If you ever listened to your gut you'd know that censorship is any weighted presentation of information that falls short of 100% equal time for all whack-job opinions. So long as they are pro-American gut-checked whack-job opinions.
Conservatives are more often the target of ad hominem or source-based dismissals but that did not come out of thin air. In 6 years of straight conservative Republican rule we've seen an unprecedented attack on objective, fact-based discussion and governance. From teaching biology to studying the Earth to our own intelligence services, there has been a clear trend. I mean, it's strong enough to have generated a hit show dedicated solely to mocking it out, and a whole new word.
Liberal sources do it too but the fact of the matter is that when they do it, it is powerless and meek. But there's something about having it rammed down our throat by our government that over-sensitizes even moderates.
It's like conservatives want things both ways--they want to be in total power, but they also want the victim's position of being unfairly targetted and discriminated against. Sorry, life is not fair. When you're running the show you're going to garner more attention. If you want the victims' empowerment you have to first be an actual victim.
The point of the GGP is that the quantum mechanical state of the physical components of life at any single point in time might not be sufficient to define living vs. dead. I believe this is an open question. So assuming that one could teleport the (admittedly enormous) collection of states in a living being, would the matter "receiving" the information then live, or remain inert? As I understand the current state of our knowledge this is a) unanswerable short of actually trying it and b) academic anyway as the impracticalities abound.:-)
I'm actually in agreement with you and I've read (and enjoyed) Dawkins' books. Basically I was just offended at the arrogance on display by the GP. I'm all for debunking mysticism but let's not dismiss questions that remain open to scientific investigation. There are certainly scientific theories now that we know are well-supported, but remain counter-intuitive and mysterious.
My point is that right now there is clearly more to "life" than can be described by our understanding of the raw physics of the materials involved. I don't think it's wrong to call that mysterious--science can be used to investigate mysteries. I do agree with you that a mystical answer is not useful or valuable. But pointing out a gap in our understanding will necessarily involve imprecise language. That doesn't make it a mystical explanation though IMO.
Please describe, in a repeatable, objectively testable way, how to tell the difference between living and dead matter at the quantum level. For that matter please describe how to tell the difference between living and dead matter over very short periods of time. There's a lot about "life" that we don't understand scientifically yet.
It does not goes with the person for the reasons you state.
It serves as a paper ballot, so that the vote can be recounted by hand if the electronic count is challenged. Electronic vote is fast but black-box. Paper ballot is slow but verifiable by anyone (of any party).
When the vote is cast, the machine produces a paper record. The voter reads over the paper and makes sure it accurately represents their selections if it does they hit the "vote" button on the machine, and deposit the paper into a ballot box.
Parallel and redundant systems. Short of taking off and nuking from space, it's the only way to be sure.
"So we're giving these "powerful tools" to government, exempting the Executive branch from judicial oversight, enabling that branch to define anyone as an enemy combatant and forever preclude that person from seeking any judicial review or redress of their detention (the detention which shall require no charges or trial), all to fight..."
To be fair I would say that it is not clear that the Congress CAN exempt the executive branch from judicial oversight. They can pass all the laws they want but eventually all laws save for Constitutional amendments are reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sure, the administration could pull an Andrew Jackson* and refuse to recognize or enforce a SCOTUS decision, but I bet that would not turn out as well for them as it did for Jackson. In fact I'd think that sort of constitutional crisis would be just about the best possible advertising for the Democrats.
*It's important to keep in mind that our nation has gone through much worse upheaval and constitutional crisis and that we are still here and still strong. History provides warning but it also provides confidence and perspective.
It's one thing to think your national leaders are incompetent and wish to revolt against them. It's quite another to have a foreign power invade your country. All your leadership analysis aside, individual Japanese had (and still have) very strong national pride and would have fought extremely hard to resist an invasion. We learned this lesson in Korea, we learned it in Vietnam, and we're learning it in Iraq--even if a populace hates their government, they will hate an invading army even more. I can't stand our president in the U.S., I voted against him and I wish he were out of office tomorrow. But if a foreign power invaded I would pick up a rifle and die wielding it rather than allow the U.S. to be invaded. Regardless of any ongoing diplomatic negotiations.
"I don't think it would've taken him any longer to actually finish Kingdom Hearts than it would to get that 2/3rds of the way through Tomb Raider."
Maybe if you're chugging straight through in a groove. But I'd say it's a pretty true statement that the first half of any game is significantly easier than the second half. So it's going to be a lot easier to go halfway through two games than it is to go all the way through one.
It's made worse if you're constantly getting interrupted, and having to come back to it later--you lose the "feel" of the game and have to play for a little while to get it back. So as you progress in the game in fits and starts (squeezed in around real life), you die progressively more and more often for a given increment of advancement toward the completion. At some point it just gets too frustrating to spend you first (and often only) hour of gaming getting your ass kicked continuously. So you pop in a new game, and bingo--instantly much more gratifying.
Does that make a person a quitter? Yeah, I guess you could look at it that way. To me it's better framed as a question of priorities.
They want to use wireless to pull near-DVD-quality video/audio off of a Mac and display it on a TV. Problem is the entire rest of the industry is shying away from wireless LAN for this use because it is so difficult to make it work reliably. Data rates are sufficient but error handling and latency are NOT. This is for sure the reason the "iTV" is not ready for prime time yet.
The problem of syncing-up the audio and video latency alone is tough to conquer (and is most likely the reason you can't stream iTMS TV show audio over AirTunes now). On top of that is the much bigger problem of making sure the packets arrive on time, in a home environment that is increasingly bathed in interfering radio signals. Both of these problems can be addressed by caching at the TV end, which is undoubtedly the reason for the large form factor of the iTV (compare to the size of the AirPort Express).
Finally there is the user experience to consider--right now for example, when I change the volume or equalizer settings on my iBook, it takes about 1.5-2 seconds to be manifested in my stereo speakers over AirTunes. How will this be solved on the iTV? I'm used to pausing my movies the instant my finger hits the remote. I guess the remote could command the iTV, and the iTV could communicate the command to the Mac (thus keeping the latency hidden from the viewer). But this would mean that you could not control your movies or TV shows from the Mac itself, which sort of breaks the paradigm of the Mac as the center of your digital life.
In the 1990's Microsoft spent thousands of man-hours creating a pen operating system that died on the vine. It was a pure cost to the company, no profit. But the key point is that it died AFTER the GO Penpoint operating system died. Martin Eller, one of the Microsoft staff involved, even has a quote in his book:
"This wasn't a thing about making money. This was all about 'block that kick.""
Apple makes money selling iPods, but the big play for them is the iPod halo effect to sell more Macs. Macs (and Mac software) are much more profitable than an iPod. The release of Vista, with all its associated angst, represents a big opportunity for Apple. Microsoft will fight that halo effect with everything they've got, even if they have to lost money on every single Zune. They make their money from Windows, and this is all about protecting the Microsoft market (and mind) share.
I graduated from TJ in '93, and since then the reputation of the school has only grown...which is great for me, because it only makes me look better.:-)
If I was the kid now that I was in '89, I think it's pretty unlikely I would get into the school. But it was early in the school's development, the reputation was not yet established, and the application process was not nearly as competitive. I must have tested well because my middle school grades were pretty shitty.
I live in the DC area now and at 31 I still put TJHSST on my resume...the name carries more cache around there than my college (Beloit). So current TJ students and recent grads, please continue improving the fame and reputation!
How many of us have gotten off our asses to communicate that to Congress? There's more to gauging an issue than polls, and incoming comments to Senatorial offices can have a big impact. As few as a couple hundred well-worded letters or phone calls can swing a Senator's vote one way or the other, especially on more "niche" or technical issues.
Most Senators are not on record and so are more likely to be open to influence from their constituents. Your best bet to describe, in simple terms, why it is important and why it is a major voting issue to you. It does not have to be a magnum opus, just a short e-mail, letter, fax, or phone call.
Amy Poehler: We are very honored here at Weekend Update to have a very special guest. Here to talk about the hottest gifts this holiday season, CEO of Apple Computers, Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs: Thank you Amy and Tina. Are you looking for the perfect holiday gift? Well it's here, the new iPod.
Tina Fey: Oh! The iPod Nano? I got that one, I love it!
Steve Jobs: Nope!
Amy Poehler: Oh oh! No! Tina, I bet it's that new video iPod. Those look really cool; I want to get one of those!
Steve Jobs: No! Those are both obsolete. This one came out just a few minutes ago.
Amy Poehler: A few minutes ago?
Steve Jobs: Yes, ladies and gentlemen, introducing, and I'm thrilled about this, the iPod Micro!
(He pulls out an iPod that is no more than an inch tall)
Tina and Amy: Wow!
Steve Jobs: The iPod Micro holds over 50 thousand songs! It has iPhoto, you can watch movies on it, in high definition.
Tina Fey: But we can barely see it.
Steve Jobs: Exactly! That's exciting!
Amy Poehler: Well I guess, but how are we supposed to watch movies on it?
Steve Jobs: Well, you don't have to worry about that because by Thanksgiving, the iPod Micro will be obsolete!
(He throws it onto the Update desk. Tina and Amy gasp)
Ladies and gentlemen, I am thrilled about this, introducing the new iPod Pequeño.
(He pulls out one that is at least half the size of the iPod Micro)
Tina Fey: When did that come out?
Steve Jobs: Just now! The iPod Pequeño, the smallest iPod yet! It holds a million songs! A million songs! A MILLION SONGS! It has an iCalendar that goes seven thousand years into the future, iPhoto, you can watch movies on this!
Amy Poehler: Geez, you know that thing's really small.
Tina Fey: And you can watch movies on that?
Steve Jobs: Not any more, because by Christmas, the iPod Pequeño will be obsolete.
(He throws it down on the desk as well)
Amy Poehler: Wait, that iPod was only out for like five seconds.
Steve Jobs: Five seconds too long! It was too big! Ridicules, old, obsolete! But guess what, I'm very proud to introduce, and I'm thrilled about this, the new iPod Invisa.
(He 'pulls' something out but he is really not holding anything)
Amy Poehler: Okay, wait a minute Steve Jobs, I don't even think you're really holding anything.
Steve Jobs: I am! The iPod Invisa, the perfect stocking stuffer. It holds 8 million songs, every photograph ever taken, Pong. And watch...
(He purposely throws 'it' on the desk.)
Steve Jobs: Oops I dropped it, but where did it go, on the ground? No, it's floating!
Tina Fey: Steve Jobs everyone.
Amy Poehler: He wasn't holding anything you guys. Thank you Steve.
If it was: a) he would be able to tell you the direction of a pole, although to be generous maybe he would not know north from south--either way he would not have to ask which way is north; b) he would have a much harder time in buildings. Most buildings have far too much electrical wiring to get a good reading from a compass. c) he would not be able to do it with a cell phone up to his ear. Hold a cell phone to a compass sometime and see what happens, especially if it is on.
What your friend has is a very good "sense" of direction. Like sight it's really a post-sensory cognitive function--he's just better than most people at taking his various sensory inputs (sight, touch, equilibrium, etc) and translating them into transformations of himself through a fixed 3-D space.
I suppose it is possible that one of the sensory inputs informing this process is a slight ability to sense magnetic fields. But the fact is that compared to all the various electric equipment operating around us on a continual basis, the earth's magnetic field is actually quite weak. If someone could sense magnetic fields it most likely would not manifest itself as a sense of absolute direction. It would probably manifest itself it modern life as an ability to tell whether an appliance was plugged in, or a wire was live, or where the electrical cords run under the street or behind walls.
1) I use a laptop (HP Compaq nc6220) on a docking station on my desk, and at home on my wireless network, VPNing into the office. If I just sleep my laptop on the docking station, pop it out, and take it home, I have all sorts of problems with Outlook through the VPN. It hangs, runs super slow, can't find network drives, etc. Other networked apps (Dreamweaver, Explorer) run just fine. It's just Outlook. And if I log out/log in, the problem is fixed.
2) When I close the lid, it takes around 5-10 seconds between lid close and actual sleep...the machine just sits there thinking for that time. In constrast my personal computer (an iBook G4) sleeps and wakes almost instantly. It's a minor thing but 5-10 seconds feels like a long time to just sit there waiting at the end of the day.
3) Working with big (~60MB) PDF files on our site today, I and my users were running into all sorts of incomprehensible memory errors when trying to view them in IE using the Adobe Reader plugin. Turns out the IE temporary internet files folder was choking due to the file size. First of all this just shouldn't happen (plenty of space on the HD) and second of all the error handling was ridiculous--we were literally getting assembly memory addresses in the error box. It took forever to troubleshoot.
People may have detailed advice on how to fix or prevent these issues in the future. I'd appreciate hearing it, but that's not really the point of my post. I'm not a Windows whiz, but I'm not a dummy either, and these (and other) little problems annoy me and are difficult to get rid of.
Also people might say that these are not XP issues. Aren't they though? Outlook 2003, IE 6, and a Cisco VPN are not exactly exotic, unsupported software. The hardware is from one of the biggest companies in the business. XP is a mature operating system. Yet these sorts of minor problems persist. It's not the BSOD (haven't seen one of those for many years) so I guess XP didn't actually "crash". But they are real problems on a pretty standardly-configured XP machine that is just a few months old.
You have to do the same amount of work to get on object into orbit whether it goes up the elevator or it goes up in a free-flying machine. Your only innovation is the ground-based laser to deliver the energy needed to do the work. THAT is the basis for your argument that an elevator is superior. Not the elevator structure itself.
The reason I make this distinction is that before I'll buy that an elevator is a necessity for this future you imagine, you'll need to prove to me that you could not accomplish the same thing with a free-flying machine. You would just need a tracking system that could keep the laser beam painted on the machine. Thing is, you would need the same thing for the elevator car, because the stalk will not point straight up. So you'd need to solve most of the same problems either way.
See what I'm getting at? If the value is that you replace the fuel with a laser, why not just improve the tracking system and paint a free-flying machine into orbit?
But if you want to do Big Stuff, like large spaceships capable of carrying a crew to Mars and back, or solar power satellites, then you'll either need a Space Elevator to bulk-lift all that mass, or some way of finding pre-existing mass already in space and building all the components there.
Now you're starting to make sense. Why the hell would we lift raw mass out of our gravity well when there is so much of it available in much shallower wells? The only thing we should be exporting from Earth is our ideas and a few tools to implement them. The Moon makes much, much more sense as a base for large space projects. Even better: catch a comet or asteroid with a solar sail.
How is this modded "informative"?? Where is the information? I see an AC story with no names, places, or otherwise informative content--just a bullshit yarn that anyone with training in HR, management, or the law can see is exagerrated or made up entirely.
I've been participating in, thinking about, and studying online communities for well over 10 years now, and in my opinion the greatest challenge is the question of trust. Nothing is faster than online communities for disseminating knowledge...the problem is qualifying it. How do I know that what I'm reading is not bullshit?
In a relatively small online community like http://www.boatertalk.com/ or one of the thousands of niche news groups, the solution usually is to lurk for a while at first until you learn the "regulars" and how you feel about them. Small communities can also institute some basic accountability like requiring registration to post, so site admins can ban if needed.
But on a free-wheeling site, it's a huge problem to develop an institution for quantifying trust in a way that even a newbie can use. On Boatertalk the site owner has designated some volunteer admins based on his personal experience with them, to police the site. That won't work on a huge site like Slashdot, Digg, or Wikipedia--it doesn't scale well enough. And it's desperately needed...witness the rampant problems on Digg with systematic and arbitrary article and comment down-mods.
The absolute best solution I've seen so far is the Slashdot moderation system. It's the only automatic* system I know of that actually successfully shapes the community such that the highest-quality discussions are raised for the greatest public exposure, and the lowest-quality posts are dropped out of sight. To me that is why Slashdot continues to be so relevant and useful, even in the face of more user-content-friendly sites like Digg.
In real life there are multiple ways that we qualify sources and identify "good" sources of communication. They include things like academic pedigree, education, training, or work experience, or commercial or critical or scientific success. There are vetting systems in place to get published in a newspaper, magazine, research journal, encyclopedia, or to get on TV. The problem is that there is no way to leverage those online in a free wheeling, stand-alone forum, without running into massive privacy or ease-of-use issues. (You can't require a full CV to be submitted to Slashdot in order to create an account, an even if you could, how would you check it other than manually?)
Trust has to be built and managed from scratch. But it doesn't just come from nowhere...it has to come from other people, that is how trust is created. So it's really about creating a social framework with technology. And unfortunately humans seem to be really bad at creating social frameworks that overcome our personal weaknesses...just look at the sordid history of governments through the ages.
Google took a stab at this with their Gmail beta. The fact that you had to get an invite from another user set up a "Web of trust" that ensured that each new member was to some extent personally vetted by an existing member. It neatly put the kibosh on automated sign-ups in a way that no captcha could hope to. Unfortunately I guess they decided that did not scale well enough for their growth goals and they chose greater numbers over higher quality...now anyone can sign up without having to connect to the Web of trust.
Slashdot's karma system is better, in that it is based on actions, so it scales well. Anyone can create an account, and their karma is then set in motion to go up or down. The downside is that there is a delay from their first post to when their "trust level" has been established (as opposed to Gmail beta, where trust was part of the signup). But the advantage is that a) anyone can sign up, so it scales well, and b) after the initial delay, it works fairly accurately.
*by automatic I mean that the site owners are not involved in the moderation on a user-by-user or post-by-post basis to make it work.
- The Senator can be convinced to remove the block. Either their demands are met, their concerns are addressed, or they are traded for something in another bill (e.g. take your block off the tax bill and I'll give you a research center in the NASA bill). This usually involves a compromise of some kind. All too often it involves an increase rather than a decrease in pork though.
- The block can be rolled by the Senate leadership. This does not happen often because it creates bad feelings and increases animosity, which makes it harder to get things done. But occasionally the leadership can either lean on a Senator to remove the block for political reasons, or the Senate leadership just ignores it--basically calling the bluff and daring the Senator to filibuster. Filibusters can be overcome with a vote of 60 anyway, and often the reason a block is used in the first place is that it's not an issue the Senator wishes to publicly communicate on (a filibuster is a matter of public record, a block is not). This gets tied up in issues of power, seniority, committee leadership, party leadership etc. No one wants to piss off someone who can hurt them back later.
First of all, any Senator can block almost any bill already, using a filibuster. So it's not like this is a new concept.
Furthermore a "hold" is not secret to everyone; otherwise it would be pointless. The Senate leader is informed by the cloakroom that Senator so-and-so has placed a hold on Bill X. And it's rarely a "secret" within the halls of the Senate who placed the hold and why...it typically flows from dissention that is already there. Most Senators and staff can guess or find out who placed the hold. That does not mean they will share it with the public.
The hold process is just one of many ways the Senate operates to get things done. There are finely graded degrees of escalation in a debate--necessary in a legislative body that can be stopped cold by any one person. Think of the filibuster as a nuke and you'll start to get it...there needs to be many levels of diplomatic tools below that, or shit will blow up too easily.
The "hold" is just one of those tools--a way for a Senator to demonstrate that they are more than a little unhappy, and to slow down the process until they are satisfied. It's effective precisely because it usually is back-channel...so it avoids pointless public posturing, and allows the people to compromise out of the public eye. This is not always a bad thing...think of the difference between how people act in normal life and how they act on a reality TV show. Putting people under the microscope 100% of the time distorts their decision-making process. The Constitution doesn't require all deliberation to be open. Our system of government calls for the election of leaders, and allows us to petition them. But it is designed, on purpose, to provide some insulation for the elected leaders.
"In a move that has been termed 'positively Orwellian' by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Executive Director Jeff Ruch,
The post directly quotes and attributes the quote correctly. You might not like the piece it's quoting, but the post accurately represents it.
George W. Bush is ending public access to research materials at EPA regional libraries
His administration is doing so, not him. Being as Presidents do almost nothing personally--the bulk of their work is accomplished by staff and appointees--it's a little unreasonable to expect to trace every decision all the way back to him. As Eisenhower said, "The buck stops here." I would not call this totally inaccurate. Give it 1/4 accurate.
without Congressional consent.
The action is being taken prior to Congressional review of the EPA budget. Accurate.
This all-out effort to impede research and public access
The degree to which this is the intent is a matter of opinion. Certainly EPA would never admit this whether or not it were true.
However, there is simply no question as to whether this will impede research and public access. It will. It will now introduce a delay and review process to accessing information that did not previously exist. Rather than walking in and copying a document, a person would now have to wait either for an inter-library loan delivery, or a no-deadline-defined scanning process to complete. This delay substantially reduces the capability for quick-response litigation. And since I'm guessing you think I'm a "knee jerk leftist" now (since I disagreed with you), I'll point out that this also impedes the ability of businesses to quickly access research materials to fight EPA regulation changes, fines, or stays. The business community is just as interested in EPA transparency as the enviros are.
1/2 accurate.
is a [loosely] covert operation
Accurate--the import of this decision was gleaned from a leaked internal EPA memo, not a public communiction.
to close down 26 technical libraries
Accurate--this is the plan.
under the guise of budgetary constraint
Budgetary constraint is the reason given. The degree to which that is a guise is up for debate. 1/4 accurate
Scientists are protesting,
Accurate.
but at least 15 of the libraries will be closed by Sept. 30, 2006."
Accurate.
Of 9 assertions in the post, I scored it about a 7, so about 77% accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
If you ever listened to your gut you'd know that censorship is any weighted presentation of information that falls short of 100% equal time for all whack-job opinions. So long as they are pro-American gut-checked whack-job opinions.
Conservatives are more often the target of ad hominem or source-based dismissals but that did not come out of thin air. In 6 years of straight conservative Republican rule we've seen an unprecedented attack on objective, fact-based discussion and governance. From teaching biology to studying the Earth to our own intelligence services, there has been a clear trend. I mean, it's strong enough to have generated a hit show dedicated solely to mocking it out, and a whole new word.
Liberal sources do it too but the fact of the matter is that when they do it, it is powerless and meek. But there's something about having it rammed down our throat by our government that over-sensitizes even moderates.
It's like conservatives want things both ways--they want to be in total power, but they also want the victim's position of being unfairly targetted and discriminated against. Sorry, life is not fair. When you're running the show you're going to garner more attention. If you want the victims' empowerment you have to first be an actual victim.
If you post an image with the AdobeRGB profile embedded on a Web site it will look like crap in most browsers--but it will look correct in Safari.
The point of the GGP is that the quantum mechanical state of the physical components of life at any single point in time might not be sufficient to define living vs. dead. I believe this is an open question. So assuming that one could teleport the (admittedly enormous) collection of states in a living being, would the matter "receiving" the information then live, or remain inert? As I understand the current state of our knowledge this is a) unanswerable short of actually trying it and b) academic anyway as the impracticalities abound. :-)
I'm actually in agreement with you and I've read (and enjoyed) Dawkins' books. Basically I was just offended at the arrogance on display by the GP. I'm all for debunking mysticism but let's not dismiss questions that remain open to scientific investigation. There are certainly scientific theories now that we know are well-supported, but remain counter-intuitive and mysterious.
My point is that right now there is clearly more to "life" than can be described by our understanding of the raw physics of the materials involved. I don't think it's wrong to call that mysterious--science can be used to investigate mysteries. I do agree with you that a mystical answer is not useful or valuable. But pointing out a gap in our understanding will necessarily involve imprecise language. That doesn't make it a mystical explanation though IMO.
Unless "very short periods of time" is too technobabbly for you?
Or perhaps I am being too complicated...how about you just describe to me the best way to test if ANY piece of matter is living or dead.
Please describe, in a repeatable, objectively testable way, how to tell the difference between living and dead matter at the quantum level. For that matter please describe how to tell the difference between living and dead matter over very short periods of time. There's a lot about "life" that we don't understand scientifically yet.
It does not goes with the person for the reasons you state.
It serves as a paper ballot, so that the vote can be recounted by hand if the electronic count is challenged. Electronic vote is fast but black-box. Paper ballot is slow but verifiable by anyone (of any party).
When the vote is cast, the machine produces a paper record. The voter reads over the paper and makes sure it accurately represents their selections if it does they hit the "vote" button on the machine, and deposit the paper into a ballot box.
Parallel and redundant systems. Short of taking off and nuking from space, it's the only way to be sure.
"So we're giving these "powerful tools" to government, exempting the Executive branch from judicial oversight, enabling that branch to define anyone as an enemy combatant and forever preclude that person from seeking any judicial review or redress of their detention (the detention which shall require no charges or trial), all to fight..."
To be fair I would say that it is not clear that the Congress CAN exempt the executive branch from judicial oversight. They can pass all the laws they want but eventually all laws save for Constitutional amendments are reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sure, the administration could pull an Andrew Jackson* and refuse to recognize or enforce a SCOTUS decision, but I bet that would not turn out as well for them as it did for Jackson. In fact I'd think that sort of constitutional crisis would be just about the best possible advertising for the Democrats.
*It's important to keep in mind that our nation has gone through much worse upheaval and constitutional crisis and that we are still here and still strong. History provides warning but it also provides confidence and perspective.
It's one thing to think your national leaders are incompetent and wish to revolt against them. It's quite another to have a foreign power invade your country. All your leadership analysis aside, individual Japanese had (and still have) very strong national pride and would have fought extremely hard to resist an invasion. We learned this lesson in Korea, we learned it in Vietnam, and we're learning it in Iraq--even if a populace hates their government, they will hate an invading army even more. I can't stand our president in the U.S., I voted against him and I wish he were out of office tomorrow. But if a foreign power invaded I would pick up a rifle and die wielding it rather than allow the U.S. to be invaded. Regardless of any ongoing diplomatic negotiations.
That's his point.
"I don't think it would've taken him any longer to actually finish Kingdom Hearts than it would to get that 2/3rds of the way through Tomb Raider."
Maybe if you're chugging straight through in a groove. But I'd say it's a pretty true statement that the first half of any game is significantly easier than the second half. So it's going to be a lot easier to go halfway through two games than it is to go all the way through one.
It's made worse if you're constantly getting interrupted, and having to come back to it later--you lose the "feel" of the game and have to play for a little while to get it back. So as you progress in the game in fits and starts (squeezed in around real life), you die progressively more and more often for a given increment of advancement toward the completion. At some point it just gets too frustrating to spend you first (and often only) hour of gaming getting your ass kicked continuously. So you pop in a new game, and bingo--instantly much more gratifying.
Does that make a person a quitter? Yeah, I guess you could look at it that way. To me it's better framed as a question of priorities.
They want to use wireless to pull near-DVD-quality video/audio off of a Mac and display it on a TV. Problem is the entire rest of the industry is shying away from wireless LAN for this use because it is so difficult to make it work reliably. Data rates are sufficient but error handling and latency are NOT. This is for sure the reason the "iTV" is not ready for prime time yet.
The problem of syncing-up the audio and video latency alone is tough to conquer (and is most likely the reason you can't stream iTMS TV show audio over AirTunes now). On top of that is the much bigger problem of making sure the packets arrive on time, in a home environment that is increasingly bathed in interfering radio signals. Both of these problems can be addressed by caching at the TV end, which is undoubtedly the reason for the large form factor of the iTV (compare to the size of the AirPort Express).
Finally there is the user experience to consider--right now for example, when I change the volume or equalizer settings on my iBook, it takes about 1.5-2 seconds to be manifested in my stereo speakers over AirTunes. How will this be solved on the iTV? I'm used to pausing my movies the instant my finger hits the remote. I guess the remote could command the iTV, and the iTV could communicate the command to the Mac (thus keeping the latency hidden from the viewer). But this would mean that you could not control your movies or TV shows from the Mac itself, which sort of breaks the paradigm of the Mac as the center of your digital life.
The product it is leading is Vista.
In the 1990's Microsoft spent thousands of man-hours creating a pen operating system that died on the vine. It was a pure cost to the company, no profit. But the key point is that it died AFTER the GO Penpoint operating system died. Martin Eller, one of the Microsoft staff involved, even has a quote in his book:
"This wasn't a thing about making money. This was all about 'block that kick.""
Apple makes money selling iPods, but the big play for them is the iPod halo effect to sell more Macs. Macs (and Mac software) are much more profitable than an iPod. The release of Vista, with all its associated angst, represents a big opportunity for Apple. Microsoft will fight that halo effect with everything they've got, even if they have to lost money on every single Zune. They make their money from Windows, and this is all about protecting the Microsoft market (and mind) share.
I graduated from TJ in '93, and since then the reputation of the school has only grown...which is great for me, because it only makes me look better. :-)
If I was the kid now that I was in '89, I think it's pretty unlikely I would get into the school. But it was early in the school's development, the reputation was not yet established, and the application process was not nearly as competitive. I must have tested well because my middle school grades were pretty shitty.
I live in the DC area now and at 31 I still put TJHSST on my resume...the name carries more cache around there than my college (Beloit). So current TJ students and recent grads, please continue improving the fame and reputation!
How many of us have gotten off our asses to communicate that to Congress? There's more to gauging an issue than polls, and incoming comments to Senatorial offices can have a big impact. As few as a couple hundred well-worded letters or phone calls can swing a Senator's vote one way or the other, especially on more "niche" or technical issues.
Start here:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatetally
Most Senators are not on record and so are more likely to be open to influence from their constituents. Your best bet to describe, in simple terms, why it is important and why it is a major voting issue to you. It does not have to be a magnum opus, just a short e-mail, letter, fax, or phone call.
And if you one of those who don't understand or care, I invite you to read this:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq
Amy Poehler: We are very honored here at Weekend Update to have a very special guest. Here to talk about the hottest gifts this holiday season, CEO of Apple Computers, Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs: Thank you Amy and Tina. Are you looking for the perfect holiday gift? Well it's here, the new iPod.
Tina Fey: Oh! The iPod Nano? I got that one, I love it!
Steve Jobs: Nope!
Amy Poehler: Oh oh! No! Tina, I bet it's that new video iPod. Those look really cool; I want to get one of those!
Steve Jobs: No! Those are both obsolete. This one came out just a few minutes ago.
Amy Poehler: A few minutes ago?
Steve Jobs: Yes, ladies and gentlemen, introducing, and I'm thrilled about this, the iPod Micro!
(He pulls out an iPod that is no more than an inch tall)
Tina and Amy: Wow!
Steve Jobs: The iPod Micro holds over 50 thousand songs! It has iPhoto, you can watch movies on it, in high definition.
Tina Fey: But we can barely see it.
Steve Jobs: Exactly! That's exciting!
Amy Poehler: Well I guess, but how are we supposed to watch movies on it?
Steve Jobs: Well, you don't have to worry about that because by Thanksgiving, the iPod Micro will be obsolete!
(He throws it onto the Update desk. Tina and Amy gasp)
Ladies and gentlemen, I am thrilled about this, introducing the new iPod Pequeño.
(He pulls out one that is at least half the size of the iPod Micro)
Tina Fey: When did that come out?
Steve Jobs: Just now! The iPod Pequeño, the smallest iPod yet! It holds a million songs! A million songs! A MILLION SONGS! It has an iCalendar that goes seven thousand years into the future, iPhoto, you can watch movies on this!
Amy Poehler: Geez, you know that thing's really small.
Tina Fey: And you can watch movies on that?
Steve Jobs: Not any more, because by Christmas, the iPod Pequeño will be obsolete.
(He throws it down on the desk as well)
Amy Poehler: Wait, that iPod was only out for like five seconds.
Steve Jobs: Five seconds too long! It was too big! Ridicules, old, obsolete! But guess what, I'm very proud to introduce, and I'm thrilled about this, the new iPod Invisa.
(He 'pulls' something out but he is really not holding anything)
Amy Poehler: Okay, wait a minute Steve Jobs, I don't even think you're really holding anything.
Steve Jobs: I am! The iPod Invisa, the perfect stocking stuffer. It holds 8 million songs, every photograph ever taken, Pong. And watch...
(He purposely throws 'it' on the desk.)
Steve Jobs: Oops I dropped it, but where did it go, on the ground? No, it's floating!
Tina Fey: Steve Jobs everyone.
Amy Poehler: He wasn't holding anything you guys. Thank you Steve.
If it was:
a) he would be able to tell you the direction of a pole, although to be generous maybe he would not know north from south--either way he would not have to ask which way is north;
b) he would have a much harder time in buildings. Most buildings have far too much electrical wiring to get a good reading from a compass.
c) he would not be able to do it with a cell phone up to his ear. Hold a cell phone to a compass sometime and see what happens, especially if it is on.
What your friend has is a very good "sense" of direction. Like sight it's really a post-sensory cognitive function--he's just better than most people at taking his various sensory inputs (sight, touch, equilibrium, etc) and translating them into transformations of himself through a fixed 3-D space.
I suppose it is possible that one of the sensory inputs informing this process is a slight ability to sense magnetic fields. But the fact is that compared to all the various electric equipment operating around us on a continual basis, the earth's magnetic field is actually quite weak. If someone could sense magnetic fields it most likely would not manifest itself as a sense of absolute direction. It would probably manifest itself it modern life as an ability to tell whether an appliance was plugged in, or a wire was live, or where the electrical cords run under the street or behind walls.
Failure, Mr. Jones, is hardly original.
1) I use a laptop (HP Compaq nc6220) on a docking station on my desk, and at home on my wireless network, VPNing into the office. If I just sleep my laptop on the docking station, pop it out, and take it home, I have all sorts of problems with Outlook through the VPN. It hangs, runs super slow, can't find network drives, etc. Other networked apps (Dreamweaver, Explorer) run just fine. It's just Outlook. And if I log out/log in, the problem is fixed.
2) When I close the lid, it takes around 5-10 seconds between lid close and actual sleep...the machine just sits there thinking for that time. In constrast my personal computer (an iBook G4) sleeps and wakes almost instantly. It's a minor thing but 5-10 seconds feels like a long time to just sit there waiting at the end of the day.
3) Working with big (~60MB) PDF files on our site today, I and my users were running into all sorts of incomprehensible memory errors when trying to view them in IE using the Adobe Reader plugin. Turns out the IE temporary internet files folder was choking due to the file size. First of all this just shouldn't happen (plenty of space on the HD) and second of all the error handling was ridiculous--we were literally getting assembly memory addresses in the error box. It took forever to troubleshoot.
People may have detailed advice on how to fix or prevent these issues in the future. I'd appreciate hearing it, but that's not really the point of my post. I'm not a Windows whiz, but I'm not a dummy either, and these (and other) little problems annoy me and are difficult to get rid of.
Also people might say that these are not XP issues. Aren't they though? Outlook 2003, IE 6, and a Cisco VPN are not exactly exotic, unsupported software. The hardware is from one of the biggest companies in the business. XP is a mature operating system. Yet these sorts of minor problems persist. It's not the BSOD (haven't seen one of those for many years) so I guess XP didn't actually "crash". But they are real problems on a pretty standardly-configured XP machine that is just a few months old.
You have to do the same amount of work to get on object into orbit whether it goes up the elevator or it goes up in a free-flying machine. Your only innovation is the ground-based laser to deliver the energy needed to do the work. THAT is the basis for your argument that an elevator is superior. Not the elevator structure itself.
The reason I make this distinction is that before I'll buy that an elevator is a necessity for this future you imagine, you'll need to prove to me that you could not accomplish the same thing with a free-flying machine. You would just need a tracking system that could keep the laser beam painted on the machine. Thing is, you would need the same thing for the elevator car, because the stalk will not point straight up. So you'd need to solve most of the same problems either way.
See what I'm getting at? If the value is that you replace the fuel with a laser, why not just improve the tracking system and paint a free-flying machine into orbit?
But if you want to do Big Stuff, like large spaceships capable of carrying a crew to Mars and back, or solar power satellites, then you'll either need a Space Elevator to bulk-lift all that mass, or some way of finding pre-existing mass already in space and building all the components there.
Now you're starting to make sense. Why the hell would we lift raw mass out of our gravity well when there is so much of it available in much shallower wells? The only thing we should be exporting from Earth is our ideas and a few tools to implement them. The Moon makes much, much more sense as a base for large space projects. Even better: catch a comet or asteroid with a solar sail.
How is this modded "informative"?? Where is the information? I see an AC story with no names, places, or otherwise informative content--just a bullshit yarn that anyone with training in HR, management, or the law can see is exagerrated or made up entirely.
I've been participating in, thinking about, and studying online communities for well over 10 years now, and in my opinion the greatest challenge is the question of trust. Nothing is faster than online communities for disseminating knowledge...the problem is qualifying it. How do I know that what I'm reading is not bullshit?
In a relatively small online community like http://www.boatertalk.com/ or one of the thousands of niche news groups, the solution usually is to lurk for a while at first until you learn the "regulars" and how you feel about them. Small communities can also institute some basic accountability like requiring registration to post, so site admins can ban if needed.
But on a free-wheeling site, it's a huge problem to develop an institution for quantifying trust in a way that even a newbie can use. On Boatertalk the site owner has designated some volunteer admins based on his personal experience with them, to police the site. That won't work on a huge site like Slashdot, Digg, or Wikipedia--it doesn't scale well enough. And it's desperately needed...witness the rampant problems on Digg with systematic and arbitrary article and comment down-mods.
The absolute best solution I've seen so far is the Slashdot moderation system. It's the only automatic* system I know of that actually successfully shapes the community such that the highest-quality discussions are raised for the greatest public exposure, and the lowest-quality posts are dropped out of sight. To me that is why Slashdot continues to be so relevant and useful, even in the face of more user-content-friendly sites like Digg.
In real life there are multiple ways that we qualify sources and identify "good" sources of communication. They include things like academic pedigree, education, training, or work experience, or commercial or critical or scientific success. There are vetting systems in place to get published in a newspaper, magazine, research journal, encyclopedia, or to get on TV. The problem is that there is no way to leverage those online in a free wheeling, stand-alone forum, without running into massive privacy or ease-of-use issues. (You can't require a full CV to be submitted to Slashdot in order to create an account, an even if you could, how would you check it other than manually?)
Trust has to be built and managed from scratch. But it doesn't just come from nowhere...it has to come from other people, that is how trust is created. So it's really about creating a social framework with technology. And unfortunately humans seem to be really bad at creating social frameworks that overcome our personal weaknesses...just look at the sordid history of governments through the ages.
Google took a stab at this with their Gmail beta. The fact that you had to get an invite from another user set up a "Web of trust" that ensured that each new member was to some extent personally vetted by an existing member. It neatly put the kibosh on automated sign-ups in a way that no captcha could hope to. Unfortunately I guess they decided that did not scale well enough for their growth goals and they chose greater numbers over higher quality...now anyone can sign up without having to connect to the Web of trust.
Slashdot's karma system is better, in that it is based on actions, so it scales well. Anyone can create an account, and their karma is then set in motion to go up or down. The downside is that there is a delay from their first post to when their "trust level" has been established (as opposed to Gmail beta, where trust was part of the signup). But the advantage is that a) anyone can sign up, so it scales well, and b) after the initial delay, it works fairly accurately.
*by automatic I mean that the site owners are not involved in the moderation on a user-by-user or post-by-post basis to make it work.
- The Senator can be convinced to remove the block. Either their demands are met, their concerns are addressed, or they are traded for something in another bill (e.g. take your block off the tax bill and I'll give you a research center in the NASA bill). This usually involves a compromise of some kind. All too often it involves an increase rather than a decrease in pork though.
- The block can be rolled by the Senate leadership. This does not happen often because it creates bad feelings and increases animosity, which makes it harder to get things done. But occasionally the leadership can either lean on a Senator to remove the block for political reasons, or the Senate leadership just ignores it--basically calling the bluff and daring the Senator to filibuster. Filibusters can be overcome with a vote of 60 anyway, and often the reason a block is used in the first place is that it's not an issue the Senator wishes to publicly communicate on (a filibuster is a matter of public record, a block is not). This gets tied up in issues of power, seniority, committee leadership, party leadership etc. No one wants to piss off someone who can hurt them back later.
First of all, any Senator can block almost any bill already, using a filibuster. So it's not like this is a new concept.
Furthermore a "hold" is not secret to everyone; otherwise it would be pointless. The Senate leader is informed by the cloakroom that Senator so-and-so has placed a hold on Bill X. And it's rarely a "secret" within the halls of the Senate who placed the hold and why...it typically flows from dissention that is already there. Most Senators and staff can guess or find out who placed the hold. That does not mean they will share it with the public.
The hold process is just one of many ways the Senate operates to get things done. There are finely graded degrees of escalation in a debate--necessary in a legislative body that can be stopped cold by any one person. Think of the filibuster as a nuke and you'll start to get it...there needs to be many levels of diplomatic tools below that, or shit will blow up too easily.
The "hold" is just one of those tools--a way for a Senator to demonstrate that they are more than a little unhappy, and to slow down the process until they are satisfied. It's effective precisely because it usually is back-channel...so it avoids pointless public posturing, and allows the people to compromise out of the public eye. This is not always a bad thing...think of the difference between how people act in normal life and how they act on a reality TV show. Putting people under the microscope 100% of the time distorts their decision-making process. The Constitution doesn't require all deliberation to be open. Our system of government calls for the election of leaders, and allows us to petition them. But it is designed, on purpose, to provide some insulation for the elected leaders.
Let's break down the posting.
"In a move that has been termed 'positively Orwellian' by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Executive Director Jeff Ruch,
The post directly quotes and attributes the quote correctly. You might not like the piece it's quoting, but the post accurately represents it.
George W. Bush is ending public access to research materials at EPA regional libraries
His administration is doing so, not him. Being as Presidents do almost nothing personally--the bulk of their work is accomplished by staff and appointees--it's a little unreasonable to expect to trace every decision all the way back to him. As Eisenhower said, "The buck stops here." I would not call this totally inaccurate. Give it 1/4 accurate.
without Congressional consent.
The action is being taken prior to Congressional review of the EPA budget. Accurate.
This all-out effort to impede research and public access
The degree to which this is the intent is a matter of opinion. Certainly EPA would never admit this whether or not it were true.
However, there is simply no question as to whether this will impede research and public access. It will. It will now introduce a delay and review process to accessing information that did not previously exist. Rather than walking in and copying a document, a person would now have to wait either for an inter-library loan delivery, or a no-deadline-defined scanning process to complete. This delay substantially reduces the capability for quick-response litigation. And since I'm guessing you think I'm a "knee jerk leftist" now (since I disagreed with you), I'll point out that this also impedes the ability of businesses to quickly access research materials to fight EPA regulation changes, fines, or stays. The business community is just as interested in EPA transparency as the enviros are.
1/2 accurate.
is a [loosely] covert operation
Accurate--the import of this decision was gleaned from a leaked internal EPA memo, not a public communiction.
to close down 26 technical libraries
Accurate--this is the plan.
under the guise of budgetary constraint
Budgetary constraint is the reason given. The degree to which that is a guise is up for debate. 1/4 accurate
Scientists are protesting,
Accurate.
but at least 15 of the libraries will be closed by Sept. 30, 2006."
Accurate.
Of 9 assertions in the post, I scored it about a 7, so about 77% accurate.