I'd have to agree with the assessment that much of the increase in processing power in the latest consoles seems to be going toward making prettier graphics, but I'm not so convinced that makes it a total wash. Look at games like Ninety-Nine Nights; Gameplay wise, it's pretty much Dynasty Warriors with a different skin. That skin, however, makes a huge impact in the feel of the game. The primary mechanic of Dynasty Warriors (and, by extension N3) is cutting a swath through a large number of foes, and that mechanic is very well served by the newer hardware's capability of rendering 2x or 3x the number of foes on the screen.
I'm usually fine with the graphics of my Wii games, and find myself resenting them only when the developers think "Oh, it's just the Wii, we'll phone the graphic design in on this one." On the other hand, I'm not going to slight the visual advances the powerhouse consoles have brought to the table, either. Used properly, pretty graphics won't make a bad game good, but they can make a good game great.
There aren't that many policies on the books anymore that openly discriminate against women, either. Typically, feminists and other activists point to some kind of attitude or group-think as the culprit--some even go so far as to invent a conspiratorial "good-ol' boys' club" that meets behind closed doors with the express purpose of keeping women down. Many even allege those who practice these discriminatory tactics do so completely unconsciously, or even that they are powerless to stop themselves from doing so!
If you subscribe to that theory, why is it such a stretch to think it could work in reverse? After all, anyone who's done any amount of traveling around the US can tell you that its major cities tend to have a different attitude or "feel" to them, even when compared to other major cities, let alone suburban or rural areas.
Unfortunately, Social Services (and by extension, the government) does not agree that tanning your kids' hides is your right and responsibility as a parent.
That's why the government has to discipline them for you, you see.
My guess would be that it is recalibrating its "zero" weight every time you activate it. In fact, most of the digital bathroom scales I've seen tend to exhibit this sort of behavior.
Personally, I think of it as sort of an "Are you sure you really want to do this?" pause.
I don't seem to recall the GP ever advocating the teaching of Creationism in science class, in fact, he seems to be against the notion. You're simply responding to his argument that the theory of Evolution is not as sound a scientific theory as most we currently teach as fact with rebuttals against Creationism.
I don't recall this being an either/or debate. The currently accepted theory of Evolution has its problems, and I personally would prefer "Science" say "I don't know yet," rather than "let's just settle on this untestable answer." The latter is the purview of politics and philosophy.
Now if a white person painted himself black and went around doing movie about how "Crackas are takin' over, why can't a black man get a job etc. etc.". What do you think the reaction would be in the states?
Really, I don't think that has to do so much with a devaluation or demonization of Arabs, so much as the eggshells Americans must walk on when discussing Black people and culture. I guess you could say Blacks are just a "more protected" class.
If you need an example, check out Dave Chapelle. He often dresses in "whiteface" on national television for his comedy routines, and he enjoys a quite favorable reputation in the public eye. Meanwhile, white students are expelled from their schools for dressing in blackface at private parties.
I understand what you're saying, but America's full of double standards. I'm not sure that's the best analogy.
True, but I was mostly centering on direct taxation. If you don't own property, it's your landlord's responsibility to take care of the property tax--they just generally pass the cost onto you. Plus, in most cases, your landlord will be paying that tax whether you occupy the building or not--he's the one being taxed, not you. It's all really a matter of semantics; you're subsidizing your landlord's property taxes, but you're not paying them, and those taxes would be paid even if you were out of the equation.
Though for the employer taxation it'd be a bit different, because if you're working off the books, they're probably not paying those taxes.
It's not like they're insured, so do you have any indication that a non-negligible percentage of those seeking care in an emergency room aren't citizens?
You're right, they're usually not insured. So you're asking the wrong question. It's not how many illegal immigrants are using the emergency rooms, it's how much it costs. When someone insured uses the emergency room, the insurance company pays for it. When someone uninsured uses the emergency room and cannot pay, the hospital gets jack. Oh, and before you try and say "Socialized health care would fix it!" well, that would just go back to the very first point that they're a drain on the social infrastructure, wouldn't it?
When did they get sales tax and property tax exemptions?
Let's do a quick breakdown using myself as an example. Up until recently, I did not pay property taxes, because I owned no property. I think most illegal immigrants would fit into this category. Where I live, I pay around 8% sales tax, only on the money I spend, and even then only for non-food items.
My income tax, however, was closer to 30%, and that was on the money I earned. That means the money I save and the money I invest, aside from my 401k, is taxed before I even see it, and will be taxed again if my investments pay off. And this leaves out the taxes my employer pays for the privilege of employing me; I'm sure this is a not insubstantial amount. So let's say I spend 60% of the money I make in a year on non-food items that same year, and pay no property tax because I own no property. I am paying roughly 5% of my income in sales tax. The illegal immigrant would pay this same 5% in the same situation, but that's sure a far cry from the 35% I am actually paying once you take the income tax off the top.
It's an overly-simplified calculation, to be sure, but even that illustrates that no, illegal immigrants are not paying into the system like the rest of us. To insinuate otherwise by bringing up sales, property, or even gas taxes is disingenuous at best.
Well, that's sort of the point. There's cause to continue the debate because if it is not the most important problem, it shouldn't be getting the most of our resources.
Putting aside the fact that this article "answers" nothing, as it weakens, contradicts, or invalidates a substantial portion of its statements a paragraph after making them, the majority of the climate change dissenters center their arguments on the importance or correlation of CO2 to climate change. Since the CO2 correlation is the most disputed aspect of climate change at the moment, and one of the ideas most specific to global warming, it seems like the worst part to go basing far reaching policy on, wouldn't you think?
Because if we tailor our environmental policy towards simply reducing CO2 emissions, and CO2 turns out not to be the dire threat many think it is, then we've instituted sub-optimal policy at best, or more likely put forth terrible policy and wasted a lot of time and resources.
Take for example the Kyoto Treaty. A godsend for many climate change advocates, as it seeks to reduce overall carbon emissions. However, it allows more industrialized nations to purchase "carbon credits" from less industrialized nations, which does little to "green up" technology, or stem our use of non-renewable resources. If CO2 turns out to be an insubstantial issue, what good has this divisive legislation (that is not without consequence) done to truly protect the environment?
The examples you listed--phasing out the combustion engine, increasing the average vehicle's MPG, drawing more of our power from clean, renewable sources like wind and solar--do not only help reduce global warming as currently theorized, but also help lower our dependence on non-renewable resources and lower our overall pollution levels. These are good ideas whether or not you think global warming is bunk. By attaching them to such a politicized topic, you might buy yourself some legislation, but you also might turn away people who do not believe in global warming, but would like to see clearer skies nonetheless.
I've always been of the opinion that convincing someone to do the right thing is a far better solution than forcing them to. When you're talking about something as nebulous and far-reaching as climate change, willy-nilly quick-fix legislation sounds like an even worse idea.
I would love to see what would happen if one of the leading environmental organizations shifted all of their resources currently devoted to lobbying for draconian "for your own good" environmental regulations to simply educating folk about things they can do to be less wasteful, less pollutant, and all-around more environmentally friendly, as well as taking steps to make the necessary technologies or services more universally available or appealing. For example, how many more people would give solar-paneled roofing a shot if it didn't cost half as much as their house or could withstand a small hailstorm (or would be covered under their homeowners insurance)?
Let's step back for a minute, even if you forget Global Warming think of the pollution! Nope, that can't be a problem, no way.
I dislike pollution as much as the next guy, and I'm all for making less of it. The problem is that most man-made global warming theories I've heard treat CO2 as the most dire "pollutant" around. Except CO2 nourishes ecosystems via their plant life, instead of poisoning them, and I'm pretty sure it's not going to give me cancer or black lung.
If we go off and put all of our environmental dollars (and many more dollars that used to go to other things, like my personal savings and/or beer and nacho fund) into fixing a problem that isn't, we've really done more harm than good, haven't we?
There's clearly more need and more room for debate here. I believe the saying is "Look before you leap."
A system of formal complaints that can screw up your life must be accountable, if formal complaints are to be taken seriously then abuse of the system needs to be puni$hed.
You've obviously never been to an American college.
Discrimination? Your friend changed his own name because, as far as I can tell from your account, people were unfamiliar with it. I didn't see any sign of persecution there. Nobody can spell my name correctly on the first shot either, and while it is annoying when I'm spelling it for them and they still miss it, but I don't think they're discriminating against my heritage.
The story of your ex doesn't even go that far--for her, it was simply paranoia. I'm not saying it was completely unfounded, but she was worried about something that had never happened, and might never happen.
Too often we are told to see discrimination where there is an at least equally plausible, and less malevolent explanation. I like to think people in general are decent folk, and that doesn't jive with the seemingly-popular notion that we're all harboring some latent racism/sexism/homophobia.
If there's one thing the Internet loves...it's probably porn.
If there are two things the Internet loves, it's porn and arguing politics. You bring up politics just about anywhere on the Internet, and you're going to get a "discussion." That doesn't mean Slashdot is the proper place for it.
I want to see you find the same nice job with a fellony conviction and without it. The employer won't bother asking you what happened, was it a mistake, what were the circumstances, no, you have a label of a "bad" person for the rest of your life attached to your face.
I fail to see how this is the fault of the legal system. The employer in question is the one denying you the job by judging you without allowing you to put up a defense. By definition, the courts gave you a chance to defend yourself.
The rest of your complaint seems to take issue with the fact that the legal system uses clearly defined criteria for determining when the law has been broken. Personally, I find knowing what the law is helps me avoid breaking it. Pity more laws aren't as clear-cut as your MIP example.
This is true to a point, but the theory means little without its application. You can draw flowcharts and database diagrams all day long, but if you've never actually implemented it, you don't know how to make software.
Do you think the Navy wants shipbuilders who've read a lot of books about welding, but have never put two pieces of metal together? Would you feel comfortable getting a double bypass from someone who's seen the operation performed a hundred times, but last held a scalpel when they dissected a cat in high school A&P?
There's a pretty big gap between theory and implementation, and you're doing your students a huge disservice if you do not teach them to cross that gap within the controlled environment of university study.
Actually, the 2nd-gen could be one of the best mobiles yet when the lights are out:
The company is already designing a successor; it could have features such a built-in LED flashlight, which would be useful in areas with unreliable electricity.
Leave it to a "featureless" phone to have a feature I could find myself using all the time.
That's just the thing; 350-degree oil effectively removes viruses from your McNuggets. The same principle, however, does not work on your McThumbDrive.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have to agree with the assessment that much of the increase in processing power in the latest consoles seems to be going toward making prettier graphics, but I'm not so convinced that makes it a total wash. Look at games like Ninety-Nine Nights; Gameplay wise, it's pretty much Dynasty Warriors with a different skin. That skin, however, makes a huge impact in the feel of the game. The primary mechanic of Dynasty Warriors (and, by extension N3) is cutting a swath through a large number of foes, and that mechanic is very well served by the newer hardware's capability of rendering 2x or 3x the number of foes on the screen.
I'm usually fine with the graphics of my Wii games, and find myself resenting them only when the developers think "Oh, it's just the Wii, we'll phone the graphic design in on this one." On the other hand, I'm not going to slight the visual advances the powerhouse consoles have brought to the table, either. Used properly, pretty graphics won't make a bad game good, but they can make a good game great.
If it was anything like my college, the stinky guys were probably foreign grad students, and they were more afraid of being racist than sexist.
There aren't that many policies on the books anymore that openly discriminate against women, either. Typically, feminists and other activists point to some kind of attitude or group-think as the culprit--some even go so far as to invent a conspiratorial "good-ol' boys' club" that meets behind closed doors with the express purpose of keeping women down. Many even allege those who practice these discriminatory tactics do so completely unconsciously, or even that they are powerless to stop themselves from doing so!
If you subscribe to that theory, why is it such a stretch to think it could work in reverse? After all, anyone who's done any amount of traveling around the US can tell you that its major cities tend to have a different attitude or "feel" to them, even when compared to other major cities, let alone suburban or rural areas.
Awesome. If I could, I'd mod you +1 "More eloquent than I would have been in a similar situation."
Unfortunately, Social Services (and by extension, the government) does not agree that tanning your kids' hides is your right and responsibility as a parent.
That's why the government has to discipline them for you, you see.
Brilliant! If I could, I would mod you up.
My guess would be that it is recalibrating its "zero" weight every time you activate it. In fact, most of the digital bathroom scales I've seen tend to exhibit this sort of behavior.
Personally, I think of it as sort of an "Are you sure you really want to do this?" pause.
I don't seem to recall the GP ever advocating the teaching of Creationism in science class, in fact, he seems to be against the notion. You're simply responding to his argument that the theory of Evolution is not as sound a scientific theory as most we currently teach as fact with rebuttals against Creationism.
I don't recall this being an either/or debate. The currently accepted theory of Evolution has its problems, and I personally would prefer "Science" say "I don't know yet," rather than "let's just settle on this untestable answer." The latter is the purview of politics and philosophy.
Now if a white person painted himself black and went around doing movie about how "Crackas are takin' over, why can't a black man get a job etc. etc.". What do you think the reaction would be in the states?
Really, I don't think that has to do so much with a devaluation or demonization of Arabs, so much as the eggshells Americans must walk on when discussing Black people and culture. I guess you could say Blacks are just a "more protected" class.
If you need an example, check out Dave Chapelle. He often dresses in "whiteface" on national television for his comedy routines, and he enjoys a quite favorable reputation in the public eye. Meanwhile, white students are expelled from their schools for dressing in blackface at private parties.
I understand what you're saying, but America's full of double standards. I'm not sure that's the best analogy.
True, but I was mostly centering on direct taxation. If you don't own property, it's your landlord's responsibility to take care of the property tax--they just generally pass the cost onto you. Plus, in most cases, your landlord will be paying that tax whether you occupy the building or not--he's the one being taxed, not you. It's all really a matter of semantics; you're subsidizing your landlord's property taxes, but you're not paying them, and those taxes would be paid even if you were out of the equation.
Though for the employer taxation it'd be a bit different, because if you're working off the books, they're probably not paying those taxes.
It's not like they're insured, so do you have any indication that a non-negligible percentage of those seeking care in an emergency room aren't citizens?
You're right, they're usually not insured. So you're asking the wrong question. It's not how many illegal immigrants are using the emergency rooms, it's how much it costs. When someone insured uses the emergency room, the insurance company pays for it. When someone uninsured uses the emergency room and cannot pay, the hospital gets jack. Oh, and before you try and say "Socialized health care would fix it!" well, that would just go back to the very first point that they're a drain on the social infrastructure, wouldn't it?
When did they get sales tax and property tax exemptions?
Let's do a quick breakdown using myself as an example. Up until recently, I did not pay property taxes, because I owned no property. I think most illegal immigrants would fit into this category. Where I live, I pay around 8% sales tax, only on the money I spend, and even then only for non-food items.
My income tax, however, was closer to 30%, and that was on the money I earned. That means the money I save and the money I invest, aside from my 401k, is taxed before I even see it, and will be taxed again if my investments pay off. And this leaves out the taxes my employer pays for the privilege of employing me; I'm sure this is a not insubstantial amount. So let's say I spend 60% of the money I make in a year on non-food items that same year, and pay no property tax because I own no property. I am paying roughly 5% of my income in sales tax. The illegal immigrant would pay this same 5% in the same situation, but that's sure a far cry from the 35% I am actually paying once you take the income tax off the top.
It's an overly-simplified calculation, to be sure, but even that illustrates that no, illegal immigrants are not paying into the system like the rest of us. To insinuate otherwise by bringing up sales, property, or even gas taxes is disingenuous at best.
Well, that's sort of the point. There's cause to continue the debate because if it is not the most important problem, it shouldn't be getting the most of our resources.
Putting aside the fact that this article "answers" nothing, as it weakens, contradicts, or invalidates a substantial portion of its statements a paragraph after making them, the majority of the climate change dissenters center their arguments on the importance or correlation of CO2 to climate change. Since the CO2 correlation is the most disputed aspect of climate change at the moment, and one of the ideas most specific to global warming, it seems like the worst part to go basing far reaching policy on, wouldn't you think?
Because if we tailor our environmental policy towards simply reducing CO2 emissions, and CO2 turns out not to be the dire threat many think it is, then we've instituted sub-optimal policy at best, or more likely put forth terrible policy and wasted a lot of time and resources.
Take for example the Kyoto Treaty. A godsend for many climate change advocates, as it seeks to reduce overall carbon emissions. However, it allows more industrialized nations to purchase "carbon credits" from less industrialized nations, which does little to "green up" technology, or stem our use of non-renewable resources. If CO2 turns out to be an insubstantial issue, what good has this divisive legislation (that is not without consequence) done to truly protect the environment?
The examples you listed--phasing out the combustion engine, increasing the average vehicle's MPG, drawing more of our power from clean, renewable sources like wind and solar--do not only help reduce global warming as currently theorized, but also help lower our dependence on non-renewable resources and lower our overall pollution levels. These are good ideas whether or not you think global warming is bunk. By attaching them to such a politicized topic, you might buy yourself some legislation, but you also might turn away people who do not believe in global warming, but would like to see clearer skies nonetheless.
I've always been of the opinion that convincing someone to do the right thing is a far better solution than forcing them to. When you're talking about something as nebulous and far-reaching as climate change, willy-nilly quick-fix legislation sounds like an even worse idea.
I sincerely hope you have the opportunity to say this publicly, because here you're preaching to the choir.
I would love to see what would happen if one of the leading environmental organizations shifted all of their resources currently devoted to lobbying for draconian "for your own good" environmental regulations to simply educating folk about things they can do to be less wasteful, less pollutant, and all-around more environmentally friendly, as well as taking steps to make the necessary technologies or services more universally available or appealing. For example, how many more people would give solar-paneled roofing a shot if it didn't cost half as much as their house or could withstand a small hailstorm (or would be covered under their homeowners insurance)?
Let's step back for a minute, even if you forget Global Warming think of the pollution! Nope, that can't be a problem, no way.
I dislike pollution as much as the next guy, and I'm all for making less of it. The problem is that most man-made global warming theories I've heard treat CO2 as the most dire "pollutant" around. Except CO2 nourishes ecosystems via their plant life, instead of poisoning them, and I'm pretty sure it's not going to give me cancer or black lung.
If we go off and put all of our environmental dollars (and many more dollars that used to go to other things, like my personal savings and/or beer and nacho fund) into fixing a problem that isn't, we've really done more harm than good, haven't we?
There's clearly more need and more room for debate here. I believe the saying is "Look before you leap."
A system of formal complaints that can screw up your life must be accountable, if formal complaints are to be taken seriously then abuse of the system needs to be puni$hed.
You've obviously never been to an American college.
Discrimination? Your friend changed his own name because, as far as I can tell from your account, people were unfamiliar with it. I didn't see any sign of persecution there. Nobody can spell my name correctly on the first shot either, and while it is annoying when I'm spelling it for them and they still miss it, but I don't think they're discriminating against my heritage. The story of your ex doesn't even go that far--for her, it was simply paranoia. I'm not saying it was completely unfounded, but she was worried about something that had never happened, and might never happen. Too often we are told to see discrimination where there is an at least equally plausible, and less malevolent explanation. I like to think people in general are decent folk, and that doesn't jive with the seemingly-popular notion that we're all harboring some latent racism/sexism/homophobia.
If there's one thing the Internet loves...it's probably porn.
If there are two things the Internet loves, it's porn and arguing politics. You bring up politics just about anywhere on the Internet, and you're going to get a "discussion." That doesn't mean Slashdot is the proper place for it.
I want to see you find the same nice job with a fellony conviction and without it. The employer won't bother asking you what happened, was it a mistake, what were the circumstances, no, you have a label of a "bad" person for the rest of your life attached to your face.
I fail to see how this is the fault of the legal system. The employer in question is the one denying you the job by judging you without allowing you to put up a defense. By definition, the courts gave you a chance to defend yourself.
The rest of your complaint seems to take issue with the fact that the legal system uses clearly defined criteria for determining when the law has been broken. Personally, I find knowing what the law is helps me avoid breaking it. Pity more laws aren't as clear-cut as your MIP example.
This is true to a point, but the theory means little without its application. You can draw flowcharts and database diagrams all day long, but if you've never actually implemented it, you don't know how to make software.
Do you think the Navy wants shipbuilders who've read a lot of books about welding, but have never put two pieces of metal together? Would you feel comfortable getting a double bypass from someone who's seen the operation performed a hundred times, but last held a scalpel when they dissected a cat in high school A&P?
There's a pretty big gap between theory and implementation, and you're doing your students a huge disservice if you do not teach them to cross that gap within the controlled environment of university study.
Actually, the 2nd-gen could be one of the best mobiles yet when the lights are out:
The company is already designing a successor; it could have features such a built-in LED flashlight, which would be useful in areas with unreliable electricity.
Leave it to a "featureless" phone to have a feature I could find myself using all the time.
No, I seem to recall back in the days of Clinton, Stewart primarily poked fun at the press. That's why the show was fantastic back then.
That's just the thing; 350-degree oil effectively removes viruses from your McNuggets. The same principle, however, does not work on your McThumbDrive.