Mel Gibson just got very very rich from exploiting just gap between mass media values and the values of the market, and he just about didn't make it.
His market gap is highly unlikely to be the only one.
What's ridiculous is not a claim that media is biased toward the views of a media management holding those views, but the idea that said management would be so ethical that they would not sacrifice stockholder's profits rather than allow their biases to show through. They would be choir boys compared to other management hierarchies if that were the case and anyone who has hung out with Hollywood professionals will tell you these guys aren't choir boys.
And please, please, let me hear you say, "Media management's values are representative of the population's values...."
PS: There unfortunately was no mention anywhere in Google's archive of Mark Miller's right-shift-one of the Xanadu vocabulary, which turned Project Xanadu into Project Babel.
An anonymous coward will call me a "Nazi insect boy".
Timothy McVeigh will land in a UFO and take all the Born Again to heaven with him just like I guess I must have said somewhere on my web site but I just can seem to find the link right now.
Dimensional analysis shows that distance * force has two interpretations: energy or torque. If we're varying the distance over which a given energy is expended, we're talking about a reciprocal relationship due to the conservation of energy. All they need to do to convert that large force over a small distance into a smaller force over a larger distance is use something like a pully system. Now, I'll agree, once we start talking about pullies, it is time to start talking about torque, but really, you shouldn't try to pick nits with an idea that is fundamentally correct unless you're going to admit that you are picking nits rather than debunking an idea.
Oh, and I'm not really even picking nits here -- you really didn't get the idea and you should have.
While the carbon nanotube muscles can exceed the performance of natural muscle by generating a hundred times the force and elongating twice as fast, the contraction is less than one-tenth that of natural muscle. The conducting polymer muscles provide similar contractions to natural muscles, but have neither high cycle life nor high energy conversion efficiencies. The goal of the DARPA-funded program is to eliminate these problems and convert from electrically powered to chemically powered artificial muscles.
It seems these guys haven't heard of the way you convert force to distance and vis versa.
It's called the "leverage" and its used in everything from simple levers to pully systems.
One wonders what would have become of the Enlightenment had Guttenberg's press been instantly Wikified so that everything from Luther to Decarte had been subject to immediate editing, retraction and deletion by the the Roman Church, with their only recourse argument with armies of decons, friars, monks, priests, bishops and popes.
The statement was certainly public enough since he sent it to all the major congressmen and major national and university labs -- who then copied and forwarded it to farflung colleagues.
The real question for you little shits to face:
What does it mean when the mainstream sources of vital historical information miss something like this while someone like myself provides it?
Your country is only 300 years old. Nearly everyone there are immigrants within the last 6-9 generations, and some, like the Irish a lot earlier.
Aside from the fact that the earliest settlers had a 25% chance of dying in the first year after "immigration" -- until 1965 the subsequent "waves" of immigration were from nearby nations where there had been a long history of coevolution. The sole exception was Chinese laborers who tended to form their own communities and thereby demonstrated their ability to have separatist enclaves coexist peacefully.
The treasonous betrayal of those people by the 1965 immigration expansion to all nations of the world was another matter entirely. Coupled with the tyrannical, forced integrations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 this situation has led to a state where race war is more likely than ever -- and it may become a global war.
Is my presentation of some strange correlations with McVeigh's activities -- not even offering any theories therefore -- grounds for discounting a cited primary historical document? If so -- how?
Is the fact that a site has limited bandwidth grounds to ignore a cited primary historical document there hosted? If so -- why?
Is a founder of the Tokamak program denouncing the program he started just another "bitter blood feud" for which "Fusion power research is known"? If so, are the other such situations, outside of the Tokamak, in which a founder of a technical approach has put his reputation on the line to denounce the program he originated?
Is your claim that I believe there are thousands of scientists working on a massive conspiracy grounds for actually believing that I hold to such a theory? If so, where is the documentation of my conspiracy theory of fusion power research -- as opposed to my theory -- often stated -- that incentives drive behavior and bad incentives drive bad behavior among the unethical?
Would you have the guts to apologize if it turns out the letter is real?
Civil behavior from these people?
I sincerely doubt they would apologize under any circumstance other than the world transforming into a place where my opinions and speculations were considered mainstream -- in which case they would just go with the flow as they are doing now and maybe "confess their sins" since they seem incapable of anything but religiousity.
"I don't trust your medical opinion because you've said previously that AIDs could be transmitted through tears" is not ad hominem.
Fine. So let's come up with the analogous statement here:
"I don't trust your corroborating sources listed in the primary historical document because..."????
You sure are a long way from showing evidence that Robert Bussard, Robert Johnson or any of the Congressmen are untrustworthy -- as you must for your argument to be applicable. Cited sources presented by wikipedia contributors whose identity, let alone personal credibility, is open to question doesn't just make up a _lot_ of wikipedia's content -- it makes up _most_ of wikipedia's content.
How the heck did this end up being +5 Insightful? Ah, perhaps it is because Slashdot lacks a -1 White Hood option.
I was able to find out you are most likely "Eric O'Dell" from the San Francisco area but you apparently slipped up. You are the person most fitting the description of someone concealing his identity while you participate in mob political correctness.
This isn't convenient for my detractors. He recovered. It certainly would not have been conveneint for those who genuinely care about history were he to have died, as the document is genuine, very valuable and apparently in dispute for reasons that are not related to the content of the document but the unpopularity of another associated person's views.
However, I can believe that he might not want to waste time with the www after an experience like that since he's got funding and not much time before he needs to retire. I can especially believe he might not want to waste time with characters putting themselves out as "wikipedians" if they are at all represented by the "contributors" to the fusion power article and this thread here at/..
How do you answer a charge that this is simply grab for attention when instead of providing these supposedly corroborating sources
The corroborating sources are provided.
The name of the company is on the letter head. The company still exists. The name of the author is given. The name of the person who handed me the letter is given. The names of the Congressional recipients are given. All of these are public figures.
To the best of my knowledge the last time I posted anything anonymously was the Plato network circa 1980 when I did a bit of fiction under a pseudonym. Since then everything has been easily identifiable as the person I am -- in stark contrast to "deglr6328" who, for all we know, may be a refugee from The People's Temple. I think I know who is posting as IP 164.116.47.178 but I did not consult with said person concerning the fusion power article prior to his/her editing of that article.
As to the rest of his ad hominem attack, my challenge still stands: falsify the quite readily falsifiable claim of presenting a genuine letter from Robert W. Bussard, co-founder of the United States fusion energy program, denouncing, as an originator of that program, the Tokamak.
If you twerps want to really get my goat, why don't you get a notarized letter from Robert W. Bussard at Energy Matter Conversion Corporation denouncing the letter I report him as having sent to Congress and the research labs around the country. I've gone far enough out of my way to make it falsifiable. Do your Popperian duty and contact him at the address of his company, Energy Matter Conversion Corporation, as reported by a government contracting awards list website:
Energy/Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC2)
9705 Carroll Center Road
Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92126-6505
I know if I get a notarized letter it will do me no good because you'll just say I fabricated it like the kooks you are.
The legislative language was finalized in 1992 and the letter was not sent until mid 1995 -- before most people were aware of the www. Shortly thereafter Dr. Bussard entered a series of health crises. Consider yourself lucky you've read this.
The authenticity of any web document must be corroborated. In the case of this letter, there is more than enough corroborating information that's easily verifiable. For crying out loud there's the author of the letter himself to call if you really want to be a jerk and harrass him.
The epistemology of Wikidom has some weaknesses that render it useless for anything where there might be important information. Important information inevitably involves various interests and there is no way to remove the human element of resource competition from those interests.
A great example is what just happened to the fusion power article. Two of the three founders of the Tokamak program have come out against the Tokamak and one of the founders circulated a letter to all of the plasma physics labs as well as to the relevant Congressmen, stating categorically that the Tokamak program was never real -- it was just a vehicle for raising funding so that other more hopeful ideas could be tried.
I scanned the original letter and presented a link to it as an aspect of the fusion power article. This is primary source material -- not original research -- from one of the foremost authorities, indeed one of the fathers of the US fusion energy program. The nothing-better-to-do-with-their-times censored it and quite honestly I just don't have the time, energy or patience to bother with a reversion war with the bottom feeders at wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
His market gap is highly unlikely to be the only one.
What's ridiculous is not a claim that media is biased toward the views of a media management holding those views, but the idea that said management would be so ethical that they would not sacrifice stockholder's profits rather than allow their biases to show through. They would be choir boys compared to other management hierarchies if that were the case and anyone who has hung out with Hollywood professionals will tell you these guys aren't choir boys.
And please, please, let me hear you say, "Media management's values are representative of the population's values...."
PS: There unfortunately was no mention anywhere in Google's archive of Mark Miller's right-shift-one of the Xanadu vocabulary, which turned Project Xanadu into Project Babel.
The Second Coming of Timothy McVeigh might not happen but then if I can match Cringley's stellar record, who gives a shit?
That's all for now.
Oh, wait -- I'll probably shave.
I wonder why guys like Cringley never put their predictions up on Idea Futures Exchange? Maybe its because their predictions aren't that surprising?
Dimensional analysis shows that distance * force has two interpretations: energy or torque. If we're varying the distance over which a given energy is expended, we're talking about a reciprocal relationship due to the conservation of energy. All they need to do to convert that large force over a small distance into a smaller force over a larger distance is use something like a pully system. Now, I'll agree, once we start talking about pullies, it is time to start talking about torque, but really, you shouldn't try to pick nits with an idea that is fundamentally correct unless you're going to admit that you are picking nits rather than debunking an idea.
Oh, and I'm not really even picking nits here -- you really didn't get the idea and you should have.
It seems these guys haven't heard of the way you convert force to distance and vis versa.
It's called the "leverage" and its used in everything from simple levers to pully systems.
One wonders what would have become of the Enlightenment had Guttenberg's press been instantly Wikified so that everything from Luther to Decarte had been subject to immediate editing, retraction and deletion by the the Roman Church, with their only recourse argument with armies of decons, friars, monks, priests, bishops and popes.
The real question for you little shits to face:
What does it mean when the mainstream sources of vital historical information miss something like this while someone like myself provides it?
Aside from the fact that the earliest settlers had a 25% chance of dying in the first year after "immigration" -- until 1965 the subsequent "waves" of immigration were from nearby nations where there had been a long history of coevolution. The sole exception was Chinese laborers who tended to form their own communities and thereby demonstrated their ability to have separatist enclaves coexist peacefully.
The treasonous betrayal of those people by the 1965 immigration expansion to all nations of the world was another matter entirely. Coupled with the tyrannical, forced integrations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 this situation has led to a state where race war is more likely than ever -- and it may become a global war.
Not if they automate.
Is the fact that a site has limited bandwidth grounds to ignore a cited primary historical document there hosted? If so -- why?
Is a founder of the Tokamak program denouncing the program he started just another "bitter blood feud" for which "Fusion power research is known"? If so, are the other such situations, outside of the Tokamak, in which a founder of a technical approach has put his reputation on the line to denounce the program he originated?
Is your claim that I believe there are thousands of scientists working on a massive conspiracy grounds for actually believing that I hold to such a theory? If so, where is the documentation of my conspiracy theory of fusion power research -- as opposed to my theory -- often stated -- that incentives drive behavior and bad incentives drive bad behavior among the unethical?
There are multiple corroborators mentioned not the least of which is the author of the letter himself who, unlike Gates, is likely to be accessible.
Civil behavior from these people?
I sincerely doubt they would apologize under any circumstance other than the world transforming into a place where my opinions and speculations were considered mainstream -- in which case they would just go with the flow as they are doing now and maybe "confess their sins" since they seem incapable of anything but religiousity.
Fine. So let's come up with the analogous statement here:
"I don't trust your corroborating sources listed in the primary historical document because..."????
You sure are a long way from showing evidence that Robert Bussard, Robert Johnson or any of the Congressmen are untrustworthy -- as you must for your argument to be applicable. Cited sources presented by wikipedia contributors whose identity, let alone personal credibility, is open to question doesn't just make up a _lot_ of wikipedia's content -- it makes up _most_ of wikipedia's content.
I was able to find out you are most likely "Eric O'Dell" from the San Francisco area but you apparently slipped up. You are the person most fitting the description of someone concealing his identity while you participate in mob political correctness.
However, I can believe that he might not want to waste time with the www after an experience like that since he's got funding and not much time before he needs to retire. I can especially believe he might not want to waste time with characters putting themselves out as "wikipedians" if they are at all represented by the "contributors" to the fusion power article and this thread here at /..
The corroborating sources are provided.
The name of the company is on the letter head. The company still exists. The name of the author is given. The name of the person who handed me the letter is given. The names of the Congressional recipients are given. All of these are public figures.
You still lack the crucial letter of falsification, yet yammer you must. That fits the description of a "kook" quite well.
As to the rest of his ad hominem attack, my challenge still stands: falsify the quite readily falsifiable claim of presenting a genuine letter from Robert W. Bussard, co-founder of the United States fusion energy program, denouncing, as an originator of that program, the Tokamak.
Energy/Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC2)
9705 Carroll Center Road
Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92126-6505
I know if I get a notarized letter it will do me no good because you'll just say I fabricated it like the kooks you are.
The legislative language was finalized in 1992 and the letter was not sent until mid 1995 -- before most people were aware of the www. Shortly thereafter Dr. Bussard entered a series of health crises. Consider yourself lucky you've read this.
Well, I take that back. There is a single exception: "Zippy". He provides a rather valuable set of data in addition to his real name. He's:
- A "Wikipedia administrator" and
- Employed "at Applied Minds with Danny Hillis"
He deserves credit for being the most honest of my ad hominem detractors.The authenticity of any web document must be corroborated. In the case of this letter, there is more than enough corroborating information that's easily verifiable. For crying out loud there's the author of the letter himself to call if you really want to be a jerk and harrass him.
A great example is what just happened to the fusion power article. Two of the three founders of the Tokamak program have come out against the Tokamak and one of the founders circulated a letter to all of the plasma physics labs as well as to the relevant Congressmen, stating categorically that the Tokamak program was never real -- it was just a vehicle for raising funding so that other more hopeful ideas could be tried.
I scanned the original letter and presented a link to it as an aspect of the fusion power article. This is primary source material -- not original research -- from one of the foremost authorities, indeed one of the fathers of the US fusion energy program. The nothing-better-to-do-with-their-times censored it and quite honestly I just don't have the time, energy or patience to bother with a reversion war with the bottom feeders at wikipedia.