Also, personally, I prefer Dvorak. Especially the Symphony from the New World.

>> ^Psychologic:

Pi vs Tau reminds me of Qwerty vs Dvorak... the small gain in simplicity (or typing speed) is more than offset by the burden of the change, and learning to use both would be more confusing than using the current standard.
I'd be fine with the change, but I think π is cuter. =)

Ahh... sweet simplicity. We are not all math genius's but when I can grasp a concept like this it makes math so fun and allows us to see things a little different in the world.

Thanks

Pi vs Tau reminds me of Qwerty vs Dvorak... the small gain in simplicity (or typing speed) is more than offset by the burden of the change, and learning to use both would be more confusing than using the current standard.

I'd be fine with the change, but I think π is cuter. =)

Yes, you are patronizing; it oozes out of your posts. No, you don't know what you're talking about.

The correct answer is that there is not enough data to prove one way or another. Even the organization in the link you provided admit the severe limitations of their technique, which primarily relies on media reports. Your obvious pro-cop bias (nothing wrong with that, but at least admit it) leads you to think that the very scant data supports your point.

Even your back-of-the-envelope calculation show your bias. And do you really think that 54 cases of brutality in a year is so insignificant? Probably because you think you or your loved ones will never be on the wrong end of a stick. 54 is quite alot for one city. Hell, one is too many, to be frank. Setting a low bar for our officers is not helping them.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I never patronized you, longde. I don't know why you're so defensive Second, I thought that when you said, "and they happen quite often in my community, not rarely," that you knew what you were talking about. Obviously, since you would "have to do homework" on the issue--instead of being able to state the cases you know--you don't know what you talking about.
Here, let me show you I know what I am talking about. Let's say that "quite often" in a large community (A large city) is once per day or a little less. Now, the site I use is definitely biased against cops with the language they use... However, that goes in my favor--since even biased sites seemingly cannot show systemic police brutality.
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=2218
The calculations here are only 3 months of reported cases, so we should multiply it by at least 4 to make it as close to year's worth as possible.
Note, for simplicity, I use the information under the header "Law Enforcement Agencies Employing 1000+ Officers".
Note, let's also say that the reported cases are not inclusive of all cases--so let's add 50% more (In your favor.)
Last note, only about 30% of these cases are "force related," I.e taser, brutality, animal cruelty, etc.
So, the highest noted city, Atlanta Georgia, has 38 cases for three months. Multiply by 4, 152... let's add that .5 for non-reported, and that's 228... But wait, let's subtract a few that are perhaps bullshit. (I remember around my area a guy was abused in a wheelchair. The offending officer got a felony, lost his pension, and other charges that he deserved. Right after that though, a guy literally threw himself from a wheelchair without being touched, and another reached up and tried to pull another officer on top of him, all so they could get that big payout of a lawsuit...ass-hats should look for cameras.) So let's take out 20%, even though it's probably higher because you can sue the state easier than Wal-Mart... So about 182 at most...
Since only about 30% of those cases are abuse-related, that means police beat citizens in Atlanta Ga about 54 times in a year!!!! OMG!!! That's so rampant!
Now, my math sucks, so I could be off a lot, or a little, who knows. But the point is, people tend to exaggerate shit when they have emotions predisposed against a group. I know bad police exist, and that they should be punished, I know this because I am not blinded by either admiration or hate.
>> ^longde:
To the contrary, instead of patronizing me with a homework assignment, how about providing proof of your original assertion about the rarity of such violence. In fact, your original response to me has many unproven statements.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I never patronized you, longde. I don't know why you're so defensive Second, I thought that when you said, "and they happen quite often in my community, not rarely," that you knew what you were talking about. Obviously, since you would "have to do homework" on the issue--instead of being able to state the cases you know--you don't know what you talking about.

Here, let me show you I know what I am talking about. Let's say that "quite often" in a large community (A large city) is once per day or a little less. Now, the site I use is definitely biased against cops with the language they use... However, that goes in my favor--since even biased sites seemingly cannot show systemic police brutality.

http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=2218

The calculations here are only 3 months of reported cases, so we should multiply it by at least 4 to make it as close to year's worth as possible.

***Note, for simplicity, I use the information under the header "Law Enforcement Agencies Employing 1000+ Officers".

***Note, let's also say that the reported cases are not inclusive of all cases--so let's add 50% more (In your favor.)

Last note, only about 30% of these cases are "force related," I.e taser, brutality, animal cruelty, etc.

So, the highest noted city, Atlanta Georgia, has 38 cases for three months. Multiply by 4, 152... let's add that .5 for non-reported, and that's 228... But wait, let's subtract a few that are perhaps bullshit. (I remember around my area a guy was abused in a wheelchair. The offending officer got a felony, lost his pension, and other charges that he deserved. Right after that though, a guy literally threw himself from a wheelchair without being touched, and another reached up and tried to pull another officer on top of him, all so they could get that big payout of a lawsuit...ass-hats should look for cameras.) So let's take out 20%, even though it's probably higher because you can sue the state easier than Wal-Mart... So about 182 at most...

Since only about 30% of those cases are abuse-related, that means police beat citizens in Atlanta Ga about 54 times in a year!!!! OMG!!! That's so rampant!

Now, my math sucks, so I could be off a lot, or a little, who knows. But the point is, people tend to exaggerate shit when they have emotions predisposed against a group. I know bad police exist, and that they should be punished, I know this because I am not blinded by either admiration or hate.



>> ^longde:

To the contrary, instead of patronizing me with a homework assignment, how about providing proof of your original assertion about the rarity of such violence. In fact, your original response to me has many unproven statements.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Animals, when I first read this reply, I did not know who wrote it. When I read your name, I smiled. Thank you Animals, not just for the apology, but for the insight of how a good man's mind can work when not blinded by the Blizzard-Of-Hate (Or, less that Blizzard, blinded by the rhetoric of his own mind.) For the record, I used to be an unequalled troll. I was God back then, and no one was allowed to have 'silly' ideas outside what 'should be,' but I did have one flaw. I looked to myself and asked questions. And I did not like my own answers.

As to you being immutable--it is true that I assumed you would not readily change

To the well-answered points you made;

Even if this video is a parody, some religious evangy would gobble this response up and spew it back out. But they would probably mean "inspired the bible", and yet still the sift would pound away for a simple mistake of words-versus-meaning. On a side note, I have heard far worse than this video's content from godly men--and it was stated in seriousness. I still cringe...

You bring up the multiple levels of feelings on this issue... To that I say and ask--it is factually true what you say, but when so many tiers/levels are calculated, doesn't the entire tier system become useless? (He is middle class making 40,000$. He is 'above middle class, making 40,005$, and so forth and so on.)

I tier this argument into three simple groups, Those that Believe, Those that Do Not, and Those who Couldn't Care Less. I fall into the Care Less. I know that list is subjective, and probably wrong of me, but I do it simply for simplicity.

Onto control--every nation, country, culture, etc. of humanity has created some form of control. Whether norms, government, religion, taboos, implied demands--or something societal, like commercialism--there has not been a gathering of man that has not exerted control. I am not saying control is evil, mind you--just necessary. In fact, when man is left untouched by any which way by another man (I.e. abandoned from birth, and never in human contact,) he becomes feral, and nothing smarter than an animal.

The control points I bring up are cheap for one reason--it just is easy to say and give examples. Kind of like 'humans need food.' So it is simple of me to say, and offers little but I feel it needs said.

Again, thank you fro proving me wrong.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

Okay, give dummy lady a break. She meant to say "Who inspired the bible" but put foot in mouth.

>> ^dag:

Disagree. I had the displeasure of setting up my Mom's "loosened up" new Win7 Toshiba laptop over Xmas. God, the layers of crappy "value added software" (spamware) from Toshiba, Norton etc I had to remove was awful. Tight control of all layers of the software stack AND the hardware results in a better end-user experience.
Keep it tight and sweet Apple.

Would it add complexity to allow flash or an SD card? I love that their operating system is simple, but they treat people who "open it up" for themselves like criminals. Most companies would benefit greatly from following Apple's model of simplicity, but that doesn't mean they have to exercise the same iron grip on available content.

That's all personal preference though. Android works well enough for me because I cut out anything I don't need. Others want something that "just works" without having to change anything. Either way, everyone is happier with better hardware. =)

I absolutely love the simplicity of Devour; its layout, colour scheme, refreshing absence of clutter. It's what I imagine Wimp.com to look like in the hands of someone with design-sense.

This video brings something very important to light. I will never recall a single one of his sweeps or any of his technically impressive double tapped solos. When he remains true to the song's melody, it's straight forward, ordered, and stands out.

Pop music strives for the perfection of appealing to what the human brain craves: simplicity.

This is a baroque cover of a classical song. People will disparage the original as simplistic, boring. But the Classical period followed the Baroque period for a reason.

It's often forgotten that punk was not an outright rejection of pop music; it was a stripping down of pop music. It was an oversimplification, welcomed by many.

I'm drunk and don't have much in the way of a conclusion to tie my thoughts together, but the more astute readers will understand what I'm getting at.

>> ^Drax:

To run something like you're describing we're going to have to wait till bandwidth is far higher and cpu's are far more powerful. That's a lot of little variables that would need to be sent to each client. Part of the reason things are so simple in MMO's is there's less information that needs to be sent to each person's client, therefor you can have more people in your world and more things happening at the same time.
WoW is pretty much Where Something Is, and What is That Guy Wearing. Every time you add some new complexity that needs to be reported to the client, you up the amount bandwidth and processing involved.
WoW's simplicity is what allows for massive raids on cities, etc. Not to mention Blizz has always been one for keeping game play simple, but hard to master. Holds true for each of their games (granted, WoW's become over time their easy game 'to master', but that's a whole other issue (retaining subs)).


I specifacaly said it would probably take 15 or so years before a Decent MMO RPG could be made ,

as it is wow is grinding + pore combat + big chat room + glitched to fuck .
If you took out the Grinding vast majorty of people would leve wow , however evan though grinding is the central and core reasoin most people r playing + paying a huge monthly fee , people think wow is all about story and adventure.

To run something like you're describing we're going to have to wait till bandwidth is far higher and cpu's are far more powerful. That's a lot of little variables that would need to be sent to each client. Part of the reason things are so simple in MMO's is there's less information that needs to be sent to each person's client, therefor you can have more people in your world and more things happening at the same time.

WoW is pretty much Where Something Is, and What is That Guy Wearing. Every time you add some new complexity that needs to be reported to the client, you up the amount bandwidth and processing involved.

WoW's simplicity is what allows for massive raids on cities, etc. Not to mention Blizz has always been one for keeping game play simple, but hard to master. Holds true for each of their games (granted, WoW's become over time their easy game 'to master', but that's a whole other issue (retaining subs)).

Awesome in it's simplicity and appeal. Enjoying boobs like god intended.

Lets give it's own TV show!

other shows include:
- "Ow my balls!" Men getting hit in the nuts.
- "Woah! Boom!" Things blowing up.
- "Awwww" Kittens and puppies doin stuff.
- "Ewwww" Spiders and snakes climbing on people.

TL;DR

Kidding. That comment was for NetRunner who is always lurking in the shadows of VS, waiting to say I never read anything these days. He gets a thought in his bean and there's no tearing him away from it.

By the way, I'm not avoiding your question, DFT. I'm just not a monkey here to work for the grinder whenever he beckons. Your question "what does 'people have direct control of the market' mean, and how does it specifically translate into either 'stopping a corporate dictatorship' or achieving meaningful change?"

In a free market there would be no corporations. There's a great string of videos from an author that does a great job of explaining the corporations and how they came to power during the Renaissance when monarchs centralized money and created cooperatives for employment. This was contrary to what came before, which was free trade and local competing currencies, which was making the rich poorer and the poor richer. I'll post it in a bit and send you the link.

It's this individual competition within markets that helps people compete, and ultimately makes the rich less rich. This is what I mean by direct control of the market. But it's a complicated issue. First you have to allow pure freedom of currency, trade should be anything desired by both parties trading, and then the market must be unregulated. Government's role is to protect the rights of people, and the courts should serve as an unbiased third party for grievances in a free market.

When I say "it's a complicated issue", you'll undoubtedly come back with "it's always 'if', 'ands' and 'butts' in the Libertarian free market." If I point out the simplicity of it once it's allowed to work, you'll undoubtedly come back with "such a simplistic, naive and nearly supernatural occurrence this free market." It's as if I cannot win for losing with you. Your fallacies are abundant, and very unfair.

Love, your butt buddy, blankfist the impaler.

Whatshisface in Fight Club is nameless I think and in one of the best films ever, Withnail and I, "I" played by Paul McGann has no name.
Then there are nameless narrators/protagonists in books as well though I can't think of an example right now.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^shuac:
Her's are just a list of seemingly-relevant points that rely on their simplicity. Who's to say having a character name is always a good thing? So what if women don't talk to one another in a film? Why is that such a good thing? Why is that the measuring stick? And so what if women talk about a man in a film. Perhaps that's what the story is about.
The lines she's drawn are very arbitrary.

Ugh, do you really need this explained?
What major/driving character is nameless in a film or novel?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^shuac:
Her's are just a list of seemingly-relevant points that rely on their simplicity. Who's to say having a character name is always a good thing? So what if women don't talk to one another in a film? Why is that such a good thing? Why is that the measuring stick? And so what if women talk about a man in a film. Perhaps that's what the story is about.
The lines she's drawn are very arbitrary.

Ugh, do you really need this explained?
What major/driving character is nameless in a film or novel?
In what society or reality do women not relate to one another?
In what society or reality do women only talk to one another about men?
The point is to make the public aware that an overwhelming amount of popular films either depict women as secondary, dependent superfluous characters or not at all.
I'll assume you're a white male.
Now imagine that every movie from your childhood, teenage years and current life have female asian protagonists.
Not just a few, not just a large amount, but every major movie is about a female jackie chan type main character.
All deuteragonists, tritagonists and extras are female too.
The only male characters you see are the worried desperate husband, the drunken hobo, the clueless nameless youth.
No male characters have major lines.
No two male characters talk anything other then their how they miss and need wives.
No males are depicted that aren't ripped half naked & constanly flexing to attract attention from the main female.
Now imagine all the little boys that would grow up without a Batman or Spiderman or Dr. Doom to day dream about.
Are you visualizing this world?
Because for little girls this [objectification, helpless ditzy stereotype, lack of confident/constructive behavior modeling]
is a persistent reality.


Majority of the women I know would only watch movies as entertainment occasionally and don't really call themselves "movie buffs." If you think there is an untapped "movie buff" in the female world you would think the movie industry would attempt to tap into it? (Chick flicks?)