Never played, never will, and I read the whole thing.
It's like Starship Troopers or South Park - remove all the brain bug and/or poop talk and you've got serious political and social commentary. Ignore the crap about glyphs and other jargon and you've got an interesting interview about the way games are continuously developed, how feedback is assessed, and what kind of statements are meaningful and noticed by designers. I learned a bit about WoW, but I learned a bit more about a hugely successful company.
This needs to be heard by everyone. NOW. Sure, your New York Times access is largely trivial, but Facebook and gmail access? That's someone's life. Amazon, and soon Netflix, PayPal, and eBay? That's someone's money. Maybe once people start losing money and their jobs websites will realize the severity of security, as that's usually when it hits home. But until then, very neat.
It's definitely been done. It's hot but small, so it lends itself to frying an egg or something, but definitely doable. On the other hand, I saw a George Foreman turned into a webserver once.
Not likely (in the US at least). Kyllo V United States established that using IR to peer into a home requires a warrant, and that's a pretty strong precedent. A key issue of the case was that using IR didn't even need to penetrate the house (it just "recorded" what was being emitted) and yet was STILL not allowed without a warrant. Anything that "peers in" will be just as illegal.
It's an interesting thought, and not one I necessarily disagree with, but the inevitable analogies crop up:
- Should auto makers be accountable when people speed? - Should gun makers be accountable for deaths caused by their products? - Should websites be accountable for the content participating users share?
In my mind these are listed from most to least absurd, and the last is even relevant. We've got laws in place protecting websites (the whole boring Craigslist thing notwithstanding) and software isn't so different. The time to say "if you don't want to use a potentially insecure product, don't use it" has passed - we're too into the forest to turn back now - but the mentality still holds. There ARE other options out there, but it usually means less revenue. If you start fining Microsoft/Apache/Solaris as being responsible when losses are incurred, then you de-facto hand over more of your own autonomy to them.
The regulatory aspects in particular are why I never get too excited by things like this.
"Regulatory aspects?" It's Rewiring a Damaged Brain - literally brain surgery with some chip-building tossed in. Yes there are regulations, but progress is slow because it is hard to find brains to screw around with. This is not a process you take lightly.
The comparison isn't really about Apple vs. Microsoft - as you point out that was decided years ago - but rather the other findings. Mainstream media coverage of technology is 1.6% of the total - miniscule, yet ahead of religion or immigration. There's twice as much coverage about how tech is changing our lives than about corporate folk. Twitter coverage is very different from the mainstream. These are useful metrics that tell us something about who we are and how we get our news.
I don't disagree that the system is shit and that clearly ethanol is really only slightly better than fossil fuels (and even that's arguable). The solution is to get energy elsewhere, but we can't always jump from point A to point H right away. Point B may not be great but if it's an improvement over A then why not? Switchgrass may still suck, but it's a lot better than using corn and half a loaf is better than none.
Yes indeed, very true. Just like how Dr. King's assassination solved racial inequities and Ted Kennedy's death harbored in a comprehensive new health care system.
Why should you be more fearful of Google doing that as opposed to our current swath of ISPs and Telecoms? Especially given that some of them have been proven to be amenable to wiretapping during the Bush era? Maybe I'm blurring the lines between internet and phone, but a lot of these companies provide both and as the amount of valued information continues to shift away from the telephone jack and to the ethernet cable, it is indeed a valid concern. Sure, some may prefer the Devil they know, but when weighing Pros and Cons, I'm going to side with the guys who didn't need a pardon from Congress, and instead give me excellent email and help me find things online.
Not particularly. Apoptosis is available on the cellular level, and while this isn't an analogous situation there is a certain similarity. Sometimes it's a cell that made a serious DNA replication error, or sometimes it's a man or woman so overcome with grief that his or her heart fails. In both cases, continued survival (of the cell or heart) is perceived as "not worth it" by some underlying process.
Astronomy is a science and, not to anthropomorphize, but science doesn't like having vague, undefined terms or concept. It can deal with them (just look various TOEs or even psychology) but a lot of effort goes toward specifying meaning. It doesn't serve our understanding to classify an apple as an orange for sentiment's sake.
Slashdot Mirror
Never played, never will, and I read the whole thing.
It's like Starship Troopers or South Park - remove all the brain bug and/or poop talk and you've got serious political and social commentary. Ignore the crap about glyphs and other jargon and you've got an interesting interview about the way games are continuously developed, how feedback is assessed, and what kind of statements are meaningful and noticed by designers. I learned a bit about WoW, but I learned a bit more about a hugely successful company.
This needs to be heard by everyone. NOW. Sure, your New York Times access is largely trivial, but Facebook and gmail access? That's someone's life. Amazon, and soon Netflix, PayPal, and eBay? That's someone's money. Maybe once people start losing money and their jobs websites will realize the severity of security, as that's usually when it hits home. But until then, very neat.
Protect yourself: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12714/
That's actually the name of my favorite Fish and Chips joint.
It's definitely been done. It's hot but small, so it lends itself to frying an egg or something, but definitely doable. On the other hand, I saw a George Foreman turned into a webserver once.
Not likely (in the US at least). Kyllo V United States established that using IR to peer into a home requires a warrant, and that's a pretty strong precedent. A key issue of the case was that using IR didn't even need to penetrate the house (it just "recorded" what was being emitted) and yet was STILL not allowed without a warrant. Anything that "peers in" will be just as illegal.
It's an interesting thought, and not one I necessarily disagree with, but the inevitable analogies crop up:
- Should auto makers be accountable when people speed?
- Should gun makers be accountable for deaths caused by their products?
- Should websites be accountable for the content participating users share?
In my mind these are listed from most to least absurd, and the last is even relevant. We've got laws in place protecting websites (the whole boring Craigslist thing notwithstanding) and software isn't so different. The time to say "if you don't want to use a potentially insecure product, don't use it" has passed - we're too into the forest to turn back now - but the mentality still holds. There ARE other options out there, but it usually means less revenue. If you start fining Microsoft/Apache/Solaris as being responsible when losses are incurred, then you de-facto hand over more of your own autonomy to them.
Since flying offscreen scrolls up/down a page, this is actually a pretty fun way to scroll through a given webpage.
Single shot destroys the whole page. Pity, I'd much rather take out certain contacts or emails one by one...
All the fun of moderator points without all the hassle of "good karma!"
Yes, because if there are two things this planet needs urgently, they are definitely 10^2048 IP addresses and images of Al Gore sleeping with women.
The regulatory aspects in particular are why I never get too excited by things like this.
"Regulatory aspects?" It's Rewiring a Damaged Brain - literally brain surgery with some chip-building tossed in. Yes there are regulations, but progress is slow because it is hard to find brains to screw around with. This is not a process you take lightly.
It grows.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/677048.stm
Read the actual report instead of the "News, Analysis, and Perspective" from CRN: http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/when_technology_makes_headlines
The comparison isn't really about Apple vs. Microsoft - as you point out that was decided years ago - but rather the other findings. Mainstream media coverage of technology is 1.6% of the total - miniscule, yet ahead of religion or immigration. There's twice as much coverage about how tech is changing our lives than about corporate folk. Twitter coverage is very different from the mainstream. These are useful metrics that tell us something about who we are and how we get our news.
Well, yeah. What part of "Create unrest and bad political will for the succeeding and opposing party" isn't a good business deal?
Why not all of the above? I think we're in agreement that there isn't a single solution, and that we should be doing most or all of them.
I don't disagree that the system is shit and that clearly ethanol is really only slightly better than fossil fuels (and even that's arguable). The solution is to get energy elsewhere, but we can't always jump from point A to point H right away. Point B may not be great but if it's an improvement over A then why not? Switchgrass may still suck, but it's a lot better than using corn and half a loaf is better than none.
When a study shows that switchgrass produces 540% more renewable than nonrenewable energy consumed, yeah, I'd say it's a little about efficiency.
Young adults, when given internet, will use it!
You called?
Yes indeed, very true. Just like how Dr. King's assassination solved racial inequities and Ted Kennedy's death harbored in a comprehensive new health care system.
Why should you be more fearful of Google doing that as opposed to our current swath of ISPs and Telecoms? Especially given that some of them have been proven to be amenable to wiretapping during the Bush era? Maybe I'm blurring the lines between internet and phone, but a lot of these companies provide both and as the amount of valued information continues to shift away from the telephone jack and to the ethernet cable, it is indeed a valid concern. Sure, some may prefer the Devil they know, but when weighing Pros and Cons, I'm going to side with the guys who didn't need a pardon from Congress, and instead give me excellent email and help me find things online.
Not particularly. Apoptosis is available on the cellular level, and while this isn't an analogous situation there is a certain similarity. Sometimes it's a cell that made a serious DNA replication error, or sometimes it's a man or woman so overcome with grief that his or her heart fails. In both cases, continued survival (of the cell or heart) is perceived as "not worth it" by some underlying process.
(This goes without saying on /. but) If that's what you're noticing in those pictures then you REALLY need to get laid.
Astronomy is a science and, not to anthropomorphize, but science doesn't like having vague, undefined terms or concept. It can deal with them (just look various TOEs or even psychology) but a lot of effort goes toward specifying meaning. It doesn't serve our understanding to classify an apple as an orange for sentiment's sake.