"It's just that no one before Sony was stupid enough to claim ownership of content that users created, so this issue has never existed before."
- Actually you're overlooking most if not all MMORPGs. their eulas are as draconian as this, and I remember that city of heroes got into trouble because of marvel complaining about people creating their copyrighted superheroes.
IMNSHO copyright issues should only get into play when the one copying is actually trying to sell the product without the copyrights permission. A online "sandbox" like a MMORPG isn't a copyrightable entity regarding player characters, the people who create the sandbox don't have copyrights to the characters people create. That's like telling Hideaki Anno that if he creates a copyrighted character of his in an online sandbox that now the sandbox owners own the copyright to his character, which just plain idiotic.
So yeah, sony should be able to weather this off, unless they screw up somehow (like they are wont to do?)
That's also a part of what made the initial windows and what the apple computers did right with OSX, they discovered what the majority of people want to use the computer for, the real important functions, and made them easy.
Let's haev a toaster analogy.. let's say no one has created a machine to make toast, they've used pliers and an open fire, and you have the specific idea of creating a simple yet effective machine to help people make toast.
If you'd use the linux paradigm, you'd have started with a known design for an industrial strength oven with varying options and customizations, made it easier for toast to be inserted in one end and output on the other end, but you can also customize it to create pizzas, baked goods, and whatever you like, just fiddle with the machine a bit, read the manual, take the time and you'll make toast and plenty of other stuff in no time (if you deduct the time already spent in setting it up and learning it, then yeah.. no time).
If you use the windows paradigm, you start with asking what are the simple things people want to do with a toaster? What would most people need from their toaster? (And remember, if no one has seen a machine which makes toast, and you're making one for the first time, do you know these things?) Take the facts together, and make the effort of making toast as simple as possible.
The end result is the same, you get toasted bread out of a toaster, because in the end, that's what you're interested in; a machine that makes toasted bread.
If I pop back into the PC world, people want to use their gadgets with their PC, they want to use the internet with their PC and they want to use their games/entertainment with their PC. If linux can cater to these 3 without fuss in the future, it'll get more use, simple as that.
"did not tackle the issue of design skills as much as it addressed their ability to use a different tool."
- I beg to differ, he asked them to create a design with a different tool, that means removing the software from the design process and letting them really think about what is a part of the design process and what isn't. In the end it will free the students minds away from "I have a hammer, and everything is a nail" - type thinking and increase their real design skills.
Of course some dumb ones won't get it, but that's all good, we need janitors in this world as well.
I don't think that because something's taboo that automatically someone is going to try it out.
Sex is a part of our nature, and treating it like a taboo is just like saying "clothes the colour green are taboo", inherently, they aren't.
Violence is also a last option in our social skills, and should be taboo, although it inherently isnt.
Then there's the humanity's advantegous curiosity which is what makes us experiment with all things, whether classified as taboo or proper. Teach children how to experiment and what to do if they have questions, and you won't have any problems with any subject as they should come to you for answers.
Hopefully you'll be grown up enough yourself to handle the questions.
Actually, that might be the next real step in web 2.0
- When you install IE/Firefox, you can sign up for an openID login/pass. When you're using your browser on your machine, you'll be logged in, and any website which requires you to create a login, would then just ask you to "allow this website to register your openid" and you'll be instantly logged in. - If you're on a public terminal, you just log in "from a public terminal" when you open the browser, and can instantly browse your websites like normal.
This really is the next step in making it easier to have just a single signon for websites, and I can't wait until a firefox plugin is created to let you automatically sign in when you open the browser, and sign out when you close it.
If you implement openid login in any other way than from the browser itself, you're opening yourself to phishing attacks, so integrating openid into the browsers really is the right step forward.
"How do you know you can trust open source projects?"
- How do you know you can trust closed source programs? You've never seen their code, no one knows whether the program is legit except the people telling you it's ok, and//they're the ones selling it to you//. So when you buy a closed-source program, you don't have a single clue whether it will do something it's not meant to do.. don't believe me? Check here: http://vsbabu.org/software/fsxls.html - this is microsoft actually putting something into Office which had no business being there, and no one told the customers about it.
In this case it's benign, but all closed programs are more of a security hazard for being closed than the open source programs because closing the source gives the programmer full license to do what he wants with it. I can give you a hypothetical example; A company creates a program which helps you create and maintain offline versions of you profiles on popular blog/profile pages like facebook/myspace/whatever. It goes through its first iterations and looks kinda legit, but in one version it starts gathering data on your email addresses, your personal information, the personal information on other people around you, and starts monitoring your email. In a new version it then starts sending useful information on email addresses, contacts and so on to a huge botnet for spamming purposes. It does it discretely, and in the license agreement you signed, they have a "we need these rights to be able to send to the legit sites, so say yes to this". The difference between a closed source program behaving like this and an open source program is that the open source programs which tries a stunt like this will get shut down a lot faster than a closed source version.
What open source programs do is give everyone on the internet the chance of going through the code, and verifying that what the code is supposed to be doing is what the code actually does, and nothing more. You and I might not have the technical skills do do that, but there's plenty of people there who notice things if they're wrong, know how to grab the open source, compile it, compare it with the downloadable executable and can tell you whether it's dubious or not.
- So essentially, your security IT guy got a bells ringing in his head when he hears open source, it's a shame that he doesn't realize that it's the//Same bloody bell// as should be ringing for any/all closed-source software he doesn't recognise.
"What processes are in place to protect users from malicious code?"
- well, one process is called OPEN-SOURCING. You're clearly confused about what programming is, I'd turn in my geek-license if I were you.
- I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to find simple yet effective ways to check whether their software is bad or not.
Me and my friends are LAN-ers through and through.
If blizzard is still watching this thread, I'd be interested in clarifying what they're really telling us LAN-ers, what are our options if we want to LAN?
- Isn't banning LAN play just asking for a community hack from day one? - Isn't banning LAN play destroying the LAN-party experience for tens even hundreds of thousands of players who want to gather together in one latency-free place and co-op play, or play in a place without any online connectivity? - Isn't banning LAN play reducing the value of the product to gamers from I can i) single-play, ii) LAN-play and iii) online-play to just single play and online play?
Removing LAN play is removing a big chunk of my Blizzard experience, as I lan-ed the diablo games, warcraft and starcraft and was hoping to lan D3 to death.
Please don't make the same mistake as spore.. as in make a great game and then arbitrarily fuck it up for no reason. LAN play was a huge part in getting me and others to play your games, and dismissing it is throwing out my expectations and memories of how I had fun with a blizzard game. you're touting that you're allowing game developers make the game, and then letting the marketers and CEOs take that product onwards instead of the other way around.. but in this case, you're not. you're actually arbitrarily removing one of the great things about warcraft, starcraft and diablo that made the games great; You could hold a LAN-party with your friends and play them to death against/with your friends.
If I'm mistaken and you're not banning LAN play, then please clarify what LAN-players can do to play on a LAN, and if there will be some solution for people on offline LANs.
You're always saying "is it fun to push the buttons" as a marker of how fun a game is, well let me extend that to : "Is it fun to play with your friends?" If you agree with me and say yes, then why remove friends abilities in getting together and having fun? Thing is with LAN-play is you don't need a internet connection to enjoy yourself with your friends, just a little extra space and a router is plenty (or at the least a crossover cable).
Also, people who are behind corporate walls, but would want to LAN together after hours and won't be able to get through to battle.net because of firewalls, you're going to tell them they can't play?
Add LAN-play, because it's been a part of gaming since the beginning of the gaming frenzy, and will never really go away.
Ok, so if sex offenders have rights after being out of prison, then this must be a reduction of their rights. What's it called when a minority of people are singled out and have their rights reduced?
American society is so sick.. not from all the sex, but from all the taboos you have regarding sex. Sex isn't something holy, or taboo, or disgusting, it's just sex. What american society thinks about sex, now that's depraved.
They touted alot of great stuff about vista, and we all know the crapfest that turned out to be. Now they're touting the "7" and all we can talk about is the name? Is there any evidence that it won't be the same crap with a new name?
"The holy grail of course is to find something that humans can do easily, but is impossible (or very very unlikely statistically) for a program to be able to do."
from the article: "In essence, the question P = NP? asks: if 'yes'-answers to a 'yes'-or-'no'-question can be verified "quickly" (in polynomial time), can the answers themselves also be computed quickly?"
If you can find a captcha that a computer can never solve, you've basically once and for all answered this question, and P != NP.
However, if P = NP is true, then no matter what captcha you use, it will be broken, it's just a matter of time and ingenuity.
How the hell did you get modded insightful? A search engine is a search engine, no matter whether you limit results to one domain or a million.
And yes, any site with a search feature is using a search engine, why is that so hard to understand?
Re:This is a huge amount of work
on
Linux 2.6.27 Out
·
· Score: 1
Then take the time and go fix it.
You probably don't even have to do something drastic as write a new driver, just check the new stuff with the old that worked, and check the difference.
Or you could donate money to a developer to check and fix this for you.. or do what you'll most likely do, wait until someone else wants to fix it for himself, and hope he releases the fix to the public.
he's looking at things relative to one individual and when and for how long he has children and the error rate of the genetic code in those children.
If you're looking at human evolution in general, you would rather want to look at a bigger picture.
For instance the same values that increase a persons desirability are around. Incredibly rich people will bear offspring, incredibly beautiful people will bear offspring, and incredibly socially intelligent people will bear offspring.
The same values that decrease a persons desirability are also around.
The only thing that's changed is that there's a 90% chance of a healthy baby popping out which can survive to 21 instead of a 20% chance (percentages roughly guessed).
The fact that we have automatically adapted to this increased survival rate just means that it's most likely never been usual to have a big family, 2-3 kids is normal and the only reason that more children were born is that more children died.
Plus, I don't really think that guy is "getting" evolution.. you want as FEW errors in the code as possible, not more errors as almost 99.99999999% of errors are bad errors.
This is a classic case of someone sympathizing with the subject he's studying, because he's studying evolution, and for evolution to happen you need mistakes in genetic code which develop into sustainable "new" kind of life, so more mistakes means more evolution and so mistakes in the genetic code is good for the future as his takls clearly speaks and you should listen, right?
The answer is a resounding "No!". Evolution is a neutral subject, neither good or bad. For every happy accident, there's a million unhappy offspring who will die from the mistake in genetic code. Understanding evolution does not mean we want more of it, or even less. We just want to understand the process, and then leave it the f**k alone.
So he's putting his own interpretation on his findings that older fathers have more genetic mistakes, he's interpreting that as a good thing, when in fact it is neither good or bad, it's a personal opinion of his.
This data is really for women, understanding that older men have more genetic mistakes in their code is important for them to decide on if age is a factor when choosing a mate. It's not the only decision as alot of other factors are at work.
People can listen to a tune once, and be neutral to it, but when they hear it again and again, they warm up to it, or start to hate it, as in the emotional connection takes a while to develop.
You can most often instantly realize whether music is well made or not, even if you're not sure if you like it or not, give it a chance, listen to it again, and you might discover that you like it.
Now this is a study that I'd like to see be made as a comprehensive insight into how the public go from being unaware of an artist into being consumers of that artists' work.
We all kinda know that no one buys anything without knowing beforehand that he'll be satisfied by the product, a study into this would be a refreshing proof that all this "you're a pirate and we will sue you" - is inherently stopping the public in discovering, enjoying and eventually buying an artists' work.
The **AA might tell themselves they're only hurting themselves a little bit, and the independents, who are competing against them for ears, alot (as the **AA control the current main sources of performance letouts), but I'm pretty sure that they're hurting themselves so much that they won't recuperate. Wish there was some way to let them know.
forethought: People like to play together, but high level characters and low lever characters have no play synergy whatsoever, they can "roleplay" and chat, but any challenges for one will be either too easy for the other, or a completely undoable obstacle.
question: Have you discussed implementing a system where a high level character could lower his level to play with his lower level friends, or somekind of a system to increase play synergy between high levels and low levels?
followup: The new "heirloom" items are very interesting in that regard, but they don't increase playability with a high level character you perhaps already enjoy playing with. To be able to grab that character and play with your low-level friends and have it challenging and fun would be increasing that playability.
---- Extra question: Can we have a cute red heart as a new raid Icon? That'd be awesome.
I've come to expect a few really glorious replies, insights into minds which with their commentary not only enlighten, but makes you wonder in awe at the simple, yet astoundingly deep relevance someone can have on the subject at hand as well as the human psyche...
I've also come to expect the rushing *Woosh* sound from a thousand onlookers not getting it.
I always hope to be in the former, but dejectedly find myself too often in the latter.
On the other hand, if a sysadmin has a bad job, he'll have to put out burning fires which are all over the place, quickly patch the already badly patchworked fences, and personally have to shovel the daily shit all day long.
Actually, you're messing up 2 different things, religion and philosophy.
The philosophical statement: "There is no such thing as a good person" depends on from what perspective you approach the question, and the interesting thing is that the _approach_itself_ will make the statement either true or false.
"Which is a premise that I fundamentally disagree with and why I'm not a christian."
- I'd be hard-pressed in thinking that he's using religious dogma to justify that statement, but your answer to it is very interesting. By disagreeing, you do believe there are good people, but confusingly say that is the reason you're not a christian?
I do believe that in the case where someone denies christianity because they think that christian dogma says there are no good persons, on some level they have found the dogma and guidelines, layed down by christianity, to be ill-suited to their own purpose and, not wanting to conform to that (as conformity would mean they'd be a good christian) they themselves do not recognise that: to participate in a religious dogma is partaking in a path of self-research into the question; Am I a good person? which definitely is an underlying current of the human psyche, and at least suggests that all persons have an interest in the answer.
If you are interested in your own self-discovery, I'd suggest a firm philosophical base, and start with the simple one which will last you your whole lifetime: Are you good?
English not my native tongue, so apologies to any of the evil grammar nazis who might read this response.
I really hate when whiny posts like yours get modded insightful.
If you want a comparison between linux and windows with this on/off, THEN GO DO IT YOURSELF. who the hell should do the work you're interested in except you?
For everyone else than you this is a great step forward in getting compatibility and options for linux. I think it's great, and applaud it.
"But they have no incentive to plan ahead. It's a common pattern."
- you just wrote out the incentive to plan ahead. The fact they HAVE no incentive regardless to plan ahead just shows a lack of intelligence and it will hurt them because companies which allow itself to behave like that don't get a reputation for doing well.
I bought my first PC because I heard you could get alot of cool games on it, so for me PC = gaming when I was young.
Me and my friends shared games on floppies, someone found a cool mini-game and shared it, and we had fun in the experience, someone bought a new game, told us about it, we played it to share his experience by grabbing it from him and have a fun experience together.
There are games out there I bought because the game really made me say "now this is reward-worthy! This is something I love to play"
Then there are games out there I didn't buy, but friends of mine bought, and they liked it alot, so I tried it, downloaded it and had fun with them over LANs and such with them, but they bought it, not me. We shared the experience though, and had fun, but the game wasn't what I'd have bought.
Then there are games none of us bought, but tried and had fun for a few moments.
You see, sharing the gaming experience is a part of the value of a PC, the fact that a friend of your buys a game because he loves it means of course I'll try it, but I won't buy it unless I love it as well, but I'll have shared the experience with him, and that will enrich both our experience with the game, something we can then share with others.
People really shouldn't have named what we do pirating, it's not stealing, far from it, it's enhancing the experience for the buyer. Think about it, you have a PC, your friends have a PC, you buy a game you love, and can share that experience with your friends, for the guy who bought the game, and loves the game, that's a pretty powerful reason to look at the package as an item of value.
And guess what, this sharing is the behemoth marketing campaign which gets people trying the games out there. None of us have huge budgets for games, none of us can buy all the games we try, and if PC gaming was as locked-in as some game developers would want, PC gaming would never have come this far this fast.
Games I buy today, I never take out of the shrink-wrap, why? Because today it's alot easier to download the ISO and use the cracked files to skip all that gameprotection crap. that's also the best way for me to make sure that when I Lan with my friends, we all got the same version and no incompatibility issues arise.
What sells games is letting people try them in their own comfort-zone, that's why steam kinda works. The only thing I'd like to add to steam is "share this game with your friends", it would do alot what sharing games did for me, allow me to buy the games I'm interested, and allow me to share the experience of a friend buying a game he likes.
For the hardcore pirate, piracy means complete freedom to play the game the way you want, when you want, however you want, and protection-lock-in doesn't sway the freedom fighter to give up his loot.
For me, I like the freedom, I like to play with my friends, but I am budget constrained, and I will buy the games I love, and play the games the friends and I like.
"Piracy" is allowing people who can't afford buying your games to play your games, and to share them with people who can afford to buy your games, what joins those 2 groups is that these are friends sharing things with friends.
PC Gaming has been enjoying it's success because people tear down the wall between itself and the game and give themselves full freedom to decide to buy or not, thus try alot more games than they would, thus get more and more interested in gaming.
As a gaming company, what you want is as many people experienceing the product, and let the people who want to buy it, to buy it. This is most easily done by pirating the game. People get to see it, try it, but because they're pirating, they actually have to go outside this experience to buy it.
Bring people together, make it easy for people to invite friends to try, make it easy for people to play without having to jump through protection hoops, and -here's the important bit- : make it easy for people who are trying the whole game because they asked for a free (time)limited try, or a friend of theirs invited them to try the whole game for free, to buy it.
Pirate your own game, let people play it, just let people know they can buy it if they love it.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's just that no one before Sony was stupid enough to claim ownership of content that users created, so this issue has never existed before."
- Actually you're overlooking most if not all MMORPGs. their eulas are as draconian as this, and I remember that city of heroes got into trouble because of marvel complaining about people creating their copyrighted superheroes.
IMNSHO copyright issues should only get into play when the one copying is actually trying to sell the product without the copyrights permission. A online "sandbox" like a MMORPG isn't a copyrightable entity regarding player characters, the people who create the sandbox don't have copyrights to the characters people create. That's like telling Hideaki Anno that if he creates a copyrighted character of his in an online sandbox that now the sandbox owners own the copyright to his character, which just plain idiotic.
So yeah, sony should be able to weather this off, unless they screw up somehow (like they are wont to do?)
That's also a part of what made the initial windows and what the apple computers did right with OSX, they discovered what the majority of people want to use the computer for, the real important functions, and made them easy.
Let's haev a toaster analogy.. let's say no one has created a machine to make toast, they've used pliers and an open fire, and you have the specific idea of creating a simple yet effective machine to help people make toast.
If you'd use the linux paradigm, you'd have started with a known design for an industrial strength oven with varying options and customizations, made it easier for toast to be inserted in one end and output on the other end, but you can also customize it to create pizzas, baked goods, and whatever you like, just fiddle with the machine a bit, read the manual, take the time and you'll make toast and plenty of other stuff in no time (if you deduct the time already spent in setting it up and learning it, then yeah.. no time).
If you use the windows paradigm, you start with asking what are the simple things people want to do with a toaster? What would most people need from their toaster? (And remember, if no one has seen a machine which makes toast, and you're making one for the first time, do you know these things?) Take the facts together, and make the effort of making toast as simple as possible.
The end result is the same, you get toasted bread out of a toaster, because in the end, that's what you're interested in; a machine that makes toasted bread.
If I pop back into the PC world, people want to use their gadgets with their PC, they want to use the internet with their PC and they want to use their games/entertainment with their PC. If linux can cater to these 3 without fuss in the future, it'll get more use, simple as that.
"did not tackle the issue of design skills as much as it addressed their ability to use a different tool."
- I beg to differ, he asked them to create a design with a different tool, that means removing the software from the design process and letting them really think about what is a part of the design process and what isn't. In the end it will free the students minds away from "I have a hammer, and everything is a nail" - type thinking and increase their real design skills.
Of course some dumb ones won't get it, but that's all good, we need janitors in this world as well.
I don't think that because something's taboo that automatically someone is going to try it out.
Sex is a part of our nature, and treating it like a taboo is just like saying "clothes the colour green are taboo", inherently, they aren't.
Violence is also a last option in our social skills, and should be taboo, although it inherently isnt.
Then there's the humanity's advantegous curiosity which is what makes us experiment with all things, whether classified as taboo or proper. Teach children how to experiment and what to do if they have questions, and you won't have any problems with any subject as they should come to you for answers.
Hopefully you'll be grown up enough yourself to handle the questions.
Actually, that might be the next real step in web 2.0
- When you install IE/Firefox, you can sign up for an openID login/pass. When you're using your browser on your machine, you'll be logged in, and any website which requires you to create a login, would then just ask you to "allow this website to register your openid" and you'll be instantly logged in.
- If you're on a public terminal, you just log in "from a public terminal" when you open the browser, and can instantly browse your websites like normal.
This really is the next step in making it easier to have just a single signon for websites, and I can't wait until a firefox plugin is created to let you automatically sign in when you open the browser, and sign out when you close it.
If you implement openid login in any other way than from the browser itself, you're opening yourself to phishing attacks, so integrating openid into the browsers really is the right step forward.
"How do you know you can trust open source projects?"
- How do you know you can trust closed source programs? You've never seen their code, no one knows whether the program is legit except the people telling you it's ok, and //they're the ones selling it to you//. So when you buy a closed-source program, you don't have a single clue whether it will do something it's not meant to do.. don't believe me? Check here: http://vsbabu.org/software/fsxls.html - this is microsoft actually putting something into Office which had no business being there, and no one told the customers about it.
In this case it's benign, but all closed programs are more of a security hazard for being closed than the open source programs because closing the source gives the programmer full license to do what he wants with it. I can give you a hypothetical example; A company creates a program which helps you create and maintain offline versions of you profiles on popular blog/profile pages like facebook/myspace/whatever. It goes through its first iterations and looks kinda legit, but in one version it starts gathering data on your email addresses, your personal information, the personal information on other people around you, and starts monitoring your email. In a new version it then starts sending useful information on email addresses, contacts and so on to a huge botnet for spamming purposes. It does it discretely, and in the license agreement you signed, they have a "we need these rights to be able to send to the legit sites, so say yes to this". The difference between a closed source program behaving like this and an open source program is that the open source programs which tries a stunt like this will get shut down a lot faster than a closed source version.
What open source programs do is give everyone on the internet the chance of going through the code, and verifying that what the code is supposed to be doing is what the code actually does, and nothing more. You and I might not have the technical skills do do that, but there's plenty of people there who notice things if they're wrong, know how to grab the open source, compile it, compare it with the downloadable executable and can tell you whether it's dubious or not.
- So essentially, your security IT guy got a bells ringing in his head when he hears open source, it's a shame that he doesn't realize that it's the //Same bloody bell// as should be ringing for any/all closed-source software he doesn't recognise.
"What processes are in place to protect users from malicious code?"
- well, one process is called OPEN-SOURCING. You're clearly confused about what programming is, I'd turn in my geek-license if I were you.
- I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to find simple yet effective ways to check whether their software is bad or not.
Me and my friends are LAN-ers through and through.
If blizzard is still watching this thread, I'd be interested in clarifying what they're really telling us LAN-ers, what are our options if we want to LAN?
- Isn't banning LAN play just asking for a community hack from day one?
- Isn't banning LAN play destroying the LAN-party experience for tens even hundreds of thousands of players who want to gather together in one latency-free place and co-op play, or play in a place without any online connectivity?
- Isn't banning LAN play reducing the value of the product to gamers from I can i) single-play, ii) LAN-play and iii) online-play to just single play and online play?
Removing LAN play is removing a big chunk of my Blizzard experience, as I lan-ed the diablo games, warcraft and starcraft and was hoping to lan D3 to death.
Please don't make the same mistake as spore.. as in make a great game and then arbitrarily fuck it up for no reason. LAN play was a huge part in getting me and others to play your games, and dismissing it is throwing out my expectations and memories of how I had fun with a blizzard game. you're touting that you're allowing game developers make the game, and then letting the marketers and CEOs take that product onwards instead of the other way around.. but in this case, you're not. you're actually arbitrarily removing one of the great things about warcraft, starcraft and diablo that made the games great; You could hold a LAN-party with your friends and play them to death against/with your friends.
If I'm mistaken and you're not banning LAN play, then please clarify what LAN-players can do to play on a LAN, and if there will be some solution for people on offline LANs.
You're always saying "is it fun to push the buttons" as a marker of how fun a game is, well let me extend that to : "Is it fun to play with your friends?" If you agree with me and say yes, then why remove friends abilities in getting together and having fun? Thing is with LAN-play is you don't need a internet connection to enjoy yourself with your friends, just a little extra space and a router is plenty (or at the least a crossover cable).
Also, people who are behind corporate walls, but would want to LAN together after hours and won't be able to get through to battle.net because of firewalls, you're going to tell them they can't play?
Add LAN-play, because it's been a part of gaming since the beginning of the gaming frenzy, and will never really go away.
Ok, so if sex offenders have rights after being out of prison, then this must be a reduction of their rights. What's it called when a minority of people are singled out and have their rights reduced?
American society is so sick.. not from all the sex, but from all the taboos you have regarding sex. Sex isn't something holy, or taboo, or disgusting, it's just sex. What american society thinks about sex, now that's depraved.
"ooh ooh ooh" ?
- Did one of the monkeys escape and start posting on slashdot?
... then I guess they succeeded.
They touted alot of great stuff about vista, and we all know the crapfest that turned out to be. Now they're touting the "7" and all we can talk about is the name? Is there any evidence that it won't be the same crap with a new name?
"The holy grail of course is to find something that humans can do easily, but is impossible (or very very unlikely statistically) for a program to be able to do."
- Doesn't this tie a little bit into the P = NP question?, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_classes_P_and_NP
from the article:
"In essence, the question P = NP? asks: if 'yes'-answers to a 'yes'-or-'no'-question can be verified "quickly" (in polynomial time), can the answers themselves also be computed quickly?"
If you can find a captcha that a computer can never solve, you've basically once and for all answered this question, and P != NP.
However, if P = NP is true, then no matter what captcha you use, it will be broken, it's just a matter of time and ingenuity.
How the hell did you get modded insightful? A search engine is a search engine, no matter whether you limit results to one domain or a million.
And yes, any site with a search feature is using a search engine, why is that so hard to understand?
Then take the time and go fix it.
You probably don't even have to do something drastic as write a new driver, just check the new stuff with the old that worked, and check the difference.
Or you could donate money to a developer to check and fix this for you.. or do what you'll most likely do, wait until someone else wants to fix it for himself, and hope he releases the fix to the public.
Hmmm...
he's looking at things relative to one individual and when and for how long he has children and the error rate of the genetic code in those children.
If you're looking at human evolution in general, you would rather want to look at a bigger picture.
For instance the same values that increase a persons desirability are around. Incredibly rich people will bear offspring, incredibly beautiful people will bear offspring, and incredibly socially intelligent people will bear offspring.
The same values that decrease a persons desirability are also around.
The only thing that's changed is that there's a 90% chance of a healthy baby popping out which can survive to 21 instead of a 20% chance (percentages roughly guessed).
The fact that we have automatically adapted to this increased survival rate just means that it's most likely never been usual to have a big family, 2-3 kids is normal and the only reason that more children were born is that more children died.
Plus, I don't really think that guy is "getting" evolution.. you want as FEW errors in the code as possible, not more errors as almost 99.99999999% of errors are bad errors.
This is a classic case of someone sympathizing with the subject he's studying, because he's studying evolution, and for evolution to happen you need mistakes in genetic code which develop into sustainable "new" kind of life, so more mistakes means more evolution and so mistakes in the genetic code is good for the future as his takls clearly speaks and you should listen, right?
The answer is a resounding "No!". Evolution is a neutral subject, neither good or bad. For every happy accident, there's a million unhappy offspring who will die from the mistake in genetic code. Understanding evolution does not mean we want more of it, or even less. We just want to understand the process, and then leave it the f**k alone.
So he's putting his own interpretation on his findings that older fathers have more genetic mistakes, he's interpreting that as a good thing, when in fact it is neither good or bad, it's a personal opinion of his.
This data is really for women, understanding that older men have more genetic mistakes in their code is important for them to decide on if age is a factor when choosing a mate. It's not the only decision as alot of other factors are at work.
Let me quench your thirst for knowledge:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens
Satisfied? If not, frame your response as a question, and google it.
INaBE (I'm not a brain expert), but..
People can listen to a tune once, and be neutral to it, but when they hear it again and again, they warm up to it, or start to hate it, as in the emotional connection takes a while to develop.
You can most often instantly realize whether music is well made or not, even if you're not sure if you like it or not, give it a chance, listen to it again, and you might discover that you like it.
Now this is a study that I'd like to see be made as a comprehensive insight into how the public go from being unaware of an artist into being consumers of that artists' work.
We all kinda know that no one buys anything without knowing beforehand that he'll be satisfied by the product, a study into this would be a refreshing proof that all this "you're a pirate and we will sue you" - is inherently stopping the public in discovering, enjoying and eventually buying an artists' work.
The **AA might tell themselves they're only hurting themselves a little bit, and the independents, who are competing against them for ears, alot (as the **AA control the current main sources of performance letouts), but I'm pretty sure that they're hurting themselves so much that they won't recuperate. Wish there was some way to let them know.
forethought: People like to play together, but high level characters and low lever characters have no play synergy whatsoever, they can "roleplay" and chat, but any challenges for one will be either too easy for the other, or a completely undoable obstacle.
question: Have you discussed implementing a system where a high level character could lower his level to play with his lower level friends, or somekind of a system to increase play synergy between high levels and low levels?
followup: The new "heirloom" items are very interesting in that regard, but they don't increase playability with a high level character you perhaps already enjoy playing with. To be able to grab that character and play with your low-level friends and have it challenging and fun would be increasing that playability.
----
Extra question: Can we have a cute red heart as a new raid Icon? That'd be awesome.
I've come to expect a few really glorious replies, insights into minds which with their commentary not only enlighten, but makes you wonder in awe at the simple, yet astoundingly deep relevance someone can have on the subject at hand as well as the human psyche...
I've also come to expect the rushing *Woosh* sound from a thousand onlookers not getting it.
I always hope to be in the former, but dejectedly find myself too often in the latter.
K.
On the other hand, if a sysadmin has a bad job, he'll have to put out burning fires which are all over the place, quickly patch the already badly patchworked fences, and personally have to shovel the daily shit all day long.
K.
Actually, you're messing up 2 different things, religion and philosophy.
The philosophical statement: "There is no such thing as a good person" depends on from what perspective you approach the question, and the interesting thing is that the _approach_itself_ will make the statement either true or false.
"Which is a premise that I fundamentally disagree with and why I'm not a christian."
- I'd be hard-pressed in thinking that he's using religious dogma to justify that statement, but your answer to it is very interesting. By disagreeing, you do believe there are good people, but confusingly say that is the reason you're not a christian?
I do believe that in the case where someone denies christianity because they think that christian dogma says there are no good persons, on some level they have found the dogma and guidelines, layed down by christianity, to be ill-suited to their own purpose and, not wanting to conform to that (as conformity would mean they'd be a good christian) they themselves do not recognise that: to participate in a religious dogma is partaking in a path of self-research into the question; Am I a good person? which definitely is an underlying current of the human psyche, and at least suggests that all persons have an interest in the answer.
If you are interested in your own self-discovery, I'd suggest a firm philosophical base, and start with the simple one which will last you your whole lifetime: Are you good?
English not my native tongue, so apologies to any of the evil grammar nazis who might read this response.
K.
"calling someone a "chick" is no more or less offensive or degrading than calling a man a "guy"."
- I'm not your guy, friend.
I really hate when whiny posts like yours get modded insightful.
If you want a comparison between linux and windows with this on/off, THEN GO DO IT YOURSELF. who the hell should do the work you're interested in except you?
For everyone else than you this is a great step forward in getting compatibility and options for linux. I think it's great, and applaud it.
"But they have no incentive to plan ahead. It's a common pattern."
- you just wrote out the incentive to plan ahead. The fact they HAVE no incentive regardless to plan ahead just shows a lack of intelligence and it will hurt them because companies which allow itself to behave like that don't get a reputation for doing well.
I bought my first PC because I heard you could get alot of cool games on it, so for me PC = gaming when I was young.
Me and my friends shared games on floppies, someone found a cool mini-game and shared it, and we had fun in the experience, someone bought a new game, told us about it, we played it to share his experience by grabbing it from him and have a fun experience together.
There are games out there I bought because the game really made me say "now this is reward-worthy! This is something I love to play"
Then there are games out there I didn't buy, but friends of mine bought, and they liked it alot, so I tried it, downloaded it and had fun with them over LANs and such with them, but they bought it, not me. We shared the experience though, and had fun, but the game wasn't what I'd have bought.
Then there are games none of us bought, but tried and had fun for a few moments.
You see, sharing the gaming experience is a part of the value of a PC, the fact that a friend of your buys a game because he loves it means of course I'll try it, but I won't buy it unless I love it as well, but I'll have shared the experience with him, and that will enrich both our experience with the game, something we can then share with others.
People really shouldn't have named what we do pirating, it's not stealing, far from it, it's enhancing the experience for the buyer. Think about it, you have a PC, your friends have a PC, you buy a game you love, and can share that experience with your friends, for the guy who bought the game, and loves the game, that's a pretty powerful reason to look at the package as an item of value.
And guess what, this sharing is the behemoth marketing campaign which gets people trying the games out there. None of us have huge budgets for games, none of us can buy all the games we try, and if PC gaming was as locked-in as some game developers would want, PC gaming would never have come this far this fast.
Games I buy today, I never take out of the shrink-wrap, why? Because today it's alot easier to download the ISO and use the cracked files to skip all that gameprotection crap. that's also the best way for me to make sure that when I Lan with my friends, we all got the same version and no incompatibility issues arise.
What sells games is letting people try them in their own comfort-zone, that's why steam kinda works. The only thing I'd like to add to steam is "share this game with your friends", it would do alot what sharing games did for me, allow me to buy the games I'm interested, and allow me to share the experience of a friend buying a game he likes.
For the hardcore pirate, piracy means complete freedom to play the game the way you want, when you want, however you want, and protection-lock-in doesn't sway the freedom fighter to give up his loot.
For me, I like the freedom, I like to play with my friends, but I am budget constrained, and I will buy the games I love, and play the games the friends and I like.
"Piracy" is allowing people who can't afford buying your games to play your games, and to share them with people who can afford to buy your games, what joins those 2 groups is that these are friends sharing things with friends.
PC Gaming has been enjoying it's success because people tear down the wall between itself and the game and give themselves full freedom to decide to buy or not, thus try alot more games than they would, thus get more and more interested in gaming.
As a gaming company, what you want is as many people experienceing the product, and let the people who want to buy it, to buy it. This is most easily done by pirating the game. People get to see it, try it, but because they're pirating, they actually have to go outside this experience to buy it.
Bring people together, make it easy for people to invite friends to try, make it easy for people to play without having to jump through protection hoops, and -here's the important bit- : make it easy for people who are trying the whole game because they asked for a free (time)limited try, or a friend of theirs invited them to try the whole game for free, to buy it.
Pirate your own game, let people play it, just let people know they can buy it if they love it.