I believe the accepted term is infotainment, and in some cases - docutainment.
It's probably because those two terms are accepted, that we need a new one.
If you describe something to someone as "infotainment", they'll likely accept it as legitimate and potentially worthwhile, but if you describe it as "newsertainment", they're more likely to think low of it (I'm referring of course, to the average person, unfettered by an acute sense of discernment).
'I had tried several algorithms on the simulator before settling on this one, and it behaved exactly the same in reality, which is always a pleasant surprise.'
I hope he's not referring to the "simulator" about the space marine on Mars/Phobos/Deimos...
(especially not if the simulation behaved exactly the same)
You should use the OS you like best. If the parrallel installation does not tempt you to use more linux then either there's (still) something wrong with linux on the desktop or windows is in fact (still) the better desktop OS - at least for you. And you're who should matter to you.
One of the premises of the article is that you perfer Linux, but need to boot Windows for that one critical app. How often do you hear, "I'd switch to Linux (or any other OS, like OS X), but I need this one specific app"?
A lot of people really don't like Windows (that should be obvious), but feel "trapped" into using it. This article is meant to show a way of mitigating that trap. It's just like trying to stop eating at McDonalds. One way is to avoid going into the food mall where the McDonalds is at, that way you're not tempted for the easy fix.
More to the point, however, if they can't get upgrading to work right in the beta phase, why should we expect them to get it right later?
That doesn't make any sense. In fact, I'd say it's just the opposite: when there are problems in the beta, one expects them to fix it later. Why would you think they won't get it right later? This isn't some patent-laden problem, or an aspect that some see as a feature, and others as a bug. It's just a problem where they'll have to decide how they want to correct it, and go for it.
Unless you just assume free and open means better.
I don't just assume it. In the case of the ogg/theora folks, I have reason to believe in their ability to deliver (and so does the BBC, for example). If the project was "two guys who just finished a Halo session and decided to put up a web page about how they plan to write a new video format", being open and free isn't enough.
Myself, the term "better" implies there's some technical aspect that could be demonstrably improved over competition.
In this case, being open and free is a demonstrable technical improvement (or if you prefer, a means by which to achieve demonstrable technical superiority) over the competition. Of course, the theora folks could screw it up. Being open, anyone with knowledge on the subject can provide improvements (that's how vorbis was so well-tuned that it beat out mp3 and aac on a recent 128k test). Being free provides the incentive for people to help out (would you really be inclined to put a lot of effort to help make WMV better if you still had to pay to play it, pay to produce it, and pay to distribute it? Some people would, but not nearly as many.).
I don't mean to say that theora is the superior format today and that we should all rush out and use it immediately. What I am saying is that open source/free software will inevitably win out in large sections of the software industry, both on objective quality and subjective values. When (if) theora reaches that point, I merely suggest that people don't shy away from it because it's yet another format (like many people seem to do with vorbis). That's all.
It's not ubiquitous, so what? Do you have to commit to using just one format, and no other?
If you prefer better, free, and open, when you see an ogg in the list of downloads, choose it over the WMP/QuickTime/Real file. If you don't, then pick the one you prefer.
If you're worried about the web becoming more complex, don't. MS, Apple and Real will just have to work to make things easier than ogg--they have to in order to keep the money flowing in.
If you're bothered that there's some people out there whose idealism you find disconcerting, just remember, you made a pragmatic choice (you gave up a little money and control in exchange for ease-of-use), these ogg (vorbis, theora, flac, etc) people are working to make it so that you won't have to make that pragmatic choice. They're trying to make the world how you'd really like it to be if you had the choice (unless you are all about acquiring money by controlling access to technology, in which case they are your worst enemy, and you are right to fear them--they will ultimately win).
Portland's Personal Telco Project has well over 100 free hotspots throughout the city. Austin Free Net has 36 (based on their listing of hotspots which have libraries listed from 1-22 and other places as A-O). The city of Portland is also working, in cooperation with the local university, the city government, and various megacorps (such as Intel) to blanket the entire city with free WiFi (see Free For All).
But, it doesn't matter much who wins. What's great is that independent groups are popping up all across the country (and presumably, the planet). I know that Portland, Boston, and Austin all have growing free WiFi organizations, and I'm sure there are others.
Do you know how nice it is to take your iBook, Vaio, whatever, down to the local park and have free high-speed WiFi access? Thanks to these people (and others!), some day you will.
Let me tell you, it's nice. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from the 21st century.
As for all the people flaming Valve I ask you, if you were running a business and you find out that somebody is making a profit off your sweat and blood while your getting *zip* what would you guys have to say about it?
Whose sweat and blood (lol, like they suck the blood out of their employees or something--or is it a metaphor meant to make it seems more heinous?) went in to making the game? The programmers and artists. Who gets payed by this exorbitant license? The Valve/Sierra/whoever stockholders.
Who pays for this license? Is it some money-grubbing cybercafe owner? Maybe. More likely, it's his customers (many of whom likely already own a copy of CS). If the customers can't pay the extra cost, the cybercafe shuts down, and everyone, including Valve, are SOL.
So we have on the one side people who already payed an already, IMO, overpriced amount for an ancient product on one side, and a bunch of stock-holders and owners on the other side who had little actual creative effect on the product on the other.
Why side with the wealthy and powerful? Why think that that's right? Sounds a lot like "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY", ie: if you're free to use a product you purchased, you are somehow putting these poor, downtrodden haves into some form of slavery.
Now, maybe, maybe, (and I really doubt it), the cybercafe owner is some sort of evil bastard, exploiting all parties involved like some sort of con-artist/MS CEO. That, of course, would change things. But instead, the argument is, "they are Valve, they can demand whatever they want." To that I reply, "if so, then I bought the product, and I can do whatever *I* want." It's foolish to allow Valve (or anyone) to retain so much power over their product. Would you buy a chair with such restrictions?
Sony's sites always seem to obfuscate the details, and this one is no exception. It *seems* that the HBM-30 uses wired headphones. The Bluetooth connection is to connect it to the phone.
Yes, exactly. And false-color images are used in astronomy all the time for a very good reason: they take information measured in wavelengths beyond the visual range and present it in a way that can be quickly understood by a human.
I'm sure the original poster views all his IR astronomy images in their most accurate respresentation.
Due to limitations of slashdot, I'm unable to present such an image here, but I can show you the negative of such a photo:
Making an audible sound out of it is nonsense. It's almost entirely arbitrary, as the sound is not audible.
The same could be said about numbers. They are arbitrarily scaled and spaced, arbitrary names, arbitrary symbols.
What they are is a model of what is being observed or described. Same with false color images or sounds of the cosmos.
What does 2kg mean? What does the evenly spaced clunk, clunk, clunk of a pulsar mean?
Granted, numbers and math work better for proper scientific understanding, but sounds and false colors can convey meaning to someone who doesn't know the math and physics.
Given that you posted as an A. Coward, I hold no hopes that you'll actually be around to read this follow-up. Even so, on the off-chance, I feel compelled to offer this advice on critical thought and reading comprehension. Look at is as a civic service.
Idiot. He explained clearly why you did, and you "neglected" to quote that part.
He was quite wrong. I merely pointed out the original author's (unintentional, I'm sure) hypocrisy. No harm, it happens to us all. I, however, did not equivocate whatsoever. Look up the word "equivocate" before you spout off again, it'll make you look less foolish (posting as an AC does not make you any less ignorant).
He never compared gasoline & napalm to nuclear power & a fission bomb.
You're right. The first poster, however, did. The third poster (counting me as second), defended the first, so it was relavant to bring it up.
He showed that there were two things that were similar in chemistry but different in execution.
Irrelavant. The safest fission plant design can still produce the material for a fission bomb.
What a fucking moron.
<irony>Oh, it stings so, coming from you. How will I ever live?</irony> lol
Go back, re-read the four posts, and think. Disengage emotion if all you see is red. Give it a shot--it's way better than being an AC troll. Unless AC troll is all you've really got going for you. Pity, that.
Unfortunately, you and not the parent poster have committed the fallacy of equivocation.
Unfortunately, I didn't. I pointed out his hypocrisy. I did not equivocate.
Your other point:
Likewise a safe nuclear power plant cannot be related to a very dangerous nuclear weapon by any arguement that links them by the materials they are made from.
Why do you suppose we're so excited about N. Korea's nuclear plant? It's because you can use a nuclear power plant to prepare the *key* ingredient of a fission bomb. Nuclear proliferation is generally seen as a bad thing--far worse than "napalm proliferation".
Comparing gasoline & napalm to nuclear power & a fission bomb is like saying, "It's OK to have a knife, so why can't you have a bazooka?" You've got to be fairly stupid or dishonest to not see (or admit) the difference.
They have the power that you give them, they have the power that others give them, and they have the power that they take.
If you don't listen to radio and don't shop for music at Wal-Mart, you'll find that "the conglomorates" actually control nothing, at least as far as you're concerned.
They control nothing... except just about everything, leaving you with just about nothing.
Yes, the *first* step is to leave the big ruiners behind. The *second* step is to undermine their position and work to replace them.
How long until people just give up and listen to local music? Leave the RIAA to the sheep, and the sheep to the RIAA, and the sheep will get what they deserve. Remember, the only reason that ??AA organizations have any influence is that people buy their stuff.
Better yet, don't allow the *IAA wolves the option of becoming (or now that that's too late, staying) wolves.
Theory is nice, but the reality is that the power lies with the decision-makers in the *IAA and the lawmakers. How many voters does it take to change one lawmaker's vote? How many consumers does it take to change one RIAA policy? The fact is, *they* have disproportionate power, and any law or philosophy which ignores that ignores reality, and is doomed to failure.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess $200 is the market value for a person's dignity according to Viacom.
Seems it's a buyer's market.
I believe the accepted term is infotainment, and in some cases - docutainment.
It's probably because those two terms are accepted, that we need a new one.
If you describe something to someone as "infotainment", they'll likely accept it as legitimate and potentially worthwhile, but if you describe it as "newsertainment", they're more likely to think low of it (I'm referring of course, to the average person, unfettered by an acute sense of discernment).
If I were an expert I would revel going on this show, but then again I like to argue with people...
No you don't.
(I'm sorry, is this the five minute argument, or the full half-hour?)
If we can't shoot it or drive it, what good is it ?
I bet I can guess who you're voting for this November.
'I had tried several algorithms on the simulator before settling on this one, and it behaved exactly the same in reality, which is always a pleasant surprise.'
I hope he's not referring to the "simulator" about the space marine on Mars/Phobos/Deimos...
(especially not if the simulation behaved exactly the same)
You should use the OS you like best. If the parrallel installation does not tempt you to use more linux then either there's (still) something wrong with linux on the desktop or windows is in fact (still) the better desktop OS - at least for you. And you're who should matter to you.
One of the premises of the article is that you perfer Linux, but need to boot Windows for that one critical app. How often do you hear, "I'd switch to Linux (or any other OS, like OS X), but I need this one specific app"?
A lot of people really don't like Windows (that should be obvious), but feel "trapped" into using it. This article is meant to show a way of mitigating that trap. It's just like trying to stop eating at McDonalds. One way is to avoid going into the food mall where the McDonalds is at, that way you're not tempted for the easy fix.
More to the point, however, if they can't get upgrading to work right in the beta phase, why should we expect them to get it right later?
That doesn't make any sense. In fact, I'd say it's just the opposite: when there are problems in the beta, one expects them to fix it later. Why would you think they won't get it right later? This isn't some patent-laden problem, or an aspect that some see as a feature, and others as a bug. It's just a problem where they'll have to decide how they want to correct it, and go for it.
If you keep making predictions, eventually one of them will come true.
This is his first (public) prediction. Your adage only applies after many predictions have been made (and where too few have been correct).
Unless you just assume free and open means better.
I don't just assume it. In the case of the ogg/theora folks, I have reason to believe in their ability to deliver (and so does the BBC, for example). If the project was "two guys who just finished a Halo session and decided to put up a web page about how they plan to write a new video format", being open and free isn't enough.
Myself, the term "better" implies there's some technical aspect that could be demonstrably improved over competition.
In this case, being open and free is a demonstrable technical improvement (or if you prefer, a means by which to achieve demonstrable technical superiority) over the competition. Of course, the theora folks could screw it up. Being open, anyone with knowledge on the subject can provide improvements (that's how vorbis was so well-tuned that it beat out mp3 and aac on a recent 128k test). Being free provides the incentive for people to help out (would you really be inclined to put a lot of effort to help make WMV better if you still had to pay to play it, pay to produce it, and pay to distribute it? Some people would, but not nearly as many.).
I don't mean to say that theora is the superior format today and that we should all rush out and use it immediately. What I am saying is that open source/free software will inevitably win out in large sections of the software industry, both on objective quality and subjective values. When (if) theora reaches that point, I merely suggest that people don't shy away from it because it's yet another format (like many people seem to do with vorbis). That's all.
I wonder if they are going to get Gary Gnu (sorry, best example I could find) to as the lead gnews anchor?
Because it's better, it's free, and it's open.
It's not ubiquitous, so what? Do you have to commit to using just one format, and no other?
If you prefer better, free, and open, when you see an ogg in the list of downloads, choose it over the WMP/QuickTime/Real file. If you don't, then pick the one you prefer.
If you're worried about the web becoming more complex, don't. MS, Apple and Real will just have to work to make things easier than ogg--they have to in order to keep the money flowing in.
If you're bothered that there's some people out there whose idealism you find disconcerting, just remember, you made a pragmatic choice (you gave up a little money and control in exchange for ease-of-use), these ogg (vorbis, theora, flac, etc) people are working to make it so that you won't have to make that pragmatic choice. They're trying to make the world how you'd really like it to be if you had the choice (unless you are all about acquiring money by controlling access to technology, in which case they are your worst enemy, and you are right to fear them--they will ultimately win).
I mean how many people pick up their 128meg solid state ogg player in the morning??
More than there would have been had the ogg/vorbis/theora folks decided the task was just too daunting and given up.
Changing the world for the better happens a little at a time.
Portland's Personal Telco Project has well over 100 free hotspots throughout the city. Austin Free Net has 36 (based on their listing of hotspots which have libraries listed from 1-22 and other places as A-O). The city of Portland is also working, in cooperation with the local university, the city government, and various megacorps (such as Intel) to blanket the entire city with free WiFi (see Free For All).
But, it doesn't matter much who wins. What's great is that independent groups are popping up all across the country (and presumably, the planet). I know that Portland, Boston, and Austin all have growing free WiFi organizations, and I'm sure there are others.
Do you know how nice it is to take your iBook, Vaio, whatever, down to the local park and have free high-speed WiFi access? Thanks to these people (and others!), some day you will.
Let me tell you, it's nice. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from the 21st century.
As for all the people flaming Valve I ask you, if you were running a business and you find out that somebody is making a profit off your sweat and blood while your getting *zip* what would you guys have to say about it?
Whose sweat and blood (lol, like they suck the blood out of their employees or something--or is it a metaphor meant to make it seems more heinous?) went in to making the game? The programmers and artists. Who gets payed by this exorbitant license? The Valve/Sierra/whoever stockholders.
Who pays for this license? Is it some money-grubbing cybercafe owner? Maybe. More likely, it's his customers (many of whom likely already own a copy of CS). If the customers can't pay the extra cost, the cybercafe shuts down, and everyone, including Valve, are SOL.
So we have on the one side people who already payed an already, IMO, overpriced amount for an ancient product on one side, and a bunch of stock-holders and owners on the other side who had little actual creative effect on the product on the other.
Why side with the wealthy and powerful? Why think that that's right? Sounds a lot like "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY", ie: if you're free to use a product you purchased, you are somehow putting these poor, downtrodden haves into some form of slavery.
Now, maybe, maybe, (and I really doubt it), the cybercafe owner is some sort of evil bastard, exploiting all parties involved like some sort of con-artist/MS CEO. That, of course, would change things. But instead, the argument is, "they are Valve, they can demand whatever they want." To that I reply, "if so, then I bought the product, and I can do whatever *I* want." It's foolish to allow Valve (or anyone) to retain so much power over their product. Would you buy a chair with such restrictions?
Oh, I see. Makes sense now. I was somewhat interested in how they got Bluetooth stereo headphones working at acceptable quality and reliability.
Sony's sites always seem to obfuscate the details, and this one is no exception. It *seems* that the HBM-30 uses wired headphones. The Bluetooth connection is to connect it to the phone.
I'm sure the original poster views all his IR astronomy images in their most accurate respresentation.
Due to limitations of slashdot, I'm unable to present such an image here, but I can show you the negative of such a photo:
--begin--
--end--
Making an audible sound out of it is nonsense. It's almost entirely arbitrary, as the sound is not audible.
The same could be said about numbers. They are arbitrarily scaled and spaced, arbitrary names, arbitrary symbols.
What they are is a model of what is being observed or described. Same with false color images or sounds of the cosmos.
What does 2kg mean? What does the evenly spaced clunk, clunk, clunk of a pulsar mean?
Granted, numbers and math work better for proper scientific understanding, but sounds and false colors can convey meaning to someone who doesn't know the math and physics.
Or do you read Word documents in hex?
Given that you posted as an A. Coward, I hold no hopes that you'll actually be around to read this follow-up. Even so, on the off-chance, I feel compelled to offer this advice on critical thought and reading comprehension. Look at is as a civic service.
Idiot. He explained clearly why you did, and you "neglected" to quote that part.
He was quite wrong. I merely pointed out the original author's (unintentional, I'm sure) hypocrisy. No harm, it happens to us all. I, however, did not equivocate whatsoever. Look up the word "equivocate" before you spout off again, it'll make you look less foolish (posting as an AC does not make you any less ignorant).
He never compared gasoline & napalm to nuclear power & a fission bomb.
You're right. The first poster, however, did. The third poster (counting me as second), defended the first, so it was relavant to bring it up.
He showed that there were two things that were similar in chemistry but different in execution.
Irrelavant. The safest fission plant design can still produce the material for a fission bomb.
What a fucking moron.
<irony>Oh, it stings so, coming from you. How will I ever live?</irony> lol
Go back, re-read the four posts, and think. Disengage emotion if all you see is red. Give it a shot--it's way better than being an AC troll. Unless AC troll is all you've really got going for you. Pity, that.
Unfortunately, you and not the parent poster have committed the fallacy of equivocation.
Unfortunately, I didn't. I pointed out his hypocrisy. I did not equivocate.
Your other point:
Likewise a safe nuclear power plant cannot be related to a very dangerous nuclear weapon by any arguement that links them by the materials they are made from.
Why do you suppose we're so excited about N. Korea's nuclear plant? It's because you can use a nuclear power plant to prepare the *key* ingredient of a fission bomb. Nuclear proliferation is generally seen as a bad thing--far worse than "napalm proliferation".
Comparing gasoline & napalm to nuclear power & a fission bomb is like saying, "It's OK to have a knife, so why can't you have a bazooka?" You've got to be fairly stupid or dishonest to not see (or admit) the difference.
Fallacy of equivocation? Like conflating napalm with nuclear weapons in order to make the threat of nuclear weaponry seem not so bad?
I keep a little portable pouch of huggies in the front (cause they're damn useful anyway), just in case I get mugged
I can see how the huggies would be useful, but don't you need to put them on *before* some guy sticks a gun in your face?
They only have the power that you give to them.
They have the power that you give them, they have the power that others give them, and they have the power that they take.
If you don't listen to radio and don't shop for music at Wal-Mart, you'll find that "the conglomorates" actually control nothing, at least as far as you're concerned.
They control nothing... except just about everything, leaving you with just about nothing.
Yes, the *first* step is to leave the big ruiners behind. The *second* step is to undermine their position and work to replace them.
How long until people just give up and listen to local music? Leave the RIAA to the sheep, and the sheep to the RIAA, and the sheep will get what they deserve. Remember, the only reason that ??AA organizations have any influence is that people buy their stuff.
Better yet, don't allow the *IAA wolves the option of becoming (or now that that's too late, staying) wolves.
Theory is nice, but the reality is that the power lies with the decision-makers in the *IAA and the lawmakers. How many voters does it take to change one lawmaker's vote? How many consumers does it take to change one RIAA policy? The fact is, *they* have disproportionate power, and any law or philosophy which ignores that ignores reality, and is doomed to failure.
Paypal Deals Blow To Freenet
Isn't dealing blow illegal in the US? Freenet should turn PayPal in to the DEA in exchange for immunity.
Anyone know if SCO dealt blow to Freenet too?