ParanoiA

hmmm, it's cool but I'm not sure why it's necessary. If you can build the CFL inside the bulb of a traditional incandescent, then why not just build the CFL to that spec and just leave the bulb out of it? Seems like a waste.

I disagree with the premise. Why is it up to anyone "to do" anything with these people? It's up to them. They will look for work, and they will find it. What are we doing with the thousands and thousands of high school graduates every year? What did we do for the thousands, if not millions, of americans that switched jobs and trades and careers last year? Why do you think there's something for us to do? Let them look for a job just like the rest of us when we get canned. It won't be easy. So what? It will be hard. So what? It will take much effort and sacrifice on their part. So what? They may have to move, or consider other ideas besides selling their labor to businessmen. So what? I'm not understanding why we're crying about the struggles of life - struggles we all have to deal with. This is the easiest country in the world to "make it". It doesn't make sense to insist that life be all cozy, simple, fluid and easy. I can't imagine that's even good for humans. It's not too much to expect individuals to struggle from time to time, and make tough decisions. That's not asking much at all. That's life.

This is what a few of us have been saying for 11 pages of this thread now. It's called "bad investment". It's not a disparagement as much as a clinical conclusion of reality. It's an expected, natural consequence that requires correction. Maybe this is a bad example, and I'm sure someone will tell me if it is, but I think of it similar to the necessity of natural selection. Maybe you think you're doing nature a favor when you save poor, sickly gazelles by running off the lions that try to take them down, and then nursing them back to health and then setting them free again. But what have you done to the species as a whole? You're undermining the system that perpetuates the species. You've provided a relative unnatural opportunity for biologically inferior gazelles to mate and multiply and potential superior gazelles to be eaten while you were nursing the sick absent from the herd. It's a superficial delay of the dirty work that has to happen, despite our resistance to it - and the longer you "prop up" the sickly gazelles, the worse the species will likely perform as a whole. You're setting them up for a macro disaster, over the obsession with neutralizing the micro ones. I don't see that we're helping the economy, as a whole, by unnaturally "propping up" bad investment, which is what you're doing when you bail them out, particularly in the face of a bad business method. We're harming the economy as a whole, delaying the dirty work for another day, another generation - we're leaving it for the "next guy". We lack the spine required to call ourselves adults by pretending as if the pain felt by the fall of these companies is "unacceptable". Our dollar is in more trouble than the big 3. Why are they higher on the priority list?

Well, if we're working off the assumption that everyone gets to view this stuff, then doesn't this also carry the potential to add parity to law enforcement? If we can all see that congressman "X" buys crack downtown, then doesn't that put pressure on law enforcement to prosecute? By eliminating the monopoly on this information, doesn't it make it harder to sweep corruption under the rug? I'm sure we can all come up with scenarios on either side of the issue, negative and positive. Ultimately though, I'll bet we evolve and adapt to consistent surveillance. At the end of the day, nothing can really stop me from mounting a camera on my car, my house, anything of mine and then transmit the images over the net - and then encourage everyone else to do the same. There's no violation of rights or privacy and no central control, rather just a collective. We're going to have to deal with it, or we're going to have to dramatically trample individual rights by restricting the use of cameras by citizens. That's why I rest on the principle that outside is not private. You just don't have a right to tell me I can't film you outdoors. And restricting transmission is just as perilous and creates the excuse to police the internet - and then, of course, the intolerant morality police censor it. Freedom has a price. Are we no longer willing to pay it?

Well, I'll concede it's a fair argument. But law enforcement can follow you around without probable cause and we don't get to use stalking laws to stop them. They obviously know where one lives, works and shops and a dozen other things that are reasonable to know. I think for most of us it just seems scary because of the perfectly natural discomfort and anxiety from being watched. Particularly with 24/7 persistence, and wide coverage areas. I, personally, enjoy the thought of cameras everywhere because that's when the american people will ALL have to deal with the laws they pass. When everyone gets nit-picked to death for every little illegal act, maybe then they'll start rethinking the knee jerk impulse to pass a law for every stupid thing they don't like (which is usually someone exercising their freedom in a way they don't morally agree with).

Certainly true, and "The Day After Tomorrow" enjoyed success, as far as I know. I know I enjoyed it. The only thing that rubs me wrong is art loaded with a cause. I can always see through it, and reject it regardless of how I identify with the message. It's an artistic failure when I notice an author is manipulating me into seeing their utopic idealism, whether or not I share that idealism. Same with film. It's one thing to draw on personal experience and modern current events to enrich authenticity, or to expose moral dilemmas and pitfalls - but once the narration betrays a "point of view", the artistic experience has failed. That said, the movie isn't out yet and they may do a wonderful job of incorporating GW without beating us about the head. Ya know...and don't throw fruit at me here...but I kind of liked the new War of the Worlds. Namely because I liked the whole blood fertilizer thing and the initial attack. And I even hate Tom Cruise and managed to enjoy it.

Yeah, I watched Keanu on David Letterman last night (and I swear the dude looks like he suffers from social phobia, I almost couldn't watch, I could feel the discomfort oozing from the TV set) and he noted that they changed their "warning" to be about global warming rather than warfare. If that's true, then that sucks. Because A) it's not the original message which is too fundamental to the moral component to "update" B) warfare is arguably more relevant than it was in 1951 and with more accessible WMD's C) global warming is too polarized of an issue to be enjoyed by all audiences and D) I'll bet dollars to donuts we get "preached" at and effectively lectured by the movie producers which undermines the more important moral lesson about human nature and critical thinking. Sounds like they're going to ruin it. Too bad, because the special FX look like fun.

I've never understood the objection to cameras outside. People can see you with their eyes, so why does it matter if a camera sees you? Everywhere a camera can look, so can a person - without violating any of your rights. So why does the "camera" suddenly send everyone into some weird 1984 paranoia? The only time I'd ever get worried or even remotely feel that my privacy is being invaded would be...well, when my privacy is being invaded. Cameras that see through walls into my house? Definitely a problem. Cameras that see me walk down the street? I don't see the problem. I haven't heard a good argument yet for fear of cameras outside filming what's going on outside.

Cool, thanks iNow. I can't watch it here at work, but I'll check it out when I get home. If it's anything like the quotes you picked out, then it sounds like I'm going to appreciate his opinion on it.

Hell yeah. I agree 100%. I'm really hoping companies like Tesla motors can get their bite of the market despite our government's insistance on rewarding failure with rescue. Of course, I wonder what we'll do when Tesla Motors is the cause of their problems... The big three are too stagnant. It's time for revolution. The automobile revolution.

Yeah, I totally agree with Milton here. Greed, as a natural consequence of human nature, must be managed. Any regulatory system of government that attempts to manage greed outside of the vacuum - such as socialism, communism, and the US hybrid, if you will, of capitalism and socialism - would seem to require the regulatory conscience to be absent of that greed. Otherwise the governor of greed is itself greedy. As long as humans are the governors, creating the laws and regulatory and so forth, then greed is still being managed by those capable of greed. This is one of the reasons why I like capitalism so much, because it seems to attempt to manage this greed with a "system" not an external order of some kind. Instead it uses the forces of greed and self interest to create a check and balance system, which is more dependable and reliable than a corruptible human. Other systems attempt to eradicate greed and self interest, which is entirely unnatural. It's like trying to get humans to stop enjoying sex. Good luck with that. The better option is what we have actually done. We accept that sex is fun, and instead make tools to use when having sex to stop the spread of disease. It isn't perfect, but to fight nature or attempt to change human nature on that kind of scale is a set up for failure. Doesn't natural selection depend on the pursuit of self interest? Don't I pursue my interests by social manipulation, group cooperation, and etc?

You two have really provoked a lot of thought in my particular noggin, that's for sure. The way you two describe this is so much more interesting than reading it on wikipedia - I keep yawning and losing interest after two paragraphs on there.

That's fascinating. I'm probably simplifying too much, but it makes some sort of sense to me that secondary and tertiary auditory systems be engaged when drawing from memory - no sensory input, just pure imagination. Conceptually, I'm assocating the primary auditory cortex to be the "interface", if you will, to external sources of sound, while the secondary and tertiary (and higher orders I'm guessing?) process that sound. So then it would make sense that drawing from imagination would still require the higher sensory areas, since it still needs the sounds to be processed, only from an internal source, the memory. But, how does memory get accessed if the thought is new? I'm not clear on that. Unless of course the term "memory" carries implications that aren't accurate, it would appear that memory would require some previous input. But if I'm sitting here creating a song in my head, where would the "source" be in that case? I like Live at the Limbic. But I also like Live at the Brodmann. Decisions, decisions...hmmm.

Not really though, that's a party partition right there. Same sex and abortion issues represent the social policy. The "change" theme however, to the black community, was about monetary policy, in addition to foreign policy - the whole class warfare thing, I believe. I don't think that demographic cared much about social advancement for homosexual unions and subjects that impact their religion, like abortion. So it is consistent for black folk to vote FOR Obama's change while voting against these referendums. No he won't. Because they liked Clinton's policies - Billy's that is. I wish they didn't, but I think they do.

Because if he was white there wouldn't have been the voter turn out for prop 8, no? Isn't that the very premise of the thread? But that's just how I 'lawyer up'. It really doesn't relate on any deep level, it was just a side conversation. I was about to toss my cookies reading Pangloss's post and had to respond...J/K

I don't think he would have won if he were white, no way. The fact he was black demonstrated change. The fact he was black and stood for all of the people, demonstrated change. Another white dude with the same rhetoric doesn't demonstrate any kind of change.

Because I don't want you to have "control ta boot". You won't make cars I want to buy. And you don't care about pandering to market demand, so by design, your product will fail by some measure to meet my demand. From what I've read here, most seem to want to get into the goverment-automobile business where they make laws to prop up their product. Talk about monopolies - that's worse than ANY monopoly. The potential is there to mandate the sale of your product. Those of you into this "control" stuff seem to place higher interest in your ideals than business pragmatics. What's going on now will pale in comparison to what you do when "green" implementation forges ahead without regard to price. "Hey, we'll just subsidize and get our money that way. We'll pass laws that will make them buy our stuff!" No, I'd rather see innovation and individual enginuity. Much more impressive, and more likely to break through. Diversity, not centralization, in my opinion, is the key. On the other hand, it would be so much fun to watch the debacle. Either way, I'll be happy. Watching them make up excuses for their failing government-auto business, dreaming up reasons for taxes that hide the high price, listening to presidential candidates talk about the kinds of cars they're going to demand next as democrats competing with republicans fabricate complicated laws to create their market share.

I think you're wrong. A centralized system sounds synchronous and archaic. Autonomy is the grail, analogous with demanding zero polutant fuel solutions. Insisting on centralized grid systems is incredibly expensive, not very imaginative, and doesn't allow the evolution of autonomous travel. Every inch of every possible surface has to be processed in order to enable navigation over it. Building vehicles with their own navigation systems that do not depend on expensive infrastructures that inhibit change with their inherent permanence, is the way to go. Just like humans. We can navigate over any surface our limbs will allow, without worry about whether or not we've recorded it in our database, without worry about whether or not the local router will enable us to walk over it - we're autonomous. A freakin disaster could happen and we can freely figure out how to work our way around it - but if I'm dependent on a central hub, a central control, then I'm eliminated from initiative and corrective risk. No, that's not the future. I demand better. So does most of the market and that's why they're doing it that way. Centralized infrastructure has a static nature, and any break through technology becomes worthless when the expense for that archaic infrastructure precludes the will to advance. Autonomous navigation provides the dynamics necessary to evolve and advance since nothing is built permanent. Next up: elimination of roads and highways, yet another infrastructure expense that restricts the evolution of advanced transportation. Keeps us building things with wheels, that roll. Gee, how long are we going to keep on milking this "wheel" invention anyway...? And Toyota has been rewarded by the public as "responsible". Nothing you've said here translates to americans wanting what you're selling when you force the big three to build "green" cars. The people have to want it - it's that simple. Making them want it doesn't seem realistic. You can't change nature and people are going to demand the things you outlined above, and I can't come up with a single reason why that's bad. I think start-ups have a chance. For one, they don't have that previous investment in manufacturing infrastructure that locks in the nature of design. For two, it's trendy. Look at all the green talk going on nowadays - they have a green channel on cable for crying out loud. Green start ups have their demand, and that's why their putting money behind it now. I don't care how cheap gas is selling, I'm excited about electric and more and more people are jumping on board. Maybe it's not though. Maybe this new push for alternative fuels, that isn't being answered by the foreigners any more than the big three, is the door the startups need. Maybe we'll see the manufacturing side of our country come back on line. Part of the problem is taxation and over regulation. Once we become a tax haven for manufacturing, we'll get the manufacturing. The global economy is a natural selection economy - they're going to manufacture where it's cheapest to manufacture. So, cheap wages or cheap taxes / regulation? Pick one and we'll see an increase. Pick neither and they'll continue to leave while we pretend as if we're saving the planet by driving climate killers to other countries to kill the climate from a different origination point.

But isn't gay marriage kind of like saying african american? Just because they're married doesn't mean they're gay and just because someone is black doesn't mean they're from Africa. It's not an accurate term. And, if the word "marriage" doesn't deliniate same sex or opposite sex, then what word will then be generated to do that? There is a functional value for that distinction, but it seems if we insist on sharing the word "marriage" for some make believe notion of equality then we're just creating a reason to have to invent some more words. And then when we come up with that word, will we be right back where we started? Insisting that same sex marriage also gets to use the opposite sex marriage label? And will the hetero marriage folks turn the tables and insist on sharing the same sex marriage label in some sort of lexicon revenge? This just seems dumb, the more I think about it. Marriage should not be a basis of recognition for any right or privilege any more than declaring myself a Crip or Blood gang member. I don't see how the state of california has any right to ban same sex couples from using the term "marriage" and performing some sort of exercise that society grants official reverence for such notion. I also don't see how they have any right to force any private citizen to have to recognize that couple as "married". Further, any government action or law that selects folks based on intimate unions for tax relief or etc, should have to scramble and deal with the fallout of such stupid ideas rather than forcing the citizenry to do it. It's not our fault that the government chose a shortsighted method of selection. I just don't see how marriage qualifies as a concept able to be regulated by government. Anymore so than regulating the Crips' and Bloods' membership criteria.

I'm definitely going to check it out. I thought they said they were going for a "family" approach, which to me, translates to lack of edge and dynamics. One of the reasons I like BSG is because they put "people" into space, not card board characters that rattle off scientific lingo to sound smart and deep (Star Trek) and always do the right thing, and same ole same ole. If Caprica presents a stale, rehash of shallow character development and plot, I'm going to be disappointed. But, I guess there's no reason to think that, right?

Artificially propping up autos that people don't want is no business solution. That's even more ridiculous than the apathy that probably got these companies in this mess to begin with. The demand is there for alternative fuel driven cars, get out of the way and let the market answer the demand. You'll get far more diversity and enginuity by letting capitalism work. Part of that is letting these companies fail, mind you. But no, we're going to artificially reward them for their poor performance and failure to answer the demand from the market (which is for alternative fuels) by bailing them out and then repeating the same mistake and forcing them to behave a certain way - STILL not pandering to the market like they should. I don't give a rat's ass what the government wants them to build. And that's not how capitalism works. Let them compete and fight for my business and meet MY standards - the market's standards, which could very well be far more demanding than the piddly requirements government comes up with. Look at Tesla motors and the Zap cars. Those aren't "hybrids" - which STILL use fossil fuels, just "trimmed back". Gee...way to set the bar. These opportunistic companies are going for 100% electric - no hybrid, no slow phase out of gas guzzlers over a 10 year period or some nonsense. No "public transportation" solution that asks the public to sacrifice their lifestyles for the collective. That's how adventurous profiteers approach things, the american way. Let the big three fail, fend for themselves, get bought out by some other company and be forced to reconcile their product to market demand. Allow it to work and enjoy watching the industry change on its own. It's not the end of the world people. We're not going to be without cars anymore if we don't bail them out. Our precious empire is not going to fall because automobile businesses screwed up.

I don't know man, that's a bit romanticized. Jesse Jackson couldn't be successful with the race card or ride in on white guilt since he comes off so polarized. He clearly represents black people, not just people. And it's pretty obvious. But Obama is the first black candidate I've seen that shrugs off the "black folk advocate" in favor of "people advocate". That's what everyone's been waiting for. We get it drilled in our heads that racism is wrong, judging folk by their skin color, while we get black candidates focused on skin color and racism and out to "represent" their people in government offices that are supposed to be about all the people. So, Obama swoops in with the "change" logo, and it's followed through with his apparent committment to all the people - finally, that fits the philosophy beaten into our heads all of these years. He doesn't scare white people with any noticeable "black cause". We would have had a black president sooner if that would have happened sooner. It's for that reason that I don't see anything incredible here at all. Just good political maneuvering. He is the image that he knew we wanted. Most black folk voted for him to "represent", for the most part. Sorry, but it's obvious. That doesn't make it Obama's fault, but it also doesn't make it magical. And I didn't see where Jackson33 made the case for white guilt and black racism.

For the record though, I agree that he didn't "pull the race card" so to speak. A subjective distinction I guess, but I don't take those subtle references in a couple of speeches as all out pulling the race card. We won't be reading that in our history books; it was far too isolated and trivial.

Damn iNow, that's very cool. (Brodmann works so much better for my purposes too since it doesn't give itself away unless a person has been exposed to the subject). I took this... ...to mean that the Primary Auditory Cortex would deal with direct sensory input and might not be involved, but secondary, tertiary may be - and from that wiki link, it definitely seems to be the case. I don't know, I'm definitely not in my comfort zone here. That's really interesting. Secondary handling the patterns while the tertiary puts it all together, sort of. I was getting kind of attached to the Thalamus, though.

Interesting. So, if I understand correctly, imagining music, like playing a song in my head, doesn't necessarily impact my Primary Auditory Cortex right? Because I'm not actually processing sensory input? More of a temporal activity I guess. I suppose the thalamus is still central though...? iNow said most roads lead to the thalamus, so I'm not sure if that includes just imagining or day dreaming, or if it requires sensory input. By the way, thanks everybody.