Try reading through previous comments on this article, and comprehending them - that's where I found out about his WWII service, and when I decided to look into it. I know very little about his past other than his job with the MPAA, his service during WWII, and his closeness to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
So sure, maybe he's done tons more evil things other than what he's done for the MPAA. That doesn't change my point. Hate him all you want - sure, be glad that he's dead - but that's no reason to make some of the downright disgusting remarks made about him on/. the day after his death.
If it actually cut the FPS in half, it would be 12. Hollywood shoots at 24fps, not 30fps. Also, I don't think it's likely split in half like that. There's ways to split a single mussed-up image into 2 clear ones with polarization. Most likely, any discomfort is from seeing two different frames of reference with each eye on the screen, and having a completely DIFFERENT frame of reference in the peripherals. It may not cause pain, but if you're not used to it, your eyes are probably jumping around to "adjust" to the "problem". I wouldn't be surprised if one's eyes are pretty tired or sore after 2 hours of that.
I know what he's done, but still. Wait at least until after his wake or something. I agree with your opinion of him as a person, but I just don't agree with some of the things people are saying about his death. You know, most people like him end up crying and begging for forgiveness for what they've done in life while they're on their deathbed.
He was also a pilot in WWII before he turned his strong convictions towards "protecting" an albeit sour industry.
I guess my point is, you're lowering yourself to his level when you fling hate towards him at his death, rather than ignore or forgive him. Far better to show you are human (unlike him, as you say) and forgive or let be, than to become like the monster he was in life.
Is there any reason to be this disrespectful to the guy? He may have been a highly disliked human being - but he was still a human being. No one deserves the crap you guys have been laying on him the DAY AFTER HIS DEATH.
This is the first time I've been ashamed to have a Slashdot account.
The Celts (probably the Druids before them) used the Yew for medicinal purposes all the time - they also knew to only use small amounts of anything but the berry, as everything about that tree is poisonous in anything but minute amounts.
Well, since I wasn't doing any labelling, I'll assume you're not talking to me when you mention liberals. I'm fiscally conservative, and socially moderate with a leaning towards liberal. So sure, I'm somewhat of a liberal. I'm far from a pot-smoking hippy, however.
Anyway, I agree with you that the GP went a little bit far - one might call me a hick Christian wacko (except I'm not a fundie). I'm also originally from the midwest, and have done my fair share of farm work. So yeah, I agree with you, that they are an important part of our economy.
That being said... I know a lot of folks in Arkansas who voted for Bush in 2000 and regretted it by 2004. And I know even more who voted for him in 2000 AND 2004, and are SEVERELY regretting it now. These are the ascribed "hick Christian wackos" the GP mentions, and they feel they were lied to and cheated. Most of them have sworn off ever voting for a Republican again. Which is a shame, the legislature works best when Congress is close to balanced like it is now. Give me a barely-Democratic controlled Congress with a Republican President any day over any party having control of both branches. The reverse is only somewhat as true for me - Democrat Presidents tend (though not always) to have a narrow field of foresight, and veto too little or for the wrong reasons.
Another one? The margin (along with margin of error) that Bush won at least 7 of those states. I'll have to re-gather the numbers, but I'll post them when I find them, but IIRC, those 7 states would have made the "election" go the other way, and the margin was small enough that a true recount and tossing of duplicate ballots (there are thousands every election) might have put Gore in the lead.
Lastly, no matter what you say, it doesn't change the fact that the election was decided by the Supreme Court, not the people or recounts - that were legally allowed, but rejected.
The election was stolen, plain and simple.
And a little piece of information I left out: I voted for Bush.
Sure I was happy the guy I voted for got the position, but NOT at the cost of the integrity of our nation's election system. Not to mention the fact that he completely destroyed the budget surplus and ALREADY improving economy at the time. He gets a lot of credit for the current growth we're going through - any economist will tell you that it takes longer than 4 years to do that, in all likelihood, you can credit Reagan or Bush Sr. for the current economy. The only thing fast-acting in our economy is disaster.
Since I made the GP post, we've found out he was a South Korean national who was just completely messed up in the head.
To answer your question, though...
We have a huge media complex that likes to report bad news as much as possible. That being said, yes, this sort of thing seems to happen more in the US than anywhere else. It's probably because we're encouraged to NOT stand up and speak our mind (even with Free Speech) when we feel that something's wrong with our government or way of life. This leads to someone bottling up and eventually snapping. It isn't just Americans, it's a symptom, however, of America's other (less-violent) problems.
As to "you're country" being full of violent idiots - the whole WORLD is full of violent idiots. I don't necessarily agree that students carrying guns would have helped the situation, but it might have ended it at 3 bodies instead of 30.
Lastly, the "weird, paranoid, overbearing, attack-first culture" isn't mine. It's not this country's culture, either. It is, as I said, a culture that has emerged from other problems this country DOES have. I take severe issue with religious fundies trying to turn morality into laws, and I'm Christian. This country was founded upon some things that have been forgotten over the past couple of decades, and it sucks hardcore. As with my previous example, people seem to think these days that this nation was founded as a "Christian nation", when it WASN'T. The fundies will tell you that it was the founding fathers' intent to do so - if that's the case, why does Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli specifically stay it wasn't?
You see, people like you, outside of this country, have this misconception that we are a representative democracy. We were, but we are not, now. The states' governments typically DO represent the people, but the Federal government stopped doing that sometime in the 1950s. You blame the WHOLE COUNTRY for the acts of the few. It's a sad thing that I just said that, considering we're supposed to be a nation of one of many. We're not, we're being horribly represented as a people by the media, Congress, and our President. And on that note, for those who want to say I'm just a "Bush hater", I'm not. He's got a damned hard job, has made some horrible decisions, and should have been removed from office before he ever went into it, but since I don't know him personally, I can only go on the knowledge that he's got a tough-as-hell job, and some really piss-poor advisers (not to mention the coke habit long ago).
Anyway, bashing Americans for this idiot's actions is the same as blaming, say, all Irish for the IRA's actions. Or blaming every Chinese citizens for the actions of a few Party members. Or blaming all Russians for the actions of Stalin. Or blaming all Germans for the actions of the Nazi Party and government. You are no better than this "culture" you claim we all have here.
I'd post links directly to the USPTO pages for them, but search links seem to break the USPTO sites because of session information or somesuch. You can search by patent number here.
Why you aren't modded Insightful is beyond me. I think such an idea would need some more details, of course, but overall, it's probably the best of both worlds - patents to protect innovators, and public property for stuff developed with public funds.
I don't agree with the 5 year limit up the parent-chain, however. 5 years simply isn't enough for some inventions - and filing when you bring it to market can only lead to someone doing all the hard work to bring something to market, only to find that their "research partner" filed the patent the day before. I think a staggered system might be better - 10 years for developing patents, and 5 years "at market" patents. What I mean by that is, if you file a patent for something that still needs development time to bring to market, you get 10 years on it - encouraging rapid development to "use" that time for recouping costs. The 5 year patent would be if you have it ready to bring to the market, and just want to file for your own private monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
I smell a possible reality show...
Actually, the law states:
1) That anyone of sufficiently low intelligent is thereby too dumb to let live;
a) excepting natives if Massachusetts
b) excepting Vice Presidents
Try reading through previous comments on this article, and comprehending them - that's where I found out about his WWII service, and when I decided to look into it. I know very little about his past other than his job with the MPAA, his service during WWII, and his closeness to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
/. the day after his death.
So sure, maybe he's done tons more evil things other than what he's done for the MPAA. That doesn't change my point. Hate him all you want - sure, be glad that he's dead - but that's no reason to make some of the downright disgusting remarks made about him on
If it actually cut the FPS in half, it would be 12. Hollywood shoots at 24fps, not 30fps. Also, I don't think it's likely split in half like that. There's ways to split a single mussed-up image into 2 clear ones with polarization. Most likely, any discomfort is from seeing two different frames of reference with each eye on the screen, and having a completely DIFFERENT frame of reference in the peripherals. It may not cause pain, but if you're not used to it, your eyes are probably jumping around to "adjust" to the "problem". I wouldn't be surprised if one's eyes are pretty tired or sore after 2 hours of that.
For the Americans.
Don't ask a question if you're not ready for the answer.
I know what he's done, but still. Wait at least until after his wake or something. I agree with your opinion of him as a person, but I just don't agree with some of the things people are saying about his death. You know, most people like him end up crying and begging for forgiveness for what they've done in life while they're on their deathbed.
He was also a pilot in WWII before he turned his strong convictions towards "protecting" an albeit sour industry.
I guess my point is, you're lowering yourself to his level when you fling hate towards him at his death, rather than ignore or forgive him. Far better to show you are human (unlike him, as you say) and forgive or let be, than to become like the monster he was in life.
Wait.. he's a Christian Scientist? Then why did he get his leg ampu...
Nevermind.
Is there any reason to be this disrespectful to the guy? He may have been a highly disliked human being - but he was still a human being. No one deserves the crap you guys have been laying on him the DAY AFTER HIS DEATH.
This is the first time I've been ashamed to have a Slashdot account.
Bruce, is this your first First Post? I don't recall seeing one from you in the past. :)
> eat grue
Actually, a couple of cancers HAVE been traced to viruses. But yes, I agree, there are multiple cancers, not just one.
The Celts (probably the Druids before them) used the Yew for medicinal purposes all the time - they also knew to only use small amounts of anything but the berry, as everything about that tree is poisonous in anything but minute amounts.
Apparently, I'm the only one who got this.. and here I am having spent the last of my mod points a few hours ago..
Well, since I wasn't doing any labelling, I'll assume you're not talking to me when you mention liberals. I'm fiscally conservative, and socially moderate with a leaning towards liberal. So sure, I'm somewhat of a liberal. I'm far from a pot-smoking hippy, however.
Anyway, I agree with you that the GP went a little bit far - one might call me a hick Christian wacko (except I'm not a fundie). I'm also originally from the midwest, and have done my fair share of farm work. So yeah, I agree with you, that they are an important part of our economy.
That being said... I know a lot of folks in Arkansas who voted for Bush in 2000 and regretted it by 2004. And I know even more who voted for him in 2000 AND 2004, and are SEVERELY regretting it now. These are the ascribed "hick Christian wackos" the GP mentions, and they feel they were lied to and cheated. Most of them have sworn off ever voting for a Republican again. Which is a shame, the legislature works best when Congress is close to balanced like it is now. Give me a barely-Democratic controlled Congress with a Republican President any day over any party having control of both branches. The reverse is only somewhat as true for me - Democrat Presidents tend (though not always) to have a narrow field of foresight, and veto too little or for the wrong reasons.
One important statistic missing from your list:
Popular vote.
Another one? The margin (along with margin of error) that Bush won at least 7 of those states. I'll have to re-gather the numbers, but I'll post them when I find them, but IIRC, those 7 states would have made the "election" go the other way, and the margin was small enough that a true recount and tossing of duplicate ballots (there are thousands every election) might have put Gore in the lead.
Lastly, no matter what you say, it doesn't change the fact that the election was decided by the Supreme Court, not the people or recounts - that were legally allowed, but rejected.
The election was stolen, plain and simple.
And a little piece of information I left out: I voted for Bush.
Sure I was happy the guy I voted for got the position, but NOT at the cost of the integrity of our nation's election system. Not to mention the fact that he completely destroyed the budget surplus and ALREADY improving economy at the time. He gets a lot of credit for the current growth we're going through - any economist will tell you that it takes longer than 4 years to do that, in all likelihood, you can credit Reagan or Bush Sr. for the current economy. The only thing fast-acting in our economy is disaster.
You keep using that word, "elected". I do not think it means what you think it means. (At least, by US election "standards")
Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed by the US Supreme Court.
Since I made the GP post, we've found out he was a South Korean national who was just completely messed up in the head.
To answer your question, though...
We have a huge media complex that likes to report bad news as much as possible. That being said, yes, this sort of thing seems to happen more in the US than anywhere else. It's probably because we're encouraged to NOT stand up and speak our mind (even with Free Speech) when we feel that something's wrong with our government or way of life. This leads to someone bottling up and eventually snapping. It isn't just Americans, it's a symptom, however, of America's other (less-violent) problems.
As to "you're country" being full of violent idiots - the whole WORLD is full of violent idiots. I don't necessarily agree that students carrying guns would have helped the situation, but it might have ended it at 3 bodies instead of 30.
Lastly, the "weird, paranoid, overbearing, attack-first culture" isn't mine. It's not this country's culture, either. It is, as I said, a culture that has emerged from other problems this country DOES have. I take severe issue with religious fundies trying to turn morality into laws, and I'm Christian. This country was founded upon some things that have been forgotten over the past couple of decades, and it sucks hardcore. As with my previous example, people seem to think these days that this nation was founded as a "Christian nation", when it WASN'T. The fundies will tell you that it was the founding fathers' intent to do so - if that's the case, why does Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli specifically stay it wasn't?
You see, people like you, outside of this country, have this misconception that we are a representative democracy. We were, but we are not, now. The states' governments typically DO represent the people, but the Federal government stopped doing that sometime in the 1950s. You blame the WHOLE COUNTRY for the acts of the few. It's a sad thing that I just said that, considering we're supposed to be a nation of one of many. We're not, we're being horribly represented as a people by the media, Congress, and our President. And on that note, for those who want to say I'm just a "Bush hater", I'm not. He's got a damned hard job, has made some horrible decisions, and should have been removed from office before he ever went into it, but since I don't know him personally, I can only go on the knowledge that he's got a tough-as-hell job, and some really piss-poor advisers (not to mention the coke habit long ago).
Anyway, bashing Americans for this idiot's actions is the same as blaming, say, all Irish for the IRA's actions. Or blaming every Chinese citizens for the actions of a few Party members. Or blaming all Russians for the actions of Stalin. Or blaming all Germans for the actions of the Nazi Party and government. You are no better than this "culture" you claim we all have here.
I had a hardcover copy of Snow Crash, and now I can't remember who borrowed it.
Damn.
> eat glue
Here's the two relevant patents:
I'd post links directly to the USPTO pages for them, but search links seem to break the USPTO sites because of session information or somesuch. You can search by patent number here.
Why you aren't modded Insightful is beyond me. I think such an idea would need some more details, of course, but overall, it's probably the best of both worlds - patents to protect innovators, and public property for stuff developed with public funds.
I don't agree with the 5 year limit up the parent-chain, however. 5 years simply isn't enough for some inventions - and filing when you bring it to market can only lead to someone doing all the hard work to bring something to market, only to find that their "research partner" filed the patent the day before. I think a staggered system might be better - 10 years for developing patents, and 5 years "at market" patents. What I mean by that is, if you file a patent for something that still needs development time to bring to market, you get 10 years on it - encouraging rapid development to "use" that time for recouping costs. The 5 year patent would be if you have it ready to bring to the market, and just want to file for your own private monopoly.
No apology necessary, but it's much appreciated. :)
Yeah. I wasn't too happy about that.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Matt doesn't profit from the ad revenues, the Dani in daniweb does.
He did, however, push traffic to his own blog on the daniweb site.
Unless there's something I don't know about Matt - like he's a Dani's boyfriend/partner/stalker or something.
I actually said "not rare" in my comment, please re-read it. You just supported my statement though, so thanks! :)