i'd like to point out that since 2000, 1,041 people have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism in Israel according to the Israeli Ministry of Foriegn Affairs. So it seems like the US is in the lead when it comes to number of citizens killed by terrorists in recent years. However, we have perservered.
If what you were saying was actually true, then 9/11 wouldn't have occured as it did, since we would have razed the twin towers after Febuary 26, 1993. Though, to be fair, we did build a memorial.
Terrorist incidents in the US have been on a different scale than those in Israel. We don't have the penny-ante "a teenage girl kills two when she detonates herself in the supermarket" crap. Here, large structures have targeted with far greater numbers of people at risk. We have perservered regardless, as people continue to work in large buildings throughout America. I think you underestimate us.
Most military aircraft are not armored in anything like the conventional sense of the word- usually they have one or two hardened spots-usually related to hydraulics and crew compartments. The hydraulic lines themselves are considered armored, but most of the aircraft is a very, very soft target. A high powered rifle could easily shoot through an apache helicopter. The trick is, it wouldn't do anything. Aircraft are big- and except for a few components, very little of the aircraft isn't protected by redundant systems.
As for fuel, it's not as bad as people think. The fuel cells of combat aircraft are self sealing, I wouldn't be suprised if civillian craft were similar in this regard. Contrary to popular belief, aviation fuel is very difficult to ignite, and doesn't burn well outside of high pressure enviroments. This is one reason why aviation fuel fires are as messy as they are, the fuel takes its time burning. Aircraft will frequently take damage to fuel cells, usually the biggest problem is the loss of the fuel itself (ie. How're we gonna make it home now, Chief?)
These are the reasons aircraft take so much to bring down, not some armored covering.
Ah, much like your believing "I have superior insight into the workings of the world and am above the petty delusions of the masses" makes you feel better about yourself.
You arn't taking into accounts increased efficiency gained through upgrading. Many companies found themselves forced to upgrade their billing and accounting systems, in many cases ending up with significantly more productive systems. To put it in terms of the broken window, what if the new window is better insulated than the old, and saves the shopkeeper on heating?
Or to look at a real world example, US steel prodution is reliant on remarkably old and inefficient facilities, and is facing no small challenge in renovating them. Japan and Germany, on the other hand, have more modern and efficient facilities beacuse their old crappy ones were bombed into oblivion. Sometimes losses of infrastructure can create oppourtunity for improvement.
Well, ok then. I'll approach this with less venom, since your opinion seems to be more reasonable than I had first thought.
So basically what you are getting at is whether rape was specifically called for as an instrument of degridation and demoralization, in the manner that it was in the Bosnian conflict. I would doubt that there was a specific "rape order" issued just for Nanjing, in addition to the "kill everyone brutally order" that obviously was in force, but it seems to me that this policy had been made clear to the Japanese occupation troops early on. The Japanese of the time were very obedient to authority, and prided themselves on their personal control. I doubt they would have read much of anything into their orders that wasn't given explicitly, especially when it came to running amok.
If this is what you're looking for, however, then the Abu Gharib scandal would certainly not count. As much as I'd like to be proven wrong, we all know Rummy never signed a "put 'em in a manpile and make them suck each other off order". The troops were simply told that the prisoners should be made miserable, and the outcome is just good ol' American ingenuity come to the fore.
Let me get this straight, you would have pulled money out of antiterrorism bugets, despite the recent, major attacks you mentioned? These were serious attacks. The Cole almost sunk. You fail to mention the deadly embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and don't forget Tim McVeigh, who enlightened us with a horrific demonstration that a serious domestic terrorist attack was possible. You would ignore enemies who had proven to be dedicated to and capable of causing deadly and disruptive attacks against American targets, both abroad and in the US? And focus on what?? Funding the M109A6 Paladin?
If you're being sarcastic, sorry I didn't get it, because from where I'm standing your comment looks as serious as it does ludicrous.
It's possible that Japanese higher officials actually did specifically order the soldiers to rape?! Are you suggesting that it's possible that Japanese higher officials just didn't notice? Hey maybe it's possible that a few poorly supervised Japanese soilders just took it on themselves to murder several hundred thousand Chinese civilians? Or is it possible that those German death camps were the work of some dedicated Nazis working in their spare time.
If you want to push a political message about Abu Ghraib, go to it. I could care less. However, when you begin some revisionist history bullshit about a major atrocity - one that has still not been fully owned up to by it perpetrators to this very day - you draw my ire. There is no question, none at all, that the atrocities in China were committed under the orders of Japanese High Command. So peddle you despicable lies elsewhere.
I think they musst be trying to compensate for the lack of breeze. On an actual island, the air temp would likely be higher than the water temp, but the constant breeze would make it seem cooler. Since i doubt they have the ability to simulate the breeze, they must have turned down the air temperature accordingly.
Democracy is rarely about the people making decisions by consensus. What it is about is the people choosing the descision makers they wish to follow- the people are happier not because they get to make the descisions, but because they like the guy who eventually does. The failing of this system is that nothing really requires the preferences of the minority of citizens to be considered in any way.
The situation is different when it comes to trying to convey the scale of tragedy. One of the most humanizing aspects of the 9/11 atttacks were the listings of victims' photos, names, and biographies, as in the NYT's "Portraits of Grief." These efforts tried to attach humanity to the numbers.
Here, there can be no such reckoning- the size of a listing of the names alone would be staggering. The true character of this disaster lies in the anonymous dead- the people who have not been identified, who will never be identified because everyone they knew and love were killed alongside them. There is no way to convey the true nature of this horror other than to show it, especially to people who have never seen death so shockingly stark. Anything less is abiguity. A mass grave covered over is nothing but a field of turned earth, spilled blood no more than a dark stain.
The pictures I have seen in the papers have been of debris, no more compelling than the debris left by an atlantic hurricane. Only images like this can show the true loss.
Does this mean they should be broadcast carelessly? Emphatically no. Some people, such as children, should be sheltered from things like this, lacking the abiliity to understand anything like this with the experience they have gained thus far. The pictures, however, need to be taken. Records must be made. People need to be given the oppourtunity to see for themselves, otherwise we run the risk of recording tragedy in souless numbers, and remembering nothing.
One of the things that we have forgotten in the modern era is how our ancesetors occasionally failed in monumental ways. A good example is the Bent Pyramid at Dhashur which despite untold millions of man hours of work was basically a failure. The thing is, even collossal screwups didn't stop them. They perservered through losses of life and treasure that would stop any project of modern man dead in its tracks. Our current manned space program is suffering from this problem- we have deemed failure so unacceptable that we are have paralyzed ourselves, and are helpless to advance.
I'd like to point out that a less than.5 km asteroid is within our capability to blow up right now, with the technology we already have. So it's not like this is something we are helpless to prevent, if we are warned in time.
What always gets me when people talk about the revenue of the american movie industry is that it's not a really large amount. By the figures in the article, the US movie industry makes about 30 billion in domestic revenue. The random figures the internet gave me indicate they make a roughly equal amount abroad. Worldwide, movies in all their forms, in and from all countries, generated 180 billion in revenue.
General Motors posted 184 billion in revenues for 2003.
So one large multinational company exceeded the revenues for all movie studios in the world. Now I wouldn't be making a deal about this except I'm tired of (a certain political party's) politicians talking about Hollywood's endless supply of money-in the context of its effect on the political process. The truth is, the American Movie industry is a very small part of a huge economy. There are a number of companies whose revenues far outstrip all of tinseltown, and any one of them are just as likely to throw money around to try an influence the government.
Ok.. what you're saying isn't true. I would have simply walked by it without comment, except for the snooty way you've decided to go about it. It is not true whatsoever that there is no such thing as a legal gray area. The gap between blatant illegality and perfectly legal behaviour is seperated by miles and miles of gray. This is why so much stock is put in interpreting the law.
In numerous cases, a person who might be considered to be breaking the law by a narrow definition is in fact not. This has nothing to do with whether they are prosecuted, it has to do with intent.
Don't believe me? Let's look at speeding, since you brought it up. Let's say you exceed the posted speed limit by two miles an hour, let's say 57 in a 55 zone. A zealous cop tracks you, and tickets you. You go to court. What happens next is that the judge will throw your case out. I've seen it happen. Why? Not because he doesn't believe the cop, or that he doesn't have the time to deal with you (hint, If you're there, he already is) It's because punishing your minor transgression was not the intent of the law.
The courts are filled with cases where hordes of litgators, judges, and juries have aggrigated their opinions to determine what constitutes illegality. In time, different hordes may determine a different standard, for the exact same law. The law is like Schrodinger's box, and the legality of the actions of an individual can always be considered gray until the trial is over.
Ok I was all set to jump on this guy, then I read the replies he had recieved already. They made me realize that he actually hadn't done wrong. The replies castigating him ranged from "How can you're kid grow up normal without computer games and trash tv?" to "If your kids don't live their lives out of control they'll never be great." OhKay.. The guy has quite a few rules, but they're not really that bad, people. It kind of scares me that people think they are.
The truth is there are several things going for him in what he's doing now. At 7, responsibility is far more attractive (also appropriate and useful) for a child than independence. A desire for independance will come later, and with years of responsibility under her belt, I don't see why she wouldn't get it. The other thing that works for him in this situation is that she's a girl. Yes, I know someone will jump on me for this, but it's true: Taken as a group, little boys are far more attracted to video games than little girls. This makes rule #1 a bit easier.
I guess the real question here is socialization: Do you enforce your rules by limiting your child's contact with other children (or adults)? Does your child have trouble interacting with other children (and adults) as a result of the way you run your household? These questions go for anybody with kids. If the answer to these questions is yes, then you're doing wrong by your kids. If the answer is no, then full speed ahead.
Finally, someone getting to the point. The problem would not be an "infectious" life form, as that implies one built around the same concepts as life here on earth. The threat would be a life form that doesn't have anything in common with our own. It would be entirely possible that a bacteria like that would have no natural predators, and could produce byproducts inimical to earthly life. In this fashion, an unchecked microorganism could end life as we know it. Think this could never happen? It has before.
Are you sure you went to the right corner? The object is to move from the top left to the top right corner...a number of people in this thread claim to have solved it, but went to the bottom right corner instead.
Ok, I can't imagine that you know much about the way gov't contracts are run.
For one, who is to say they won't overpay for something? I mean even if they offered a prize somewere more reasonable like around 10 million dollars, what if the first company to "make it work" could do it for 3 million. That means nasa has just waisted 7 million dollars that could have went to another project
So let's say the idea is 10 mil to get a man into orbit. OK, so they do it for 3 million. So they find a more cost effective way of doing things, which can be used in future spaceflight technology, and leads to greater savings in the long run.
But far more important that that, there's no way for the project like this to go overbuget. Look at the history of the shuttle, and you'll see a project that far exceeded it's initial cost estimate. Once you've sunk a few billion, though, it's a hard to back out and lose everything to save a billion or two. Especially when you've made promises to everyone and their mother to get the funding in the first place. This is what really saves you money.
As for the idea that companies wouldn't take the financial risks if uncertain of a reward, it's demonstrably untrue. This happens in the world of defense contracts all the time. Most large defense contractors, especially in areospace, have lost large sums of money developing prototypes, in failed bids to secure larger contracts.
As a final note, there are already congressmen who have made careers out of attacking NASA's budget. They point to the billions invested in space flight, and the lack of any visible progress. I can't imagine a program that guarantees results would make that any easier.
This push to make [for the user] simple what is after all increasingly complex, can only hide, not eliminate the role of the nerd class, a role the article disparages because nerds are presumed, as the inventors, to have foisted off complexity on the unwitting public.
I think the consideration you should take in that article is distiguishing what we will call the "common nerd" and the "ubernerd".
When a technology is in an underdeveloped state, the use of that technology is very complex. It requires a certain level of knowlege to do anything, thus the employment of large numbers of people whose primary asset is the knowlege of technology X. As these are the gatekeepers of the technology, the interface is designed with their needs and knowlege in mind. As the technology develops, the interface to that technology simplifies. The gatekeepers obsolesce, even though the technology has grown more complex. Certainly, very talented individuals are at work behind the scences developing and maintaining the technology- but they are behind the scenes. You don't need to deal with them to use the technology.
I don't think the intent is to blame complexity on nerds, but to point out that most new technology is designed for consumption by nerds. The nerds are still gatekeepers, and access to technology in nerd-mediated. Today we see a huge demand for the "common nerd" in a very public role: maintaining IT systems. In the future, the gatekeepers will, like in technologies before, obsolesce. The "ubernerds" of the future will still be at work, but far from the public that uses their services.
Read carefully - I never said corvettes were designed with JUST straight line speed in mind. That said, if you are suggesting that straight line acceleration wasn't an important factor in the corvette's design, then you're not being very truthful in your argument. Unless you intend to compare the eliica's performance to an actual dragster, which would be hard to justify given the fact that it's obviously a passanger car. The entire discussion on other performace characteristics really can't be resolved until the specs are posted, (in english, preferrably) but the point still stands that for a passanger vehicle this thing is fast.
The $400,000 vs. $50,000 argument doesn't hold up either, as one is a prototype and the other a production model.
PERFECT 10 is (or was, I havn't seen a print version in years) a good magazine. Very classy photos of beautiful nude women, sulty but not obscene, the kind of porn you wouldn't mind someone seeing you "reading". Makes playboy look like smut by comparison. Almost too clean, really, to make it good spank material you had to really use your imagination. Nonetheless, a top shelf publication.
The publisher, Norm Zadeh, (a Ph.d, as he likes to point out) unfortunatly has committed to a rather phyrric conflict with people who steal his content. In particular, it tends to be a favorite resource for celebrity fakers. He's been committed to going after the search engine companies for some time now, believing them to be profiting from it. I'm afraid this whole enterprise will drive him and the company to bankruptcy.
If it wern't for this, though, Zadeh should really be some sort of geek hero. A former Stanford university professor (economics, i think), who wrote a successful book on poker systems, he eventually decided to start his own men's magazine, mainly using red hot girls from eastern bloc countries. Thus a short, bald. geeky guy- who's main intrest was in mathematics- has surrounded himself with money and honeys.
Its a shame this suit is going to be his slashdot legacy.
Well, then, don't compare it to a porsche. Compare it to a corvette, which was certainly designed with straight line speed in mind. A factory fresh 2004 corvette posts a 12.5 quarter mile, over a second slower that the eliica type B's 11.3 second time. Nothing to sneeze at.
This still doesn't beat what, in my opinion, is one of the greatest advantages of other flat displays, weight. I like the concept of a display I can tote myself without fear of a hernia, or more likely, dropping the damn thing. The CRTs mentioned still weigh in at 49 and 44 kg. A slightly larger (37 in) plasma display would weigh in at around 25 kg, and a LCD at less than 20.
Going hand in hand with this, I really like the concept of wall mounting, something even these "thin" CRTs wouldn't be capable of.
Slashdot Mirror
If what you were saying was actually true, then 9/11 wouldn't have occured as it did, since we would have razed the twin towers after Febuary 26, 1993. Though, to be fair, we did build a memorial.
Terrorist incidents in the US have been on a different scale than those in Israel. We don't have the penny-ante "a teenage girl kills two when she detonates herself in the supermarket" crap. Here, large structures have targeted with far greater numbers of people at risk. We have perservered regardless, as people continue to work in large buildings throughout America. I think you underestimate us.
Most military aircraft are not armored in anything like the conventional sense of the word- usually they have one or two hardened spots-usually related to hydraulics and crew compartments. The hydraulic lines themselves are considered armored, but most of the aircraft is a very, very soft target. A high powered rifle could easily shoot through an apache helicopter. The trick is, it wouldn't do anything. Aircraft are big- and except for a few components, very little of the aircraft isn't protected by redundant systems.
As for fuel, it's not as bad as people think. The fuel cells of combat aircraft are self sealing, I wouldn't be suprised if civillian craft were similar in this regard. Contrary to popular belief, aviation fuel is very difficult to ignite, and doesn't burn well outside of high pressure enviroments. This is one reason why aviation fuel fires are as messy as they are, the fuel takes its time burning. Aircraft will frequently take damage to fuel cells, usually the biggest problem is the loss of the fuel itself (ie. How're we gonna make it home now, Chief?)
These are the reasons aircraft take so much to bring down, not some armored covering.
How's that working out for you?
Or to look at a real world example, US steel prodution is reliant on remarkably old and inefficient facilities, and is facing no small challenge in renovating them. Japan and Germany, on the other hand, have more modern and efficient facilities beacuse their old crappy ones were bombed into oblivion. Sometimes losses of infrastructure can create oppourtunity for improvement.
So basically what you are getting at is whether rape was specifically called for as an instrument of degridation and demoralization, in the manner that it was in the Bosnian conflict. I would doubt that there was a specific "rape order" issued just for Nanjing, in addition to the "kill everyone brutally order" that obviously was in force, but it seems to me that this policy had been made clear to the Japanese occupation troops early on. The Japanese of the time were very obedient to authority, and prided themselves on their personal control. I doubt they would have read much of anything into their orders that wasn't given explicitly, especially when it came to running amok.
If this is what you're looking for, however, then the Abu Gharib scandal would certainly not count. As much as I'd like to be proven wrong, we all know Rummy never signed a "put 'em in a manpile and make them suck each other off order". The troops were simply told that the prisoners should be made miserable, and the outcome is just good ol' American ingenuity come to the fore.
Only if I was using it as a trusted reference to cast doubt on the authenticity of wiki articles.
Let me get this straight, you would have pulled money out of antiterrorism bugets, despite the recent, major attacks you mentioned? These were serious attacks. The Cole almost sunk. You fail to mention the deadly embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and don't forget Tim McVeigh, who enlightened us with a horrific demonstration that a serious domestic terrorist attack was possible. You would ignore enemies who had proven to be dedicated to and capable of causing deadly and disruptive attacks against American targets, both abroad and in the US? And focus on what?? Funding the M109A6 Paladin?
If you're being sarcastic, sorry I didn't get it, because from where I'm standing your comment looks as serious as it does ludicrous.
If you want to push a political message about Abu Ghraib, go to it. I could care less. However, when you begin some revisionist history bullshit about a major atrocity - one that has still not been fully owned up to by it perpetrators to this very day - you draw my ire. There is no question, none at all, that the atrocities in China were committed under the orders of Japanese High Command. So peddle you despicable lies elsewhere.
Hell, read the goddamned wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
I think they musst be trying to compensate for the lack of breeze. On an actual island, the air temp would likely be higher than the water temp, but the constant breeze would make it seem cooler. Since i doubt they have the ability to simulate the breeze, they must have turned down the air temperature accordingly.
Democracy is rarely about the people making decisions by consensus. What it is about is the people choosing the descision makers they wish to follow- the people are happier not because they get to make the descisions, but because they like the guy who eventually does. The failing of this system is that nothing really requires the preferences of the minority of citizens to be considered in any way.
Here, there can be no such reckoning- the size of a listing of the names alone would be staggering. The true character of this disaster lies in the anonymous dead- the people who have not been identified, who will never be identified because everyone they knew and love were killed alongside them. There is no way to convey the true nature of this horror other than to show it, especially to people who have never seen death so shockingly stark. Anything less is abiguity. A mass grave covered over is nothing but a field of turned earth, spilled blood no more than a dark stain.
The pictures I have seen in the papers have been of debris, no more compelling than the debris left by an atlantic hurricane. Only images like this can show the true loss.
Does this mean they should be broadcast carelessly? Emphatically no. Some people, such as children, should be sheltered from things like this, lacking the abiliity to understand anything like this with the experience they have gained thus far. The pictures, however, need to be taken. Records must be made. People need to be given the oppourtunity to see for themselves, otherwise we run the risk of recording tragedy in souless numbers, and remembering nothing.
One of the things that we have forgotten in the modern era is how our ancesetors occasionally failed in monumental ways. A good example is the Bent Pyramid at Dhashur which despite untold millions of man hours of work was basically a failure. The thing is, even collossal screwups didn't stop them. They perservered through losses of life and treasure that would stop any project of modern man dead in its tracks. Our current manned space program is suffering from this problem- we have deemed failure so unacceptable that we are have paralyzed ourselves, and are helpless to advance.
And to think half of the kids were scared of mall Santas BEFORE I tell 'em about this. Ha!
I'd like to point out that a less than .5 km asteroid is within our capability to blow up right now, with the technology we already have. So it's not like this is something we are helpless to prevent, if we are warned in time.
General Motors posted 184 billion in revenues for 2003.
So one large multinational company exceeded the revenues for all movie studios in the world. Now I wouldn't be making a deal about this except I'm tired of (a certain political party's) politicians talking about Hollywood's endless supply of money-in the context of its effect on the political process. The truth is, the American Movie industry is a very small part of a huge economy. There are a number of companies whose revenues far outstrip all of tinseltown, and any one of them are just as likely to throw money around to try an influence the government.
In numerous cases, a person who might be considered to be breaking the law by a narrow definition is in fact not. This has nothing to do with whether they are prosecuted, it has to do with intent.
Don't believe me? Let's look at speeding, since you brought it up. Let's say you exceed the posted speed limit by two miles an hour, let's say 57 in a 55 zone. A zealous cop tracks you, and tickets you. You go to court. What happens next is that the judge will throw your case out. I've seen it happen. Why? Not because he doesn't believe the cop, or that he doesn't have the time to deal with you (hint, If you're there, he already is) It's because punishing your minor transgression was not the intent of the law.
The courts are filled with cases where hordes of litgators, judges, and juries have aggrigated their opinions to determine what constitutes illegality. In time, different hordes may determine a different standard, for the exact same law. The law is like Schrodinger's box, and the legality of the actions of an individual can always be considered gray until the trial is over.
The truth is there are several things going for him in what he's doing now. At 7, responsibility is far more attractive (also appropriate and useful) for a child than independence. A desire for independance will come later, and with years of responsibility under her belt, I don't see why she wouldn't get it. The other thing that works for him in this situation is that she's a girl. Yes, I know someone will jump on me for this, but it's true: Taken as a group, little boys are far more attracted to video games than little girls. This makes rule #1 a bit easier.
I guess the real question here is socialization: Do you enforce your rules by limiting your child's contact with other children (or adults)? Does your child have trouble interacting with other children (and adults) as a result of the way you run your household? These questions go for anybody with kids. If the answer to these questions is yes, then you're doing wrong by your kids. If the answer is no, then full speed ahead.
Finally, someone getting to the point. The problem would not be an "infectious" life form, as that implies one built around the same concepts as life here on earth. The threat would be a life form that doesn't have anything in common with our own. It would be entirely possible that a bacteria like that would have no natural predators, and could produce byproducts inimical to earthly life. In this fashion, an unchecked microorganism could end life as we know it. Think this could never happen? It has before.
Are you sure you went to the right corner? The object is to move from the top left to the top right corner...a number of people in this thread claim to have solved it, but went to the bottom right corner instead.
So let's say the idea is 10 mil to get a man into orbit. OK, so they do it for 3 million. So they find a more cost effective way of doing things, which can be used in future spaceflight technology, and leads to greater savings in the long run.
But far more important that that, there's no way for the project like this to go overbuget. Look at the history of the shuttle, and you'll see a project that far exceeded it's initial cost estimate. Once you've sunk a few billion, though, it's a hard to back out and lose everything to save a billion or two. Especially when you've made promises to everyone and their mother to get the funding in the first place. This is what really saves you money.
As for the idea that companies wouldn't take the financial risks if uncertain of a reward, it's demonstrably untrue. This happens in the world of defense contracts all the time. Most large defense contractors, especially in areospace, have lost large sums of money developing prototypes, in failed bids to secure larger contracts.
As a final note, there are already congressmen who have made careers out of attacking NASA's budget. They point to the billions invested in space flight, and the lack of any visible progress. I can't imagine a program that guarantees results would make that any easier.
When a technology is in an underdeveloped state, the use of that technology is very complex. It requires a certain level of knowlege to do anything, thus the employment of large numbers of people whose primary asset is the knowlege of technology X. As these are the gatekeepers of the technology, the interface is designed with their needs and knowlege in mind. As the technology develops, the interface to that technology simplifies. The gatekeepers obsolesce, even though the technology has grown more complex. Certainly, very talented individuals are at work behind the scences developing and maintaining the technology- but they are behind the scenes. You don't need to deal with them to use the technology.
I don't think the intent is to blame complexity on nerds, but to point out that most new technology is designed for consumption by nerds. The nerds are still gatekeepers, and access to technology in nerd-mediated. Today we see a huge demand for the "common nerd" in a very public role: maintaining IT systems. In the future, the gatekeepers will, like in technologies before, obsolesce. The "ubernerds" of the future will still be at work, but far from the public that uses their services.
The $400,000 vs. $50,000 argument doesn't hold up either, as one is a prototype and the other a production model.
The publisher, Norm Zadeh, (a Ph.d, as he likes to point out) unfortunatly has committed to a rather phyrric conflict with people who steal his content. In particular, it tends to be a favorite resource for celebrity fakers. He's been committed to going after the search engine companies for some time now, believing them to be profiting from it. I'm afraid this whole enterprise will drive him and the company to bankruptcy.
If it wern't for this, though, Zadeh should really be some sort of geek hero. A former Stanford university professor (economics, i think), who wrote a successful book on poker systems, he eventually decided to start his own men's magazine, mainly using red hot girls from eastern bloc countries. Thus a short, bald. geeky guy- who's main intrest was in mathematics- has surrounded himself with money and honeys.
Its a shame this suit is going to be his slashdot legacy.
Well, then, don't compare it to a porsche. Compare it to a corvette, which was certainly designed with straight line speed in mind. A factory fresh 2004 corvette posts a 12.5 quarter mile, over a second slower that the eliica type B's 11.3 second time. Nothing to sneeze at.
Going hand in hand with this, I really like the concept of wall mounting, something even these "thin" CRTs wouldn't be capable of.