Google searches have historically been based on whether people are talking about a given movie. Big-name Hollywood titles get much more attention than independent films; therefore, Google reports those first. Maybe it's unfair, maybe it perpetuates the cycle, but there's nothing sinister going on here. Just the way it's written.
Probably for use in Google Local, or if you haven't used that, the last search at Google Maps. There's a lot of information stored in the Google cookie. Clear it and see if it still enters your zip code automatically (hint: it won't).
It's rather unfair to assume that the only people who think that the environment is not in immediate and grave danger due to pollution anthropogenic erosion are those who have a vested and short-sighted economic interest in keeping the environment unregulated. What about people who think, Even if there is a danger, we're probably going about it the wrong way? Or the people who think, I don't mind being environmentally friendly and in fact I recommend it to all my friends, but that doesn't give the government the right to force anyone into it? Not everyone who disagrees has a sinister self-serving agenda.
1. Evidence will certainly appear exaggerated when you see projections which (although I am not a meteorologist) feature predictions that do not at first appear mathematically sound. It's difficult to seem unbiased with cases like journals suppressing dissenting opinion on global warming. It's hard to present yourself as even-minded when you attract support for your cause with slogans like "save the planet."
The IPCC does an outstanding job of researching it, but too few listen to reason and most of the rest content themselves with predicting the end of the world based on incomplete data, and demand that actions be taken which are likely to be either ineffective or excessively costly.
2. There are scientifically literate people on both sides of the equation. The Cooler Heads Coalition, while hardly unbiased, demonstrates that in its selection of articles.
In all likelihood, we'll slowly (two major bills per year as a maximum, decreasing as time goes on) give up rights until the zeal for national security fades somewhat, and all the while we'd be retroactively fixing the hastily prepared laws, until maybe fives years after the last one gets through and everything's back to normal, and the Department of Homeland Security needs a warrant again. Over this time, a few hundred innocent people might be wrongly detained as a result of this, then set free with a grudge against the government which will make a handful of them rich with publicity deals, and we'd have to wait until Iraq has cooled down quite a bit to see how much benefit.
The law is not set in stone. The US code is a dynamic thing, and the Constitution was written the way it was to encourage the law to be kept timely and to give the people a channel to do something about laws that harm them.
There's such a thing as healthy discretion and doubt, and it's a good thing. But predicting the downfall of representative government every time the government tries to infringe upon rights is not healthy discretion and doubt. The best thing is to stay in between the two Chicken Little extremes: on the one hand, we've got rights-infringing laws being forces through Congress as a result of a magnified danger. On the other hand, we've got the tinfoil hat crowd preaching armageddon as a result of these laws. Buddha was on to something with that "middle way" bit.
I'm not entirely sure I know what you're talking about. The system works by allowing for and encouraging the removal and repair of bad laws. I don't doubt that at some point the legislation you're referring to will be replaced. It's how the system works.
And here we see the problem inherent in expecting the law to operate on an instant gratification procedure. Bad laws get passed - but eventually they're fixed or removed. The key word, here, being "eventually." No bad law is permanent - and that is how the system works.
You do have to consider the relative prevalence of these countries in the media. I'm thinking Denmark appears about as much in the American media as Connecticut does in the Danish media.
Although I suppose it wasn't quite fair to the Danish. Let's go with, say, Oregon and Sweden. Or how about Nebraska and Luxembourg? Texas and France. The position of New York City in New York vs. the position of London in Britain. California vs. Ireland. Florida vs. Japan.
It doesn't have much to do with the geographic area, nor with the population. It's with the significance of the division on the media, both politically and culturally, relative to the location that they're being viewed. Individual states in the US are significant enough that some match whole countries on an objective scale.
As long as there are constituents like you, there will be politicians who don't care so much about being seen as "soft on terror."
And I was really wondering how the Real ID act itself constitutes the collapse of democracy, not merely an indication that the current political climate has rather less of it than we'd like.
I beileve he'd get a law in the works that promised milk and honey for the nation, repealed all income taxes, made every treehugger happy, and included the national ID law...
and then, line item veto all but the last.
Bush? Are you kidding me? Bush has never vetoed anything. Consider, please, the current president....
'real' republicans are for non-governmental interference in business small & Large, and non-influence over our daily lives..
I can't believe old, rich, die-hard republicans don't really hate bush & his take on republican politics... it's not what their view used to be.
I'm sure the rich Republicans don't hate him very much.
In all seriousness, however, the Republican party has split, and one of the factions is in control. You've got the Goldwater Republicans, who are a lot more like Libertarians but don't vote Libertarian for the same reason Democrats don't vote Green, and you've got Wolfowitz Republicans, who dominate the arena of politics today.
The Goldwater Republicans aren't likely to see widespread influence until a power vacuum allows the Republican Party to split... and since the most likely cause for a power vacuum in modern politics would be the implosion of the Democratic party, it may well get worse before it gets better.
The next political divison in the United States will not be traditionalists vs. progressives, but interventionists vs. libertarians.
Here's an experiment to determine how healthy the American education system is.
Find out how many high school students in Connecticut can identify Denmark on an unlabeled map. Then find out how many high school students in Denmark can identify Connecticut on an unlabeled map. Compare the numbers.
A lot of this 100% that "remains in effect" is actually expiring shortly. The act of reviewing it may well have the result of more of it being amended or removed. I fail to see how a handful of nasty riders on a bill for a national standard for identification constitutes "totalitarian corporate puppets."
the administration is pushing it as a magic bullet for terrorism though.
Do you really think that intent matters in politics? 'Cause it doesn't. Effects matter.
no, the only reason for this bill to exist is to make tracking and surveillance of citizens easier.
And here I thought Slashdot readers liked adherence to standards and better technology. Yes, a national standard for identification gives the tinfoil hat crowd good reason to worry that the government knowing who and where they are. But the existence of any nation depends on the enforcement of its laws - and if you can show me a more gaping hole than IDs through which criminal law stands to remain unenforced as a result of inability (rather than corruption), then please, enlighten me.
The government does have the right to know who you are when you want to do something that it regulates, as do any retailers. One consequence of a nationally standardized ID is that we will have a far more efficient and reliable means of meeting these demands.
and the government will have blown $120 million on a placebo anti-terrorism measure, instead of $120 million that could have been used on actually effective security measures.
$120 million is peanuts to the government, especially to one run by an administration as addicted to deficit spending as the current one. It's $120 million for a reasonably useful measure with anti-terrorism rhetoric surrounding it, but spending that $120 million is not preventing any other $120 million measures from being passed.
The idea is that a single national standard for identification, with more pertinent and easily accessible (to government officials) data, will make the whole system move more efficiently - particularly in terms of crime (which, surprise, consists of much more than terrorism) and law enforcement. Immigration laws exist; however, their enforcement leaves much to be desired. A national standard is one thing that can assist greatly in that area.
Granted, the bill does far too much and says far too little about it, but all in all the concept of a national standard for identification is hardly a bad one.
I think part of people's beef with the environmentalist movement is that (in more relatively libertarian societies like the Unites States and Japan (as opposed to more communitarian societies like, oh, almost all of Europe)) people want (or deserve) the right to act in their own self-interest, and think "Hm. Force people to give up some of their own economic freedoms, for the sake of averting an alleged disaster, the evidence in support of which appears (rightly or not) to be exaggerated, and which I may very well not live to see? You're out of your mind."
In general, people don't have much of a problem with being environmentally friendly. The problem arises when they're forced to do it. Or it becomes a significant inconvenience or expense.
To be fair, it's only software patents that are in as miserable a state of affairs as to render the whole system ineffective. Patents on technology in other industries still function as they were intended - to protect the inventor rather than to stifle potential inventors.
Don't automatically assume that this is a bad thing. Google's gathing information about browsing habits with this, no doubt, but what can they do with it without causing their stock value to plummet as a result of negative PR? They can improve the quality of their searches (which is good), they can deliver ads that are even more relevant (which they already do anyway), and they can take market share away from companies who don't make products that are as effective (which is good).
I say go for it. Religion had so much potential for good stories and intuitive gameplay that I'm surprised it's gone untapped as long as it has. Maybe it's the unwritten rule that religious popular media have to be a sort of propaganda for their faith, rather than actually making something interesting out of it, I don't know. Nobody likes to play a condescending sales pitch or an evangelistic circle-jerk.
Take something out of Acts, for instance. Go around as Paul, talk to people and stuff. Make it a strategy game or something. Nice and slow-paced, let the story sink in.
For the action games, set it in Revelation. You're just some angel and they send you on missions and you get to blow shit up with divine fury rather than conventional explosives. Or maybe you're Michael and you get in a huge fight with this dragon that just won't die. Imagine the special effects - can any studio depict an amphibious creature with seven blasphemous heads and ten crowned horns and the body of a leopart and feet like a bear and a mouth like a lion, without making it look ridiculous?
There's no need to limit it to Christianity, either. Take Norse legend - pick a god, play out the story. Wanna be Odin and try to satisfy your undying thirst for knowledge? Go ahead! Wanna be Thor and pick a fight with the Frost Giant? Sure! Whatever you want!
I'd buy those games if they can keep the evangelism down.
I'm not sure where you're coming from to imply that Nintendo's sales are "marginalized" (last I checked, five million DS units sold is not indicative of marginalization, nor is a 37% overall market share), and you must of course realize that although it is a "relatively small company" when compared to Sony and Microsoft, it is certainly not small on any objective scale.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not as if you have to use the cluttered interface.
Online Smash Bros. sequel available at launch?
Nintendo has sold me a console.
No, I'm sure there'll be free alternatives.
Google searches have historically been based on whether people are talking about a given movie. Big-name Hollywood titles get much more attention than independent films; therefore, Google reports those first. Maybe it's unfair, maybe it perpetuates the cycle, but there's nothing sinister going on here. Just the way it's written.
Probably for use in Google Local, or if you haven't used that, the last search at Google Maps. There's a lot of information stored in the Google cookie. Clear it and see if it still enters your zip code automatically (hint: it won't).
1. Evidence will certainly appear exaggerated when you see projections which (although I am not a meteorologist) feature predictions that do not at first appear mathematically sound. It's difficult to seem unbiased with cases like journals suppressing dissenting opinion on global warming. It's hard to present yourself as even-minded when you attract support for your cause with slogans like "save the planet."
The IPCC does an outstanding job of researching it, but too few listen to reason and most of the rest content themselves with predicting the end of the world based on incomplete data, and demand that actions be taken which are likely to be either ineffective or excessively costly.
2. There are scientifically literate people on both sides of the equation. The Cooler Heads Coalition, while hardly unbiased, demonstrates that in its selection of articles.
In all likelihood, we'll slowly (two major bills per year as a maximum, decreasing as time goes on) give up rights until the zeal for national security fades somewhat, and all the while we'd be retroactively fixing the hastily prepared laws, until maybe fives years after the last one gets through and everything's back to normal, and the Department of Homeland Security needs a warrant again. Over this time, a few hundred innocent people might be wrongly detained as a result of this, then set free with a grudge against the government which will make a handful of them rich with publicity deals, and we'd have to wait until Iraq has cooled down quite a bit to see how much benefit.
The law is not set in stone. The US code is a dynamic thing, and the Constitution was written the way it was to encourage the law to be kept timely and to give the people a channel to do something about laws that harm them.
There's such a thing as healthy discretion and doubt, and it's a good thing. But predicting the downfall of representative government every time the government tries to infringe upon rights is not healthy discretion and doubt. The best thing is to stay in between the two Chicken Little extremes: on the one hand, we've got rights-infringing laws being forces through Congress as a result of a magnified danger. On the other hand, we've got the tinfoil hat crowd preaching armageddon as a result of these laws. Buddha was on to something with that "middle way" bit.
I'm not entirely sure I know what you're talking about. The system works by allowing for and encouraging the removal and repair of bad laws. I don't doubt that at some point the legislation you're referring to will be replaced. It's how the system works.
Patience, it seems, is a rare virtue on Slashdot.
And here we see the problem inherent in expecting the law to operate on an instant gratification procedure. Bad laws get passed - but eventually they're fixed or removed. The key word, here, being "eventually." No bad law is permanent - and that is how the system works.
You do have to consider the relative prevalence of these countries in the media. I'm thinking Denmark appears about as much in the American media as Connecticut does in the Danish media.
Although I suppose it wasn't quite fair to the Danish. Let's go with, say, Oregon and Sweden. Or how about Nebraska and Luxembourg? Texas and France. The position of New York City in New York vs. the position of London in Britain. California vs. Ireland. Florida vs. Japan.
It doesn't have much to do with the geographic area, nor with the population. It's with the significance of the division on the media, both politically and culturally, relative to the location that they're being viewed. Individual states in the US are significant enough that some match whole countries on an objective scale.
As long as there are constituents like you, there will be politicians who don't care so much about being seen as "soft on terror."
And I was really wondering how the Real ID act itself constitutes the collapse of democracy, not merely an indication that the current political climate has rather less of it than we'd like.
Bush? Are you kidding me? Bush has never vetoed anything. Consider, please, the current president....
'real' republicans are for non-governmental interference in business small & Large, and non-influence over our daily lives.. I can't believe old, rich, die-hard republicans don't really hate bush & his take on republican politics... it's not what their view used to be.
I'm sure the rich Republicans don't hate him very much.
In all seriousness, however, the Republican party has split, and one of the factions is in control. You've got the Goldwater Republicans, who are a lot more like Libertarians but don't vote Libertarian for the same reason Democrats don't vote Green, and you've got Wolfowitz Republicans, who dominate the arena of politics today.
The Goldwater Republicans aren't likely to see widespread influence until a power vacuum allows the Republican Party to split... and since the most likely cause for a power vacuum in modern politics would be the implosion of the Democratic party, it may well get worse before it gets better.
The next political divison in the United States will not be traditionalists vs. progressives, but interventionists vs. libertarians.
What we are seeing here is the system at work. Bad laws get passed, but sooner or later they are amended or taken off the books.
Find out how many high school students in Connecticut can identify Denmark on an unlabeled map. Then find out how many high school students in Denmark can identify Connecticut on an unlabeled map. Compare the numbers.
A lot of this 100% that "remains in effect" is actually expiring shortly. The act of reviewing it may well have the result of more of it being amended or removed. I fail to see how a handful of nasty riders on a bill for a national standard for identification constitutes "totalitarian corporate puppets."
Do you really think that intent matters in politics? 'Cause it doesn't. Effects matter.
no, the only reason for this bill to exist is to make tracking and surveillance of citizens easier.
And here I thought Slashdot readers liked adherence to standards and better technology. Yes, a national standard for identification gives the tinfoil hat crowd good reason to worry that the government knowing who and where they are. But the existence of any nation depends on the enforcement of its laws - and if you can show me a more gaping hole than IDs through which criminal law stands to remain unenforced as a result of inability (rather than corruption), then please, enlighten me.
The government does have the right to know who you are when you want to do something that it regulates, as do any retailers. One consequence of a nationally standardized ID is that we will have a far more efficient and reliable means of meeting these demands.
and the government will have blown $120 million on a placebo anti-terrorism measure, instead of $120 million that could have been used on actually effective security measures.
$120 million is peanuts to the government, especially to one run by an administration as addicted to deficit spending as the current one. It's $120 million for a reasonably useful measure with anti-terrorism rhetoric surrounding it, but spending that $120 million is not preventing any other $120 million measures from being passed.
The idea is that a single national standard for identification, with more pertinent and easily accessible (to government officials) data, will make the whole system move more efficiently - particularly in terms of crime (which, surprise, consists of much more than terrorism) and law enforcement. Immigration laws exist; however, their enforcement leaves much to be desired. A national standard is one thing that can assist greatly in that area.
Granted, the bill does far too much and says far too little about it, but all in all the concept of a national standard for identification is hardly a bad one.
How many years has this been keeping up? It may very well be a result of Solar Cycles rather than purely terrestrial climate effects.
In general, people don't have much of a problem with being environmentally friendly. The problem arises when they're forced to do it. Or it becomes a significant inconvenience or expense.
To be fair, it's only software patents that are in as miserable a state of affairs as to render the whole system ineffective. Patents on technology in other industries still function as they were intended - to protect the inventor rather than to stifle potential inventors.
Don't automatically assume that this is a bad thing. Google's gathing information about browsing habits with this, no doubt, but what can they do with it without causing their stock value to plummet as a result of negative PR? They can improve the quality of their searches (which is good), they can deliver ads that are even more relevant (which they already do anyway), and they can take market share away from companies who don't make products that are as effective (which is good).
I say go for it. Religion had so much potential for good stories and intuitive gameplay that I'm surprised it's gone untapped as long as it has. Maybe it's the unwritten rule that religious popular media have to be a sort of propaganda for their faith, rather than actually making something interesting out of it, I don't know. Nobody likes to play a condescending sales pitch or an evangelistic circle-jerk.
Take something out of Acts, for instance. Go around as Paul, talk to people and stuff. Make it a strategy game or something. Nice and slow-paced, let the story sink in.
For the action games, set it in Revelation. You're just some angel and they send you on missions and you get to blow shit up with divine fury rather than conventional explosives. Or maybe you're Michael and you get in a huge fight with this dragon that just won't die. Imagine the special effects - can any studio depict an amphibious creature with seven blasphemous heads and ten crowned horns and the body of a leopart and feet like a bear and a mouth like a lion, without making it look ridiculous?
There's no need to limit it to Christianity, either. Take Norse legend - pick a god, play out the story. Wanna be Odin and try to satisfy your undying thirst for knowledge? Go ahead! Wanna be Thor and pick a fight with the Frost Giant? Sure! Whatever you want!
I'd buy those games if they can keep the evangelism down.
This article should be modded -1 Flamebait.
I'm not sure where you're coming from to imply that Nintendo's sales are "marginalized" (last I checked, five million DS units sold is not indicative of marginalization, nor is a 37% overall market share), and you must of course realize that although it is a "relatively small company" when compared to Sony and Microsoft, it is certainly not small on any objective scale.
Isn't that already how they're made, though?