As a photographer who sometimes takes photos of people I don't know without their knowledge, let me tell you this - you may find people taking photos of you in public unacceptable, but it is absolutely essential that photographers continue to have this right. We do not want to live in a society that restricts what you can do in public (that does not harm others anyway.)
In any case, if you are a breastfeeding mother who is swarmed by 15 year olds with cell phone cameras, or something, you are obviously well within your rights to tell them to leave and if they don't, then you can bring in some "authority", be it your muscular husband, the restaurant manager, or the police, in on it. Whether it's a crime or misdemeanor for them to harass you like that doesn't even matter, because you can guarantee they will stop when challenged. The point is that there are ways to deal with being harassed.
Of course, that doesn't work when you're being stalked by a creepy photographer with a telephoto lens down the street. As celebrities are well aware, you really can't escape being photographed in public. What do you want to do about it? Ban photographing people who are out and about in public space? Seriously? That is a slippery path to take.
And if all you're really annoyed at is people who act like in your quote, who deliberately push the limits of "acceptable" behavior to bring attention to their rights, well, I'm sorry. Are you also annoyed at people who do the same thing to protest for other rights?
There are creepy people who push it, sure, but I just want to continue to be able to take photos in public spaces without worrying about being forced to stop or delete the photos. I, and many others with hard to hide professional-looking cameras, have been told to stop taking pictures of things in public places by authorities (or people who THINK they are authorities.) They don't have a legal right to do so, but not complying has bought some photographers jail time until the police figure out they have nothing to charge them with.
I know you're not being entirely serious, but, while obviously it's not hard to drill in Hawaii and hit molten rock, the difference is that this is magma as opposed to lava (which is what spews out at the surface.)
As described in the article, they know because of the mineral composition. Lava that spews out of Hawaii forms basalt (or similar) and magma that cools underground forms granite (or similar) due to the way mineral formation works. It's pretty complicated stuff actually; IAAGGS (I am a geology grad student) and I could barely explain it to you without checking some references. Of course, IANAIP (I am not an igneous petrologist) and this is not my specialty:) And as the AC who replied to you notes, at the very basic level, the difference is indeed simply that one is deep below the surface and the other is at or near the surface (and lava tubes do form at or near the surface.)
Also, they did say they waited two years before going public with it, which gave them plenty of time to figure out what exactly they're looking at.
Actually, I agree with that philosophy, to a point. It is good that it is a little sloppy, but slashdot is above and beyond extremely sloppy sites like digg, and should attempt to maintain that status and quality. Instead, it seems we are moving closer towards Digg's sloppiness.
Without the sloppiness it becomes a stale tech news site - the kind often linked to here - that no one reads until they're linked to from sites like slashdot. But as you say, to deal with such sloppiness there must be high quality editorial control, which is completely absent here other than choosing which stories to publish on the front page.
I'm with you, what I said may not make sense. I was playing it safe because, as I hinted at, I did not read the article, and I still haven't. I don't know if we can say for sure that the RIAA is violating the court order, and if a judge would agree.
If the submitter, who is a lawyer who follows the RIAA closely, is not comfortable in saying firmly that the RIAA is in violation, then Slashdot should not report firmly that the RIAA is in violation. That was my main point. The Slashdot headlines and summaries should present just the facts as best as can be figured. If that means there is some uncertainty, that must be included.
As I said to an earlier person who replied to me, this is true even cases like this, where everyone on Slashdot is not surprised that the RIAA would violate a court order, and chances are high that it is true.
I agree, actually, with the case of the RIAA - I think they deserve all the negative press slashdot gives them, and there's really no need to go soft on them. However, if we take exception with stories about the RIAA, it will quickly spread to other stories where it isn't deserved. The sensational or emotional responses to the subject of articles belongs in the comments section, where we can attempt to discuss the merits of liking or disliking the subject (or whatever) fairly.
I guess from your post I was expecting more of a tech demo or something, but I thought it was OK at showing some of the game. However, it's certainly not a trailer, it's more of a teaser.
I never played the earlier games so perhaps it really is missing the point, as you say, and there's a lot more to the series than appears in this teaser. It did show some mythological beasts, though.
It is true that it didn't include anything I, a prospective player with a PS3, might want to see, but I don't think that was the point. As I said, it's a teaser, designed to start people talking about the game. Just the beginning of a huge cycle of hype, I'm sure (which isn't a bad thing if the game is genuinely good - I don't pay attention and usually don't know about games until they come out, anyway.)
All that said, is this really front-page material for Slashdot? I imagine those dying to find out about this game also read game websites. I think game discussion on slashdot is great, but not for stuff that isn't that important, like this.
Re:Spycraft: The Great Game
on
Torture in Games
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I had that game too (still have the CDs on my shelf) and though I'm sure we'd think it was cheesy now, at the time, compared to the very simple graphics in most games it was pretty engrossing to interact with "real" people. As you described, some sequences were very effective - some were plain silly as well:)
I have the one where you're a submarine captain, too, forgot what it's called... That one was engrossing as well, except it seemed much more scripted and linear than Spycraft did. I still remember clearly what the XO says to you, and the look of despair on his face as he says it, when you make a bad decision and end up sinking the submarine (probably because I sank it dozens of times...)
But anyway... the main thing I was going to say is, can you imagine anyone releasing a game now with live-action torture sequences? What publisher would allow that? It would be a very effective statement against torture, but I can't see it happening, despite the amount of violence and debauchery available to you in other games. Spycraft was an effective statement as well, but not timely.
I think it's FAR better when Slashdot headlines are like this one - too many jump to conclusions that the articles don't support.
It's unfortunate that Slashdot is resorting to sensational headlines to attract viewers. For me, when I find out that the headline and summary were wrong (always pointed out in the comments when so - don't even have to RTA:) ) I get quite annoyed. If the story actually matters, then there's no need to exaggerate with a sensational headline. If one finds him or her self tempted to exaggerate the headline, perhaps the story is not that interesting or important!
Sometimes corrections are posted, but the damage is already done.
For this specific case, as others pointed out, NYCL is being safe (and fair) in his wording. Even if it was made official by the judge ruling that they're violating the order, your proposed title would still not be the best. It would then be "Judge Finds RIAA in Violation of California Court Order" or something like that.
This is what Slashdot should be. We gladly get the news here a day or two after digg or wherever, because the editors are (supposed to be) here to ensure that we get the best news and that the facts are straight in the summary.
This ideal has, unfortunately, been slipping away recently. The exception is usually stories from NYCL, because he puts a lot of effort into making sure he gets everything right. In order to improve things, ideally we should all step up and start submitting better stuff. The problem is that many of us don't have time to prowl for stories - Slashdot aggregates all the best stuff for us already, and provides all kinds of insight and references through the comments, and that's why we like it. So I do appreciate those who put time into submitting stuff, I really do, because otherwise I'd have to find it myself. I just regret that it seems to be losing the focus it once had of news for nerds and stuff that matters. Too much focus on entertainment - that's done better on other sites already, we don't need it here.
I'm curious what department you're in. I've noticed (in a limited fashion) that some sciences have more religious people than others. Here in the geology department, for example, the percentage of atheists is very high.
I also suspect that in your case, the place that you live has something to do with it. As you sort of hint at, more urban areas tend to have more atheists, and rural places (like at Purdue) have more religious people.
I think it's kinda lame to respond to your own post to argue with a moderation, but I'm going to do it anyway, because come on! How is my post a troll?
I stated clearly it's my opinion, and that I have little knowledge of the subject. I think I formed some good arguments, though! Agree or disagree with me if you want. I am in fact very interested in valid counter-points to my ideas. Marking that as troll is inappropriate.
This is a broken conversation if only those strictly against legalization of drugs are modded up. Don't believe me if you want, but I am not the typical pothead who wants marijuana legalized - I really don't do drugs myself and have no desire to.
I'm a proponent of the constitution and individual rights, not a druggie. Even a druggie should not be modded troll, unless they are actually trolling (which I will freely say they are very likely to do!)
I think you're right, but just as you can home-brew alcohol for you and your friends (in many states anyway, including here in California), I think it's likely they'd allow you to grow your own marijuana. You could easily get away with selling a little bit to your friends, too (if you are not a good friend;) )
They'll come busting down your door when you become the guy that everyone in your neighborhood buys from, rather than buying the taxed stuff at the pharmacy down the street.
Point is, there are reasonable limits for this stuff, and this is already somewhat well managed by law enforcement (there are always exceptions, I know.)
Disclaimer:I don't do drugs, smoke, or drink alcohol, so my gleaned-from-movies knowledge of this stuff may make my ideas inaccurate. I think the points stand in general, though.
It's a good point, but I don't think that's how things would actually work. Meth would be technically legal, but you wouldn't be able to pick it up at Walgreens. If it has any positive use (which I doubt) it would be available only by prescription and only through special order. It wouldn't be mass-produced by pharmaceutical companies like marijuana and other drugs would be.
I admit that I know very little about the illicit drug world, but I think that extremely dangerous drugs like meth would eventually all but disappear were they all to be legalized. If the choice is to buy meth from Joe the biker at the bar or buy something else, something less dangerous, at safe and friendly Walgreens, over time fewer and fewer people would choose Joe the biker. Joe's shady business would still be illegal, too, as meth would still be a controlled substance only available by prescription.
There will always be a black market for drugs, of course, and maybe Joe has the business sense to be able to survive. There will always be people who want or need what the pharmaceutical companies don't distribute, or who can't get a prescription. This will of course include the most highly at risk people, and those at high risk of addiction.
But, overall it would decrease the amount of dangerous drug use, and would eliminate a good percentage of drug-based criminal organizations. There's nothing stopping them from going into other criminal sectors, of course, if they can manage to. The idea that legalizing drugs will eliminate a lot of crime is surely exaggerated - there's so much drug-related crime because that is what all the criminals are into these days. If it's legal, they'll all go do whatever the next most profitable illegal thing is. Not everyone will be able to make it - and that's great! They can find a real job, or they can rot under a bridge, I don't care.
Personally, I've never done any drugs, never smoked, and tried alcohol only once (the smell makes me queasy; I can't stomach it and I'm not interested in its effects anyway.) I strongly support the constitutional rights of others to do whatever they want to themselves, though. If in that process they do harm to others, I strongly support harsher penalties for doing it under the influence - just like there are harsh penalties for drunk drivers.
Just today I saw an obviously drunk driver driving on a very busy street. Everyone else just cautiously went around him, but I called 911 and reported him (and yes, I pulled over first - it is illegal after all to use a cell phone while driving here in California:) ) I doubt they caught him, but what an idiot.
There will always be idiots like that guy. Yeah, it'll be worse when people are legally high and decide to drive on a busy street (they do this already, of course.) The penalties would, thusly, be much worse as well, and that's how it should be.
Others have noted that everyone is using poor quality displays, not just Apple, but I haven't seen anyone that mentioned that other laptops DO have the issue on display here.
I bought a Lenovo T61 in March and it had this same line problem. I went online and found others with the same issue (among other problems with the screen - it is just poor quality in general.)
I managed to get the screen replaced with one from a different manufacturer. A representative from Lenovo was participating in the discussion on notebookforums.com, where people were reporting issues with Lenovo laptop screens, and I sent my system in so that he could look at it himself. He acknowledged that it was bad and managed to get the repair guys to put in a different screen, but I don't think they're really doing anything to address the problem, like trying to get screen manufacturers to come up with better screens. Most people just don't care, unfortunately, especially with Thinkpads, which are aimed towards business not graphics.
So the result is that I have a different screen, from a different manufacturer (I believe it's currently an LG, while the original was from Samsung.) It has slight better viewing angles, but most importantly, the gray lines are gone.
Why are the lines such an issue? They really screw up photos and graphics. For the Macbook Pro, used by many photo and graphics "pros", that's a real serious issue. It's hard to capture how bad it really is, but here are some photos I took illustrating the issue:
(I should note that the two screens shown are different sizes, but have the same resolution of 1680x1050, which is why the pixel size is different.)
For normal use, browsing Slashdot and writing TPS reports, or whatever, it is noticeable but you get used to it and it's not a problem. If you're doing photo editing, or even just looking at photos online, it is a HUGE annoyance. I was going to return the computer if I couldn't get it fixed because it was such a problem. Bad viewing angles and low brightness I can deal with, but these lines I really couldn't. The screens used in Thinkpads are supposedly 8-bit, so I don't think this is a dithering issue as speculated in other comments (I could be wrong and I'm not sure how that works specifically, that's just my feeling.)
I guess you've already been refuted, but I'll point out anyway that the PS3's cell processor is Power PC as well, and the PS3 has no problem with GTA 4 and didn't require a year to port to.
I agree, he is incorrectly making a generalization, and that bothered me when I read it (along with some other stuff he wrote - but it could have been much worse.)
In case you didn't read past that sentence, though, he continues (somewhat more ambiguously) with a valid point. We wouldn't normally admit our love of Star Trek, Heinlein, or anything fictional (including tabloids as mentioned in the article), even if it directly inspired our research project, in our grant proposals.
And by the way, I don't know how it is in your department, but there are also a lot of scientists I know who aren't into science fiction that much. Can't generalize too far in the other direction either!
Being a grad student, that's one of my favorite comics, and when I read that one last spring I was immediately tempted to actually do it as well.
As a lab TA for a low-level undergrad class (Geology 101) I get students who really should not be in university. I honestly don't know why they're here, because they're certainly not gaining skills or knowledge.
In the EE class the parent mentions, the students (mostly) are going to take it for the joke that it is. Problem for me, though, some less-smart students are likely to be deeply offended, and I'm just not that mean (they tend to like me and I don't want to ruin it:) )
The solution I like is to make clear the objectives of the course, and alter it if necessary. I tell the students that they're really not here to learn geology (I have one geology major in my classes, out of about 70 students total.) As non-science majors, they are going to learn from me the critical thinking and problem-solving skills that they won't learn in their English Literature class.
Well, you really can't get macro shots like that without external light sources.
This is all off-topic, but having been converted from booing flash like you to appreciating its skillful use, I thought you might be interested in what I have to say about it.
Flash when applied with skill can look amazing, and can look completely natural too. As you say yourself, they're beautiful photographs at that link. They wouldn't be the same at all without the flash.
Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to boo using direct, on-camera flash, which looks awful 100% of the time. Read some of the archive material at http://www.strobist.com/ for a lot of interesting, sometimes stunning use of flash, or check out the strobist flickr group at http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/pool/ (the quality varies as it's an open group, but a lot of great stuff gets posted.) Here's one I did myself that I'm proud of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/penguinchris/2360013001/:)
Right. I agree and some of what I wrote was not clearly stated. However, I did also say that it's not volcanic ash, which agrees with you. I don't say what it actually is, of course, which is the problem, and you are correct. Thank you for clarifying many of the points in my post, which to a geologist certainly would seem incoherent and incorrect!
Reading what I wrote earlier again I see that I don't really get to some of the points I'm trying to make. It was late:) My discussion of aa vs. pahoehoe is to point out the differences between the physical surfaces. Because of the chunkiness of the predominately aa lava field in Idaho, there are hardly any places where tephra, eroded materials, or much anything else collects to form moon-like surfaces as in their chosen test site. That's all. I should have written that differently. There are a much wider range of environments to be found on Hawaii. I'm defending their choice of testing their rover on Hawaii rather than someplace closer to home, which you agree with, so no argument there.
There is indeed tephra ejected from these volcanoes, which contradicts to some degree what I wrote, but I'm not sure that this is what forms most of Hawaii's regolith. I really have no idea but it doesn't seem likely that there is nothing else involved. There is a lot more stuff going on in Hawaii than on the moon. Actually, my point about the similar chemistry is misleading, because it may be that the differences in chemistry are what causes the differences in the tephra/moon dust properties.
Anyway I agree with your last point as well, but I'd like to point out that Idaho's lava field is merely 5-6,000 years old, and much less erosion occurs in present day Idaho than does in Hawaii.
Basically by replying to you I'm trying to make up for the fact that despite being a geologist, ten minutes of late-night internet research doesn't make up for the fact that this has nothing to do with my specialties and I really didn't know what I was talking about, besides it being poorly written. I'm sure you can tell:)
There's not much (or any really) volcanic ash erupted from Hawaii-type shield volcanoes. The "ash" that is the lunar and hawaiian regolith (the dust and dirt seen in the linked photos) is material from the underlying and surrounding rocks that's broken down.
The surface of Hawaiian lava fields is indeed legitimately similar (some might say almost identical) to the moon, however.
The moon's crust is comprised entirely by igneous rocks. The lunar "seas" are entirely basalt. Hawaiian-type lava fields are also entirely basalt (there are differences but they're essentially the same rock.)
There are other places with lava fields that they could have chosen to test at, one conveniently located in the continental US, in Idaho. It's actually called Craters of the Moon National Monument, due to its resemblance to the moon surface (at least to those who named the place before we'd gone to the moon.) It's a cool place to visit.
However, it sort of fails as the best place to be a test moon surface because of the lava structures. It is mostly the vesicular, chunky, and sharp "aa" type of lava flow, though some of the smoother "pahoehoe" type can be found. In Hawaii, both types are found in abundance (they are both given Hawaiian names after all) but because there's so much more of it, there's a better chance of finding large smooth sections of pahoehoe type. As you can see in the photos, there's also a regolith which is similar to the moon's, which does not exist to the same extent in Idaho. It's all about the physical and chemical properties of the specific basalt, which affects how it breaks down.
Much of the moon's surface is smoother than what we can find here on earth, except in a few nice spots, like the one they used. The lunar seas are cooled seas of lava and not much flow is likely to have happened, which is what causes much of the roughness seen in places like Craters of the Moon NM.
Disclaimers: while IAAGGS (I am a geology grad student), I did not R all of TFAs, and IANAVPPGBRASG (I am not a volcanologist, petrologist, or planetary geologist, but rather a structural geologist.) Take what I wrote with a grain of basalt, but I did do a bit of internet research and knew a thing or two about it beforehand, so it's a reasonable slashdot answer, I'd say.
Interestingly that's not true for my field, geology - in my undergrad class it was maybe 65-70% women, and in grad school now it's even more than that, probably 80-85% women.
This trend is confirmed by everyone I know in geology, in schools all across the country.
The exception, funnily enough, is in those geology specialties that involve a lot of computer modeling.
I agree completely. The reliance on these effects (usually enhanced by CGI, which removes the sense of reality) is past the point of killing most of my enjoyment of new movies.
In comic-hero movies, it makes sense, and can be cool. You expect ridiculous things, because they have super-powers and physics doesn't work quite the same way it really does. That's how it's supposed to be.
That's not how it works with normal people, though! Hollywood: stick to realistic (or only slightly augmented) physics in everything that's not a comic-book movie and your movies will be a lot more exciting.
I was predicting that the recent trend of over-the-top action scenes would end and filmmakers would realize how this detracts from the film, but now that Quantum of Solace had so much of this ridiculous stuff, we'll have a few more years at least of it.
To be fair, in general the action in Quantum of Solace was decently plausible. There were many scenes that were not, though, and it was all detracted from severely by the cinematography and editing, always too close and too fast to see what's going on. I thought we had finally passed that awful phase too, but again, I expect to see it even more in the next few years now.
The worst thing, I think, that they're using now is the "camera following at a fixed distance" trick. In Quantum of Solace, it's used when Bond and a bad guy fall through a glass roof. The camera follows them as if it's falling at the same speed from above them.
It was cool the first time we saw it (I'm not sure what film it was, but it was probably a Spiderman kind of thing) but it's such an unnatural point of view that it really takes you out of the illusion of reality, and it needs to end. It's like bullet-time. Cool and effective the first time only (and only when you're not going for basic realism, like Bond movies should.)
I agree with you; I have problems with linux on my (fairly new) thinkpad that should simply not exist at this point, no matter what distro I try or fixes I attempt. So many things work so well, but for example wireless networking, something critical that everyone uses all the time, still has a lot of show-stopping issues. I've got big problems with hibernation as well, and though my understanding of how that's handled is limited, it's my impression that the basic idea is not that complicated. Well, hibernation never worked on my previous laptop with Windows (from 5 or 6 years ago) either, but that's no excuse:)
That said, I still highly prefer it over any other option for all the stuff that does work - and works much better than in windows or os x.
As I said though, I agree, it is clear why it's not yet the Year of the Linux Desktop yet. There's still a lot of work to be done. Ubuntu does a lot of things well and has in my experience been the distro with the best compatibility and usability out of the box, but I don't agree with a lot of their way of doing things (mainly oversimplifying, which ironically tends to over-complicate doing more advanced things, including basic customizations, that are relatively simple in other distros) so I don't use it.
I'm writing this on my main system, a Thinkpad T61 laptop running OpenSuse 11. It's got a few major quirks that I can live with, myself - but my mother or girlfriend couldn't, at least without constant support from me.
I mean, this whole discussion is a little off-topic, but I thought I'd agree and chime in with some support. I've been a through and through Linux user for the past few years, I attempt to foist it upon my friends, and I'll never go back to windows, but I hope Linux developers are seeing the real issues preventing widespread Linux use and are taking them seriously.
Just so you know, here in Southern California, where the FasTrak system the parent mentions is, most toll roads that I'm aware of do not take cash. You must have the FasTrak, or presumably they will photograph your license plate and you will pay a hefty fine.
Here it's different than most places, of course; there are usually alternate routes you can take just as easily that don't have a toll. It'll just take you a little longer; the main difference being that the free route will have our notoriously heavy traffic or be jammed all the time, while the toll road you'll presumably fly through.
They dynamically adjust the toll depending on traffic level, to make sure the toll road is always operating at or below reasonable capacity. There are electronic signs at various points before the exits to these roads that tell you the current toll so you can decide to go that way or not. I've seen it go up to over $15 on the one near my house!
When I lived in New York (I just moved out here a few months ago) I had the EzPass for the NY Thruway, which was a little more nefarious. To get to any other city in New York in a reasonable manner, you have to use the Thruway, which is a toll road. I'm sure a whole lot more people in New York have EzPass than people in California have FasTrak. Of course, there are a lot more toll bridges and stuff in New York, which the EzPass also works on, which makes it, again, even more useful/essential than FasTrak since there aren't a whole lot of toll bridges around here (I can't think of a single one off the top of my head, while I regularly used them back in Buffalo.)
Slashdot Mirror
As a photographer who sometimes takes photos of people I don't know without their knowledge, let me tell you this - you may find people taking photos of you in public unacceptable, but it is absolutely essential that photographers continue to have this right. We do not want to live in a society that restricts what you can do in public (that does not harm others anyway.)
In any case, if you are a breastfeeding mother who is swarmed by 15 year olds with cell phone cameras, or something, you are obviously well within your rights to tell them to leave and if they don't, then you can bring in some "authority", be it your muscular husband, the restaurant manager, or the police, in on it. Whether it's a crime or misdemeanor for them to harass you like that doesn't even matter, because you can guarantee they will stop when challenged. The point is that there are ways to deal with being harassed.
Of course, that doesn't work when you're being stalked by a creepy photographer with a telephoto lens down the street. As celebrities are well aware, you really can't escape being photographed in public. What do you want to do about it? Ban photographing people who are out and about in public space? Seriously? That is a slippery path to take.
And if all you're really annoyed at is people who act like in your quote, who deliberately push the limits of "acceptable" behavior to bring attention to their rights, well, I'm sorry. Are you also annoyed at people who do the same thing to protest for other rights?
There are creepy people who push it, sure, but I just want to continue to be able to take photos in public spaces without worrying about being forced to stop or delete the photos. I, and many others with hard to hide professional-looking cameras, have been told to stop taking pictures of things in public places by authorities (or people who THINK they are authorities.) They don't have a legal right to do so, but not complying has bought some photographers jail time until the police figure out they have nothing to charge them with.
I know you're not being entirely serious, but, while obviously it's not hard to drill in Hawaii and hit molten rock, the difference is that this is magma as opposed to lava (which is what spews out at the surface.)
As described in the article, they know because of the mineral composition. Lava that spews out of Hawaii forms basalt (or similar) and magma that cools underground forms granite (or similar) due to the way mineral formation works. It's pretty complicated stuff actually; IAAGGS (I am a geology grad student) and I could barely explain it to you without checking some references. Of course, IANAIP (I am not an igneous petrologist) and this is not my specialty :) And as the AC who replied to you notes, at the very basic level, the difference is indeed simply that one is deep below the surface and the other is at or near the surface (and lava tubes do form at or near the surface.)
Also, they did say they waited two years before going public with it, which gave them plenty of time to figure out what exactly they're looking at.
Heh, well, Tacos are usually pretty sloppy.
Actually, I agree with that philosophy, to a point. It is good that it is a little sloppy, but slashdot is above and beyond extremely sloppy sites like digg, and should attempt to maintain that status and quality. Instead, it seems we are moving closer towards Digg's sloppiness.
Without the sloppiness it becomes a stale tech news site - the kind often linked to here - that no one reads until they're linked to from sites like slashdot. But as you say, to deal with such sloppiness there must be high quality editorial control, which is completely absent here other than choosing which stories to publish on the front page.
I'm with you, what I said may not make sense. I was playing it safe because, as I hinted at, I did not read the article, and I still haven't. I don't know if we can say for sure that the RIAA is violating the court order, and if a judge would agree.
If the submitter, who is a lawyer who follows the RIAA closely, is not comfortable in saying firmly that the RIAA is in violation, then Slashdot should not report firmly that the RIAA is in violation. That was my main point. The Slashdot headlines and summaries should present just the facts as best as can be figured. If that means there is some uncertainty, that must be included.
As I said to an earlier person who replied to me, this is true even cases like this, where everyone on Slashdot is not surprised that the RIAA would violate a court order, and chances are high that it is true.
I agree, actually, with the case of the RIAA - I think they deserve all the negative press slashdot gives them, and there's really no need to go soft on them. However, if we take exception with stories about the RIAA, it will quickly spread to other stories where it isn't deserved. The sensational or emotional responses to the subject of articles belongs in the comments section, where we can attempt to discuss the merits of liking or disliking the subject (or whatever) fairly.
I guess from your post I was expecting more of a tech demo or something, but I thought it was OK at showing some of the game. However, it's certainly not a trailer, it's more of a teaser.
I never played the earlier games so perhaps it really is missing the point, as you say, and there's a lot more to the series than appears in this teaser. It did show some mythological beasts, though.
It is true that it didn't include anything I, a prospective player with a PS3, might want to see, but I don't think that was the point. As I said, it's a teaser, designed to start people talking about the game. Just the beginning of a huge cycle of hype, I'm sure (which isn't a bad thing if the game is genuinely good - I don't pay attention and usually don't know about games until they come out, anyway.)
All that said, is this really front-page material for Slashdot? I imagine those dying to find out about this game also read game websites. I think game discussion on slashdot is great, but not for stuff that isn't that important, like this.
I had that game too (still have the CDs on my shelf) and though I'm sure we'd think it was cheesy now, at the time, compared to the very simple graphics in most games it was pretty engrossing to interact with "real" people. As you described, some sequences were very effective - some were plain silly as well :)
I have the one where you're a submarine captain, too, forgot what it's called... That one was engrossing as well, except it seemed much more scripted and linear than Spycraft did. I still remember clearly what the XO says to you, and the look of despair on his face as he says it, when you make a bad decision and end up sinking the submarine (probably because I sank it dozens of times...)
But anyway... the main thing I was going to say is, can you imagine anyone releasing a game now with live-action torture sequences? What publisher would allow that? It would be a very effective statement against torture, but I can't see it happening, despite the amount of violence and debauchery available to you in other games. Spycraft was an effective statement as well, but not timely.
I think it's FAR better when Slashdot headlines are like this one - too many jump to conclusions that the articles don't support.
It's unfortunate that Slashdot is resorting to sensational headlines to attract viewers. For me, when I find out that the headline and summary were wrong (always pointed out in the comments when so - don't even have to RTA :) ) I get quite annoyed. If the story actually matters, then there's no need to exaggerate with a sensational headline. If one finds him or her self tempted to exaggerate the headline, perhaps the story is not that interesting or important!
Sometimes corrections are posted, but the damage is already done.
For this specific case, as others pointed out, NYCL is being safe (and fair) in his wording. Even if it was made official by the judge ruling that they're violating the order, your proposed title would still not be the best. It would then be "Judge Finds RIAA in Violation of California Court Order" or something like that.
This is what Slashdot should be. We gladly get the news here a day or two after digg or wherever, because the editors are (supposed to be) here to ensure that we get the best news and that the facts are straight in the summary.
This ideal has, unfortunately, been slipping away recently. The exception is usually stories from NYCL, because he puts a lot of effort into making sure he gets everything right. In order to improve things, ideally we should all step up and start submitting better stuff. The problem is that many of us don't have time to prowl for stories - Slashdot aggregates all the best stuff for us already, and provides all kinds of insight and references through the comments, and that's why we like it. So I do appreciate those who put time into submitting stuff, I really do, because otherwise I'd have to find it myself. I just regret that it seems to be losing the focus it once had of news for nerds and stuff that matters. Too much focus on entertainment - that's done better on other sites already, we don't need it here.
Thanks for reading my rant!
I'm curious what department you're in. I've noticed (in a limited fashion) that some sciences have more religious people than others. Here in the geology department, for example, the percentage of atheists is very high.
I also suspect that in your case, the place that you live has something to do with it. As you sort of hint at, more urban areas tend to have more atheists, and rural places (like at Purdue) have more religious people.
I think it's kinda lame to respond to your own post to argue with a moderation, but I'm going to do it anyway, because come on! How is my post a troll?
I stated clearly it's my opinion, and that I have little knowledge of the subject. I think I formed some good arguments, though! Agree or disagree with me if you want. I am in fact very interested in valid counter-points to my ideas. Marking that as troll is inappropriate.
This is a broken conversation if only those strictly against legalization of drugs are modded up. Don't believe me if you want, but I am not the typical pothead who wants marijuana legalized - I really don't do drugs myself and have no desire to.
I'm a proponent of the constitution and individual rights, not a druggie. Even a druggie should not be modded troll, unless they are actually trolling (which I will freely say they are very likely to do!)
Let's have a fair conversation please!
I think you're right, but just as you can home-brew alcohol for you and your friends (in many states anyway, including here in California), I think it's likely they'd allow you to grow your own marijuana. You could easily get away with selling a little bit to your friends, too (if you are not a good friend ;) )
They'll come busting down your door when you become the guy that everyone in your neighborhood buys from, rather than buying the taxed stuff at the pharmacy down the street.
Point is, there are reasonable limits for this stuff, and this is already somewhat well managed by law enforcement (there are always exceptions, I know.)
Disclaimer:I don't do drugs, smoke, or drink alcohol, so my gleaned-from-movies knowledge of this stuff may make my ideas inaccurate. I think the points stand in general, though.
It's a good point, but I don't think that's how things would actually work. Meth would be technically legal, but you wouldn't be able to pick it up at Walgreens. If it has any positive use (which I doubt) it would be available only by prescription and only through special order. It wouldn't be mass-produced by pharmaceutical companies like marijuana and other drugs would be.
I admit that I know very little about the illicit drug world, but I think that extremely dangerous drugs like meth would eventually all but disappear were they all to be legalized. If the choice is to buy meth from Joe the biker at the bar or buy something else, something less dangerous, at safe and friendly Walgreens, over time fewer and fewer people would choose Joe the biker. Joe's shady business would still be illegal, too, as meth would still be a controlled substance only available by prescription.
There will always be a black market for drugs, of course, and maybe Joe has the business sense to be able to survive. There will always be people who want or need what the pharmaceutical companies don't distribute, or who can't get a prescription. This will of course include the most highly at risk people, and those at high risk of addiction.
But, overall it would decrease the amount of dangerous drug use, and would eliminate a good percentage of drug-based criminal organizations. There's nothing stopping them from going into other criminal sectors, of course, if they can manage to. The idea that legalizing drugs will eliminate a lot of crime is surely exaggerated - there's so much drug-related crime because that is what all the criminals are into these days. If it's legal, they'll all go do whatever the next most profitable illegal thing is. Not everyone will be able to make it - and that's great! They can find a real job, or they can rot under a bridge, I don't care.
Personally, I've never done any drugs, never smoked, and tried alcohol only once (the smell makes me queasy; I can't stomach it and I'm not interested in its effects anyway.) I strongly support the constitutional rights of others to do whatever they want to themselves, though. If in that process they do harm to others, I strongly support harsher penalties for doing it under the influence - just like there are harsh penalties for drunk drivers.
Just today I saw an obviously drunk driver driving on a very busy street. Everyone else just cautiously went around him, but I called 911 and reported him (and yes, I pulled over first - it is illegal after all to use a cell phone while driving here in California :) ) I doubt they caught him, but what an idiot.
There will always be idiots like that guy. Yeah, it'll be worse when people are legally high and decide to drive on a busy street (they do this already, of course.) The penalties would, thusly, be much worse as well, and that's how it should be.
Others have noted that everyone is using poor quality displays, not just Apple, but I haven't seen anyone that mentioned that other laptops DO have the issue on display here.
I bought a Lenovo T61 in March and it had this same line problem. I went online and found others with the same issue (among other problems with the screen - it is just poor quality in general.)
I managed to get the screen replaced with one from a different manufacturer. A representative from Lenovo was participating in the discussion on notebookforums.com, where people were reporting issues with Lenovo laptop screens, and I sent my system in so that he could look at it himself. He acknowledged that it was bad and managed to get the repair guys to put in a different screen, but I don't think they're really doing anything to address the problem, like trying to get screen manufacturers to come up with better screens. Most people just don't care, unfortunately, especially with Thinkpads, which are aimed towards business not graphics.
So the result is that I have a different screen, from a different manufacturer (I believe it's currently an LG, while the original was from Samsung.) It has slight better viewing angles, but most importantly, the gray lines are gone.
Why are the lines such an issue? They really screw up photos and graphics. For the Macbook Pro, used by many photo and graphics "pros", that's a real serious issue. It's hard to capture how bad it really is, but here are some photos I took illustrating the issue:
http://mail.rochester.edu/~chacker/t61lcd.jpg
http://mail.rochester.edu/~chacker/t61lcd2.jpg
(I should note that the two screens shown are different sizes, but have the same resolution of 1680x1050, which is why the pixel size is different.)
For normal use, browsing Slashdot and writing TPS reports, or whatever, it is noticeable but you get used to it and it's not a problem. If you're doing photo editing, or even just looking at photos online, it is a HUGE annoyance. I was going to return the computer if I couldn't get it fixed because it was such a problem. Bad viewing angles and low brightness I can deal with, but these lines I really couldn't. The screens used in Thinkpads are supposedly 8-bit, so I don't think this is a dithering issue as speculated in other comments (I could be wrong and I'm not sure how that works specifically, that's just my feeling.)
I guess you've already been refuted, but I'll point out anyway that the PS3's cell processor is Power PC as well, and the PS3 has no problem with GTA 4 and didn't require a year to port to.
I agree, he is incorrectly making a generalization, and that bothered me when I read it (along with some other stuff he wrote - but it could have been much worse.)
In case you didn't read past that sentence, though, he continues (somewhat more ambiguously) with a valid point. We wouldn't normally admit our love of Star Trek, Heinlein, or anything fictional (including tabloids as mentioned in the article), even if it directly inspired our research project, in our grant proposals.
And by the way, I don't know how it is in your department, but there are also a lot of scientists I know who aren't into science fiction that much. Can't generalize too far in the other direction either!
Being a grad student, that's one of my favorite comics, and when I read that one last spring I was immediately tempted to actually do it as well.
As a lab TA for a low-level undergrad class (Geology 101) I get students who really should not be in university. I honestly don't know why they're here, because they're certainly not gaining skills or knowledge.
In the EE class the parent mentions, the students (mostly) are going to take it for the joke that it is. Problem for me, though, some less-smart students are likely to be deeply offended, and I'm just not that mean (they tend to like me and I don't want to ruin it :) )
The solution I like is to make clear the objectives of the course, and alter it if necessary. I tell the students that they're really not here to learn geology (I have one geology major in my classes, out of about 70 students total.) As non-science majors, they are going to learn from me the critical thinking and problem-solving skills that they won't learn in their English Literature class.
First, we assume a spherical penis...
Well, you really can't get macro shots like that without external light sources.
This is all off-topic, but having been converted from booing flash like you to appreciating its skillful use, I thought you might be interested in what I have to say about it.
Flash when applied with skill can look amazing, and can look completely natural too. As you say yourself, they're beautiful photographs at that link. They wouldn't be the same at all without the flash.
Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to boo using direct, on-camera flash, which looks awful 100% of the time. Read some of the archive material at http://www.strobist.com/ for a lot of interesting, sometimes stunning use of flash, or check out the strobist flickr group at http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/pool/ (the quality varies as it's an open group, but a lot of great stuff gets posted.) Here's one I did myself that I'm proud of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/penguinchris/2360013001/ :)
Right. I agree and some of what I wrote was not clearly stated. However, I did also say that it's not volcanic ash, which agrees with you. I don't say what it actually is, of course, which is the problem, and you are correct. Thank you for clarifying many of the points in my post, which to a geologist certainly would seem incoherent and incorrect!
Reading what I wrote earlier again I see that I don't really get to some of the points I'm trying to make. It was late :) My discussion of aa vs. pahoehoe is to point out the differences between the physical surfaces. Because of the chunkiness of the predominately aa lava field in Idaho, there are hardly any places where tephra, eroded materials, or much anything else collects to form moon-like surfaces as in their chosen test site. That's all. I should have written that differently. There are a much wider range of environments to be found on Hawaii. I'm defending their choice of testing their rover on Hawaii rather than someplace closer to home, which you agree with, so no argument there.
There is indeed tephra ejected from these volcanoes, which contradicts to some degree what I wrote, but I'm not sure that this is what forms most of Hawaii's regolith. I really have no idea but it doesn't seem likely that there is nothing else involved. There is a lot more stuff going on in Hawaii than on the moon. Actually, my point about the similar chemistry is misleading, because it may be that the differences in chemistry are what causes the differences in the tephra/moon dust properties.
Anyway I agree with your last point as well, but I'd like to point out that Idaho's lava field is merely 5-6,000 years old, and much less erosion occurs in present day Idaho than does in Hawaii.
Basically by replying to you I'm trying to make up for the fact that despite being a geologist, ten minutes of late-night internet research doesn't make up for the fact that this has nothing to do with my specialties and I really didn't know what I was talking about, besides it being poorly written. I'm sure you can tell :)
There's not much (or any really) volcanic ash erupted from Hawaii-type shield volcanoes. The "ash" that is the lunar and hawaiian regolith (the dust and dirt seen in the linked photos) is material from the underlying and surrounding rocks that's broken down.
The surface of Hawaiian lava fields is indeed legitimately similar (some might say almost identical) to the moon, however.
The moon's crust is comprised entirely by igneous rocks. The lunar "seas" are entirely basalt. Hawaiian-type lava fields are also entirely basalt (there are differences but they're essentially the same rock.)
There are other places with lava fields that they could have chosen to test at, one conveniently located in the continental US, in Idaho. It's actually called Craters of the Moon National Monument, due to its resemblance to the moon surface (at least to those who named the place before we'd gone to the moon.) It's a cool place to visit.
However, it sort of fails as the best place to be a test moon surface because of the lava structures. It is mostly the vesicular, chunky, and sharp "aa" type of lava flow, though some of the smoother "pahoehoe" type can be found. In Hawaii, both types are found in abundance (they are both given Hawaiian names after all) but because there's so much more of it, there's a better chance of finding large smooth sections of pahoehoe type. As you can see in the photos, there's also a regolith which is similar to the moon's, which does not exist to the same extent in Idaho. It's all about the physical and chemical properties of the specific basalt, which affects how it breaks down.
Much of the moon's surface is smoother than what we can find here on earth, except in a few nice spots, like the one they used. The lunar seas are cooled seas of lava and not much flow is likely to have happened, which is what causes much of the roughness seen in places like Craters of the Moon NM.
Disclaimers: while IAAGGS (I am a geology grad student), I did not R all of TFAs, and IANAVPPGBRASG (I am not a volcanologist, petrologist, or planetary geologist, but rather a structural geologist.) Take what I wrote with a grain of basalt, but I did do a bit of internet research and knew a thing or two about it beforehand, so it's a reasonable slashdot answer, I'd say.
Interestingly that's not true for my field, geology - in my undergrad class it was maybe 65-70% women, and in grad school now it's even more than that, probably 80-85% women.
This trend is confirmed by everyone I know in geology, in schools all across the country.
The exception, funnily enough, is in those geology specialties that involve a lot of computer modeling.
I agree completely. The reliance on these effects (usually enhanced by CGI, which removes the sense of reality) is past the point of killing most of my enjoyment of new movies.
In comic-hero movies, it makes sense, and can be cool. You expect ridiculous things, because they have super-powers and physics doesn't work quite the same way it really does. That's how it's supposed to be.
That's not how it works with normal people, though! Hollywood: stick to realistic (or only slightly augmented) physics in everything that's not a comic-book movie and your movies will be a lot more exciting.
I was predicting that the recent trend of over-the-top action scenes would end and filmmakers would realize how this detracts from the film, but now that Quantum of Solace had so much of this ridiculous stuff, we'll have a few more years at least of it.
To be fair, in general the action in Quantum of Solace was decently plausible. There were many scenes that were not, though, and it was all detracted from severely by the cinematography and editing, always too close and too fast to see what's going on. I thought we had finally passed that awful phase too, but again, I expect to see it even more in the next few years now.
The worst thing, I think, that they're using now is the "camera following at a fixed distance" trick. In Quantum of Solace, it's used when Bond and a bad guy fall through a glass roof. The camera follows them as if it's falling at the same speed from above them.
It was cool the first time we saw it (I'm not sure what film it was, but it was probably a Spiderman kind of thing) but it's such an unnatural point of view that it really takes you out of the illusion of reality, and it needs to end. It's like bullet-time. Cool and effective the first time only (and only when you're not going for basic realism, like Bond movies should.)
I agree with you; I have problems with linux on my (fairly new) thinkpad that should simply not exist at this point, no matter what distro I try or fixes I attempt. So many things work so well, but for example wireless networking, something critical that everyone uses all the time, still has a lot of show-stopping issues. I've got big problems with hibernation as well, and though my understanding of how that's handled is limited, it's my impression that the basic idea is not that complicated. Well, hibernation never worked on my previous laptop with Windows (from 5 or 6 years ago) either, but that's no excuse :)
That said, I still highly prefer it over any other option for all the stuff that does work - and works much better than in windows or os x.
As I said though, I agree, it is clear why it's not yet the Year of the Linux Desktop yet. There's still a lot of work to be done. Ubuntu does a lot of things well and has in my experience been the distro with the best compatibility and usability out of the box, but I don't agree with a lot of their way of doing things (mainly oversimplifying, which ironically tends to over-complicate doing more advanced things, including basic customizations, that are relatively simple in other distros) so I don't use it.
I'm writing this on my main system, a Thinkpad T61 laptop running OpenSuse 11. It's got a few major quirks that I can live with, myself - but my mother or girlfriend couldn't, at least without constant support from me.
I mean, this whole discussion is a little off-topic, but I thought I'd agree and chime in with some support. I've been a through and through Linux user for the past few years, I attempt to foist it upon my friends, and I'll never go back to windows, but I hope Linux developers are seeing the real issues preventing widespread Linux use and are taking them seriously.
Just so you know, here in Southern California, where the FasTrak system the parent mentions is, most toll roads that I'm aware of do not take cash. You must have the FasTrak, or presumably they will photograph your license plate and you will pay a hefty fine.
Here it's different than most places, of course; there are usually alternate routes you can take just as easily that don't have a toll. It'll just take you a little longer; the main difference being that the free route will have our notoriously heavy traffic or be jammed all the time, while the toll road you'll presumably fly through.
They dynamically adjust the toll depending on traffic level, to make sure the toll road is always operating at or below reasonable capacity. There are electronic signs at various points before the exits to these roads that tell you the current toll so you can decide to go that way or not. I've seen it go up to over $15 on the one near my house!
When I lived in New York (I just moved out here a few months ago) I had the EzPass for the NY Thruway, which was a little more nefarious. To get to any other city in New York in a reasonable manner, you have to use the Thruway, which is a toll road. I'm sure a whole lot more people in New York have EzPass than people in California have FasTrak. Of course, there are a lot more toll bridges and stuff in New York, which the EzPass also works on, which makes it, again, even more useful/essential than FasTrak since there aren't a whole lot of toll bridges around here (I can't think of a single one off the top of my head, while I regularly used them back in Buffalo.)