Not too surprising to see Mississippi is largest. I wouldn't have guessed Michigan would be #2. I guess that happens when it's too cold to go outside 5 months out of the year, and you sit indoors eating pasties (which, admittedly, make a delicious 1500 calorie meal.) Colorado's mountain climbing hippies are the leanest.
What I find really shocking is that most states have about doubled the percent of their population that is obese in just 10 years, from 1991 to 2001. It's not as if fast food didn't exist in the eighties. What has changed so much in that time? Cable TV and DVD players? The internet? Or is it just a general cultural shift towards laziness?
I don't understand the complaints about the awesomebar. You can still type in URLs like you always did. The only difference is that now as you start to type the URL in, it's more likely that the place you wanted to go will pop up for you to select.
To those who don't like it, please explain this to me: What could you do with the old address bar that you can't do now? Honestly, I don't get it.
You NEED to be able to boil your ideas down to a sentence or two log line and brief synopsis. If they sound like crap they might just be that.
This probably gets to one of the core reasons movies often end up boring and predictable. The studios just want to make and market tiny sound bites. If you boil down any movie to two sentences, that same description will probably fit a hundred other movies as well. This means it won't tell you anything about what sets the movie apart.
On the other hand, consider Little Miss Sunshine: "Dysfunctional family travels cross country in an ailing minibus to enter young girl in a ridiculous beauty/talent contest that she has little hope of winning. Several funny moments involving transportation of a corpse." That sounds like the worst movie idea ever, but it was fantastic. The movie works because of great characters and dialogue, and thousands of little pieces that all come together well. Under the current script selection process, few movies like this are likely to slip through.
More and more bandwidth providers are switching to charging based on usage rather than a flat rate for access. If this trend continues, multicast could become very attractive.
Suppose you have two ways to watch shows: one is on-demand, click-and-get-it-this-second access. This option will never go away, but you can expect to be charged full bandwidth price for this option. The second choice is to select a few shows ahead of time. You would then subscribe to the multicast broadcast (which might be repeated every couple of hours), download the show to your local cache, and watch it at your convenience. Your bandwidth provider would reward you for the small effort of planning ahead by not charging you for the transfer, or only charging you a small fraction of the regular rate.
In theory, this could allow greater utility from the existing network capacity, and bring down costs for everyone.
You nailed it. The two party system, while not law, is the logical consequence of the USA's political system. The only way to bring about major changes to the status quo is to change the two party system. This could be accomplished by using a different voting system in which voting for an unpopular candidate is not a waste of a vote. There are many such systems - Ranked Pairs, Instant Runoff, Range Voting, etc.
There are three ways I know of to bring about such a change.
1. Have our legislators see the benefits of such a change and then enact it. Since the two party system benefits no one more than the people it elects, this is highly unlikely.
2. Campaign among the general public, and make this such a major issue that political candidates will need to embrace it in order to be elected. Unfortunately, getting even a small percentage of the general public to care about this issue and to unite behind it is also highly unlikely.
3. Revolt. This can only happen if things get much worse. As much as people complain about politics, they are making "good money" as you say and are too comfortable for anything drastic.
There you have it - three options, all unrealistic. Two parties are probably here to stay, and so is all the corruption and corporate influence that goes with it. God, what a shame.
1. Support every third-party candidate you can stand. If it is close, I go with third-party.
What is the good of voting for a candidate with no chance of winning? To "send a message"? Does that really have an effect?
2. Run for office.
I would but I don't really have the personality or skills for it. Good suggestion, though.
3. Write your officials and let them know.
I should do this more often, I know. Honestly my cynicism gets in the way here. I just don't believe writing is going to have a real effect. However, if it does have an effect I want to do it. I need to research this more.
4. Talk to the "lessers" among you to inform them about the issues. Most people don't know, don't understand, or don't care (probably because they don't know).
Agreed, getting the word out is probably the best thing the average person can do. If most people knew and cared about these issues, the politicians would have to listen.
5. Don't support the companies that push this crap forward. Sony hasn't seen a cent of my money in years. Same for MS, unless you count work.:(
I try to support better companies whenever I can. But the trouble with this sort of protest is you always end up with too few people to matter. If I refuse to go see Spiderman at the theater because Sony made it, not only will there be too few protesters like me to make a dent, but Sony won't even know why I wasn't at the movie.
6. Act. None of this matter if you keep lurking on/.
I want to act, but I'm very pragmatic. I'm only going to act when I think it will be meaningful. That's why I'm asking what to do. Thanks for your suggestions.
More and more, I'm feeling like the sci-fi stories we've all been reading for years are becoming less far-fetched as time goes on. I'm not talking about the technology of such stories, but rather the trends of governments and societies towards insane laws that stifle freedom and progress, and which make life worse for all but a few of the citizens.
Cory Doctorow's recent story "I, Robot" comes to mind.
How do these laws keep getting pushed through in the "free world" of democratic governments? Yes, I understand the influence of lobbyists and big business, but still. Is it really too complicated for the average person to understand the significance of these laws? Or do they just not care?
Perhaps it is just a limitation of our systems of government. As a US citizen I hate DMCA-style laws. But I only get one vote for a given office, and I have to find ONE candidate to agree with me not just on DCMA, but on war, health care, economics, and all the other issues. Furthermore, I only get two choices with a realistic shot at victory, and it's likely they've both already been bought by big media.
So what's left to do? I'm asking honestly, how do we work towards change? I'm hoping for something between "angry blog post" and "bloody military coup."
That's actually doable with those "Send your name to another planet" promotions, like what was done for the Phoenix lander. For example:
1. Pick a first name that is very unlikely to exist. 2. Choose a simple algorithm that encodes a file (say, an image) into letters a-z. 3. Encode the image and break it into chunks of length (Max Last Name length - 2) 4. Submit a sequence of names as follows:
I've got a question for Mozilla Messaging. What's the point of developing a desktop application for email? Mozilla has already built a fantastic tool for accessing email, it's called Firefox. I use it with Gmail, though there are plenty of other providers. I never have to think about POP/IMAP configurations, and my email is available from any computer I happen to be using.
If anything, they should be working on an open source Gmail-like webmail server.
I've seen IE do this, and the zoomed images often look really ugly. Unless you're on a mobile device or a tiny screen, there shouldn't be any reason that images need to be zoomed. Nearly every website fits on a 1024x768 display. On the other hand, scaling just the text can be very helpful for readability.
I don't really mind the zooming option, so long as the text scaling option doesn't get lost.
I know you're joking, but key combinations that require finger stretches are the worst possible thing for RSI. Ctrl-Alt-Del is fine so long as you're using both hands, but if you're pressing it over 30 times a day you may want to look into alternative OSs.
I had a great experience with ME too, after all sorts of troubles with 98. So that makes three of the six of us just in this thread. What are the odds? We should start a secret society or something.
E-mail and phone calls are just conversations that happen to occur using electronic means. Requiring them to be logged is no more reasonable than it is to require that every face-to-face conversation a person has also be logged. (It's simply easier to log the electronic conversations.)
This is why I think that data retention laws are ridiculous in most cases. The main accomplishment of such laws is to make email and phone calls much less useful.
The thing that strikes me about super intelligent computers is the question of what they will care about. Assume that through a cycle of computers developing smarter computers, we arrive at a point of having a willful, self aware computer with an IQ of 1000. What then? What would it do? What would it want?
Would it continue the advancement and begin work on a computer with an IQ of 1200? Or would it realize that it likes being at the top, and report that it can't create a smarter version due to theory X that is too complex for humans to understand? Would it desire power? Would it enjoy the free exchange of ideas? Or would it post on slashdot?
Most of our desires are driven by evolution. People who like to eat, fuck, form societies, compete, and care for their young proved to have a solid survival strategy. What will drive a computer's desires? Will it be simply follow what it is designed to do? Will evolution apply somehow? Initially, humans will tend to fund projects that make human lives better, so perhaps machines will evolve with a desire to help people as a survival strategy. Later, once smart computers are more established, that strategy may change.
I know I'm not the first to ask these questions. But still, I find the asking rather fun.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the article states that GA is the 12th fattest state, I wondered who was #1:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/health/2269064/detail.html
Not too surprising to see Mississippi is largest. I wouldn't have guessed Michigan would be #2. I guess that happens when it's too cold to go outside 5 months out of the year, and you sit indoors eating pasties (which, admittedly, make a delicious 1500 calorie meal.) Colorado's mountain climbing hippies are the leanest.
What I find really shocking is that most states have about doubled the percent of their population that is obese in just 10 years, from 1991 to 2001. It's not as if fast food didn't exist in the eighties. What has changed so much in that time? Cable TV and DVD players? The internet? Or is it just a general cultural shift towards laziness?
Everyone is missing the obvious here. Simply remove the roof, and the sun will light the interior directly.
Holy crap, the picture rocks:
http://www.frontlineaerospace.com/images/stories/press_images/VSTAR_Resupply_1.jpg
I can't even tell if it's supposed to be in the air or not. If it is, those two dudes are about to get crushed/pixelated to death.
This is my new desktop background.
Look behind you.
I don't understand the complaints about the awesomebar. You can still type in URLs like you always did. The only difference is that now as you start to type the URL in, it's more likely that the place you wanted to go will pop up for you to select.
To those who don't like it, please explain this to me: What could you do with the old address bar that you can't do now? Honestly, I don't get it.
Gah, conflicting anecdotal evidence! Now how can I decide if FF3 crashes alot or not?
This probably gets to one of the core reasons movies often end up boring and predictable. The studios just want to make and market tiny sound bites. If you boil down any movie to two sentences, that same description will probably fit a hundred other movies as well. This means it won't tell you anything about what sets the movie apart.
On the other hand, consider Little Miss Sunshine: "Dysfunctional family travels cross country in an ailing minibus to enter young girl in a ridiculous beauty/talent contest that she has little hope of winning. Several funny moments involving transportation of a corpse." That sounds like the worst movie idea ever, but it was fantastic. The movie works because of great characters and dialogue, and thousands of little pieces that all come together well. Under the current script selection process, few movies like this are likely to slip through.
More and more bandwidth providers are switching to charging based on usage rather than a flat rate for access. If this trend continues, multicast could become very attractive.
Suppose you have two ways to watch shows: one is on-demand, click-and-get-it-this-second access. This option will never go away, but you can expect to be charged full bandwidth price for this option. The second choice is to select a few shows ahead of time. You would then subscribe to the multicast broadcast (which might be repeated every couple of hours), download the show to your local cache, and watch it at your convenience. Your bandwidth provider would reward you for the small effort of planning ahead by not charging you for the transfer, or only charging you a small fraction of the regular rate.
In theory, this could allow greater utility from the existing network capacity, and bring down costs for everyone.
You nailed it. The two party system, while not law, is the logical consequence of the USA's political system. The only way to bring about major changes to the status quo is to change the two party system. This could be accomplished by using a different voting system in which voting for an unpopular candidate is not a waste of a vote. There are many such systems - Ranked Pairs, Instant Runoff, Range Voting, etc.
There are three ways I know of to bring about such a change.
1. Have our legislators see the benefits of such a change and then enact it. Since the two party system benefits no one more than the people it elects, this is highly unlikely.
2. Campaign among the general public, and make this such a major issue that political candidates will need to embrace it in order to be elected. Unfortunately, getting even a small percentage of the general public to care about this issue and to unite behind it is also highly unlikely.
3. Revolt. This can only happen if things get much worse. As much as people complain about politics, they are making "good money" as you say and are too comfortable for anything drastic.
There you have it - three options, all unrealistic. Two parties are probably here to stay, and so is all the corruption and corporate influence that goes with it. God, what a shame.
1. Support every third-party candidate you can stand. If it is close, I go with third-party.
:(
/.
What is the good of voting for a candidate with no chance of winning? To "send a message"? Does that really have an effect?
2. Run for office.
I would but I don't really have the personality or skills for it. Good suggestion, though.
3. Write your officials and let them know.
I should do this more often, I know. Honestly my cynicism gets in the way here. I just don't believe writing is going to have a real effect. However, if it does have an effect I want to do it. I need to research this more.
4. Talk to the "lessers" among you to inform them about the issues. Most people don't know, don't understand, or don't care (probably because they don't know).
Agreed, getting the word out is probably the best thing the average person can do. If most people knew and cared about these issues, the politicians would have to listen.
5. Don't support the companies that push this crap forward. Sony hasn't seen a cent of my money in years. Same for MS, unless you count work.
I try to support better companies whenever I can. But the trouble with this sort of protest is you always end up with too few people to matter. If I refuse to go see Spiderman at the theater because Sony made it, not only will there be too few protesters like me to make a dent, but Sony won't even know why I wasn't at the movie.
6. Act. None of this matter if you keep lurking on
I want to act, but I'm very pragmatic. I'm only going to act when I think it will be meaningful. That's why I'm asking what to do. Thanks for your suggestions.
Gee, thanks! Could you post a link to your decryptor program? I only have a ROT-13 encryptor.
More and more, I'm feeling like the sci-fi stories we've all been reading for years are becoming less far-fetched as time goes on. I'm not talking about the technology of such stories, but rather the trends of governments and societies towards insane laws that stifle freedom and progress, and which make life worse for all but a few of the citizens.
Cory Doctorow's recent story "I, Robot" comes to mind.
How do these laws keep getting pushed through in the "free world" of democratic governments? Yes, I understand the influence of lobbyists and big business, but still. Is it really too complicated for the average person to understand the significance of these laws? Or do they just not care?
Perhaps it is just a limitation of our systems of government. As a US citizen I hate DMCA-style laws. But I only get one vote for a given office, and I have to find ONE candidate to agree with me not just on DCMA, but on war, health care, economics, and all the other issues. Furthermore, I only get two choices with a realistic shot at victory, and it's likely they've both already been bought by big media.
So what's left to do? I'm asking honestly, how do we work towards change? I'm hoping for something between "angry blog post" and "bloody military coup."
That's actually doable with those "Send your name to another planet" promotions, like what was done for the Phoenix lander. For example:
1. Pick a first name that is very unlikely to exist.
2. Choose a simple algorithm that encodes a file (say, an image) into letters a-z.
3. Encode the image and break it into chunks of length (Max Last Name length - 2)
4. Submit a sequence of names as follows:
Rafquasdel AAfviblisudflisundfuisnuiensle
Rafquasdel ABpojrfowhfoyigchomsdoijhfuihf
Rafquasdel AC...
5. ???
6. Profit
If you're lucky, some future geniuses will decode it a million years from now. If you're really evil, they'll find themselves looking at goats.cx.
CAN-SPAM: We spam what we can - and what we can't, we can!
I've got a question for Mozilla Messaging. What's the point of developing a desktop application for email? Mozilla has already built a fantastic tool for accessing email, it's called Firefox. I use it with Gmail, though there are plenty of other providers. I never have to think about POP/IMAP configurations, and my email is available from any computer I happen to be using.
If anything, they should be working on an open source Gmail-like webmail server.
I've seen IE do this, and the zoomed images often look really ugly. Unless you're on a mobile device or a tiny screen, there shouldn't be any reason that images need to be zoomed. Nearly every website fits on a 1024x768 display. On the other hand, scaling just the text can be very helpful for readability.
I don't really mind the zooming option, so long as the text scaling option doesn't get lost.
I know you're joking, but key combinations that require finger stretches are the worst possible thing for RSI. Ctrl-Alt-Del is fine so long as you're using both hands, but if you're pressing it over 30 times a day you may want to look into alternative OSs.
Actually, that's 18,233,735,524 backgrounds...
http://www.google.com/search?q=(400000-1919)*(13000-1199)*2%2B(13000-1919)*(400000-1199)*2
I had a great experience with ME too, after all sorts of troubles with 98. So that makes three of the six of us just in this thread. What are the odds? We should start a secret society or something.
E-mail and phone calls are just conversations that happen to occur using electronic means. Requiring them to be logged is no more reasonable than it is to require that every face-to-face conversation a person has also be logged. (It's simply easier to log the electronic conversations.)
This is why I think that data retention laws are ridiculous in most cases. The main accomplishment of such laws is to make email and phone calls much less useful.
Can we please have another loud, circular debate over which database is best? It's the only way your favorite database will ever win.
Thank you.
Well, only if they're trying to take a bite out of the Apple market.
The thing that strikes me about super intelligent computers is the question of what they will care about. Assume that through a cycle of computers developing smarter computers, we arrive at a point of having a willful, self aware computer with an IQ of 1000. What then? What would it do? What would it want?
Would it continue the advancement and begin work on a computer with an IQ of 1200? Or would it realize that it likes being at the top, and report that it can't create a smarter version due to theory X that is too complex for humans to understand? Would it desire power? Would it enjoy the free exchange of ideas? Or would it post on slashdot?
Most of our desires are driven by evolution. People who like to eat, fuck, form societies, compete, and care for their young proved to have a solid survival strategy. What will drive a computer's desires? Will it be simply follow what it is designed to do? Will evolution apply somehow? Initially, humans will tend to fund projects that make human lives better, so perhaps machines will evolve with a desire to help people as a survival strategy. Later, once smart computers are more established, that strategy may change.
I know I'm not the first to ask these questions. But still, I find the asking rather fun.