You haven't got your facts wrong, just your understanding of history. The past isn't just a series of flashy events. For the past fifty years or so, the academic discipline has got its shit together and realized that 98% of the past is just people living their lives and trying to get by, and that that's actually interesting and important. And we can get at past realities through all sorts of documents: not just people writing down "I think this, and tomorrow I'll do that" but police and court records, censuses, farm account books, notarial records, churches' baptism/marriage/funeral records, and on and on.
There are facts about the past and historians do work hard to figure them out. It's not just a case of he said/she said. Now, whether those facts belong in video games is another question entirely.
Just because they're now shitty cell phone games with touchscreen interfaces and slightly better graphics doesn't mean that they'll make even the slightest dent in actual console sales.
Bang on. When did this become a zero-sum game, anyway? As innumerable posters have pointed out, console games and cell phone games are NOT the same thing, used by the same people at the same kinds of times. There's a new emerging market as cell phones develop a modicum of processing power and screen size. Now we have another platform for gaming. That doesn't mean the old one will go away.
Very interesting. There was another study a few years back that dealt with cranium capacity: as proto-humans lost the large ridges on their skulls needed to anchor large muscles that were in turn needed to chew through raw meat (and even hide) it made room for the larger cranium that allowed for (better?) tool use, making all that chewing unnecessary. It's not cooking, but it's a similar issue, and it becomes a rather interesting chicken-and-egg question.
It's actually a ratio of twice as much spent on research than development, rather than three times, but I would still say the original poster is correct in principal. But then again, as you point out, this about the US. YCRMV (Your Country's Results May Vary).
How is "deplane" a word? Last I checked, "to plane" meant to make something smooth by shaving off tiny amounts of the surface, so I can only assume that "to deplane" means to glue them back on.
When you get off a ship, do you "deship"? What about decar? Detank? Dezeppelin? I'm sad to say that the railways are picking up on this bizarre habit: a few months ago I actually heard "detrain", which sounds like the railway workers plan on making you forget your job-related skills.
What's so bad about the words "deboard" and "disembark"?
OK, OK, I'm way off-topic, but this drives me nuts.
Even worse is the advertising that gets shoved in the faces of the doctors! There was another study recently (I'd link to it, but I'm too lazy to go search for it) that found that doctors were making a lot of choices about which drugs to prescribe based on all the advertising and free samples they're regularly bombarded with. Then there was another study that found that drug companies were spending twice as much on marketing as on research.
Sadly, family physicians just don't have a whole lot of extra time to be reading up fully on every drug that hits the market. Having a way to distil research and make it more accessible to doctors could go a long way to countering that.
"According to Reuters, it seems that Cuba has launched it's own variation of grammar in order to fulfill it's government's desire to replace Microsoft operating systems. "Getting greater control over the idiomatic process is an important issue..."
I ran a similar test recently to find out where my electricity money was going. To my surprise, I found that running Linux at idle, my desktop was using 100 watts, but idling on XP, it uses 108 watts! I suspect the difference is, in the end, much greater, because Linux is idle MUCH more often than Windows.
I tried the same test on my girlfriend's laptop. There was no noticeable difference between Linux and Vista.
What I need to do next is try to get more realistic test runs: use each computer for a few hours, running a set list of tasks in a way which is fairly typical, but standardized. As soon as I come up with the time to waste on that, I'll let you know.
By the way, I did find out one other interesting fact: having the computer shut off the monitor, rather than just switching it off manually, resulted in a power savings of one watt. I expect this is because the computer is no longer powering the graphics card.
You're absolutely right, and I'm not arguing with any of that. Quite the opposite: if we can't expect to be perfectly fine with anything that occurs in our natural environment, how can we trust every product (and perhaps more significantly, by-product) that modern industry throws our way?
This is exactly what the great-great-grandparent comment was about: we need to test these things.
Well, yes, actually... because we EVOLVED to be compatible with beans, potatoes, and the sun. We did not evolve to be compatible with artificial fabric softener.
In this case, the "they" person is some AC whom I couldn't identify and didn't want to arbitrarily assign a gender to. Sadly, the English language has no real third-person, non-gendered pronoun suitable for people (as opposed to objects).
That said, you're right, and the AC is wrong. Also, your quibbling with actual facts is more useful than my quibbling with phrasing or mathematical concepts.
No doubt that's a large part of it. But what about the fact that over the last few decades, we have been exposing ourselves to huge numbers of chemicals on a daily basis, the long-term health effects of which are often unknown? Do you really know what's in that fabric softener you've been putting on your clothes? What else is happening when you take a deep breath of that "new car smell"? I'm always a little skeptical when I watch the woman in the commercial sniffing up the aerosol Febreeze she's plastering her house with.
This may seem paranoid, but I choose to be both skeptical and cautious until we have proper, long-term studies of each and every chemical in these consumer products, and of what they do to us in combination.
I think this is a pretty clear effort by the federal government to try to put the matter to bed by giving the big, monopolistic corporation the chance to "prove" that this is "necessary", which they will then accept without question.
I've said it before: net neutrality is going nowhere in Canada without a change of government.
But that's just my $0.02 CAD.
You're right, of course, but it would take a colossal amount of capital. This is where we run into the last mile issue: unless you're willing to dig up people's lawns and put in hard connections to people's houses, or you find some way to deliver wireless in a reliable and affordable way, you're stuck going through Bell's or Rogers' connections, and we're back to square one.
Bell's lines were built with support from public funding. It's time for the public to step in and say, "We've all paid for this; we should all have access to it." And essentially, that was done, and Bell was required to open up their lines for competition. (The same thing happened out east under Aliant.) But now they're screwing with the end product anyway.
Obviously, government needs to squash this nonsense. Doesn't look like it's going to happen under the current Conservative regime, though, which is no big surprise, really.
Slashdot Mirror
...and apparently I'm so distracted that I'm messing up my grammar, too.
I'm sorry. I can't offer any advice because I'm too busy being jealous that you're ISP actually gives you good connection speeds.
You haven't got your facts wrong, just your understanding of history. The past isn't just a series of flashy events. For the past fifty years or so, the academic discipline has got its shit together and realized that 98% of the past is just people living their lives and trying to get by, and that that's actually interesting and important. And we can get at past realities through all sorts of documents: not just people writing down "I think this, and tomorrow I'll do that" but police and court records, censuses, farm account books, notarial records, churches' baptism/marriage/funeral records, and on and on.
There are facts about the past and historians do work hard to figure them out. It's not just a case of he said/she said. Now, whether those facts belong in video games is another question entirely.
Just because they're now shitty cell phone games with touchscreen interfaces and slightly better graphics doesn't mean that they'll make even the slightest dent in actual console sales.
Bang on. When did this become a zero-sum game, anyway? As innumerable posters have pointed out, console games and cell phone games are NOT the same thing, used by the same people at the same kinds of times. There's a new emerging market as cell phones develop a modicum of processing power and screen size. Now we have another platform for gaming. That doesn't mean the old one will go away.
Very interesting. There was another study a few years back that dealt with cranium capacity: as proto-humans lost the large ridges on their skulls needed to anchor large muscles that were in turn needed to chew through raw meat (and even hide) it made room for the larger cranium that allowed for (better?) tool use, making all that chewing unnecessary. It's not cooking, but it's a similar issue, and it becomes a rather interesting chicken-and-egg question.
I don't go burning down butcher shops because I'm vegetarian.
No, but you don't patronize them, either.
Source please?
Here you go: http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/01/03/drugs.htm
It's actually a ratio of twice as much spent on research than development, rather than three times, but I would still say the original poster is correct in principal. But then again, as you point out, this about the US. YCRMV (Your Country's Results May Vary).
And it doesn't help that most North American cell carriers set themselves up with CDMA instead of GSM. We have a whole continent of Beta.
This is ridiculous. If this passes, I'm never voting Conservative again (leaving me with no other options!)
You voted for these clowns? No wonder you're posting as an AC!
How is "deplane" a word? Last I checked, "to plane" meant to make something smooth by shaving off tiny amounts of the surface, so I can only assume that "to deplane" means to glue them back on. When you get off a ship, do you "deship"? What about decar? Detank? Dezeppelin? I'm sad to say that the railways are picking up on this bizarre habit: a few months ago I actually heard "detrain", which sounds like the railway workers plan on making you forget your job-related skills. What's so bad about the words "deboard" and "disembark"? OK, OK, I'm way off-topic, but this drives me nuts.
Wow. Thanks for the story. That certainly illustrates the issue! I'm glad you got the help you needed.
Even worse is the advertising that gets shoved in the faces of the doctors! There was another study recently (I'd link to it, but I'm too lazy to go search for it) that found that doctors were making a lot of choices about which drugs to prescribe based on all the advertising and free samples they're regularly bombarded with. Then there was another study that found that drug companies were spending twice as much on marketing as on research. Sadly, family physicians just don't have a whole lot of extra time to be reading up fully on every drug that hits the market. Having a way to distil research and make it more accessible to doctors could go a long way to countering that.
"According to Reuters, it seems that Cuba has launched it's own variation of grammar in order to fulfill it's government's desire to replace Microsoft operating systems. "Getting greater control over the idiomatic process is an important issue..."
Don't look Muslim.
I tried the same test on my girlfriend's laptop. There was no noticeable difference between Linux and Vista.
What I need to do next is try to get more realistic test runs: use each computer for a few hours, running a set list of tasks in a way which is fairly typical, but standardized. As soon as I come up with the time to waste on that, I'll let you know.
By the way, I did find out one other interesting fact: having the computer shut off the monitor, rather than just switching it off manually, resulted in a power savings of one watt. I expect this is because the computer is no longer powering the graphics card.
You're absolutely right, and I'm not arguing with any of that. Quite the opposite: if we can't expect to be perfectly fine with anything that occurs in our natural environment, how can we trust every product (and perhaps more significantly, by-product) that modern industry throws our way? This is exactly what the great-great-grandparent comment was about: we need to test these things.
Well, yes, actually... because we EVOLVED to be compatible with beans, potatoes, and the sun. We did not evolve to be compatible with artificial fabric softener.
In this case, the "they" person is some AC whom I couldn't identify and didn't want to arbitrarily assign a gender to. Sadly, the English language has no real third-person, non-gendered pronoun suitable for people (as opposed to objects). That said, you're right, and the AC is wrong. Also, your quibbling with actual facts is more useful than my quibbling with phrasing or mathematical concepts.
This may seem paranoid, but I choose to be both skeptical and cautious until we have proper, long-term studies of each and every chemical in these consumer products, and of what they do to us in combination.
No, they said "rates" have increased, not "numbers".
I think this is a pretty clear effort by the federal government to try to put the matter to bed by giving the big, monopolistic corporation the chance to "prove" that this is "necessary", which they will then accept without question. I've said it before: net neutrality is going nowhere in Canada without a change of government. But that's just my $0.02 CAD.
Ouch. Makes you wonder about /.'s relatively weak policing of submissions.
...I'm not sure this qualifies as news.
Announcement for terrible cyber-war movie in 5... 4... 3...
"Sergeant! I've been pinged!"
"Dammit, Johnson! Get out of there!"
You're right, of course, but it would take a colossal amount of capital. This is where we run into the last mile issue: unless you're willing to dig up people's lawns and put in hard connections to people's houses, or you find some way to deliver wireless in a reliable and affordable way, you're stuck going through Bell's or Rogers' connections, and we're back to square one. Bell's lines were built with support from public funding. It's time for the public to step in and say, "We've all paid for this; we should all have access to it." And essentially, that was done, and Bell was required to open up their lines for competition. (The same thing happened out east under Aliant.) But now they're screwing with the end product anyway. Obviously, government needs to squash this nonsense. Doesn't look like it's going to happen under the current Conservative regime, though, which is no big surprise, really.