I call bullshit. I don't know where you are (Utah perhaps?) but in every bar I've ever been in, it NEVER gets quiet for ANYTHING. Maybe for the final pitch of the World Series or the last play in a close Superbowl, but even that is stretching it.
Were there, perhaps, only 5 people in this bar?
I'm just baffled and out of ideas here.
To put my 2 cents in? I was confused about the commercial, I gave it a chance, and I did not find it funny, endearing, surreal or anything. It felt like someone was given a camera with the impossible task of turning MS's career around and thought "wtf, mate?" and proceeded to do a lot of cocaine and shoot a terrible ad.
Maybe it's the start of a longer-running campaign, but I'm not impressed yet.
I once heard a bit on the rise of science against religion. The crux of the argument was that science should be viewed and approached with an eye more toward humanism.
In the Dark Ages, God was viewed as someone who controlled everything. If something bad happened, there was a reason. If something good happened, there was a reason. Priests where the ones who understood that pattern, and each of us had a friend looking down benevolently (overall) to take care of us.
The rise of science began to make the world a hostile, unpredictable place. Of course, science must studied, information gathered, and one day man could make sense of his (now inscrutable) destiny and place in the universe.
I believe the argument went that this shift in thinking, from having a plan to not having any has caused a lot of strife. Of course, we're more rational (some of us) but this does not change the fact that we often feel alone and insignificant, whirling through the ether.
The solution was to try and find a way to help people view science as less about cold calculation, but more as a friend, a helpful and predictable Cosmic Hand that doesn't flip us off, but rather is working behind the scenes, as God once did, to keep everything working in The Bigger Plan.
Good lord, when I first saw the title of this thing I thought of that movie with Christian Slater from about ten years ago, "Hard Rain", and thought they were making a game out of it. It was at that point that I cried out in fear and pain, thrashing my keyboard into the wall and curling up in the corner, a whimpering smudge of a geek. "Make it stop...." was all I could be heard to say...
However, looking at the development of art history, the masters first worked toward realism. Caravaggio with his tenebrism (dramatic shading, where 3D games begin to take off with better shading and lighting) really began to bring things to life. When they reached that pinnacle of realism, other forms began to emerge. I imagine gaming will do something similar as we become bored of perfectly realistic games, even if they are masterpieces of both art and game design.
Anybody else with a more extensive art background have any other comments on this?
1) Try going to the grocrey store and looking at the ingredients. No, really. Bread, cereal, almost all drinks including juices and soda. jams/jellies, snacks, many processed foods including the ones made by the grocer. Go look at the labels and I think you'll be surprised how much food has HFCS in it.
2) Non-sensical? I think you're just being difficult. Here is where I'm encouraging others to mod you troll, as I've just used up my mod points. Your comments are neither ACTUALLY informative or very helpful. They're just meant to rebuff someone's opinion by calling it non-sensical, rather than bring a truth to light. HFCS DOES stop the body from processing fats, so rather than get burned up by the body the fats get stored immediately. OF COURSE HFCS doesn't stop the body from processing calories, but your getting your panties in a bunch rather than simply pointing out the potential misunderstandings the parent post could cause is not helpful.
3) You're right (to my knowledge). However, the general idea that government intervention keeps prices low is what I believe the parent was getting at.
4) Wow. Just, wow. Could you be any less helpful? Do you need to be so condescending to someone who seems to want to add constructively to the discussion? I know I shouldn't feed this type of behavior, but I think you are the one who should seriously consider how and why you post on Slashdot. Maybe you just had a bad day, though. Maybe your undies really are just bunched up tightly. I don't know, but I AM trying to give you some benefit of the doubt without being a troll myself.
In conclusion, if I had any mod points left you would not be receiving benefits from them, though I hope you come back and add to future Slashdot discussions as you obviously have strong opinions that could merit being heard.
I'm really suggesting, as you do, a broader mindset. As I've said, moving to the stars should be the goal, and concentrating only on nearby planets seems foolhardy on a long time scale, I agree.
Earth's future seems of less concern, as we're talking about moving off earth.
If it's really true that habitable planets are rare, then moving to places that are not planets would be necessary, further scattering mankind and diversifying in case of cosmic disaster. The sooner and further we go, the better.
Still, I'm saying that the only real goal for civilization is to move to the stars. If we're doing anything else, then we are doing our (shortlived) species a massive disservice, especially if we are even rarer as a sentient animal than previously thought. Once we are well spread out and have the luxury of relaxing in our Cosmic La-Z-Boy, then we can let the infighting and power struggles begin, but at least we've mainly secured some sort of future for ourselves.
I'm not saying it has to be done right now, but with all the technology and resources we have, it seems like we'll either blast ourselves back into the dark ages with it or push into space. Prosper or face eventual extinction. The choice seems clear.
Excuse me, but I do feel I have a sense of the time scale. I'm simply looking at that time scale versus the very real possibility (over that very long time span) of major cosmic disaster and that it could make earth a lot less Earth-y with a lot less Man.
The whole point is to continue mankind as long as possible. If mankind ceases to be, then this whole thing doesn't seem to matter much, does it?
My core point is that if we're not moving toward the stars (not just planets. See Venus as a prime exapmle of planet we could live around but not on) then we're not doing anything useful except wanking.
I'm just trying to put ideas out there for consideration, playing devil's advocate a bit, and looking for a healthy discussion if the questions I'm asking are worthwhile to others.
Ok, given that habitable (whatever that means) planets are rare, and life quite possibly more rare than that, is it naive of us to assume that every civilization's structure will allow it to move into space? On the other hand, what if ours is an ad hoc, inefficient way of being that will probably just get us wiped out in the end?
Also, until we can propagate beyond where we are now, aren't we essentially non-existent on the universal stage? We look for other forms of life, but if they suffer the same BS we do, then they might as well not exist in the first place either.
Pardon being off topic, but I just wanted to ask the questions.
What will it take (global disaster?) for people to have enough evidence that we aren't going to be here forever and that it's time to wake up and move as quickly as we can toward the stars?
We won't be here forever. It may be a bit of an extreme notion, but perhaps the only truly useful pursuit (apart from Cowboy Neal jokes of course) for anyone is to try and get our civilization into space. If that's the next step in our evolution and we're not helping that, then (in a Nietszchean sense) then we are useless. Of course, it could be argued that various pursuits support this aim in a very ancillary way. What are YOU doing to help the pursuit of space?
Ok, now I'll go out on a limb. In a civilization that seems so bent on war and power and infighting, myabe the best thing really would be some sort of creepy world order that controls everything. Stay with me here a moment.
If this "world order" maintains fairly rigid control of people, what do they have to gain? Where can they go? Why have more wealth and power if one controls the world? The next step just might be the stars. If we can't get together and do it peacefully, is it better (or the only way) to be forced into it?
The rise of monitoring people for their own health, and sharing that information with employers/government as well as trying to find this impossible "normal" that so many people apparently have (though I've never seen) seems more like a power play than anything. It just seems like more information skewed to make people feel better about themselves.
"Of course!" they exclaim, "I always learn from my mistakes!" as they wend their way through the same old habits that produce the same results in their lives over and over again. It seems to allow "intellectuals" the ability to further lament "the downfall of civilization!". People must just be dumb as a bag of hammers, but not me! No sir.
I recognize that the information offered in the article could have useful implications. However, when we treat information (science?) as entertainment in a headline blurb, it will be just that: Entertainment.
I recognize that Slashdot is a place where we can have arguments (i hope) instead of being fed entertainment news, but/. feels like the exception and not the rule, and even then it's not always very good argument.
I shouldn't get any mod points for this. All this has been said before on slashdot in one way or another, and I would rather getting modded for a nugget of new truth than for regurgitating the same tired old cliches.
Ok. So they've found a massive carbon sink that was unaccounted for. Great!
They also say that due to changing conditions, including increased precipitation, there is more uptake occurring.
Does this process ever reach a point where it stops? Is there only so much carbon that can be converted/sequestered? If conditions change enough, will this huge carbon sink disappear rapidly, adding a HUGE amount of carbon to the atmosphere?
This is fascinating, but it still feels to me like this situation could be as fragile as any others we've discovered around the globe.
I may now be a nerd "once removed" due to my current occupation, but I'd be pretty interested in the Rube Goldberg Code event they've got here. Sounds like it could be elegant and fun in an infuriating way.
I'm not sure it will happen, but can someone mod parent up at least a half point? I'm not sure Obama is much better than our other choices either, and i donated to his campaign!
Now I understand that "we need to win this one" in a sense. However, I received a call from an Obama fund raiser the other day. I listened calmly to what she had to say and answered her questions (loaded for 'yes' of course). I then proceeded to explain to her that Obama voted for the FISA bill which gives the Telcos retroactive immunity after those companies explicitly broke the law and ignored the 4th Amendment. I told her that Obama has either switched directions on his policies or extended them in a nonsensical way and with what seems like little interest for Americans. I told her that I could not in good conscience vote for Obama, and that I hoped she would research who she supports. She seemed a little crestfallen and stuttered, "Well, oh... I'm really sorry to hear that..." and I said goodbye.
When the ideas Obama starts talking about seem to make very little economic sense (he's against Nuclear power, for instance, or that he wants to release oil from the strategic reserve, or that he wants to have another economic stimulus program) then there's something wrong. It quickly starts to sound like a Democratic Dubya, with a blue hand up his ass instead of a red one. Alarm klaxons scream inside my head and it becomes very tough for me to believe the man.
I just don't know what to do. Who am I supposed to vote for? Voting for an independent does little good. Most of them have even less sense than the current candidates. It may sound ludicrous, but sometimes I get the sinking feeling that the game is already over and it could require a lot of blood and sacrifice to win back the freedoms we've already lost.
However, the governing bodies have weighed in to say they're out of ammunition. It's time for us to stop bitching about how government won't fix things. They won't. It's time for people like you and me to get up and change something (work harder, elect other people, be more responsible), because the entrenched people at the top, both government and private sector, aren't willing to make the necessary changes. They want to keep their jobs, not do the right thing.
The American people have been sold down the river. We are on our own now, and we have to get ourselves out of this political, social, cultural, and economic mess.
It's not time for THEM to roll up their sleeves. It's time for US to roll up our sleeves. Please stop passing the buck like so much of America is trying to do.
I don't know if this is going to be similar, but my company recently rolled out some web-based software, replacing programs held locally.
While the concept is nice, the system is terribly slow, takes up an enormous amount of virtual memory (don't ask me why), and is prone to serious fatal errors. This program is supposed to be a lynch pin (sp?) of our business over here. Plus, if the web is out, it's tough to do business. If there are serious server issues sometimes we can't use it. If our internet connection is out, we can't use it.
I'm sure the technology is there to do this, but I still question the inherent flaws in a web-based system. is Windows going from bad to worse?
I rock climb. My clients seem horrified or amazed at it, but I pull down rock like a mean SoB. It's mentally challenging, as each new problem has a unique solution, it's social but geeky (few people do it, lots of esoteric gear), and I get great exercise.
I've been injured for the last year, though, so I run now, sometimes kayak.
Climbing's for me, though. All that being outside in the fresh air with a good buddy or two? Sounds fratboy-ish, but with a physics teacher as a climbing partner we never run out of things to talk about.
Desire is NOT a job, but in this case our legal system is allowing just that.
This guy needs to get out and make something (or show is attempting to make something) with the patents he's sitting on, otherwise they should be taken away. Use it or lose it!
My point was merely "What has this guy done to show he was actually going to use this patent?" One of my intents was to allow someone who (apparently) sort of knows him to stand up and say "He was planning on doing X", or "Look at his website, he's attempting to innovate such and such." there-by invalidating some of the patent troll cries.
It seems to me that the ultimate end of any intellectual property is to better a person or persons. If that patent is not used or intended to be used for such a purpose, then why isn't it fair game, especially with something as basic as a game controller? If someone just sits on a patent for years and is not marketing it, then that sure looks like someone just waiting to profit legally, rather than doing the work a business does to develop and market a product.
Nintendo has done the business work. It's why they have their name and reputation. They may be abusing that power now (like MSFT or even Apple (who I am not a big fan of, since you mention it), but look at how many times they've had an uphill climb (late 80's, late 90's, and today) and beat the odds, look at all the sweat equity in their business, and I challenge you to find a business in an equally vicious industry that has fought and re-fought (and won) as many trials as Nintendo has. Oh, and I don't own any Nintendo gear but an old NES. I did, however, profit from NTDOY stock about a year ago.
My opinion still stands: The arguments sure point to this guy being just a libelous sponge, as I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Would I *like* to see someone receive genuine compensation from a broken and out-dated legal system? Sure! Does that appear to be happening here? I'm not so sure, but I welcome being proven wrong, and I'm sure many Slashdotters would too (no matter what they say, they're still scientists and want to see more evidence)
Yes, I'm a little biased already. However, I do think people should get what they deserve, and as an outside observer it doesn't really look like this guy deserves much. If I could sit and dinker in the basement all day and come up with ideas that's fine, but the real test is putting that idea out there and getting people to buy it. Otherwise, well, it's just sitting in my basement which too many Slashdotters do already anyway!
Isn't the point here that we're comparing operating systems? That Ubuntu and Vista are modern OS's and that one runs fine using modern applications while the other probably won't run in the first place, let alone run any applications?
Slashdot Mirror
I call bullshit. I don't know where you are (Utah perhaps?) but in every bar I've ever been in, it NEVER gets quiet for ANYTHING. Maybe for the final pitch of the World Series or the last play in a close Superbowl, but even that is stretching it.
Were there, perhaps, only 5 people in this bar?
I'm just baffled and out of ideas here.
To put my 2 cents in? I was confused about the commercial, I gave it a chance, and I did not find it funny, endearing, surreal or anything. It felt like someone was given a camera with the impossible task of turning MS's career around and thought "wtf, mate?" and proceeded to do a lot of cocaine and shoot a terrible ad.
Maybe it's the start of a longer-running campaign, but I'm not impressed yet.
I once heard a bit on the rise of science against religion. The crux of the argument was that science should be viewed and approached with an eye more toward humanism.
In the Dark Ages, God was viewed as someone who controlled everything. If something bad happened, there was a reason. If something good happened, there was a reason. Priests where the ones who understood that pattern, and each of us had a friend looking down benevolently (overall) to take care of us.
The rise of science began to make the world a hostile, unpredictable place. Of course, science must studied, information gathered, and one day man could make sense of his (now inscrutable) destiny and place in the universe.
I believe the argument went that this shift in thinking, from having a plan to not having any has caused a lot of strife. Of course, we're more rational (some of us) but this does not change the fact that we often feel alone and insignificant, whirling through the ether.
The solution was to try and find a way to help people view science as less about cold calculation, but more as a friend, a helpful and predictable Cosmic Hand that doesn't flip us off, but rather is working behind the scenes, as God once did, to keep everything working in The Bigger Plan.
I decided to check wikipedia (though not that from it should flow all Truth)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(arts)
It seems that Realism grew as a result of photography, though I'm sure the reaction to it was eventually toward the abstract.
However, the other side of this is that Realism grew up, so to speak, in the mid 19th century.
Titian was alive during the 15th and 16th centuries.
As my art history knowedge has dimmed over the years, I don't really remember what happened in the interim.
Hey, whoever modded this Flamebait? Would you care to get a sense of humor? Thank you.
Good lord, when I first saw the title of this thing I thought of that movie with Christian Slater from about ten years ago, "Hard Rain", and thought they were making a game out of it. It was at that point that I cried out in fear and pain, thrashing my keyboard into the wall and curling up in the corner, a whimpering smudge of a geek. "Make it stop...." was all I could be heard to say...
Agreed.
However, looking at the development of art history, the masters first worked toward realism. Caravaggio with his tenebrism (dramatic shading, where 3D games begin to take off with better shading and lighting) really began to bring things to life. When they reached that pinnacle of realism, other forms began to emerge. I imagine gaming will do something similar as we become bored of perfectly realistic games, even if they are masterpieces of both art and game design.
Anybody else with a more extensive art background have any other comments on this?
Ok, here goes:
1) Try going to the grocrey store and looking at the ingredients. No, really. Bread, cereal, almost all drinks including juices and soda. jams/jellies, snacks, many processed foods including the ones made by the grocer. Go look at the labels and I think you'll be surprised how much food has HFCS in it.
2) Non-sensical? I think you're just being difficult. Here is where I'm encouraging others to mod you troll, as I've just used up my mod points. Your comments are neither ACTUALLY informative or very helpful. They're just meant to rebuff someone's opinion by calling it non-sensical, rather than bring a truth to light. HFCS DOES stop the body from processing fats, so rather than get burned up by the body the fats get stored immediately. OF COURSE HFCS doesn't stop the body from processing calories, but your getting your panties in a bunch rather than simply pointing out the potential misunderstandings the parent post could cause is not helpful.
3) You're right (to my knowledge). However, the general idea that government intervention keeps prices low is what I believe the parent was getting at.
4) Wow. Just, wow. Could you be any less helpful? Do you need to be so condescending to someone who seems to want to add constructively to the discussion? I know I shouldn't feed this type of behavior, but I think you are the one who should seriously consider how and why you post on Slashdot. Maybe you just had a bad day, though. Maybe your undies really are just bunched up tightly. I don't know, but I AM trying to give you some benefit of the doubt without being a troll myself.
In conclusion, if I had any mod points left you would not be receiving benefits from them, though I hope you come back and add to future Slashdot discussions as you obviously have strong opinions that could merit being heard.
You all disagree with me!? Then by my infallible logic, you are not pursuing a spacefaring civilization and are, hence, useless.
What fun we're having today!
People living with their paretns are rare!?
By your slashdot number, I'd say there are at least 2,458,173 of them!
Yes, that's a joke.
I'm really suggesting, as you do, a broader mindset.
As I've said, moving to the stars should be the goal, and concentrating only on nearby planets seems foolhardy on a long time scale, I agree.
Earth's future seems of less concern, as we're talking about moving off earth.
If it's really true that habitable planets are rare, then moving to places that are not planets would be necessary, further scattering mankind and diversifying in case of cosmic disaster. The sooner and further we go, the better.
Still, I'm saying that the only real goal for civilization is to move to the stars. If we're doing anything else, then we are doing our (shortlived) species a massive disservice, especially if we are even rarer as a sentient animal than previously thought. Once we are well spread out and have the luxury of relaxing in our Cosmic La-Z-Boy, then we can let the infighting and power struggles begin, but at least we've mainly secured some sort of future for ourselves.
I'm not saying it has to be done right now, but with all the technology and resources we have, it seems like we'll either blast ourselves back into the dark ages with it or push into space. Prosper or face eventual extinction. The choice seems clear.
Excuse me, but I do feel I have a sense of the time scale. I'm simply looking at that time scale versus the very real possibility (over that very long time span) of major cosmic disaster and that it could make earth a lot less Earth-y with a lot less Man.
The whole point is to continue mankind as long as possible. If mankind ceases to be, then this whole thing doesn't seem to matter much, does it?
My core point is that if we're not moving toward the stars (not just planets. See Venus as a prime exapmle of planet we could live around but not on) then we're not doing anything useful except wanking.
I'm just trying to put ideas out there for consideration, playing devil's advocate a bit, and looking for a healthy discussion if the questions I'm asking are worthwhile to others.
Ok, given that habitable (whatever that means) planets are rare, and life quite possibly more rare than that, is it naive of us to assume that every civilization's structure will allow it to move into space? On the other hand, what if ours is an ad hoc, inefficient way of being that will probably just get us wiped out in the end?
Also, until we can propagate beyond where we are now, aren't we essentially non-existent on the universal stage? We look for other forms of life, but if they suffer the same BS we do, then they might as well not exist in the first place either.
Pardon being off topic, but I just wanted to ask the questions.
What will it take (global disaster?) for people to have enough evidence that we aren't going to be here forever and that it's time to wake up and move as quickly as we can toward the stars?
We won't be here forever. It may be a bit of an extreme notion, but perhaps the only truly useful pursuit (apart from Cowboy Neal jokes of course) for anyone is to try and get our civilization into space. If that's the next step in our evolution and we're not helping that, then (in a Nietszchean sense) then we are useless. Of course, it could be argued that various pursuits support this aim in a very ancillary way. What are YOU doing to help the pursuit of space?
Ok, now I'll go out on a limb. In a civilization that seems so bent on war and power and infighting, myabe the best thing really would be some sort of creepy world order that controls everything. Stay with me here a moment.
If this "world order" maintains fairly rigid control of people, what do they have to gain? Where can they go? Why have more wealth and power if one controls the world? The next step just might be the stars. If we can't get together and do it peacefully, is it better (or the only way) to be forced into it?
The rise of monitoring people for their own health, and sharing that information with employers/government as well as trying to find this impossible "normal" that so many people apparently have (though I've never seen) seems more like a power play than anything. It just seems like more information skewed to make people feel better about themselves.
"Of course!" they exclaim, "I always learn from my mistakes!" as they wend their way through the same old habits that produce the same results in their lives over and over again. It seems to allow "intellectuals" the ability to further lament "the downfall of civilization!". People must just be dumb as a bag of hammers, but not me! No sir.
I recognize that the information offered in the article could have useful implications. However, when we treat information (science?) as entertainment in a headline blurb, it will be just that: Entertainment.
I recognize that Slashdot is a place where we can have arguments (i hope) instead of being fed entertainment news, but /. feels like the exception and not the rule, and even then it's not always very good argument.
I shouldn't get any mod points for this. All this has been said before on slashdot in one way or another, and I would rather getting modded for a nugget of new truth than for regurgitating the same tired old cliches.
Ok. So they've found a massive carbon sink that was unaccounted for. Great!
They also say that due to changing conditions, including increased precipitation, there is more uptake occurring.
Does this process ever reach a point where it stops? Is there only so much carbon that can be converted/sequestered? If conditions change enough, will this huge carbon sink disappear rapidly, adding a HUGE amount of carbon to the atmosphere?
This is fascinating, but it still feels to me like this situation could be as fragile as any others we've discovered around the globe.
I prefer the term "Workplace Efficiency Monitor" thank you very much.
"insensitive clod" was unavailable at the time of this post.
I may now be a nerd "once removed" due to my current occupation, but I'd be pretty interested in the Rube Goldberg Code event they've got here. Sounds like it could be elegant and fun in an infuriating way.
I'm not sure it will happen, but can someone mod parent up at least a half point? I'm not sure Obama is much better than our other choices either, and i donated to his campaign!
Now I understand that "we need to win this one" in a sense. However, I received a call from an Obama fund raiser the other day. I listened calmly to what she had to say and answered her questions (loaded for 'yes' of course). I then proceeded to explain to her that Obama voted for the FISA bill which gives the Telcos retroactive immunity after those companies explicitly broke the law and ignored the 4th Amendment. I told her that Obama has either switched directions on his policies or extended them in a nonsensical way and with what seems like little interest for Americans. I told her that I could not in good conscience vote for Obama, and that I hoped she would research who she supports. She seemed a little crestfallen and stuttered, "Well, oh... I'm really sorry to hear that..." and I said goodbye.
When the ideas Obama starts talking about seem to make very little economic sense (he's against Nuclear power, for instance, or that he wants to release oil from the strategic reserve, or that he wants to have another economic stimulus program) then there's something wrong. It quickly starts to sound like a Democratic Dubya, with a blue hand up his ass instead of a red one. Alarm klaxons scream inside my head and it becomes very tough for me to believe the man.
I just don't know what to do. Who am I supposed to vote for? Voting for an independent does little good. Most of them have even less sense than the current candidates. It may sound ludicrous, but sometimes I get the sinking feeling that the game is already over and it could require a lot of blood and sacrifice to win back the freedoms we've already lost.
Just my two cents, though.
The economy is crumbling? Yeah.
However, the governing bodies have weighed in to say they're out of ammunition. It's time for us to stop bitching about how government won't fix things. They won't. It's time for people like you and me to get up and change something (work harder, elect other people, be more responsible), because the entrenched people at the top, both government and private sector, aren't willing to make the necessary changes. They want to keep their jobs, not do the right thing.
The American people have been sold down the river. We are on our own now, and we have to get ourselves out of this political, social, cultural, and economic mess.
It's not time for THEM to roll up their sleeves. It's time for US to roll up our sleeves. Please stop passing the buck like so much of America is trying to do.
Oh, it wasn't outsourced.
I don't know if this is going to be similar, but my company recently rolled out some web-based software, replacing programs held locally.
While the concept is nice, the system is terribly slow, takes up an enormous amount of virtual memory (don't ask me why), and is prone to serious fatal errors. This program is supposed to be a lynch pin (sp?) of our business over here. Plus, if the web is out, it's tough to do business. If there are serious server issues sometimes we can't use it. If our internet connection is out, we can't use it.
I'm sure the technology is there to do this, but I still question the inherent flaws in a web-based system. is Windows going from bad to worse?
I rock climb. My clients seem horrified or amazed at it, but I pull down rock like a mean SoB. It's mentally challenging, as each new problem has a unique solution, it's social but geeky (few people do it, lots of esoteric gear), and I get great exercise. I've been injured for the last year, though, so I run now, sometimes kayak. Climbing's for me, though. All that being outside in the fresh air with a good buddy or two? Sounds fratboy-ish, but with a physics teacher as a climbing partner we never run out of things to talk about.
Desire is NOT a job, but in this case our legal system is allowing just that.
This guy needs to get out and make something (or show is attempting to make something) with the patents he's sitting on, otherwise they should be taken away. Use it or lose it!
My point was merely "What has this guy done to show he was actually going to use this patent?"
One of my intents was to allow someone who (apparently) sort of knows him to stand up and say "He was planning on doing X", or "Look at his website, he's attempting to innovate such and such." there-by invalidating some of the patent troll cries.
It seems to me that the ultimate end of any intellectual property is to better a person or persons. If that patent is not used or intended to be used for such a purpose, then why isn't it fair game, especially with something as basic as a game controller? If someone just sits on a patent for years and is not marketing it, then that sure looks like someone just waiting to profit legally, rather than doing the work a business does to develop and market a product.
Nintendo has done the business work. It's why they have their name and reputation. They may be abusing that power now (like MSFT or even Apple (who I am not a big fan of, since you mention it), but look at how many times they've had an uphill climb (late 80's, late 90's, and today) and beat the odds, look at all the sweat equity in their business, and I challenge you to find a business in an equally vicious industry that has fought and re-fought (and won) as many trials as Nintendo has. Oh, and I don't own any Nintendo gear but an old NES. I did, however, profit from NTDOY stock about a year ago.
My opinion still stands: The arguments sure point to this guy being just a libelous sponge, as I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Would I *like* to see someone receive genuine compensation from a broken and out-dated legal system? Sure! Does that appear to be happening here? I'm not so sure, but I welcome being proven wrong, and I'm sure many Slashdotters would too (no matter what they say, they're still scientists and want to see more evidence)
Yes, I'm a little biased already. However, I do think people should get what they deserve, and as an outside observer it doesn't really look like this guy deserves much. If I could sit and dinker in the basement all day and come up with ideas that's fine, but the real test is putting that idea out there and getting people to buy it. Otherwise, well, it's just sitting in my basement which too many Slashdotters do already anyway!
Why are we talking about comparing hardware?
Isn't the point here that we're comparing operating systems? That Ubuntu and Vista are modern OS's and that one runs fine using modern applications while the other probably won't run in the first place, let alone run any applications?
Twisted your logic is.