Humodour

Sure, nuke the most democratic countries in the Middle East, why not.

I think we should support Israel, and includes nuking places like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and especially Palestine.

I think they should have aborted George Bush.

That's not a reason to teach C++ first; it's a reason to use C++ for game programming.

"Democrats are also trying to get the homeless to vote. You don't have to have a home to vote. However, Republicans have filed suit in several states to prevent people whose home has been foreclosed from voting on the grounds that the address they gave when they registered is no longer valid." That about sums up the Republican party. Well, that, and this: COURIC: "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy? Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?" PALIN: "That's why I say I like ever American I'm speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy - Helping the - Oh, it's got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."

When you uninstall, do you also delete the folder it leaves behind before reinstalling?

BUT THAT WOULD BE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE FREE MARKET WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIL!!!!!

Interestingly, street amphetamine (racemic) is considered more 'speedy' than pharmaceutical dextroamphetamine because it releases more norepinephrine (noradrenaline) than dopamine. In truth, though, street speed is only about half as psychoactive; the observational disparity stems from the fact that physical stimulation is mistaken to be a psychological effect. The whole observation disparity surrounding the adrenaline rush and sympathomimetic drugs is a result of separation between the sympathetic nervous system (part of the PNS) and the central nervous system. There's a decent look at the sympathetic nervous system here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Demystifying_...e_Stress_System Edit: while I'm talking about myths surrounding the adrenal system, it should be noted that the 'sugar rush' does not exist and certainly doesn't have anything to do with childhood hyperactivity. There is an increase in adrenaline and cortisol from carbohydrate binging, but they occur several hours after the fact (due to reactive hypoglycemia, from memory). Moreover, as stated earlier, adrenaline is not psychoactive, so could not be the cause of hyperactivity. Even if it were, noradrenaline itself is not a stimulant (it's the dopamine that makes amphetamines a stimulant).

They're less than you would think. Even adrenaline itself is not psychoactive. The 'adrenaline rush' exists because something else gets released alongside it - noradrenaline.

Did you even bother to read the bail-out terms? The modifications made were that the banks have to pay it back with interest, meaning that over time the taxpayers get more money back out of this. Estimations indicate it would be payed back in 5 years. Meanwhile, you've prevented or dampened long-term economic recession, which the vast majority of economists predict, including Warren Buffet. And that's just one of the modifications that Obama (and I believe even McCain) pushed for to protect average Americans. The Republicans arguments against it were generic free market rhetoric, nothing to do with the average person. The vast majority who voted against it were seeking re-election. Of the Republicans who weren't seeking re-election, 90% voted for the rescue package. Next time, before you start calling anybody who supports the bill a socialist, you should check who actually supports it. Among average Americans, 33% don't know, 33% support it, 33% don't support it. And of those who don't support it, 50% are Republicans, and 50% of Democrats. Not to mention McCain himself supports it.

Well, to be fair, it's not just Australia that's doing well with a welfare state + free market mix. Of the top 10 freest markets in the world (all of comparable freedom except Ireland, Australia and Singapore, which are most free), 7 are strong welfare states. The only ones that don't have a comprehensive welfare state are Singapore, Chile and America. Chile had the best welfare system in the world until the 1970's, when the CIA staged a coup to replace Chile's socialist-leaning government and tried to dismantle the welfare system. Well done America.

You know what's hilarious? Australia is a welfare state and still has higher market freedom than America.

Your faith in government (especially American government!) is extremely disturbing.

This just in: all welfare states are evil socialist entities for creating safety nets for basic human rights!

Is taks still randomly accusing people of being socialists? Oh goodie!

oh, yeah, that nonsense. totally without merit, but hey, whatever. when you can demonstrate that foregoing the rights of one over another, i.e., one person has more rights than another, you can claim some moral superiority. till then, just another socialist that just.doesn't.get.it. I'm a socialist again? Great fallback, that. I did expect that response from you though, since you don't understand the benefits of such basic things like universal healthcare or welfare. Neither does McCain, so it's ironic that you should quote him. if you're going to be an ass, be an ass, but quit misrepresenting what i have said. i never said it did, just noticed that the world benefits from the US military might. really, is it possible for you to make a single argument without misrepresenting someone? taks I simply called you for bring up America's military might out of nowhere in the middle of a discussion about economics. What was your purpose for doing that?

No, I knew laissez faire was a failure before the stock market crash. It is morally and socially bankrupt, and leads to corporatism. which also means it gains the benefit of US tax dollars when it comes to defense, as do many other countries. that's a pretty big bennie. taks Australia's mutual defence treaty with America has bugger all to do with the validity of an economic model. ANZUS stems from WW2 when Japan was invading East Timor, and it would exist regardless of the success or failure of America today. Do not try to cheapen it.

Yeah, but Australia isn't a superpower, nor aims to become one, right? I mean, it hasn't had to go against the biggest fish in the pond. That's what I meant by coming on top. You can be aligned in some way or another and practice different variations of a model. But can that model become THE standard? Is it capable of generating more wealth than the others, because ultimately that's what matters? If the "third way" is practiced just in a few places here and there, is it really a solution for everyone? Again, I'm hopeful. It's becoming the dominant economic policy in Europe, and its starting to influence American politics. Sarkozy - leader of France - certainly seems to think something similar to it is the way of the future for Europe: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/...2374595726.html I'm not going to say 'emphatically yes' or anything, because I just don't know. I think it's got a better chance of holding on than Reaganomics, though. The thing is - they overlap enough that the Third Way ends up being a natural evolution of laissez faire's failure. I'm skeptical with regards to that. As taks pointed out, the impressive economic growth in China is merely the expansion of free market where there was none before, and once they have reached the level of market saturation of modern economies, the growth will decrease. Not to mention the immense poverty and social inequality problems - problems it shares with India. Brazil is a different story though, but poverty and corruption aren't negligible there either. And also, the US may have crashed, but I'd say they aren't burning yet. America won't burn. It'll be more a partner with the BRIC than a leader, though. Frankly, I'm uncertain about China's direction. India has the right idea, but needs to overcome bureaucratic concerns. Russia... is Russia. But Brazil, yeah, I think it's perfectly well placed to become a real superpower. Its local position in South America is enviable, from a trade perspective. Its corruption and poverty have fallen dramatically under their current leader. In fact, it's not really in poverty anymore - it recently moved to middle income status (from memory the definition is: 80% of people own a TV, a bike/car, and a house). It has even switched from exporting its goods to local consumption, because its population can now sustain that economically. This crash positions the BRIC really well for success afterwards. I think we'll see the bunch of them competing with their own unique economic systems. Chances are at least one of them will be a Third Way style system. I think they'll all end up being mixed market systems though, not laissez faire, and not socialist. Re China: the expansion of the free market is a natural step towards both the Third Way and laissez faire, so the verdict is still out on that one. I'm sure it's a very marketable idea. After all, everyone likes the state giving them stuff and taking "from the rich". A popular idea is not necessarily a good idea, though. "taking from the rich"? And why don't you think the Internet is a good idea? I'm talking about freedom of information, and global connectivity. Brazil has already taken this by the horns - it really aims to be a technology economy, like Israel, Ireland and Iceland.

Really? Sorry, ADHD, remember - I'm only good at recalling things I care about. Oh snap! *cough* To be honest, though, I probably thought you were kidding. It sounds a bit too much like Gordon Freeman. Man, if you're anything like Gordon Freeman, I top my hat to you, sir. Seriously, though, are you an mechanical or chemical engineer? It'd explain how you know fluid dynamics.

I think it's more like "the greater degree to which your investments are concentrated in the financial sector, the worse hit." Diversify, diversify, diversify. Well said. Although that's probably complementary to what taks said - that guy was probably in the middle of some high-risk investment scheme in the first place.

Yeah, yeah, fair enough. I probably overreacted a bit in my vehemence. I just really feel that it's wrong to push low-level languages first to teach the 'fundamentals' - I feel it turns people off and you lose sight of the broader picture, the core CS concepts. Likewise I think it's just a fundamentally outdated notion that you should learn C or ASM first to learn good style or something. I would never discourage somebody from learning C or C++ at any time. But I would at the least suggest they learn something like Python simultaneously is all, so that when they get disheartened, or lose sight of why they're typing in all the powerful pointer and memory mumbo jumbo, they know "this isn't what it's all like. it CAN be easy and clear; I know this because it's like that in Python." Python DOES instill a sense of safety. But increasingly people are realising that's not so bad. Increasingly it becomes "why exactly do I need C++'s supposed extra power, anyway?" and sometimes you do, all good. But often not. And especially in mission critical systems, C++ is NOT a language you want to be using. You want something like Python or Haskell DELIBERATELY because it's safe and predictable. Not only that, but it significantly cuts down on debugging time, but more and more errors are caught early and safely, and the style is just so much clearer and more concise. I guess I bring this all up because I don't think a game designer is any different to a normal programmer. He should know just as much CS, definitely, and just as many languages. I concede that C++ should be a focus, but that's all I concede.

the problem with blu-ray isn't the format, it is the cost of the players and tvs. still prohibitive. in fact, the best blu-ray player on the market is still the sony playstation 3, and you can get 'em for the same price as the regular players. you just get a gaming platform to boot! add in the cost of an hd-tv and it gets ugly, fast. Yeah, definitely. But this is all the reason why both Blu-Ray AND HD-DVD will be the losers in the end. Sure, sure. Thing is, most consumers don't know that. I don't even. They say you don't know what you've got till it's gone. In this case, it's you don't know what you're missing out on till you've experience it, I guess. Mmm. Flash-based is very promising. I think you're right, actually. I mean, there's lots of advances in hard-drive technology, and lots of advances in optical disc tech (both are in the terabyte range). But in the end, it probably will be all these fantastic new solid-state devices that win out. Right now, though, it's too cost prohibitive for high-density storage. 5 years is definitely a reasonable timeline to change that. As for digital TV... we'll see how America goes. I think we switch over here in like 2012, so we've got a while yet. There's some controversy about digital TV forcing small broadcasters out of business because they'd need to do expensive upgrades, so I think the government is going to subsides them a bit from memory. Everybody is certainly pushing for digital TV. I'm ambivalent - what, exactly, is the benefit?

Wait, wait, you know dynamical systems? Are we talking fluid dynamics here or a full-blown theory of complex systems and optimisation? *shrug* I love that stuff is all. Too few people understand it. Even a solid qualitative understanding would be enough. Alas, alack. That, and I always figured you for either a commerce jock or a military grunt. No offence.

It was free market dogma mixed with senators from both sides facing re-election in a few weeks and not wanting their name attached to an unpopular bill. That's pretty scary, isn't it? They didn't vote to save the economy because they wanted to be re-elected.

Please taks, tell us more.