The Sahara may be a good place for mass production of solar power, but for a first-of-its-kind plant, keeping it close to home is a safer move (assuming the firsts involved don't put the neighbors at risk), in addition to needing to prove it is worth scaling up as opposed to other designs. This plant isn't wildly different, but given the cost of power plants and the demand for power, reliable and proven technology is a must before going beyond small-scale.
Without net neutrality, an ISP can charge both websites and users fees to improve connection quality. ISPs could still sell you that "3 mbps" line, but charge extra if you want to actually use that bandwidth for more than their "basic package" of common news sites or whatever. I sure hope this is just wild speculation, but a less extreme business model with similar logic behind it is sure to be on the table for some major ISPs.
Of course, the most obvious evidence it hurts profits is how hard major ISPs are fighting against net neutrality (mostly through lies rather than honest criticism). At the very least, it enforces a certain quality of service, which hurts profits by reducing cost-cutting measures.
The closest thing he suggested to censorship was forcing Fox to display a message clarifying the subjective nature of their content. He seems to imply people in general need to do something about biased media (i.e. stop watching it and make it clear why). It is on-topic due to the highly politicized nature of the net neutrality issue.
You only downplay the celebrity voice thing because you know the Darth Vader one will be more popular than the Yoda one, and you just can't stand the dark side winning.
One time we told the GPS to get us to a nearby IHOP. It lead us to someone's house- to this day I wish I rang their doorbell to see if they were making pancakes to see if the GPS really did have it right.
I've only had a good experience with Valve/Steam, but I have to agree with the parent. Most DRM hurts most customers a little. Steam's DRM hurts very few customers a lot. I agree it's still better than most of the stuff out there, but the ability to take away or cripple hundreds or thousands of dollars of games keeps me wary of Valve no matter how hard it is to complain about them elsewhere.
Of course, I've never heard a first-hand account of Valve disabling/crippling someone's account, so I have no idea how much Valve can be blamed, or how often it happens.
No matter how much you complain about EA, they're going to suck and you better like it. Valve listens to the community pretty well, so not only does that motivate people to speak up more, but it makes it more frustrating when they still don't listen, as you actually expected results for once.
Overall, I think you are creating a false dichotomy by saying Valve is good for some things, therefore people shouldn't complain about other stuff (it's what you're implying, not sure if you mean that). If you want a company to change, being a good customer gives your criticism a lot more weight than someone saying the DRM made them pirate the game and they'll never buy it anyways. I think it's a good thing people complain about Valve- not only do I want to be aware of issues that may sour my appreciation for Valve (rather than be blindsided by them), but if Valve responds, it would only make things better for me.
I doubt many people have delusions that bad people only exist in movies- most people do, however, have sympathy for victims. They are dead whether you watch the video or not, but once you give your mind something to relate to, it hits you a lot harder. Understandably, people can end up with psychological problems seeing a loved one brutally murdered, so it makes sense seeing strangers have similar happen to them would have a lesser, but similar, effect.
You don't focus on the victim at all, so you may be the odd one out (not a bad thing, but you might not be in a position to say people have psychological issues).
Arming countries in the cold war days of course backfired on us because we subscribed to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of logic (over generalization, but you get the idea), in addition to letting despots control that weaponry. Taiwan is a stable democracy (assuming fistfights in congress remain rare), and unlike most countries we've armed in the past, we probably will declare war in defense of Taiwan should they be attacked. The better equipped Taiwan is to deter an attack, the less we have to worry China may one day decide to exert their claimed sovereignty over Taiwan.
In the most well known case of a farmer being sued by Monsanto for crops that winded up on his field, the farmer noticed when a patch he had to Roundup didn't die, then kept those seeds separate to replant the next year. The case against him was largely based on how he knowingly used Monsanto's crops.
I don't want to stay up any later to research this stuff- I'm sure someone here has relevant links handy given how often this case has been discussed. I don't like Monsanto but unfortunately unless someone can find a case where the farmer did absolutely nothing to deserve being sued, I can only call Monsanto moderately evil.
It's true you know. I won't search for quotes, but stuff along the lines of "RIAA executives are idiots" is objective fact. "Ha ha ha ha", as in the blog post, is the only subjective thing I'm seeing.
(On a serious note, I assumed he was making a joke)
Also, as Youtube had discovered, rating systems generally get used as yes/no anyways even if they allow more precision. If they make the system yes/no, your concern won't be an issue anymore. I would like to see a 5-star system stay, as it is much more helpful, but only if it is used properly (which it won't be).
The same way you control what people do with data you put anywhere else on the internet: you don't. The point is you get to pick who does get to see your data, unlike on Facebook where you unwittingly share all your data whenever you play a game, or visit a partner website, or they change their policies and make previously private data public. If you could have 100% complete control it would be called anti-social networking, I suppose.
The big deal isn't that your data is magically safe, but that all sharing of that data is entirely on your terms.
The difference between immersive use of the environment and gimmicky is if you can think of a way to solve a problem, you should be able to do it, as opposed to having your hammer and looking for all the nails.
One example I can remember was with Portal (this isn't a great example, but you get the point): there is a point where you are supposed to use portals to guide missles from a turret to break this cube transport tube so you can use a cube to climb a ledge. I was an idiot, didn't notice the transport thing, and walked back a ways to hunt for chairs, stacking them at the ledge, and went on my way oblivious to how hard I made it for myself. I never had to mentally step back and figure out how the programmer wants the problem solved, and therefore kept the immersion of the game.
Overall, Portal does a great job of immersion- your bad attempts fail because they physically don't work, not because of some arbitrary roadblock. Many levels have "cheat" methods to skip some or all of the intended obstacles, rewarding clever solutions rather than using arbitrary limitations to remove them. Also, the story of the game (that you are a test subject) helps sell any obvious forced steps as a natural part of the world- you could call it a cheap cop-out, but it works perfectly so I won't complain.
If by drug dealers you mean people who illegally sell prescription medications, I think it makes sense (if you mean cocaine dealers you've got a bad analogy, unless Walgreens sells cocaine). Just because there isn't a CEO, marketing team and patented business plan behind something doesn't mean it isn't competition. If you disagree, go talk to an economics major and they will tell you black market and under-the-table is part of the overall economy- accurately estimating these effects is even a major area of research in economics right now.
You of course can agree there is competition between cable television and Hulu- if I decide to watch the latest episode of Burn Notice on one, I probably won't watch it on the other. If I torrent it, I won't watch it on TV or Hulu. Hulu has to have some competitive advantage over torrents. Legality is an advantage, but unless enforcement steps up it isn't much of one.
So they changed the policy once they realized few enough people would be hit by the ETF they could get away with it and not get a PR nightmare, as opposed to realizing those affected would be few enough that it wouldn't cost them much to eat the contract. I understand recouping the cost of the phone, but they could always offer to have the customer cover a portion of that cost (based on how much contract is left), or offer to waive the ETF as long as the phone is returned if the contract is relatively new.
By trying to milk every last dollar out of leaving customers it's like saying "and never come back".
This article has inspired me to patent "a method where an employer removes an employee from payroll, and relieves said employee of all duties". I have no doubt it will be granted, at which point I will either have guaranteed job security, or a guaranteed early retirement.
I already have the patent on "reading something and then patenting it before the other guy does", so don't even think about stealing my idea.
There's some expectation of the software being as error-free as possible (given they aren't advertising it as a beta). Intentionally including a bug could therefore be argued as going against advertised capabilities, if only implied capabilities.
Moderators on Slashdot will have a similar enough set of preferences that what they mod up and down is truly helpful for you to decide what to read. Twitter, on the other hand, will generally have the most popular tweets be completely unrelated to what you are interested in. Now, I've never used Twitter, but I expect there is some extent that you can better filter which most liked tweets might actually be of any use to you- overall though you probably still have a higher chance at missing useful tweets and reading useless ones than you do with posts on slashdot.
You also have to consider the self-selected populations: if a lot of engineers (me included) don't care for Twitter, but most stereotypical frat types do use Twitter, and you relate better to the engineer crowd, you will in general find Twitter far less insightful than slashdot.
Of course, Twitter can still have its use as a social networking tool- I'm just arguing about its use as an informational medium.
I didn't want to imply I am trying to make a political argument about it- I am using "responsible" as in he was in charge, therefore by implication to blame, rather than outright trying to say he's at fault and implying that I think the execution was wrong. I was just trying to convey my intention as being politically neutral. I don't mean there are two definitions of responsible at play here, just that the "to blame" part of the definition has nothing to do with my argument (and it leads to an argument I don't feel like getting into right now).
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words, they are seeing if this design is worth it's salt?
The Sahara may be a good place for mass production of solar power, but for a first-of-its-kind plant, keeping it close to home is a safer move (assuming the firsts involved don't put the neighbors at risk), in addition to needing to prove it is worth scaling up as opposed to other designs. This plant isn't wildly different, but given the cost of power plants and the demand for power, reliable and proven technology is a must before going beyond small-scale.
Without net neutrality, an ISP can charge both websites and users fees to improve connection quality. ISPs could still sell you that "3 mbps" line, but charge extra if you want to actually use that bandwidth for more than their "basic package" of common news sites or whatever. I sure hope this is just wild speculation, but a less extreme business model with similar logic behind it is sure to be on the table for some major ISPs.
Of course, the most obvious evidence it hurts profits is how hard major ISPs are fighting against net neutrality (mostly through lies rather than honest criticism). At the very least, it enforces a certain quality of service, which hurts profits by reducing cost-cutting measures.
The closest thing he suggested to censorship was forcing Fox to display a message clarifying the subjective nature of their content. He seems to imply people in general need to do something about biased media (i.e. stop watching it and make it clear why). It is on-topic due to the highly politicized nature of the net neutrality issue.
What does this "eleeto" mean? Is it some sort of slang term or something?
You only downplay the celebrity voice thing because you know the Darth Vader one will be more popular than the Yoda one, and you just can't stand the dark side winning.
One time we told the GPS to get us to a nearby IHOP. It lead us to someone's house- to this day I wish I rang their doorbell to see if they were making pancakes to see if the GPS really did have it right.
I've only had a good experience with Valve/Steam, but I have to agree with the parent. Most DRM hurts most customers a little. Steam's DRM hurts very few customers a lot. I agree it's still better than most of the stuff out there, but the ability to take away or cripple hundreds or thousands of dollars of games keeps me wary of Valve no matter how hard it is to complain about them elsewhere.
Of course, I've never heard a first-hand account of Valve disabling/crippling someone's account, so I have no idea how much Valve can be blamed, or how often it happens.
No matter how much you complain about EA, they're going to suck and you better like it. Valve listens to the community pretty well, so not only does that motivate people to speak up more, but it makes it more frustrating when they still don't listen, as you actually expected results for once.
Overall, I think you are creating a false dichotomy by saying Valve is good for some things, therefore people shouldn't complain about other stuff (it's what you're implying, not sure if you mean that). If you want a company to change, being a good customer gives your criticism a lot more weight than someone saying the DRM made them pirate the game and they'll never buy it anyways. I think it's a good thing people complain about Valve- not only do I want to be aware of issues that may sour my appreciation for Valve (rather than be blindsided by them), but if Valve responds, it would only make things better for me.
Point taken.
I doubt many people have delusions that bad people only exist in movies- most people do, however, have sympathy for victims. They are dead whether you watch the video or not, but once you give your mind something to relate to, it hits you a lot harder. Understandably, people can end up with psychological problems seeing a loved one brutally murdered, so it makes sense seeing strangers have similar happen to them would have a lesser, but similar, effect.
You don't focus on the victim at all, so you may be the odd one out (not a bad thing, but you might not be in a position to say people have psychological issues).
Arming countries in the cold war days of course backfired on us because we subscribed to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of logic (over generalization, but you get the idea), in addition to letting despots control that weaponry. Taiwan is a stable democracy (assuming fistfights in congress remain rare), and unlike most countries we've armed in the past, we probably will declare war in defense of Taiwan should they be attacked. The better equipped Taiwan is to deter an attack, the less we have to worry China may one day decide to exert their claimed sovereignty over Taiwan.
In the most well known case of a farmer being sued by Monsanto for crops that winded up on his field, the farmer noticed when a patch he had to Roundup didn't die, then kept those seeds separate to replant the next year. The case against him was largely based on how he knowingly used Monsanto's crops.
I don't want to stay up any later to research this stuff- I'm sure someone here has relevant links handy given how often this case has been discussed. I don't like Monsanto but unfortunately unless someone can find a case where the farmer did absolutely nothing to deserve being sued, I can only call Monsanto moderately evil.
It's true you know. I won't search for quotes, but stuff along the lines of "RIAA executives are idiots" is objective fact. "Ha ha ha ha", as in the blog post, is the only subjective thing I'm seeing.
(On a serious note, I assumed he was making a joke)
I better patent being insightful so you can't ruin my Evil Corporation stories anymore. Jerk.
No, Chicago is Gotham. Didn't you see the scene in Dark Knight where Batman stood on the Sears Tower?
Also, as Youtube had discovered, rating systems generally get used as yes/no anyways even if they allow more precision. If they make the system yes/no, your concern won't be an issue anymore. I would like to see a 5-star system stay, as it is much more helpful, but only if it is used properly (which it won't be).
The same way you control what people do with data you put anywhere else on the internet: you don't. The point is you get to pick who does get to see your data, unlike on Facebook where you unwittingly share all your data whenever you play a game, or visit a partner website, or they change their policies and make previously private data public. If you could have 100% complete control it would be called anti-social networking, I suppose.
The big deal isn't that your data is magically safe, but that all sharing of that data is entirely on your terms.
The difference between immersive use of the environment and gimmicky is if you can think of a way to solve a problem, you should be able to do it, as opposed to having your hammer and looking for all the nails.
One example I can remember was with Portal (this isn't a great example, but you get the point): there is a point where you are supposed to use portals to guide missles from a turret to break this cube transport tube so you can use a cube to climb a ledge. I was an idiot, didn't notice the transport thing, and walked back a ways to hunt for chairs, stacking them at the ledge, and went on my way oblivious to how hard I made it for myself. I never had to mentally step back and figure out how the programmer wants the problem solved, and therefore kept the immersion of the game.
Overall, Portal does a great job of immersion- your bad attempts fail because they physically don't work, not because of some arbitrary roadblock. Many levels have "cheat" methods to skip some or all of the intended obstacles, rewarding clever solutions rather than using arbitrary limitations to remove them. Also, the story of the game (that you are a test subject) helps sell any obvious forced steps as a natural part of the world- you could call it a cheap cop-out, but it works perfectly so I won't complain.
If by drug dealers you mean people who illegally sell prescription medications, I think it makes sense (if you mean cocaine dealers you've got a bad analogy, unless Walgreens sells cocaine). Just because there isn't a CEO, marketing team and patented business plan behind something doesn't mean it isn't competition. If you disagree, go talk to an economics major and they will tell you black market and under-the-table is part of the overall economy- accurately estimating these effects is even a major area of research in economics right now.
You of course can agree there is competition between cable television and Hulu- if I decide to watch the latest episode of Burn Notice on one, I probably won't watch it on the other. If I torrent it, I won't watch it on TV or Hulu. Hulu has to have some competitive advantage over torrents. Legality is an advantage, but unless enforcement steps up it isn't much of one.
So they changed the policy once they realized few enough people would be hit by the ETF they could get away with it and not get a PR nightmare, as opposed to realizing those affected would be few enough that it wouldn't cost them much to eat the contract. I understand recouping the cost of the phone, but they could always offer to have the customer cover a portion of that cost (based on how much contract is left), or offer to waive the ETF as long as the phone is returned if the contract is relatively new.
By trying to milk every last dollar out of leaving customers it's like saying "and never come back".
This article has inspired me to patent "a method where an employer removes an employee from payroll, and relieves said employee of all duties". I have no doubt it will be granted, at which point I will either have guaranteed job security, or a guaranteed early retirement.
I already have the patent on "reading something and then patenting it before the other guy does", so don't even think about stealing my idea.
There's some expectation of the software being as error-free as possible (given they aren't advertising it as a beta). Intentionally including a bug could therefore be argued as going against advertised capabilities, if only implied capabilities.
Moderators on Slashdot will have a similar enough set of preferences that what they mod up and down is truly helpful for you to decide what to read. Twitter, on the other hand, will generally have the most popular tweets be completely unrelated to what you are interested in. Now, I've never used Twitter, but I expect there is some extent that you can better filter which most liked tweets might actually be of any use to you- overall though you probably still have a higher chance at missing useful tweets and reading useless ones than you do with posts on slashdot.
You also have to consider the self-selected populations: if a lot of engineers (me included) don't care for Twitter, but most stereotypical frat types do use Twitter, and you relate better to the engineer crowd, you will in general find Twitter far less insightful than slashdot.
Of course, Twitter can still have its use as a social networking tool- I'm just arguing about its use as an informational medium.
I didn't want to imply I am trying to make a political argument about it- I am using "responsible" as in he was in charge, therefore by implication to blame, rather than outright trying to say he's at fault and implying that I think the execution was wrong. I was just trying to convey my intention as being politically neutral. I don't mean there are two definitions of responsible at play here, just that the "to blame" part of the definition has nothing to do with my argument (and it leads to an argument I don't feel like getting into right now).