They were actually talking about median, NOT average, as shown where they says, "then you're making more that most Americans". Our ultra-wealthy push the average up higher than the median. However they are still a little off, as I show in my post further down.
>Second of all if you're making $21k/yr or more then you're making more that most Americans. These rules only affect the rich.
I don't think that's true. 21K is very close to the median for some of the poorer states like AR, MS, etc. States with higher populations like NY, and CA are higher, around 26-27K per year. Someone in IT making 21K/yr is far, far, far from rich.
Sorry, my wording was wrong. It made it sound like the Jews were driven out of Israel by the Muslims in the 600s.
What I meant by "area" was the middle east. I have found numerous sources stating that Mohammed warred against Jews driving them out of the middle east. Depending on the source he was either the lands liberator, and was constantly hounded by Jews, or he slaughtered and massacred them. But all sources I could find specifically mention that he warred with the Jews in the middle east, destroying their towns and driving them out.
I believe they are specifically talking about Mecca/Medina area which are both in Saudi Arabia if my memory serves me right.
My wording of my previous post didn't make this distinction clear tho.
I don't really have time to do the research on this one, but I have read a little on this in the past.
Basically the Arabs(Muslims) and Jews have a much longer history than Jews magically deciding to invade Palestine in 1933. Jews have actually had a nation on the lands of Israel over 2000 years ago, and were spread throughout much of the middle east. This was before the Muslim religion was created/discovered. Many were forcibly evicted(or slaughtered) by Arabs around 600 A.D. from much of the area. Mohammed himself was responsible for a lot of it if I remember correctly. And the "Palestinians"(the vast majority anyway) were moved into the lands of Israel by the British govt. in the early 1900s. There never was a nation called Palestine.
Anyway, my point isn't that Jews or Arabs has a right to the land. It is more that if you go back far enough in that area, EVERYONE has some claim to it. Also all parties involved are probably guilty of "taking" that land from someone else at one point or another.
Both sides could really benefit from trying a little harder at the peace process and forgetting this, "well, he hit me first" stuff.
Go to pricewatch. The have more nice simple video cards than you would know what to do with. PCI, and AGP. One of them is bound to work for you. Prices start around $11.
These high end video cards are built for a very specific market where excess noise/heat/power consumption are acceptable.
I agree. I moved from a 100% Java Servlet environment to 100% Perl CGI. The Servlets were more than fast enough for everything I asked of them. Neither was a particularly high volume site, but still you can always throw more hardware at the problem.
The biggest difference is the development costs. I can write Java in about 1/2 the time it takes me to write "proper" Perl(I don't even want to think about C/C++). So over the long run, even if I need to pay $500-1000 for a faster processor, etc. it would still be more than worth it. A faster processor is a 1 time fee, my time is a recurring fee, every time I open a file for development or maintainence.
The point is that I am probably going to make a migration to Java eventually, once I get a few other projects done.
So to those criticizing the choice of Java for this project, consider that the author may have had other things on his/her mind other than optimal speed on each and every system. His/her time is money, and a few % difference per machine is of little consequence.
>(As an aside, I say the German idea of "road etiquette" should be adopted as soon as possible in the States. Pass on the right my ass. Once you hit your intended crusing speed, hit the right lane. Pass only on the left. Perfection if I've ever seen it.)
I agree 100%, and at least in theory that is how it works in 95% of the US also. However the speed limit is actually part of the problem. In Germany if you have 20 cars on the road, they can all be going 20 different legal speeds, at least on the autobahn. Here most drivers go between speed limit and speed limit+10. When there are few cars on the road, it's no problem, but when there is heavy traffic, you get 4 people on a 4 lane road all going within a few miles per hour of each other which completely f's up traffic. The traffic is so heavy the slower drivers have a hard time moving over, and often won't even try because they want to be as far from the on-ramps and off-ramps as possible to avoid having to slow down. It's quite a mess usually.
To me it looks like RCA/Clearplay is selling a DVD players, and a list of times which tell a their player to turn off audio and video during certain parts of the movie of a specific movie, if the users wants to. Eg. From 22:45 to 22:46 don't play audio which containts "fuck", from 65:34 tp 73:03 don't play audio and video because there is a sex scene going on, etc. No modified or edited DVDs are leaving their offices, stores and warehouses. They are selling data about a movie, and a machine which can implement that data, if the consumer wants. No more.
Clearplay isn't getting paid for selling a modified version. They have no idea what you are watching, they never touch the machine, they never get a per movie fee. They are simply selling you a machine which can display a modified version.
So it's clear that Clearplay is not selling you a modified version. Just as it's clear that a hammer making company is not selling you a deck when you buy lumber. The manufacture is not responsible for what people do with their products. So what bothers you, the artist's vision? As I and other point out: Too bad for them. I own the the movie, I will do with it what I want, PERIOD.
Just like a DVD without having to sit there and manually fast forward. Even if I automate the process I am still doing what I want with my property. It's no different than me paying someone to sit on my floor and press FF when bad words or sex comes up.
>Do you think it's not "personal" when you make changes to a director's movie?
In a word, no. They have two choices, they can sit at home and make movies for themselves, don't sell them, don't distribute them, in which case they own them and I can't touch them or they can take money from a studio, GET PAID and release a movie into theatres, sell it to people, etc. The key words are "GET PAID", they have been compensated for their time. That is what buying a movie is. Now I own that copy of that movie to do with what I want, when I want in the privacy of my home. Which includes playing it backwards, forwards, sideways, upside down, black and white, action scenes only, sex scenes only, credits only, etc.
>people who are that much into religon will not be sending their kids to the public schools.
You do realize that 90 some percent of American's are some type of religious don't you? I still get yelled at(30 yrs old) if I use Jesus' name in vain or say GD. I even get yelled at by my Buddhist wife when I say those things because she believes in respecting other people's religions. Religion is NOT something that just a few radical right wingers believe in. It is a HUGE MAJORITY of people. Are you really that isolated that you don't know about the country you live in?
>Fine. I'll buy a picture of your mom from you, scan it in, and then, using Photoshop, make a picture of her being sodomized by a donkey. If you don't like it, then you can "have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."
You are welcome to do that to a picture of their mom or mine as long as you don't then sell it or post it or whatever, since you own it and they or I sold it to you. Did you really think that just because you turn your point into a personal attack that it would change everyone's mind?
Who cares what Tom, Steven or Stanley would say. We bought their product. It is OURS. It is no longer THEIRS. I have an artistic vision of me using my copy of SPR for skeet shooting, and Tom Hank's can't say a word. As long as it is distributed to the customer full and unedited no one has any right to tell a consumer what they can or can't do with their property.
BTW, why do you HAVE to bash religious people? People want to love and accept everyone, and respect people rights, but that never includes people who are Christian for some reason. Oh well, I guess it is much easier for you to just pigeon hole someone away as a "right-wing Mormon zealot" and assume they are always wrong than it is to try to understand them. When you say things like that you are no better than those you are criticizing.
Not entirely sure if by broadcasters you meant all TV stations of simply the ones who literally broadcast their signal through the air. In any case I thought I could clear this up a little. Companies which broadcast a radio or TV signal which can be picked up on an antenna are the only ones which cannot show nudity and sex during prime time(actually any time from 6AM to 10PM I think).
All those cable stations are welcome to if they want, since the consumer is paying to get those stations. Cable stations censor themselves to what they consider "decent", which varies from station to station.
>But the US seems to have this uncanny knack, verging on the supernatural, of picking "friends" that later turn into enemies.
>After it happens for the 99th time, I have to suspect that there is a little more to this than coincidence!
Well, these "friends" pick us just as much as we pick them. They don't have to take our money and weapons. But they do. The pick the US to ally with. So as I was saying, why do they do that? Because they know they can get the US to finance their own personal wars, then create a dictatorship, and leave American taxpayers with the bill. If the US is guilty, it is mostly of being naive, and thinking that people in other countries actually do want what is best for their country.
>It seems that American has great difficulty in having Diplomatic Relations with a country unless all the inhabitant are good old boy, back-slapping friends. Heaven help the country in which the inhabitants adhere to a different religion or ideology, are of a different racial group, dress in unfamiliar clothing or are just plain reserved by nature!
Two of our closest allies are England and Japan. I'll give you England since our cultures are very similar, but I can't give you Japan. Our cultures are very dissimilar. Heck, South Korea is a very close ally of the US. Sorry, but I don't buy that "we can't get along with people of different cultures" thing. What we can't get along with is people who try to f#%@ us over, which seems to be most other countries.
Ok, no WMD have been found. However is there any doubt that their neighbors would hold some weapons for them for a sum of money? The US caught almost $1B about to cross the border into Syria. For $1B I would bury some rockets and chemical weapons in a ditch, wouldn't you?
I understand your point, but I have a question for you though.
If we do have a direct to Mars mission as you suggest it will undoubtedly be cheaper. No arguement there. My question is though, what then? We have one single expensive mission to Mars. OTOH, if we decide to invest in a Moon base first, we could possibly save money over the long run, with many return missions to Mars. A larger initial investment may be worthwhile after enough missions are launched. The Moon's low gravity and no atmosphere would seem like a natural place to build ships, or at least we could mine minerals there and build ships in orbit.
Just trying to think long term about these things since the investment is going to be colossal.
Don't you think that sometimes someone can be a friend one day and a foe the next? Or perhaps the lesser of two evils? This point gets said OVER and OVER and OVER again. Why does it matter at all if we supported them at one time? People change, countries change, the world changes. I have friends from high school I wouldn't even let in my house now. Am I a bad person?
I have to tell you. If I wanted to take over a country I would certainly come crying to the US, tell them I would establish a democracy, and be friendly with the US, help them fight their enemies, blah, blah, blah. Then once I got power, drop them like a bad habit. This shouldn't be a suprise to anyone.
If I remember correctly there were serious sanctions against Iraq. However other nations in the UN went behind the UN's back, selling WEAPONS to and buying oil from Iraq. One of the companies doing these deals employs Kofi Anan's son. Also France, Germany and Russia have all been implicated in these deals. Hmm, sounds suspiciously like some of the key players in the UN had a lot to loose by attacking Iraq...
So in a word: Yes, it was partly about oil. It was about the multi-billion dollar ILLEGAL oil deals these so called "United Nations" countries had with Iraq. Iraq, is being used as a battle ground in a war with the rest of the world's "super powers" for control of their oil reserves. Unforunately the poor and powerless always pay the price when the rich and powerful fight, but that is they way the world has always worked.
You'll find if you dig a little deeper it is usually more complex than they report on CNN or NPR.
>swearing under oath that he has lied to the people constantly
Swearing under oath? You mean like Clinton swore under oath? Oh, it must be true then. LOL. And where is this "mountain of evidence"? Evidence of what? CNN called, and they want their headlines back.
I was wondering when someone was going to get around to improving the wheel. The current version is so impractical, inefficient, and has such a limited range of applications it has been screaming for a face-lift. Someone get this guy a $250 million research grant ASAP!!!
While it is commendable that you provide a source for your arguement, using a venture capitol firm probably isn't going to convince a lot of people.:-D The might be slightly biased...
Ummm, why not? We are the ones who allow them to create companies, allow them to incorporate and save themselves from prosecution if the company goes belly up, allow them to sell their products in our market which is one of the best on earth. Why should we allow them all of these benefits and expect nothing in return. You act as if companies get nothing from the US.
If they want their immigrant workers so badly let them move their corporate headquarters to India, or Vietnam, or wherever and face trade restrictions when selling to the US, like the rest of the world does.
Although "morality" is different from person to person, most people would agree that taking care of their fellow country men and women is a higher priority than taking care of people in other countries. And most people would call that "moral", the word might be wrong or ambiguous, but the principal is solid.
Why is that? Well, simple. People live together and form groups with government and laws for one main reason and that is protection from others. Therefore it is in your best interest to support your country because your country protects you. So people can give their speeches about patriotism, and suppport of the USA(which by the way I support fully because I believe in the ideas our country was founded on), but really when it comes down too it, you protect other Americans because it keeps you and your family safe and healthy.
All of this information and more is available at your local college in the philosophy and history departments.
>We both have to lower prices to stay competitive against each other, and in fact, keeping prices high would involve illegal collusion.
And you don't think this "illegal collusion" occurs? You honestly think they pass the savings on to the customer rather than making "behind closed doors" price fixing deals and then keeping profits for themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
They were actually talking about median, NOT average, as shown where they says, "then you're making more that most Americans". Our ultra-wealthy push the average up higher than the median. However they are still a little off, as I show in my post further down.
>Second of all if you're making $21k/yr or more then you're making more that most Americans. These rules only affect the rich.
I don't think that's true. 21K is very close to the median for some of the poorer states like AR, MS, etc. States with higher populations like NY, and CA are higher, around 26-27K per year. Someone in IT making 21K/yr is far, far, far from rich.
Here is a link to find median wages for the US.
Sorry, my wording was wrong. It made it sound like the Jews were driven out of Israel by the Muslims in the 600s.
What I meant by "area" was the middle east. I have found numerous sources stating that Mohammed warred against Jews driving them out of the middle east. Depending on the source he was either the lands liberator, and was constantly hounded by Jews, or he slaughtered and massacred them. But all sources I could find specifically mention that he warred with the Jews in the middle east, destroying their towns and driving them out.
I believe they are specifically talking about Mecca/Medina area which are both in Saudi Arabia if my memory serves me right.
My wording of my previous post didn't make this distinction clear tho.
I don't really have time to do the research on this one, but I have read a little on this in the past.
Basically the Arabs(Muslims) and Jews have a much longer history than Jews magically deciding to invade Palestine in 1933. Jews have actually had a nation on the lands of Israel over 2000 years ago, and were spread throughout much of the middle east. This was before the Muslim religion was created/discovered. Many were forcibly evicted(or slaughtered) by Arabs around 600 A.D. from much of the area. Mohammed himself was responsible for a lot of it if I remember correctly. And the "Palestinians"(the vast majority anyway) were moved into the lands of Israel by the British govt. in the early 1900s. There never was a nation called Palestine.
Anyway, my point isn't that Jews or Arabs has a right to the land. It is more that if you go back far enough in that area, EVERYONE has some claim to it. Also all parties involved are probably guilty of "taking" that land from someone else at one point or another.
Both sides could really benefit from trying a little harder at the peace process and forgetting this, "well, he hit me first" stuff.
>In other news, a geek somewhere had to give up his dream of replacing his Geo Metro's engine with a supercharged 442 Hemi.
442 Hemi? Don't you mean 426? Unless it was overbored...
Go to pricewatch. The have more nice simple video cards than you would know what to do with. PCI, and AGP. One of them is bound to work for you. Prices start around $11.
These high end video cards are built for a very specific market where excess noise/heat/power consumption are acceptable.
I agree. I moved from a 100% Java Servlet environment to 100% Perl CGI. The Servlets were more than fast enough for everything I asked of them. Neither was a particularly high volume site, but still you can always throw more hardware at the problem.
The biggest difference is the development costs. I can write Java in about 1/2 the time it takes me to write "proper" Perl(I don't even want to think about C/C++). So over the long run, even if I need to pay $500-1000 for a faster processor, etc. it would still be more than worth it. A faster processor is a 1 time fee, my time is a recurring fee, every time I open a file for development or maintainence.
The point is that I am probably going to make a migration to Java eventually, once I get a few other projects done.
So to those criticizing the choice of Java for this project, consider that the author may have had other things on his/her mind other than optimal speed on each and every system. His/her time is money, and a few % difference per machine is of little consequence.
>(As an aside, I say the German idea of "road etiquette" should be adopted as soon as possible in the States. Pass on the right my ass. Once you hit your intended crusing speed, hit the right lane. Pass only on the left. Perfection if I've ever seen it.)
I agree 100%, and at least in theory that is how it works in 95% of the US also. However the speed limit is actually part of the problem. In Germany if you have 20 cars on the road, they can all be going 20 different legal speeds, at least on the autobahn. Here most drivers go between speed limit and speed limit+10. When there are few cars on the road, it's no problem, but when there is heavy traffic, you get 4 people on a 4 lane road all going within a few miles per hour of each other which completely f's up traffic. The traffic is so heavy the slower drivers have a hard time moving over, and often won't even try because they want to be as far from the on-ramps and off-ramps as possible to avoid having to slow down. It's quite a mess usually.
To me it looks like RCA/Clearplay is selling a DVD players, and a list of times which tell a their player to turn off audio and video during certain parts of the movie of a specific movie, if the users wants to. Eg. From 22:45 to 22:46 don't play audio which containts "fuck", from 65:34 tp 73:03 don't play audio and video because there is a sex scene going on, etc. No modified or edited DVDs are leaving their offices, stores and warehouses. They are selling data about a movie, and a machine which can implement that data, if the consumer wants. No more.
Clearplay isn't getting paid for selling a modified version. They have no idea what you are watching, they never touch the machine, they never get a per movie fee. They are simply selling you a machine which can display a modified version.
So it's clear that Clearplay is not selling you a modified version. Just as it's clear that a hammer making company is not selling you a deck when you buy lumber. The manufacture is not responsible for what people do with their products. So what bothers you, the artist's vision? As I and other point out: Too bad for them. I own the the movie, I will do with it what I want, PERIOD.
Just like a DVD without having to sit there and manually fast forward. Even if I automate the process I am still doing what I want with my property. It's no different than me paying someone to sit on my floor and press FF when bad words or sex comes up.
>Do you think it's not "personal" when you make changes to a director's movie?
In a word, no. They have two choices, they can sit at home and make movies for themselves, don't sell them, don't distribute them, in which case they own them and I can't touch them or they can take money from a studio, GET PAID and release a movie into theatres, sell it to people, etc. The key words are "GET PAID", they have been compensated for their time. That is what buying a movie is. Now I own that copy of that movie to do with what I want, when I want in the privacy of my home. Which includes playing it backwards, forwards, sideways, upside down, black and white, action scenes only, sex scenes only, credits only, etc.
>people who are that much into religon will not be sending their kids to the public schools.
You do realize that 90 some percent of American's are some type of religious don't you? I still get yelled at(30 yrs old) if I use Jesus' name in vain or say GD. I even get yelled at by my Buddhist wife when I say those things because she believes in respecting other people's religions. Religion is NOT something that just a few radical right wingers believe in. It is a HUGE MAJORITY of people. Are you really that isolated that you don't know about the country you live in?
>Fine. I'll buy a picture of your mom from you, scan it in, and then, using Photoshop, make a picture of her being sodomized by a donkey. If you don't like it, then you can "have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."
You are welcome to do that to a picture of their mom or mine as long as you don't then sell it or post it or whatever, since you own it and they or I sold it to you. Did you really think that just because you turn your point into a personal attack that it would change everyone's mind?
Who cares what Tom, Steven or Stanley would say. We bought their product. It is OURS. It is no longer THEIRS. I have an artistic vision of me using my copy of SPR for skeet shooting, and Tom Hank's can't say a word. As long as it is distributed to the customer full and unedited no one has any right to tell a consumer what they can or can't do with their property.
BTW, why do you HAVE to bash religious people? People want to love and accept everyone, and respect people rights, but that never includes people who are Christian for some reason. Oh well, I guess it is much easier for you to just pigeon hole someone away as a "right-wing Mormon zealot" and assume they are always wrong than it is to try to understand them. When you say things like that you are no better than those you are criticizing.
Not entirely sure if by broadcasters you meant all TV stations of simply the ones who literally broadcast their signal through the air. In any case I thought I could clear this up a little. Companies which broadcast a radio or TV signal which can be picked up on an antenna are the only ones which cannot show nudity and sex during prime time(actually any time from 6AM to 10PM I think).
All those cable stations are welcome to if they want, since the consumer is paying to get those stations. Cable stations censor themselves to what they consider "decent", which varies from station to station.
>But the US seems to have this uncanny knack, verging on the supernatural, of picking "friends" that later turn into enemies. >After it happens for the 99th time, I have to suspect that there is a little more to this than coincidence!
Well, these "friends" pick us just as much as we pick them. They don't have to take our money and weapons. But they do. The pick the US to ally with. So as I was saying, why do they do that? Because they know they can get the US to finance their own personal wars, then create a dictatorship, and leave American taxpayers with the bill. If the US is guilty, it is mostly of being naive, and thinking that people in other countries actually do want what is best for their country.
>It seems that American has great difficulty in having Diplomatic Relations with a country unless all the inhabitant are good old boy, back-slapping friends. Heaven help the country in which the inhabitants adhere to a different religion or ideology, are of a different racial group, dress in unfamiliar clothing or are just plain reserved by nature!
Two of our closest allies are England and Japan. I'll give you England since our cultures are very similar, but I can't give you Japan. Our cultures are very dissimilar. Heck, South Korea is a very close ally of the US. Sorry, but I don't buy that "we can't get along with people of different cultures" thing. What we can't get along with is people who try to f#%@ us over, which seems to be most other countries.
Ok, no WMD have been found. However is there any doubt that their neighbors would hold some weapons for them for a sum of money? The US caught almost $1B about to cross the border into Syria. For $1B I would bury some rockets and chemical weapons in a ditch, wouldn't you?
I understand your point, but I have a question for you though.
If we do have a direct to Mars mission as you suggest it will undoubtedly be cheaper. No arguement there. My question is though, what then? We have one single expensive mission to Mars. OTOH, if we decide to invest in a Moon base first, we could possibly save money over the long run, with many return missions to Mars. A larger initial investment may be worthwhile after enough missions are launched. The Moon's low gravity and no atmosphere would seem like a natural place to build ships, or at least we could mine minerals there and build ships in orbit.
Just trying to think long term about these things since the investment is going to be colossal.
Don't you think that sometimes someone can be a friend one day and a foe the next? Or perhaps the lesser of two evils? This point gets said OVER and OVER and OVER again. Why does it matter at all if we supported them at one time? People change, countries change, the world changes. I have friends from high school I wouldn't even let in my house now. Am I a bad person?
I have to tell you. If I wanted to take over a country I would certainly come crying to the US, tell them I would establish a democracy, and be friendly with the US, help them fight their enemies, blah, blah, blah. Then once I got power, drop them like a bad habit. This shouldn't be a suprise to anyone.
If I remember correctly there were serious sanctions against Iraq. However other nations in the UN went behind the UN's back, selling WEAPONS to and buying oil from Iraq. One of the companies doing these deals employs Kofi Anan's son. Also France, Germany and Russia have all been implicated in these deals. Hmm, sounds suspiciously like some of the key players in the UN had a lot to loose by attacking Iraq...
So in a word: Yes, it was partly about oil. It was about the multi-billion dollar ILLEGAL oil deals these so called "United Nations" countries had with Iraq. Iraq, is being used as a battle ground in a war with the rest of the world's "super powers" for control of their oil reserves. Unforunately the poor and powerless always pay the price when the rich and powerful fight, but that is they way the world has always worked.
You'll find if you dig a little deeper it is usually more complex than they report on CNN or NPR.
-Comedian
>swearing under oath that he has lied to the people constantly
Swearing under oath? You mean like Clinton swore under oath? Oh, it must be true then. LOL. And where is this "mountain of evidence"? Evidence of what? CNN called, and they want their headlines back.
I was wondering when someone was going to get around to improving the wheel. The current version is so impractical, inefficient, and has such a limited range of applications it has been screaming for a face-lift. Someone get this guy a $250 million research grant ASAP!!!
While it is commendable that you provide a source for your arguement, using a venture capitol firm probably isn't going to convince a lot of people. :-D The might be slightly biased...
Ummm, why not? We are the ones who allow them to create companies, allow them to incorporate and save themselves from prosecution if the company goes belly up, allow them to sell their products in our market which is one of the best on earth. Why should we allow them all of these benefits and expect nothing in return. You act as if companies get nothing from the US.
If they want their immigrant workers so badly let them move their corporate headquarters to India, or Vietnam, or wherever and face trade restrictions when selling to the US, like the rest of the world does.
Although "morality" is different from person to person, most people would agree that taking care of their fellow country men and women is a higher priority than taking care of people in other countries. And most people would call that "moral", the word might be wrong or ambiguous, but the principal is solid.
Why is that? Well, simple. People live together and form groups with government and laws for one main reason and that is protection from others. Therefore it is in your best interest to support your country because your country protects you. So people can give their speeches about patriotism, and suppport of the USA(which by the way I support fully because I believe in the ideas our country was founded on), but really when it comes down too it, you protect other Americans because it keeps you and your family safe and healthy.
All of this information and more is available at your local college in the philosophy and history departments.
-Comedian
>We both have to lower prices to stay competitive against each other, and in fact, keeping prices high would involve illegal collusion.
And you don't think this "illegal collusion" occurs? You honestly think they pass the savings on to the customer rather than making "behind closed doors" price fixing deals and then keeping profits for themselves?