seen farther than others it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." He was referring to the intellectuals before him which provided the necessary groundwork for his theories. It's in that sense that Memetic Theory contends we aren't quite the champions of free will and individual thought we would like to think we are. In light of this, a new sense of urgency about the media emerges because if Memetic Theory is right, the media has not only the power to shape how we think but ultimately who we are.
Given this, it should be paramount to promote an ethical and journalistic approach to informing the masses. Unfortunately this hasn't been the case. The world of broadcast journalism these days is a cutthroat business that tends to select for those who excel in office politics and Machiavellian tactics. The result has had a startling impact of the quality of the journalism in America and an immeasurable impact upon our society. When JFK was assassinated, Walter Cronkite was chastised for crying on air by his colleges because his emotional appeal was simply not good journalism. Contrast that with the nightly stories on what foods could kill you or your children, the threat of school shootings, or wild animal attacks that form the nightly lineup of the average national News show. In his book "The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things," sociologist Barry Glassner, examines how the modern-day media, devoid of any ethical standards, intentionally exaggerates remote dangers like the ones above in order to scare the public in to watching. Recent data confirms this by showing that despite declining crime rates, public perception is that crime is on the rise.
Having already lost the sense of good journalism and ethics, can the modern-day media honestly be expected to NOT to interject their personal bias into their reporting of political issues? Even if we don't, certainly we could hope that the media is diverse enough to the point where one biased opinion would be countered by another. Unfortunately, recent data suggests that the media does not ideologically reflect the make-up of the United States at all. The Pew Research Center's latest poll conducted earlier this year finds that journalists are typically far more liberal than the average American. Only 7% of national journalists are self-described conservatives as opposed to the 33% that make up the general population. Similarly, only 20% of the population calls itself liberal while 34% of journalists do. What's more is there's also evidence to suggest that even the self-described moderates in the media are more liberal as well. The same study showed that while only 51% of the population thought homosexuality should be accepted by society, 88% of national journalists do. Clearly, a disproportionate number (~ +10%) of self-described moderates held this view with respect to the average population. It only stands to reason that, given the liberal nature of American journalists and the breakdown of ethical journalism, the media is, subsequently, liberal as well.
Some would argue that the corporate sponsorship of the media prevents a liberal slant from tainting the news and, if anything, makes the coverage conservative. I don't believe this to be the case. While corporate sponsorship may prevent one media source from reporting a particular story, what prevents other, non-sponsored media sources from reporting the same story? Even in this undesirable si
The only film I can remember that does use either fallacy is "12 Monkeys" (prehaps also Terminator 1). It supports a fully predestined theory of time-travel, where the only "changes" the traveller makes are exactly what was required to reach the future he came from.
With regard to the protagonist's life, yes. However, things aren't quite fully "self-contained." For instance, why is it that the protagonist's messages are only "found/decoded" in the future AFTER he makes them? Furthermore, watch the end of the movie again. The head scientist from the future, is sitting beside the doomsday guy. To dispel any doubts that this is coincidence, she even identifies herself as "Johns" (remember, most people in the future use only their last names) and states that her job is "insurance." Thus, the information gained from the past by the future was used to put her there to, ultimately, stop or limit the plague.
12 Monkeys is such an interesting movie, but I wouldn't say it provided a clearly coherent view of time travel (if that's even possible).
Are you saying that it's never honourable to refuse to participate in something that you consider morally wrong?
No, I'm saying it's dis-honorable to break a serious and legitimate agreement, like the social contract with one's society.
Can you not like many of the attributes of your country, but want to change that one, and so remain there and try to change it?
Sure, you may disagree with a certain attribute, but by remaining in the country's borders, your obligations are no different from anyone else, despite your opinions. Why do you think it is that the doctrine of civil disobedience dictates that one does not resist arrest and must face punishment for his or her dissent?
This really isn't that difficult of a concept. We don't live in a state of Anarchy where one does whatever he or she feels is right. We live in a representative democracy where the hope is that our laws represent the consensus of what the citizens believe. No person is expected to be the "model citizen" embodying the oftentimes conflicting views that our laws present, but they are still bound by the laws with which they differ. Conscription is no different.
The outcome of the Nuremberg trials, where it was determined that following orders does not constitute a defense, puts the obligation on you to make your own moral decisions and follow them - not blindly do what Uncle Sam says.
For this analogy to be correct, you'd have to equate our military involvement in Iraq (or the middle east in general) with the mass murder of millions of innocent civilians with the intent of racial cleansing for which the Nuremberg trials were conducted. I don't think even Michael Moore would try that one.
Regardless, you're still missing an important point: conscription isn't the same as telling someone to do something immoral. It's telling them they must serve in the armed forces, which the Nuremberg trials you refer to concluded to be moral. Your point would only be valid if you were LATER ordered to deliberately blow up a church or gas a city, and you did without dissent. It's at THAT point that the Nuremberg trials concluded that one should dissent--not before. Otherwise, by your logic, all German servicemen should have been hanged.
Not always. Remember, not all aplications involving time need to know the actual time with respect to the world. In fact, where this development will come in really handy will be ones where only the CHANGE IN (delta) time will be relevant.
The first that comes to mind is GPS. With an atomic clock onboard, GPS systems will be able to drastically decrease the range of error and, as the grandparent stated, require one less satallite, for functionality.
...but I certainly will do so if I believe the cause is just but I will NOT kill someone just because my government conscripts me and says "Kill or go to jail, your choice!".
But it's not that simple. You wouldn't be conscripted were you not a citizen of the United States to begin with--a citizen who agreed with the possibility of conscription implicitly by living here and EXPLICITLY when you registered with the Selective Service System. If you didn't agree with the possibility of conscription, you could have left then to Canada, Europe or wherever.
By staying within the United States, you reap the benefits that our society brings. You enjoy a higher standard of living, modern health care, educational opportunities, and relative safety. The cost, as an adult, is that you keep up your end of the bargain through things like paying your taxes, following the laws, and, yes, being conscripted when your country needs you.
Conscription should be reserved for wars in which the survival of the country is at stake, World War II is the only recent war which meets that criteria.
Unfortunately, that ISN'T the criteria. Go to sss.gov for more information. If you don't like it, vote or pressure your congressmen to have it changed. Or, go to another country BEFORE you're called upon if it means that much to you. I know it sucks that you (and I, for that matter, being a 20-year-old male) may have to fight (and maybe die) in a war that you, as an individual, may not agree with, but it's the reality of life and, again, part of you retaining your end of the social contract.
I believe that people who feel an overwhelming urge to murder without any specific reason why should in all good faith submit themselves to this process before they start murdering people.
How can you honestly expect people who feel an irrational urge to kill to have the cognitive capacity to: 1. Correctly identify their psychological problem (quite a feat for even normal people) 2. Submit to confinement and unpleasurable treatment for the abstract goal of the better good of society.
...The world's population is exploding and that means that there's a lot of surplus people around...They aren't going to be missed and there's a lot of people who aren't serial killers around to take their place...
Here's the fallacy of your argument: the moral status of a human being does not change with respect to the world's population. In fact, the two are wholly unrelated. Murder is equally wrong if its committed upon 10th or 10 trillionth person. Besides, who decides who is "surplus" and who isn't? You? Can you point to any specific biological reason why you, as opposed to myself, couldn't be the surplus?
There are religious objections to this point of view, of course. But the religious laws were formulated thousands of years ago when there weren't many people around,it wasn't easy to bring infants into adults, people died mysteriously (from disease and accident), and no one lived very long anyway (average life span about 3000 years ago was about 35-40 years).
Ahh... but there are ETHICAL (and logical) objections to that point of view too, and no matter what your religious views, these are just as relevant today as they were 3000 years ago.
Basically the entire Iraqi war is an attempt on the part of the Christian fundamentalists who are now running the USA to force the Muslems to change and adapt to the new conditions in the world that technology has created in the past century
Christian fundamentalists run the US? Well that's news to me, both a Christian and a US resident. You're making the mistake many liberals make by confusing Bush's pandering to the "bible-belt" as evidence of his religious views. Bush may be conservative, but that shouldn't be taken as him being extremely religious. In fact, he, and the Bush family in general is quite moderate in their religious points of view. Regardless, for your thesis to be correct (i.e. Christian fundamentalists "run" the United States), you'd have to come up with some good explanations to the following: 1. prevalence of the gay marriage issue in American politics 2. The continuing practice of legalized abortion 3. The secular nature of our schooling system and public places 4. The acceptance of other religions and practices contrary to fundamentalist Christianity in both public life and legal standing. I could go on, but I think you have enough on your plate already.
For you what all the stuff above means is that since this is a stupid endless wastefull and hopeless war, it would be in your best interest not to fight in it. Don't allow yourself to be conscripted into fighting this war. Don't sign up to fight it and don't allow yourself to get drafted when conscription of the 19-year-olds begins again next year. History has shown that it is more honorable to do whatever degrading things that are necessary to avoid being forced into a stupid war than it is to suffer in a 'patriotic' manner as a result of 'serving' in a stupid war...
If you don't agree with the war, vote against it and convince others to do the same. However, you have no right to resist conscription unless you have extreme moral objections to killing in general--which, according to your earlier statements, you do not. By willingly residing within the United States, you agree to the possibility of conscription (read more of Glaucon's Social contract theory if you don't believe me). Your cowardice and/or opinions do not change your societal obligations, and failing to uphold those obligations is perhaps one of the most dis-honorable things a person can do.
I refused to help from then on out. Let him handle it when the machine is so slow and the webpages won't load properly.
That's just it. He won't handle it. It'll be one of us technically inclined people, in the end. I don't know how many calls I got as an ISP tech that ended up being due to spyware because people think slow page loads mean "my interweb service provider is slow."
Well, I wasn't going to respond to your post because it was ridden with unnecessary personal attacks, but I'll bite.
It is possible to understand without knowing all the details. I understand coronary artery bypass surgery. Does that mean I'm a heart surgeon? No. Is it necessary for me to be a heart surgeon in order to understand coronary artery bypass surgery? No.
But not all topics are so easy from a conceptual point of view like coronary artery bypass surgery might be (eg. "re-routing the pipes" or whatever). I'm not arguing that all difficult subjects can be simplified in concept to some degree. Of course they can. The problem is the over-simplification that inevitably results from "soundbites" and the "30 second pitch."
Yeah, that's basically bullshit. Some people love to talk about how mass communication has taken us further from some ideal of participatory democracy, but they forget that before mass communication things were even worse.
First of all, all I said was that the mass-media and the "sound bite" have changed politics in America. It was a statement of fact. It has. In fact, by you saying things were "worse" before mass communication, you're agreeing with me; it has changed. Whether this change is for the advancement or detriment of participatory democracy, only time will tell.
Untrue. Both Presidential candidates are giving hour-plus stump speeches that go into great detail about their policies and agendas. (Well, Bush is. Kerry, not so much. But that's because he's a lousy candidate. It's not an indictment of any kind of system.)
But the presidential election is quite unique in terms of politics, is it not? The "system" is much, much larger than the Executive branch. The article I was referring to was describing the political strategies of state and national congressmen.
Hyperbole does not make you more attractive.
Nor do your childish personal attacks suite you, but that's neither here nor there because it's not hyperbole anyway. You said, "Most anything can be explained in 30 seconds." I took that as nearly any idea, including some of the most complex ones (which can be defined as "infinite" for our purposes) can be explained in 30 seconds. Sure, it may only have been a figure of speech on your part, but the rest of my post was equally rhetorical in nature and served only to question the basis of your conclusion.
You need to stop thinking in terms of encyclopedia pages and start thinking in terms of sound bites.
In other words, make it devoid of all true understanding of the material and take the flashy (and let's not forget politically-correct) pulp left behind as all there is to know... great...
I was reading an article the other day that described how the "sound bite" and modern media in general have irreversibly changed politics in the U.S. For example, rather than say anything risky or possibly requiring an in-depth understanding of an issue, most politicians prefer to repeat nearly the same paragraph only slightly changed knowing that: 1. most people AT the speech will already vote for him/her anyway 2. that they can control what appears in network TV as the "sound bite" and 3. that nothing they ever say publicly will ever come back to "niggardly" haunt them in the future.
On the contrary. Most anything can be explained in 30 seconds. You just have to have both the ability and the willingness to tell the person you're talking to what he needs to know by relating it to things he already understands.
Funny... and here I was spending years at college when I could just spent a few minutes sitting down with the right people. Don't I feel like a fool...
I really fail to understand this mentality that every idea in the world can be simplified to a 30 second "sound-bite" without losing or missing anything important. If that's the case: why 30 seconds? Why not 20? Or 10, for that matter? In fact, explain in 10 seconds (beginning *NOW*) why the 30 is a more appropriate number than 10, since you would have us believe that even infinitely complex ideas can already be broken down so easily.
I'm not really concerned with how it handles foreseeable situations (ie. holes in the ground). I have no doubt that the engineers will make it quite intelligent for normal operation.
What I'm worried about is how well it will handle unexpected situations. For instance, what happens both a critical sensor and its backup simultaneously malfunction or if the airbag doesn't get far enough under the lander, and so on. It's these situations that matter, because if the A.I. chooses incorrectly, we could end up with a multi-billion dollar twitching piece of metal on the Martian surface.
Are they worried about them being re-exported? If so, they should not cripple the functionality, but cripple the languages. Make it so that all the menus text boxes etc. are only in one language(that cannot be changed). I doubt people in the US want Thai menus etc. They should still be allowed to type in other languages though.
After being an unpaid "Windows technician" for all my friends, I can navigate through the system, sometimes without even looking--let alone without reading the text. I know this for a fact, because one of my friends uses Chinese as his computer language. Given that desktop Windows generally runs on the manpower of an army of unpaid, friendly geeks, I'd suspect there are a quite number of people who can do the same.
Contrary to the view that Bush is currently attempting to defend, there really doesn't appear to be a solid link between the Jihadis and Saddam's regime, which I've admittedly found very confusing, (yes lefties, I know, "duh").
Of course that's ignoring the fact that Saddam paid the families of Suicide bombers in "Palestine" $50,000 (imagine how much that can buy in that shithole) each. And while we're at it let's also forget that that Iraq had multiple active Al-Qaeda training camps in its borders pre-war. I guess when you ignore those and the fact that top-level Al-Quada officials received safe-haven and aide in Iraq, then yeah... there's no connection at all...
You can't "stockpile" biological and chemical agents, because they have a relatively short shelf life (compared to conventional explosives). However, the delivery mechanisms can be "stockpiled", such as medium-range missles and warheads designed to deploy such agents.
This isn't true. Anthrax endospores can last, as far as we know, centuries (maybe longer, we, obviously, can't test over that kind of timeline). That's, in fact, one of the things that makes it such a good weapon. Similarly, smallpox is caused by a virus which, unlike living bacterial cells, can be dormant for, again, an indefinite period of time before coming into contact with a host.
I can't speak for too many chemical agents (I'm a Biology student), but I do know for a fact that Cyanide gas is quite stable. I would also expect chemicals like VX nerve gas or Serin to have similar shelflifes (otherwise, who would want them?)
You know, after becoming apart of the local EMS personnel, I've realized one glaring vulnerability that nobody ever talks about: Our national roadways.
Imagine this scenario: Various groups of 4-5 men pile into minivans (w/ the side doors) full of assault rifles, grenades, sticky homemade bombs and so on. Then they drive on an interstate and attack vehicles--specifically targeting each and every truck w/ a hazard (flammable/poisonous/etc.) placard. If each van got at least 10-20 trucks, we'd have a serious problem.
Most areas only have at best 2 or 3 HAZMAT teams, and each downed truck would need their attention for at least a couple hours. In short time you would have saturation of the EMS response, and a virtual standstill on said interstate. Even worse, people would (understandably) be scared to even drive.
The only limit to doing something like this would be finding enough men and making sure they all knew when to begin. The guns/vans could be legally bought and bombs could consist of fuse-lit, house-hold materials. No special training would be required and no security measures would have to be overcame.
I think the real problem is: our society is just so open that we are always going to be vunerable SOMEWHERE. Rather than trying to secure each and every possible security hole (which, is self-defeating and at some point has diminishing returns) we should attach the problem at its source by eliminating bastions of extremist islamic fundamentalism throughout the world.
It's too bad there's no "incoherent leftist babble" mod, because this is ridiculous.
To assume that you can understand terrorism without first living the life that these people lead is naive and ingenuous.
This is ridiculous. I don't have to live as a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan to glean that their movement is a fascist, religiously intolerant temper tantrum against the modern world. All I have to do is LISTEN to what THEY THEMSELVES say about their movement and WATCH as they behead innocent civilians simply because they aren't muslim.
"Terrorism" is not about "Them", or "A vs. B". Terrorism is a War against those whould define the terms of Terrorism, and those who would define the terms of Civilization.
In other words, true terrorists are those who create a 'bad guy' in order to convince their fellow man to go to war...
And I guess that was a desperate attempt to paint President Bush and/or the United States as a terrorist, right? Gimme a break.
Rather than redefining the word "terrorism" next time we want to push our own agendas, let's just call a spade a spade. Rather than terrorism, we're in a war against Fundamentalist Islam.
And those shuttle crews always knew that. The shuttle couldn't somehow 'magicly' be safer to launch and use than unmanned spacecrafts.
Now wait just a minute. Is spaceflight dangerous? Yes, of course. But did it have to be THAT dangerous? NO!
We're not talking magic, just some basic common sense. NASA, before the time of the accident, was an even more bureaucratic mess than it is now. Thousands of safety waivers were signed off nearly every mission. Engineers were "pressured" not to talk to management about safety concerns, and to top it all off, the one SURE thing that could have prevented the accident (satellite photos from the DoD), were cancelled at the last minute because some douche bag in management though it might "appear like" incompetence.
I mean, it's nice to know the TECHNICAL reasons for what caused the shuttle failure, but let's not lose sight of the unforgivable bureaucratic confusion that allowed an understandable mistake to go unnoticed and uncorrected. How many more lives and billions of dollars do we have to waste before we stop blaming "foam gluing" or English standard units and address the real root of the problem?
You're wrong. Books and inventions have been protected since the 1790...that's almost as long as this country has existed. I found this out using a search engine called Google. It's full of facts, as opposed to guesses.
No no no, you're not understanding what I said. It's too bad that google thing doesn't help with READING COMPREHENSION. Perhaps I should just put it this way, nice and simple: WITH RESPECT TO things such as books, music, and inventions, the idea of patents is VERY new. To prove me wrong, you'd have to find an instance of copyrighting before all known instances of music, literature, and so on, and I think we all know you won't. This is for one very simple reason: Music and books, and human ingenuity existed and even flourished ("Inconceivable!", says the media mogul) long before any copyright protections. Thus, the grandparent's assumption is obviously false.
Nobody's in dispute on the right to protect copyright, either. At least, nobody important.
Nobody important? Or nobody with the money to buy votes in congress or fill the school curriculum, or employ an army of lawyers? But then, again, I guess you're the definitive source for who's important, so you MUST be right.
Well, I, for one, AM disputing the "right" to "protect" copyright.
-Our law is based upon the premise that the punishment should fit the crime. If the RIAA wanted, under current laws, it can and, as we have seen, WOULD sue for $120,000 dollars per song shared illegally. But I guess you have to break a few eggs, namely a fair legal system, if you want to make a bunch of media elites and a couple token artists rich, right?
-Intangible objects mean just what the definition of intangible states. They cannot be held or contained. An individual idea is such an indefinable confluence of culture and society that for one person to claim complete "ownership" is laughable. Don't get me wrong, I'm for strict enforcement of plagiarism laws, but when the patent and copyright system is broken to the point where even grade-schoolers (the nefarious thought-criminals they are) need an education on how to "use it right," ISN'T IT OBVIOUS that a basic, fundamental part of the system is incorrect?
This is important. Because copyright protection is one of the luxuries of living in America. We treat intellectual property in many of the same ways we treat physical property, and as a result, we have had some really great authors, musicians, directors, software companies, inventors, etc. Knock the BSA/MPAA/RIAA for being dicks about it if you want, but all they're doing is what you're supposed to do when somebody infringes on your copyright: find them, and demand restitution.
Care to provide any proof that authors/inventors/musicians are the DIRECT result of increased copyright protections? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't copyrights a rather new idea with respect to MUSIC, BOOKS, and INVENTIONS?
I disagree with your statement. In fact, I would change it to the following:
We treat intellectual property in many of the same ways we treat physical property, and as a result, we have unclear laws that fail to recognize that intangible really means just that, a confused populace who often (understandably) can't define what a copyright, trademark, or patent are or even mean, and an organized bourgeois who feel the need to "reeducate" our children on the righteous path of blind consumerism.
Does that mean a curriculum designed by the BSA is a great idea? Well, it's no worse than the oral hygiene curriculum designed by Crest I had in elementary school, a program to which I credit my fantastic smile. 'Course, I use Toms of Maine nowadays...
You're missing the point. NOBODY is in dispute on the issue of ORAL HYGIENE. Comparing it with an issue so complex and debatable as the oxymoron of "intellectual property" is ridiculous.
In case you don't have one of these Belkin Speedpad 52s already, they're awesome. I use it for gaming, and there's no limit to what you can program these things to do. In fact, I might even consider using one borderline cheating if you program the macros well enough.
Anyway, because I had some with the "profile editor" of the included software, I went ahead (after reading the article) and made a profile that does (what I believe) the original author had intended.
I did this in about 30 minutes, so bear with me if some keys are missing or if it's a little buggy. All major symbols and lettered keys are included but I still need to find where to put keys like "[", "]", and so on.
I broke the keyboard down into 4 logical secions:
1. All function keys / most symbols
2. Right lettered side
3. Left letter side
4. Numpad
From there, I made each of those sections one of the four "shifts" for the controller. Shifting is controlled via the 4-way D-pad with up being "cycle shift", right being right letters, left being the left letters, and down being the numpad. Function keys are the default. Additionally, because of the frequency of their use, the enter and space keys exist in all "shifts" on the circle button and button number 15, respectively.
I know this sounds complicated, but it's really not. Once you take a look at the design in the profile editor, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm posting these files up on my university filespace. They're small, but if anybody wants to mirror, feel free to do so. Also, feel free to change my design and distribute as you see fit. (Patents/copyrights are for the birds, imo.)
To use these files, you'll have to already have to use the software that is included with the device. Directions, which consists of 2 steps, are included within the readme.
Actually, I have one of these things. I use it for Warcraft 3, Counterstrike, and Doom 3. The software that powers it rules (to the point where, I could see some people consider it cheating.)
Guys, there's no need for writing custom drivers. What the author is suggesting could be accompished in like 20 minutes with the included software. To be honest, the original author didn't know what he was talking about.
While you raise some good points, I feel like some of your ideas need a bit of revising.
Your interpretation to an art isn't always a correct one. As contradictory as it may seem and despite the fact that much of literature is a subjective experience, there are RIGHT and WRONG interpretations to works. You wouldn't believe some of the half-assed nonsense I've seen come out of fellow students (at both the collegiate and high school levels) in response to a selection. It wasn't until I realized that these people were completely failing to understand the work, that I recognized the value in reading comprehension. More often than not, I find that when an English teacher tells a student he or she is wrong, it is an indicator of a lack of understanding on part of either the student or the teacher rather than some conspiracy for shaping young minds. In fact, I have a hard time seeing any of the bohemian English teachers I've had doing anything of the sort.
Can one truly ever be a non-conformist? That is to say, we are all influenced by those around us (which, by the way, undermines the entire idea of copyrights in the arts to begin with). Some obviously more than others, but how is it that you see yourself above "the sheep" when you probably wear similar clothing, speak in a similar manner, drive/ride in a car, eat the same foods, use the same objects/money, go to the same places, listen to the same music, watch the same television programs, go to the same websites, and so on? What, exactly, is it that separates you, for instance, from "the sheep" rather than the few convenient things you purposely do differently? Your superior intellect, perhaps? Don't kid yourself. We, and subsequently our thoughts and actions, are all products of the societies in which we are raised. Non-conformity in a rule-based society simply isn't possible (by definition, it would be "anarchy," which isn't as cool as it sounds.) Ever notice how all gothics, self-professed non-conformists, all wear black? Kind of ironic how quickly an easily "non-conformity" became a fad, eh?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that thinking for yourself is a bad thing. Or, conversely, that blindly following a crowd is a good thing. But sometimes the crowd is right, and it's important for a critical thinker, such as yourself, to know when.
The point of the question was probably to realize that a full circle makes for 360 degrees. That would be a sign of intelligence. Blindly following the instructions would not be.
Oh please... Like the average European is somehow enlightened and different. In fact, if you want to go by the number of college graduates, the United States, is the most educated populace in the world. Hegemon we may be, but stupid we are not, so keep your anti-Americanism to yourself, Coward.
The point of the grandparent was that the instructions indicated that you had to measure EACH angle and SUM all of your MEASUREMENTS. Given the oftentimes subjective nature of individual measurements, a varying degree of answers *IS* correct. The answer 360 degrees is ONLY correct if the SUM of your MEASUREMENTS is similarly 360.
I don't think so. Canada is only one tenth the population of the US, and has a far lower per capita GDP than the US has (Canadian per capita GDP is the sama as Korea actually), yet Canada (and Korea) both still have far wider broadband deployments than the US.
You don't even think it's a factor? In terms of landmass, South Korea is approximately 1/4th the size of Utah. How could it NOT be a factor?
So its not about density, or 'too expensive'.. Just the people in the power to make change don't care to do anything about it..
You obviously haven't seen the trial that is getting broadband into a rural area (of which, South Korea has none). Trust me on this one, though, I have. You'd be amazed how difficult it is to run Fiber lines up a wooded mountain on the Appalachian, and even MORE amazed at how long it takes to get said lines serviced. Sure, with a wireless infrastructure, you can bounce access from tower to tower, but towers (and rented tower space) are insanely expensive. This fact lowers your already low profit margin for an area that might provide, AT BEST, 50 customers or so.
As much as I'd like to blame smoking men and bureaucrats on this one, that's just not the case. Comparing broadband penetration within the US and Korea is like comparing apples and oranges.
I agree with you with regard to "hate crime" legislation, but I'd like to go further. The real problem with these laws is how they will be enforced. For instance, if I, a white person, were killed by a group of black people who murdered me because of my race, I can almost guarantee you they wouldn't be charged with a hate crime. In fact, some lawyers might even try to make the case that the group was merely venting "social frustration", like some declared after the L.A. riots.
This problem of enforcement exists with all of these "specific" laws, because many crimes don't fit even the broad laws perfectly. For instance, the Laci Peterson law is a mess too. Of course the law fits the test case (i.e. Laci Peterson--8 mos. pregnant; did not want an abortion), but how does it fair for all cases? More aptly, how do you define "pregnant" and a dead person's intentions? Is "pregnant" the moment after conception? If so, what if the mother didn't know she was pregnant? Are we to assume she would or would not have had an abortion? What about embryos or babies with genetic defects who would not have survived gestation anyway? If "pregnant" is not the moment of conception, when exactly is it and is it non-arbitrary (i.e. "looks like a baby", etc.)?
None of these questions can be answered by the Laci Peterson law, because they aren't as emotionally divisive and require a bit more thought than baby-kissing politicians want to put-forth.
Slashdot Mirror
No. I characterized the movie as Marxist. Which it was. Half the time was spent blaming capitalism and Corporate America as the source of the problem, and right or wrong, that is generally a Marxist sort of argument.
-Grym
After watching a video tape by Noam Chomsky in my Political Science class, I wrote the attached response. It is wholly relevant, so don't dismiss it on the basis of the first paragraph.
-----
Is there ever such a thing as a truly unique and novel idea? Is it that unreasonable to believe that nearly all our thoughts are ultimately rooted in (or limited by) our culture, books, language, body of sciences, collection of arts, and so on? Albert Einstein, hailed as one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time once said, "If I have seen farther than others it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." He was referring to the intellectuals before him which provided the necessary groundwork for his theories. It's in that sense that Memetic Theory contends we aren't quite the champions of free will and individual thought we would like to think we are. In light of this, a new sense of urgency about the media emerges because if Memetic Theory is right, the media has not only the power to shape how we think but ultimately who we are.
Given this, it should be paramount to promote an ethical and journalistic approach to informing the masses. Unfortunately this hasn't been the case. The world of broadcast journalism these days is a cutthroat business that tends to select for those who excel in office politics and Machiavellian tactics. The result has had a startling impact of the quality of the journalism in America and an immeasurable impact upon our society. When JFK was assassinated, Walter Cronkite was chastised for crying on air by his colleges because his emotional appeal was simply not good journalism. Contrast that with the nightly stories on what foods could kill you or your children, the threat of school shootings, or wild animal attacks that form the nightly lineup of the average national News show. In his book "The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things," sociologist Barry Glassner, examines how the modern-day media, devoid of any ethical standards, intentionally exaggerates remote dangers like the ones above in order to scare the public in to watching. Recent data confirms this by showing that despite declining crime rates, public perception is that crime is on the rise.
Having already lost the sense of good journalism and ethics, can the modern-day media honestly be expected to NOT to interject their personal bias into their reporting of political issues? Even if we don't, certainly we could hope that the media is diverse enough to the point where one biased opinion would be countered by another. Unfortunately, recent data suggests that the media does not ideologically reflect the make-up of the United States at all. The Pew Research Center's latest poll conducted earlier this year finds that journalists are typically far more liberal than the average American. Only 7% of national journalists are self-described conservatives as opposed to the 33% that make up the general population. Similarly, only 20% of the population calls itself liberal while 34% of journalists do. What's more is there's also evidence to suggest that even the self-described moderates in the media are more liberal as well. The same study showed that while only 51% of the population thought homosexuality should be accepted by society, 88% of national journalists do. Clearly, a disproportionate number (~ +10%) of self-described moderates held this view with respect to the average population. It only stands to reason that, given the liberal nature of American journalists and the breakdown of ethical journalism, the media is, subsequently, liberal as well.
Some would argue that the corporate sponsorship of the media prevents a liberal slant from tainting the news and, if anything, makes the coverage conservative. I don't believe this to be the case. While corporate sponsorship may prevent one media source from reporting a particular story, what prevents other, non-sponsored media sources from reporting the same story? Even in this undesirable si
The only film I can remember that does use either fallacy is "12 Monkeys" (prehaps also Terminator 1). It supports a fully predestined theory of time-travel, where the only "changes" the traveller makes are exactly what was required to reach the future he came from.
With regard to the protagonist's life, yes. However, things aren't quite fully "self-contained." For instance, why is it that the protagonist's messages are only "found/decoded" in the future AFTER he makes them? Furthermore, watch the end of the movie again. The head scientist from the future, is sitting beside the doomsday guy. To dispel any doubts that this is coincidence, she even identifies herself as "Johns" (remember, most people in the future use only their last names) and states that her job is "insurance." Thus, the information gained from the past by the future was used to put her there to, ultimately, stop or limit the plague.
12 Monkeys is such an interesting movie, but I wouldn't say it provided a clearly coherent view of time travel (if that's even possible).
-Grym
Are you saying that it's never honourable to refuse to participate in something that you consider morally wrong?
No, I'm saying it's dis-honorable to break a serious and legitimate agreement, like the social contract with one's society.
Can you not like many of the attributes of your country, but want to change that one, and so remain there and try to change it?
Sure, you may disagree with a certain attribute, but by remaining in the country's borders, your obligations are no different from anyone else, despite your opinions. Why do you think it is that the doctrine of civil disobedience dictates that one does not resist arrest and must face punishment for his or her dissent?
This really isn't that difficult of a concept. We don't live in a state of Anarchy where one does whatever he or she feels is right. We live in a representative democracy where the hope is that our laws represent the consensus of what the citizens believe. No person is expected to be the "model citizen" embodying the oftentimes conflicting views that our laws present, but they are still bound by the laws with which they differ. Conscription is no different.
The outcome of the Nuremberg trials, where it was determined that following orders does not constitute a defense, puts the obligation on you to make your own moral decisions and follow them - not blindly do what Uncle Sam says.
For this analogy to be correct, you'd have to equate our military involvement in Iraq (or the middle east in general) with the mass murder of millions of innocent civilians with the intent of racial cleansing for which the Nuremberg trials were conducted. I don't think even Michael Moore would try that one.
Regardless, you're still missing an important point: conscription isn't the same as telling someone to do something immoral. It's telling them they must serve in the armed forces, which the Nuremberg trials you refer to concluded to be moral. Your point would only be valid if you were LATER ordered to deliberately blow up a church or gas a city, and you did without dissent. It's at THAT point that the Nuremberg trials concluded that one should dissent--not before. Otherwise, by your logic, all German servicemen should have been hanged.
-Grym
Not always. Remember, not all aplications involving time need to know the actual time with respect to the world. In fact, where this development will come in really handy will be ones where only the CHANGE IN (delta) time will be relevant.
The first that comes to mind is GPS. With an atomic clock onboard, GPS systems will be able to drastically decrease the range of error and, as the grandparent stated, require one less satallite, for functionality.
-Grym
But it's not that simple. You wouldn't be conscripted were you not a citizen of the United States to begin with--a citizen who agreed with the possibility of conscription implicitly by living here and EXPLICITLY when you registered with the Selective Service System. If you didn't agree with the possibility of conscription, you could have left then to Canada, Europe or wherever.
By staying within the United States, you reap the benefits that our society brings. You enjoy a higher standard of living, modern health care, educational opportunities, and relative safety. The cost, as an adult, is that you keep up your end of the bargain through things like paying your taxes, following the laws, and, yes, being conscripted when your country needs you.
Conscription should be reserved for wars in which the survival of the country is at stake, World War II is the only recent war which meets that criteria.
Unfortunately, that ISN'T the criteria. Go to sss.gov for more information. If you don't like it, vote or pressure your congressmen to have it changed. Or, go to another country BEFORE you're called upon if it means that much to you. I know it sucks that you (and I, for that matter, being a 20-year-old male) may have to fight (and maybe die) in a war that you, as an individual, may not agree with, but it's the reality of life and, again, part of you retaining your end of the social contract.
-Grym
I believe that people who feel an overwhelming urge to murder without any specific reason why should in all good faith submit themselves to this process before they start murdering people.
How can you honestly expect people who feel an irrational urge to kill to have the cognitive capacity to: 1. Correctly identify their psychological problem (quite a feat for even normal people) 2. Submit to confinement and unpleasurable treatment for the abstract goal of the better good of society.
Here's the fallacy of your argument: the moral status of a human being does not change with respect to the world's population. In fact, the two are wholly unrelated. Murder is equally wrong if its committed upon 10th or 10 trillionth person. Besides, who decides who is "surplus" and who isn't? You? Can you point to any specific biological reason why you, as opposed to myself, couldn't be the surplus?
There are religious objections to this point of view, of course. But the religious laws were formulated thousands of years ago when there weren't many people around,it wasn't easy to bring infants into adults, people died mysteriously (from disease and accident), and no one lived very long anyway (average life span about 3000 years ago was about 35-40 years).
Ahh... but there are ETHICAL (and logical) objections to that point of view too, and no matter what your religious views, these are just as relevant today as they were 3000 years ago.
Basically the entire Iraqi war is an attempt on the part of the Christian fundamentalists who are now running the USA to force the Muslems to change and adapt to the new conditions in the world that technology has created in the past century
Christian fundamentalists run the US? Well that's news to me, both a Christian and a US resident. You're making the mistake many liberals make by confusing Bush's pandering to the "bible-belt" as evidence of his religious views. Bush may be conservative, but that shouldn't be taken as him being extremely religious. In fact, he, and the Bush family in general is quite moderate in their religious points of view. Regardless, for your thesis to be correct (i.e. Christian fundamentalists "run" the United States), you'd have to come up with some good explanations to the following: 1. prevalence of the gay marriage issue in American politics 2. The continuing practice of legalized abortion 3. The secular nature of our schooling system and public places 4. The acceptance of other religions and practices contrary to fundamentalist Christianity in both public life and legal standing. I could go on, but I think you have enough on your plate already.
For you what all the stuff above means is that since this is a stupid endless wastefull and hopeless war, it would be in your best interest not to fight in it. Don't allow yourself to be conscripted into fighting this war. Don't sign up to fight it and don't allow yourself to get drafted when conscription of the 19-year-olds begins again next year. History has shown that it is more honorable to do whatever degrading things that are necessary to avoid being forced into a stupid war than it is to suffer in a 'patriotic' manner as a result of 'serving' in a stupid war...
If you don't agree with the war, vote against it and convince others to do the same. However, you have no right to resist conscription unless you have extreme moral objections to killing in general--which, according to your earlier statements, you do not. By willingly residing within the United States, you agree to the possibility of conscription (read more of Glaucon's Social contract theory if you don't believe me). Your cowardice and/or opinions do not change your societal obligations, and failing to uphold those obligations is perhaps one of the most dis-honorable things a person can do.
-Grym
I refused to help from then on out. Let him handle it when the machine is so slow and the webpages won't load properly.
That's just it. He won't handle it. It'll be one of us technically inclined people, in the end. I don't know how many calls I got as an ISP tech that ended up being due to spyware because people think slow page loads mean "my interweb service provider is slow."
-Grym
Well, I wasn't going to respond to your post because it was ridden with unnecessary personal attacks, but I'll bite.
It is possible to understand without knowing all the details. I understand coronary artery bypass surgery. Does that mean I'm a heart surgeon? No. Is it necessary for me to be a heart surgeon in order to understand coronary artery bypass surgery? No.
But not all topics are so easy from a conceptual point of view like coronary artery bypass surgery might be (eg. "re-routing the pipes" or whatever). I'm not arguing that all difficult subjects can be simplified in concept to some degree. Of course they can. The problem is the over-simplification that inevitably results from "soundbites" and the "30 second pitch."
Yeah, that's basically bullshit. Some people love to talk about how mass communication has taken us further from some ideal of participatory democracy, but they forget that before mass communication things were even worse.
First of all, all I said was that the mass-media and the "sound bite" have changed politics in America. It was a statement of fact. It has. In fact, by you saying things were "worse" before mass communication, you're agreeing with me; it has changed. Whether this change is for the advancement or detriment of participatory democracy, only time will tell.
Untrue. Both Presidential candidates are giving hour-plus stump speeches that go into great detail about their policies and agendas. (Well, Bush is. Kerry, not so much. But that's because he's a lousy candidate. It's not an indictment of any kind of system.)
But the presidential election is quite unique in terms of politics, is it not? The "system" is much, much larger than the Executive branch. The article I was referring to was describing the political strategies of state and national congressmen.
Hyperbole does not make you more attractive.
Nor do your childish personal attacks suite you, but that's neither here nor there because it's not hyperbole anyway. You said, "Most anything can be explained in 30 seconds." I took that as nearly any idea, including some of the most complex ones (which can be defined as "infinite" for our purposes) can be explained in 30 seconds. Sure, it may only have been a figure of speech on your part, but the rest of my post was equally rhetorical in nature and served only to question the basis of your conclusion.
-Grym
You need to stop thinking in terms of encyclopedia pages and start thinking in terms of sound bites.
In other words, make it devoid of all true understanding of the material and take the flashy (and let's not forget politically-correct) pulp left behind as all there is to know... great...
I was reading an article the other day that described how the "sound bite" and modern media in general have irreversibly changed politics in the U.S. For example, rather than say anything risky or possibly requiring an in-depth understanding of an issue, most politicians prefer to repeat nearly the same paragraph only slightly changed knowing that: 1. most people AT the speech will already vote for him/her anyway 2. that they can control what appears in network TV as the "sound bite" and 3. that nothing they ever say publicly will ever come back to "niggardly" haunt them in the future.
On the contrary. Most anything can be explained in 30 seconds. You just have to have both the ability and the willingness to tell the person you're talking to what he needs to know by relating it to things he already understands.
Funny... and here I was spending years at college when I could just spent a few minutes sitting down with the right people. Don't I feel like a fool...
I really fail to understand this mentality that every idea in the world can be simplified to a 30 second "sound-bite" without losing or missing anything important. If that's the case: why 30 seconds? Why not 20? Or 10, for that matter? In fact, explain in 10 seconds (beginning *NOW*) why the 30 is a more appropriate number than 10, since you would have us believe that even infinitely complex ideas can already be broken down so easily.
-Grym
I'm not really concerned with how it handles foreseeable situations (ie. holes in the ground). I have no doubt that the engineers will make it quite intelligent for normal operation.
What I'm worried about is how well it will handle unexpected situations. For instance, what happens both a critical sensor and its backup simultaneously malfunction or if the airbag doesn't get far enough under the lander, and so on. It's these situations that matter, because if the A.I. chooses incorrectly, we could end up with a multi-billion dollar twitching piece of metal on the Martian surface.
-Grym
Are they worried about them being re-exported? If so, they should not cripple the functionality, but cripple the languages. Make it so that all the menus text boxes etc. are only in one language(that cannot be changed). I doubt people in the US want Thai menus etc. They should still be allowed to type in other languages though.
After being an unpaid "Windows technician" for all my friends, I can navigate through the system, sometimes without even looking--let alone without reading the text. I know this for a fact, because one of my friends uses Chinese as his computer language. Given that desktop Windows generally runs on the manpower of an army of unpaid, friendly geeks, I'd suspect there are a quite number of people who can do the same.
-Grym
Contrary to the view that Bush is currently attempting to defend, there really doesn't appear to be a solid link between the Jihadis and Saddam's regime, which I've admittedly found very confusing, (yes lefties, I know, "duh").
Of course that's ignoring the fact that Saddam paid the families of Suicide bombers in "Palestine" $50,000 (imagine how much that can buy in that shithole) each. And while we're at it let's also forget that that Iraq had multiple active Al-Qaeda training camps in its borders pre-war. I guess when you ignore those and the fact that top-level Al-Quada officials received safe-haven and aide in Iraq, then yeah... there's no connection at all...
You can't "stockpile" biological and chemical agents, because they have a relatively short shelf life (compared to conventional explosives). However, the delivery mechanisms can be "stockpiled", such as medium-range missles and warheads designed to deploy such agents.
This isn't true. Anthrax endospores can last, as far as we know, centuries (maybe longer, we, obviously, can't test over that kind of timeline). That's, in fact, one of the things that makes it such a good weapon. Similarly, smallpox is caused by a virus which, unlike living bacterial cells, can be dormant for, again, an indefinite period of time before coming into contact with a host.
I can't speak for too many chemical agents (I'm a Biology student), but I do know for a fact that Cyanide gas is quite stable. I would also expect chemicals like VX nerve gas or Serin to have similar shelflifes (otherwise, who would want them?)
-Grym
You know, after becoming apart of the local EMS personnel, I've realized one glaring vulnerability that nobody ever talks about: Our national roadways.
Imagine this scenario: Various groups of 4-5 men pile into minivans (w/ the side doors) full of assault rifles, grenades, sticky homemade bombs and so on. Then they drive on an interstate and attack vehicles--specifically targeting each and every truck w/ a hazard (flammable/poisonous/etc.) placard. If each van got at least 10-20 trucks, we'd have a serious problem.
Most areas only have at best 2 or 3 HAZMAT teams, and each downed truck would need their attention for at least a couple hours. In short time you would have saturation of the EMS response, and a virtual standstill on said interstate. Even worse, people would (understandably) be scared to even drive.
The only limit to doing something like this would be finding enough men and making sure they all knew when to begin. The guns/vans could be legally bought and bombs could consist of fuse-lit, house-hold materials. No special training would be required and no security measures would have to be overcame.
I think the real problem is: our society is just so open that we are always going to be vunerable SOMEWHERE. Rather than trying to secure each and every possible security hole (which, is self-defeating and at some point has diminishing returns) we should attach the problem at its source by eliminating bastions of extremist islamic fundamentalism throughout the world.
-Grym
It's too bad there's no "incoherent leftist babble" mod, because this is ridiculous.
To assume that you can understand terrorism without first living the life that these people lead is naive and ingenuous.
This is ridiculous. I don't have to live as a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan to glean that their movement is a fascist, religiously intolerant temper tantrum against the modern world. All I have to do is LISTEN to what THEY THEMSELVES say about their movement and WATCH as they behead innocent civilians simply because they aren't muslim.
"Terrorism" is not about "Them", or "A vs. B". Terrorism is a War against those whould define the terms of Terrorism, and those who would define the terms of Civilization.
In other words, true terrorists are those who create a 'bad guy' in order to convince their fellow man to go to war ...
And I guess that was a desperate attempt to paint President Bush and/or the United States as a terrorist, right? Gimme a break.
Rather than redefining the word "terrorism" next time we want to push our own agendas, let's just call a spade a spade. Rather than terrorism, we're in a war against Fundamentalist Islam.
-Grym
And those shuttle crews always knew that. The shuttle couldn't somehow 'magicly' be safer to launch and use than unmanned spacecrafts.
Now wait just a minute. Is spaceflight dangerous? Yes, of course. But did it have to be THAT dangerous? NO!
We're not talking magic, just some basic common sense. NASA, before the time of the accident, was an even more bureaucratic mess than it is now. Thousands of safety waivers were signed off nearly every mission. Engineers were "pressured" not to talk to management about safety concerns, and to top it all off, the one SURE thing that could have prevented the accident (satellite photos from the DoD), were cancelled at the last minute because some douche bag in management though it might "appear like" incompetence.
I mean, it's nice to know the TECHNICAL reasons for what caused the shuttle failure, but let's not lose sight of the unforgivable bureaucratic confusion that allowed an understandable mistake to go unnoticed and uncorrected. How many more lives and billions of dollars do we have to waste before we stop blaming "foam gluing" or English standard units and address the real root of the problem?
-Grym
You're wrong. Books and inventions have been protected since the 1790...that's almost as long as this country has existed. I found this out using a search engine called Google. It's full of facts, as opposed to guesses.
No no no, you're not understanding what I said. It's too bad that google thing doesn't help with READING COMPREHENSION. Perhaps I should just put it this way, nice and simple: WITH RESPECT TO things such as books, music, and inventions, the idea of patents is VERY new. To prove me wrong, you'd have to find an instance of copyrighting before all known instances of music, literature, and so on, and I think we all know you won't. This is for one very simple reason: Music and books, and human ingenuity existed and even flourished ("Inconceivable!", says the media mogul) long before any copyright protections. Thus, the grandparent's assumption is obviously false.
Nobody's in dispute on the right to protect copyright, either. At least, nobody important.
Nobody important? Or nobody with the money to buy votes in congress or fill the school curriculum, or employ an army of lawyers? But then, again, I guess you're the definitive source for who's important, so you MUST be right.
Well, I, for one, AM disputing the "right" to "protect" copyright.
-Our law is based upon the premise that the punishment should fit the crime. If the RIAA wanted, under current laws, it can and, as we have seen, WOULD sue for $120,000 dollars per song shared illegally. But I guess you have to break a few eggs, namely a fair legal system, if you want to make a bunch of media elites and a couple token artists rich, right?
-Intangible objects mean just what the definition of intangible states. They cannot be held or contained. An individual idea is such an indefinable confluence of culture and society that for one person to claim complete "ownership" is laughable. Don't get me wrong, I'm for strict enforcement of plagiarism laws, but when the patent and copyright system is broken to the point where even grade-schoolers (the nefarious thought-criminals they are) need an education on how to "use it right," ISN'T IT OBVIOUS that a basic, fundamental part of the system is incorrect?
-Grym
This is important. Because copyright protection is one of the luxuries of living in America. We treat intellectual property in many of the same ways we treat physical property, and as a result, we have had some really great authors, musicians, directors, software companies, inventors, etc. Knock the BSA/MPAA/RIAA for being dicks about it if you want, but all they're doing is what you're supposed to do when somebody infringes on your copyright: find them, and demand restitution.
Care to provide any proof that authors/inventors/musicians are the DIRECT result of increased copyright protections? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't copyrights a rather new idea with respect to MUSIC, BOOKS, and INVENTIONS?
I disagree with your statement. In fact, I would change it to the following:
We treat intellectual property in many of the same ways we treat physical property, and as a result, we have unclear laws that fail to recognize that intangible really means just that, a confused populace who often (understandably) can't define what a copyright, trademark, or patent are or even mean, and an organized bourgeois who feel the need to "reeducate" our children on the righteous path of blind consumerism.
Does that mean a curriculum designed by the BSA is a great idea? Well, it's no worse than the oral hygiene curriculum designed by Crest I had in elementary school, a program to which I credit my fantastic smile. 'Course, I use Toms of Maine nowadays...
You're missing the point. NOBODY is in dispute on the issue of ORAL HYGIENE. Comparing it with an issue so complex and debatable as the oxymoron of "intellectual property" is ridiculous.
-Grym
Okay, I was wrong...
It took 30 minutes. I've posted the files on my university filespace. The link to the files is in another one of my posts HERE.
-Grym
In case you don't have one of these Belkin Speedpad 52s already, they're awesome. I use it for gaming, and there's no limit to what you can program these things to do. In fact, I might even consider using one borderline cheating if you program the macros well enough.
Anyway, because I had some with the "profile editor" of the included software, I went ahead (after reading the article) and made a profile that does (what I believe) the original author had intended.
I did this in about 30 minutes, so bear with me if some keys are missing or if it's a little buggy. All major symbols and lettered keys are included but I still need to find where to put keys like "[", "]", and so on.
I broke the keyboard down into 4 logical secions:
1. All function keys / most symbols
2. Right lettered side
3. Left letter side
4. Numpad
From there, I made each of those sections one of the four "shifts" for the controller. Shifting is controlled via the 4-way D-pad with up being "cycle shift", right being right letters, left being the left letters, and down being the numpad. Function keys are the default. Additionally, because of the frequency of their use, the enter and space keys exist in all "shifts" on the circle button and button number 15, respectively.
I know this sounds complicated, but it's really not. Once you take a look at the design in the profile editor, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm posting these files up on my university filespace. They're small, but if anybody wants to mirror, feel free to do so. Also, feel free to change my design and distribute as you see fit. (Patents/copyrights are for the birds, imo.)
To use these files, you'll have to already have to use the software that is included with the device. Directions, which consists of 2 steps, are included within the readme.
DOWNLOAD HERE
-Grym
Actually, I have one of these things. I use it for Warcraft 3, Counterstrike, and Doom 3. The software that powers it rules (to the point where, I could see some people consider it cheating.)
Guys, there's no need for writing custom drivers. What the author is suggesting could be accompished in like 20 minutes with the included software. To be honest, the original author didn't know what he was talking about.
-Grym
While you raise some good points, I feel like some of your ideas need a bit of revising.
Your interpretation to an art isn't always a correct one. As contradictory as it may seem and despite the fact that much of literature is a subjective experience, there are RIGHT and WRONG interpretations to works. You wouldn't believe some of the half-assed nonsense I've seen come out of fellow students (at both the collegiate and high school levels) in response to a selection. It wasn't until I realized that these people were completely failing to understand the work, that I recognized the value in reading comprehension. More often than not, I find that when an English teacher tells a student he or she is wrong, it is an indicator of a lack of understanding on part of either the student or the teacher rather than some conspiracy for shaping young minds. In fact, I have a hard time seeing any of the bohemian English teachers I've had doing anything of the sort.
Can one truly ever be a non-conformist? That is to say, we are all influenced by those around us (which, by the way, undermines the entire idea of copyrights in the arts to begin with). Some obviously more than others, but how is it that you see yourself above "the sheep" when you probably wear similar clothing, speak in a similar manner, drive/ride in a car, eat the same foods, use the same objects/money, go to the same places, listen to the same music, watch the same television programs, go to the same websites, and so on? What, exactly, is it that separates you, for instance, from "the sheep" rather than the few convenient things you purposely do differently? Your superior intellect, perhaps? Don't kid yourself. We, and subsequently our thoughts and actions, are all products of the societies in which we are raised. Non-conformity in a rule-based society simply isn't possible (by definition, it would be "anarchy," which isn't as cool as it sounds.) Ever notice how all gothics, self-professed non-conformists, all wear black? Kind of ironic how quickly an easily "non-conformity" became a fad, eh?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that thinking for yourself is a bad thing. Or, conversely, that blindly following a crowd is a good thing. But sometimes the crowd is right, and it's important for a critical thinker, such as yourself, to know when.
-Grym
Exactly what I was thinking.
The point of the question was probably to realize that a full circle makes for 360 degrees. That would be a sign of intelligence. Blindly following the instructions would not be.
Oh please... Like the average European is somehow enlightened and different. In fact, if you want to go by the number of college graduates, the United States, is the most educated populace in the world. Hegemon we may be, but stupid we are not, so keep your anti-Americanism to yourself, Coward.
The point of the grandparent was that the instructions indicated that you had to measure EACH angle and SUM all of your MEASUREMENTS. Given the oftentimes subjective nature of individual measurements, a varying degree of answers *IS* correct. The answer 360 degrees is ONLY correct if the SUM of your MEASUREMENTS is similarly 360.
-Grym
I don't think so. Canada is only one tenth the population of the US, and has a far lower per capita GDP than the US has (Canadian per capita GDP is the sama as Korea actually), yet Canada (and Korea) both still have far wider broadband deployments than the US.
You don't even think it's a factor? In terms of landmass, South Korea is approximately 1/4th the size of Utah. How could it NOT be a factor?
So its not about density, or 'too expensive'.. Just the people in the power to make change don't care to do anything about it..
You obviously haven't seen the trial that is getting broadband into a rural area (of which, South Korea has none). Trust me on this one, though, I have. You'd be amazed how difficult it is to run Fiber lines up a wooded mountain on the Appalachian, and even MORE amazed at how long it takes to get said lines serviced. Sure, with a wireless infrastructure, you can bounce access from tower to tower, but towers (and rented tower space) are insanely expensive. This fact lowers your already low profit margin for an area that might provide, AT BEST, 50 customers or so.
As much as I'd like to blame smoking men and bureaucrats on this one, that's just not the case. Comparing broadband penetration within the US and Korea is like comparing apples and oranges.
-Grym
I agree with you with regard to "hate crime" legislation, but I'd like to go further. The real problem with these laws is how they will be enforced. For instance, if I, a white person, were killed by a group of black people who murdered me because of my race, I can almost guarantee you they wouldn't be charged with a hate crime. In fact, some lawyers might even try to make the case that the group was merely venting "social frustration", like some declared after the L.A. riots.
This problem of enforcement exists with all of these "specific" laws, because many crimes don't fit even the broad laws perfectly. For instance, the Laci Peterson law is a mess too. Of course the law fits the test case (i.e. Laci Peterson--8 mos. pregnant; did not want an abortion), but how does it fair for all cases? More aptly, how do you define "pregnant" and a dead person's intentions? Is "pregnant" the moment after conception? If so, what if the mother didn't know she was pregnant? Are we to assume she would or would not have had an abortion? What about embryos or babies with genetic defects who would not have survived gestation anyway? If "pregnant" is not the moment of conception, when exactly is it and is it non-arbitrary (i.e. "looks like a baby", etc.)?
None of these questions can be answered by the Laci Peterson law, because they aren't as emotionally divisive and require a bit more thought than baby-kissing politicians want to put-forth.
-Grym