True enough. The Internet is merely a medium, just as paper, television, radio, and speech was before it. It only serves to transmit information from one source to another.
In a way, the discussion that the Internet consumes all other mediums is somewhat ridiculous. It is true, but the technologies of those mediums are nowhere near "lost." In order to transmit a book, one still has to write it. In order to broadcast a movie, one still has to film it.
Accessibility is increased and cost has decreased. As a side effect, there is a greater amount of content out there, some is good, some is very bad. You could argue that the average quality of content has decreased with the onset of the Internet, but that is only attributed to the relative cost of distribution. Books are only published if the publisher deems a book worth publishing. Movies are only created if a production company believes it worthy of funding, and the distributor believes it worthy of distribution.
The technology is not being absorbed, and to announce it is merely being alarmist. Google, among other tools, serves to draw out the worthwhile content from the endless mire of junk. If anything, it helps us find coherency of information from a gigantic pile of mostly steaming crap.
The web is only stateless if you're implementing a web application poorly. The model is cached, and you can plan for heavy objects to be cached as well, so that the cost of construction is avoided.
Yes, you have to generate a page for every response, but this is a marginal cost. You have to do that with any other web frontend anyway.
I think that this is largely dependent upon the raid instance design. Some of the most fun raids were blasting through BWL and learning the "new" content that was Naxxramas.
The 25-mans are rather poorly designed, unfortunately. You could possibly chalk it up to lore, you could chalk it up to stupid amounts of trash, or any number of other things. After downing Vashj, we had a number of members state very clearly: "I'm never going back into that hellhole again."
It took awhile to get the tier 5 bosses, and we have a number of people who are *still* reluctant to go back to SSC or TK, almost an entire year later. These are the same people who just loved repeatedly farming the hell out of BWL. The raid instances just aren't that fun anymore... and don't even get me started on the itemization.
FTry a google for arena 3v3 matches: very skill-based, with an extra emphasis on teamwork and coordination.
Unfortunately, 3v3 is 90% the correct class combination, and 10% skill. Very little in WoW is actually dependent upon player skill.
Flamebait is posting something that you *know* will start a fight. Trolling is posting something that you hope will get a bunch of responses. Goatse / Tubgirl is just a subspecies of troll.
The word comes from the term, "trolling for newbs." Like fishing. You post, and see how many suckers you can pull up with it.
Because Mono is sitting between a language (Python) and widget set (GTK+) as an imitation of a Microsoft product designed to shield a language (sometimes Python but mostly C#) from a widget set and OS API (Win32). Python gets compiled to bytecode, which is then read by an interpreter that sits between it and the widget set.
The.NET version sees Python getting compiled to IL (bytecode), which is read by the Mono runtime.
It looks like you get the exact same thing, honestly. All it comes down to is which platform is best for actual compilation.
I find the articles critiques very hard to swallow. The argument that.NET is limited by the attempt to be simplistic is asinine.
The arguments against.NET, particularly, are lacking in detail and support. Just because some dude says "this is so," doesn't mean that he hasn't screwed something up along the way. He denigrates.NET, but only gives details on why it's "broken" due to Win32.
.NET is like Java, in that there is more than one way to handle forms. If Winforms doesn't work for you, use gtk# or qtsharp. Options exist, and they don't need to be tied to Win32. The complaint about the inflexibility of the library merely demonstrates that the writer hasn't worked very much with.NET..NET is both flexible and extensible, giving you the tools to easily create what you interpret as missing.
Let us not forget that Objective-C has its own set of issues, and that it isn't exactly the most convenient language to use. I wouldn't be surprised if some.NET fanboy wrote a similar set of articles in favor of windows, and similarly knocking Obj-C.
That's true when the process hasn't been refined. Intel's production line was top-notch when they were producing Celerons, such that the majority of the cores produced were P3 / high end Celeron capable. Intel underclocked these cores to maintain a limited quantity of upper-end offerings, which in turn kept the price high.
The OC crowd took advantage of that fact, to great effect. It wasn't unusual for someone to crank out an additional 200 mhz without running into any instability.
People who believe the scientific method can accurately be used to discover and research things can go so far as to say that they believe in them because science supports it. The scientific method is not something that you believe in or not. It simply is. It is a human invention, and exists as a result.
You use or do not use, but there is nothing about the scientific method that involves the metaphysical.
If the ID people want to be taken seriously. They can produce good research and put forward a good testable hypothesis that can better explain the world or the liars for Jesus can just STFU.
Why do people assume a completely untested assertion is a legitimate competitor in the marketplace of ideas?
What fascinates me, besides the positive modding you have, rather than just pure flamebait, is that it seems that you have had very little discourse with anyone who espouses ID.
Jesus, or any other religious entity, has very little to do with ID. Sure, you can point at one of them and say "this is behind it," but that would be veering away from ID. ID is the discussion that it is very improbable for a world as complex as the one we currently reside in to have occurred randomly.
Evolution, while a theory, is a statement of truth. It is an observation of the natural world, of the order of things, and how future iterations become defined.
It is rather unbecoming of anyone who purports to follow "science," to delve into ad hominem, but the parent of this post has managed to do so quite effectively. This is what Stein is really pointing at - the rejection of additional theories because they might possibly infringe upon the basis of a belief system. There is no intelligent discourse here, only spitting and fist waving.
And hell, if you're going to quote someone, at least quote Dawkins or some other scientifically credible source. Hitchens is just as bad as Bill O'Reilly.
When you have creationists trying to ruin science education all across the country it's not that surprising.
This is a red herring.
I would chalk the lack of advancement up to the lack of need for it. We can point and say, "well, we do need this," but there is no sense of urgency to that need.
Performance happens when pressure is applied. Some societies have instilled within themselves a constant pressure, and apparently progress at a faster rate than others. I imagine that the lack of urgency and impending need is what negates motivation. It doesn't seem like this applies only to scientific research, either.
IIRC, Intel took a gamble where AMD assumed far less risk, and that gamble did not pan out. Pentium 4 died, while AMD's Athlon was putting up numbers on par or better.
If Intel had continued on in the same vein as the pentium 3 (which they ended up doing after the revelation that P4 was not happening), then AMD would still have been second in performance.
Both companies have a place in the market. One just happened to do something stupid, the other just kept plodding along as usual.
I don't think he knows the difference between a 401K and lottery tickets either.
Having just spent several months in a comfortable version of unemployment, there's only so much idleness one can take before going stir-crazy. In my case, the need to be productive outweighed the desire to sit around all day and play WoW.
When I actually do retire, I imagine that I'll still be working in some capacity. At that point, I won't be governed by as many of the responsibilities that determine my choice right now... but I'll just shift from doing something that I find interesting to something I love doing.
I remember when Digg started up, and there was a plethora of comments that linked to Digg and referred to it.
If there's worry about the "Digg crowd," it's important to remember that much of the "Digg crowd" really is just old/. people. I don't go to Digg, personally, but I can't imagine both sites having mutually exclusive memberships.
Slashdot Mirror
For $60/mo, you get a full blown data plan at a fairly high speed (3G is smooth). Oh, you also get regular cell service.
I signed up so that I could participate in the FP frenzy.
True enough. The Internet is merely a medium, just as paper, television, radio, and speech was before it. It only serves to transmit information from one source to another.
In a way, the discussion that the Internet consumes all other mediums is somewhat ridiculous. It is true, but the technologies of those mediums are nowhere near "lost." In order to transmit a book, one still has to write it. In order to broadcast a movie, one still has to film it.
Accessibility is increased and cost has decreased. As a side effect, there is a greater amount of content out there, some is good, some is very bad. You could argue that the average quality of content has decreased with the onset of the Internet, but that is only attributed to the relative cost of distribution. Books are only published if the publisher deems a book worth publishing. Movies are only created if a production company believes it worthy of funding, and the distributor believes it worthy of distribution.
The technology is not being absorbed, and to announce it is merely being alarmist. Google, among other tools, serves to draw out the worthwhile content from the endless mire of junk. If anything, it helps us find coherency of information from a gigantic pile of mostly steaming crap.
The web is only stateless if you're implementing a web application poorly. The model is cached, and you can plan for heavy objects to be cached as well, so that the cost of construction is avoided.
Yes, you have to generate a page for every response, but this is a marginal cost. You have to do that with any other web frontend anyway.
MOM was more like Civilization with a magic and tactical combat system bolted on than it was like MOO.
Mmmm. I love the smell of astroturf in the morning!
I think that this is largely dependent upon the raid instance design. Some of the most fun raids were blasting through BWL and learning the "new" content that was Naxxramas.
The 25-mans are rather poorly designed, unfortunately. You could possibly chalk it up to lore, you could chalk it up to stupid amounts of trash, or any number of other things. After downing Vashj, we had a number of members state very clearly: "I'm never going back into that hellhole again."
It took awhile to get the tier 5 bosses, and we have a number of people who are *still* reluctant to go back to SSC or TK, almost an entire year later. These are the same people who just loved repeatedly farming the hell out of BWL. The raid instances just aren't that fun anymore... and don't even get me started on the itemization.
Unfortunately, 3v3 is 90% the correct class combination, and 10% skill. Very little in WoW is actually dependent upon player skill.
A Diablo MMO will definitely injure WoW's main player base.
Stamina is the stunlock nerf.
Flamebait is posting something that you *know* will start a fight. Trolling is posting something that you hope will get a bunch of responses. Goatse / Tubgirl is just a subspecies of troll.
The word comes from the term, "trolling for newbs." Like fishing. You post, and see how many suckers you can pull up with it.
The
It looks like you get the exact same thing, honestly. All it comes down to is which platform is best for actual compilation.
The arguments against .NET, particularly, are lacking in detail and support. Just because some dude says "this is so," doesn't mean that he hasn't screwed something up along the way. He denigrates .NET, but only gives details on why it's "broken" due to Win32.
.NET is like Java, in that there is more than one way to handle forms. If Winforms doesn't work for you, use gtk# or qtsharp. Options exist, and they don't need to be tied to Win32. The complaint about the inflexibility of the library merely demonstrates that the writer hasn't worked very much with .NET. .NET is both flexible and extensible, giving you the tools to easily create what you interpret as missing.
Let us not forget that Objective-C has its own set of issues, and that it isn't exactly the most convenient language to use. I wouldn't be surprised if some .NET fanboy wrote a similar set of articles in favor of windows, and similarly knocking Obj-C.
At least get the context right - call it the "Trinity" chip, and sell it to all of the hormonal Matrix geeks.
That's true when the process hasn't been refined. Intel's production line was top-notch when they were producing Celerons, such that the majority of the cores produced were P3 / high end Celeron capable. Intel underclocked these cores to maintain a limited quantity of upper-end offerings, which in turn kept the price high.
The OC crowd took advantage of that fact, to great effect. It wasn't unusual for someone to crank out an additional 200 mhz without running into any instability.
You use or do not use, but there is nothing about the scientific method that involves the metaphysical.
...teaches kids not to engage in critical thinking. Is this even the responsibility of science?Also, what is not "critically thinking" about pointing at a disparity and labeling it as such?
Why do people assume a completely untested assertion is a legitimate competitor in the marketplace of ideas?
What fascinates me, besides the positive modding you have, rather than just pure flamebait, is that it seems that you have had very little discourse with anyone who espouses ID.
Jesus, or any other religious entity, has very little to do with ID. Sure, you can point at one of them and say "this is behind it," but that would be veering away from ID. ID is the discussion that it is very improbable for a world as complex as the one we currently reside in to have occurred randomly.
Evolution, while a theory, is a statement of truth. It is an observation of the natural world, of the order of things, and how future iterations become defined.
It is rather unbecoming of anyone who purports to follow "science," to delve into ad hominem, but the parent of this post has managed to do so quite effectively. This is what Stein is really pointing at - the rejection of additional theories because they might possibly infringe upon the basis of a belief system. There is no intelligent discourse here, only spitting and fist waving.
And hell, if you're going to quote someone, at least quote Dawkins or some other scientifically credible source. Hitchens is just as bad as Bill O'Reilly.
This is a red herring.
I would chalk the lack of advancement up to the lack of need for it. We can point and say, "well, we do need this," but there is no sense of urgency to that need.
Performance happens when pressure is applied. Some societies have instilled within themselves a constant pressure, and apparently progress at a faster rate than others. I imagine that the lack of urgency and impending need is what negates motivation. It doesn't seem like this applies only to scientific research, either.
IIRC, Intel took a gamble where AMD assumed far less risk, and that gamble did not pan out. Pentium 4 died, while AMD's Athlon was putting up numbers on par or better. If Intel had continued on in the same vein as the pentium 3 (which they ended up doing after the revelation that P4 was not happening), then AMD would still have been second in performance. Both companies have a place in the market. One just happened to do something stupid, the other just kept plodding along as usual.
Having just spent several months in a comfortable version of unemployment, there's only so much idleness one can take before going stir-crazy. In my case, the need to be productive outweighed the desire to sit around all day and play WoW.
When I actually do retire, I imagine that I'll still be working in some capacity. At that point, I won't be governed by as many of the responsibilities that determine my choice right now... but I'll just shift from doing something that I find interesting to something I love doing.
I remember when Digg started up, and there was a plethora of comments that linked to Digg and referred to it.
If there's worry about the "Digg crowd," it's important to remember that much of the "Digg crowd" really is just old /. people. I don't go to Digg, personally, but I can't imagine both sites having mutually exclusive memberships.
With that sig, you must really be new here.
Exactly. I love being comfy in my office, lit only by the glow of the excessive number of LEDs around the table.