I propose that Google play by the same rules the rest of us have to do when releasing changes. [...] If I introduced a change without allowing it to be evaluated first [by] my boss would express his major displeasure.
I am quite sure there are code reviews and evaluations INSIDE Google, and the developers there must answer to their bosses. We (you and I, presumably) are not Google employees. You seem to be asking more of Google than you are asking of your own business; how do I direct the development of your company's software? That's what you are demanding from Google.
But more importantly, most of the features they add can be disabled, and a whole lot of them are available in a beta-like form before they are released on the main page: you just don't bother to go looking for them.
I really think you are over-analyzing this. It's just a stupid little thing to get people to say "hey, that's neat". It promotes word-of-mouth advertising and mindshare; it keeps people thinking about Google more than any other search engine.
Doesn't most of it just get released back into the atmosphere? Sure, it's not contained underground or anything, but it's not REALLY "disappearing", exactly.
I don't think he meant we should all hang around the same star... interstellar travel is included in this. Therefore, the sun's demise would not be an issue for the species as a whole -- of course, assuming anything resembling a human even exists at that point is a stretch anyway. Further, there will probably be a considerable amount of time between our Sun exploding and all the stars in the universe fading away.
I think we should accept that our species evolved on Earth and is therefore only really fit (in the Darwinian sense of that word) to live on this planet.
I think that your concept of Darwinian fitness is far too narrow. If our species survives longer by colonizing other planets, then that would be proof of our fitness to survive in a larger, interplanetary environment. Saying "that's the way it's been in the past, so we should stay that way" is the exact opposite of fitness, if it causes the species to die when it could have survived.
With the advances in game graphics quality, I think many gamers would consider flicker abhorrent, even if it does look 3D... perhaps especially so. But the flicker would also be very slightly out of sync, eye-to-eye. I can only imagine the headaches stemming from that; and possibly nutters claiming stuff like there's a subliminal fifth frame that brainwashes you to vote Communist.
I hesitate to think that the first go 'round of realistic 3D video games will be regarded only slightly better than the Virtual Boy after the initial glitz wears off.
Technicalities aside, what really matters is what question those being polled THOUGHT they were being asked. It matters how THEY defined "knew about" at the time -- and that's even assuming the word "knew" showed up in the question they were answering.
3rd-party "spectator" glasses that will put one of player 1's frames in the left eye and one of player 2's frames in the right eye. Of course you have to close one eye or the other to see it well. Or how about a pair with a switch on the side that lets you flip between the two players' images in full 3D.
Slashdot Mirror
I find the first line of your post hateful
Seriously? Not enjoying your first day on the Internet?
The church is still there and they can go elsewhere for hosting.
I propose that Google play by the same rules the rest of us have to do when releasing changes.
[...]
If I introduced a change without allowing it to be evaluated first [by] my boss would express his major displeasure.
I am quite sure there are code reviews and evaluations INSIDE Google, and the developers there must answer to their bosses. We (you and I, presumably) are not Google employees. You seem to be asking more of Google than you are asking of your own business; how do I direct the development of your company's software? That's what you are demanding from Google.
But more importantly, most of the features they add can be disabled, and a whole lot of them are available in a beta-like form before they are released on the main page: you just don't bother to go looking for them.
I really think you are over-analyzing this. It's just a stupid little thing to get people to say "hey, that's neat". It promotes word-of-mouth advertising and mindshare; it keeps people thinking about Google more than any other search engine.
If I understand you properly, umm... I like pie too?
If you don't use the installer program, the HP drivers can be relatively small. Not TINY, but not "massive[ly] bloated".
What you mention exists: Margaret Gould Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright (a TED talk).
Lots of factors influence elections.
He's talking about congressional bills, not elections. And if a bill is voted on strictly by party lines, he is basically correct.
The images are there, they just didn't load because the server is recovering from a slashdotting. Jerk.
That's worse than goatse, tubgirl, and lemonparty combined. Dane Cook standup? You are one sick bastard.
How does a blind person turn on VoiceOver?
The same way Billy Shears gets by.
("With a little help from [his] friends", for the confused.)
where's the "Tibet" in the "Beijing-Tibet expressway"?
Isn't Tibet over 3000 miles from Beijing?
It's 1,565 mi (2520 km) from Beijing to Tibet.
This road is 2,249 mi (3620 km) long.
Yeah, I looked back at the summary and realized my statement was not really useful.
I said nothing of retrieval or reuse.
All you need is a star with a shitload of hydrogen and a few million years. It's pretty difficult to retrieve, though.
Doesn't most of it just get released back into the atmosphere? Sure, it's not contained underground or anything, but it's not REALLY "disappearing", exactly.
I don't recall the BFG shooting bullets at all, but green plasma.
I don't think he meant we should all hang around the same star... interstellar travel is included in this. Therefore, the sun's demise would not be an issue for the species as a whole -- of course, assuming anything resembling a human even exists at that point is a stretch anyway. Further, there will probably be a considerable amount of time between our Sun exploding and all the stars in the universe fading away.
I think we should accept that our species evolved on Earth and is therefore only really fit (in the Darwinian sense of that word) to live on this planet.
I think that your concept of Darwinian fitness is far too narrow. If our species survives longer by colonizing other planets, then that would be proof of our fitness to survive in a larger, interplanetary environment. Saying "that's the way it's been in the past, so we should stay that way" is the exact opposite of fitness, if it causes the species to die when it could have survived.
They may overlap in places, but "facts" and "public opinion" are two entirely unrelated things.
A C grade is equivalent to 75/100
I don't know what pansy-ass schools YOU went to, but at the public schools I went to, 75% was a D.
When you have a larger scale than [1 to 3] the difference between two points is largely just dependent on the mood you are in.
Or suggesting someone could possibly have a more nuanced opinion than "you either love it or hate it". Ridiculous!
With the advances in game graphics quality, I think many gamers would consider flicker abhorrent, even if it does look 3D... perhaps especially so. But the flicker would also be very slightly out of sync, eye-to-eye. I can only imagine the headaches stemming from that; and possibly nutters claiming stuff like there's a subliminal fifth frame that brainwashes you to vote Communist.
I hesitate to think that the first go 'round of realistic 3D video games will be regarded only slightly better than the Virtual Boy after the initial glitz wears off.
Technicalities aside, what really matters is what question those being polled THOUGHT they were being asked. It matters how THEY defined "knew about" at the time -- and that's even assuming the word "knew" showed up in the question they were answering.
Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that... it's horrifying.
3rd-party "spectator" glasses that will put one of player 1's frames in the left eye and one of player 2's frames in the right eye. Of course you have to close one eye or the other to see it well. Or how about a pair with a switch on the side that lets you flip between the two players' images in full 3D.