Is it really static? You assume researchers aren't going to try to use this raw data to generate any actual end product. I wouldn't make that assumption.
See Craig Venter's latest attempts at synthetic life, "Mycoplasma laboratorium".
One of the biggest downsides of ordering something from an online retailer is having to wait a variable amount of time to get your order (and having to pay an arm and a leg to get it fast). I've always thought that Wal-Mart was uniquely situated to offering online product ordering (not just for groceries) that gives you same day delivery for a relatively reasonable price. Their size and reach and efficient logistics puts them in a unique position to offer something like that, sort of a short range FedEx. I realize they already have in-store pickup, but I bet there would significant interest if they could offer full blown delivery at a reasonable price. Amazon isn't nearly large enough to develop this sort of thing, Wal-Mart is probably the only company that could. They order everything in massive quantities, they already replicate most of their merchandise across 50 states, and they're renowned for running a lean (and mean) company.
I mean, you can easily spend $5-10 to get something small delivered like a video game. Fuel may be expensive, but $5 of diesel can push a smaller delivery truck a long way. If you can order a video game in the morning, and have it delivered by 7:00 PM, even if they charge $5-10, I could see that being an easy call for a lot of people.
And in other news, hundreds of top programmers in Russia have been summarily convicted of tax evasion and embezzlement, and have been sentenced to 20 years hard labor in the Siberian software mines.
If Nvidia wanted to fight Intel/AMD on this, now would be the time. Under the Bush Administration anti-trust basically ground to a halt, the EU was pretty much the only one holding the line. Now you've got a Democrat president, and Eric Holder already confirmed as AG. A political shift is probably already under way at the Justice Department. Due partially to both Intel's success, and AMD's incompetence, Intel is dominating the CPU market right now. It wouldn't take much to draw anti-trust attention.
Re:THE PROGRAM IS BEING HALTED!
on
X-43A Hits Mach 7
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think this programs future has been uncertain because of the uncertainty of its success. Remember what happened to the first one. Governments tend to be very wary of failure in expensive scientific endeavors, even if those failures teach us lessons necessary to succeed. Now that they've had a pretty stunning success, at the very least the millitary is going to be VERY interested in continuing this project (they're already funding this part) and even if NASA's budget doesn't allow for continuing this program with current priorities, I think the Military has been convinced this is a direction worth pursuing further. Just a guess on my part, but I bet you see new funding quite soon.
I'm all for this list, heck my numbers on it, but shouldn't they just have the FCC do it instead? Wasn't that the problem, that the FTC didn't have the congressional authority to regulate telephone calls like the FCC did? I mean if there's this much support in congress and the administration doesn't it just make more sense that rather than add another law to the books (and give the FTC jurisdiction over something that they may not be suited for) just let the FCC take quick action? We know the FCC supported the idea since they "combined" their authority with the FTC's and just let the FTC run the list. The only reason I can see for the FCC not doing it is because supposedly the FCC chariman is independent of the administration and isn't supposed to be influenced in day to day matters, but they are supposedly in support of this, so what gives?
Until/Unless consoles replace PC's by having control schemes that allow for more tactile manipulation of games, PC's will always have a distinct advantage when dealing with strategy and first person shooter games (unsurprisingly two of the most popular types of games out there). Even with many industry analysts predicting the doom of PC gaming as soon as the console war started, little has changed in my opinion. PC's still have the largest range of franchises, since none of them are "exclusive" to other systems in its marketplace (the last Mac advantage went out the window with Bungie). Sales for hit PC games are still more than high enough to provide for large production budgets. And maybe most of all, the emergence of customization and "total conversions" has been the ace up the sleeve of the PC gaming scene, Counter-Strike anyone? One might point out that Counter-Strike may be coming to consoles, but it will have arrived years after being out for PC's, and will only be released after strict quality control testing, something that isn't necessary on PC's. The console advantage is supposedly that even mediocre games on the console sell well enough to make some money for their publisher. But I think what companies are going to find is that as everyone comes to notice this, the console market will flood with games (which is happening already), and the market WILL adjust. With that adjustment the revenues for lower tier games will start to dissapear (just ask 3DO). Ultimately, the PC will always have the advantage of the niche & the constantly upgrading high-end market. And both of those are important when it comes to gaming.
You have to understand something about Scalia, he isn't necessarily a straight "conservative" as many people believe. People like to draw political lines around Supreme Court justices because they are nominated by politically minded animals (presidents). But those types of labels don't apply nearly as broadly on the Judicial branch (realistically they do still apply somewhat). As for Scalia, he's a strict constructionist, which means he doesn't like interpretation of the Constitution, he prefers to use the literal meaning. This often makes him very conservative in his view points (for instance he believes Roe v. Wade to be abhorrent in its interpretation of the intent of the Constitution). But then he turns around a makes himself the critical 5th vote in ruling in Texas v. Johnson (flag burning) which makes him seem liberal. For him, it's not a matter of political ideals, it's a matter of Constitutional interpretation.
Many things move in cycles, video game genres are no different. These genres will suffer for quite a few years as an influx of casual gamers causes the simpler action games to become so profitable that the more complex types suffer in development support. What will cause an eventual upswing is the paradigm shift (a bit cliche, I know) that society will experience with general acceptance of computers. Kids will grow up surrounded by computers, video games, and even parents who played those games themselves. As the technology becomes more integrated and common, and its use becomes daily routine, tolerance for complexity will increase as unfimiliarity with the medium decreases. Markets for the more "hard-core" genres will be re-created as shear size of the potential audience grows, and as platforms for video games continue to penetrate deeper into our culture. What I mean is, selling 50,000 units of a complex game today, can mean selling 200,000 units of that game to a larger potential audience tommorow, making the difference between a dud and a hit. With little to no games filling those niches in the future, the smarter game development firms will recognize the opportunity, and enthusiasts at those companies will act accordingly. So basically:
"Don't Worry, Everything Is Going To Be Okay" (tm)
If these DoS attacks turn out to be a form of cyber-protest, it might be illegal, but is illegal action "bad" if its in protest of something morally corrupt.
The problem with this type of social protest is there is also a large incentive for financial gain for the attackers through options trading, especially with companies with stock prices in the hundreds of dollars like many of these have. And when an earlier computer crash brought EBays stock price tumbling something like 25% you don't have to be a financial genius to figure out the opportunity for profit when able to intentionally cause such incidents. Though I'm not so sure that financial concerns were involved this time (the SEC should have been able to track them down, but it's still too early to tell) this attack may very well give others the idea to try something on this order in the future just for the money.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really static? You assume researchers aren't going to try to use this raw data to generate any actual end product. I wouldn't make that assumption.
See Craig Venter's latest attempts at synthetic life, "Mycoplasma laboratorium".
One of the biggest downsides of ordering something from an online retailer is having to wait a variable amount of time to get your order (and having to pay an arm and a leg to get it fast). I've always thought that Wal-Mart was uniquely situated to offering online product ordering (not just for groceries) that gives you same day delivery for a relatively reasonable price. Their size and reach and efficient logistics puts them in a unique position to offer something like that, sort of a short range FedEx. I realize they already have in-store pickup, but I bet there would significant interest if they could offer full blown delivery at a reasonable price. Amazon isn't nearly large enough to develop this sort of thing, Wal-Mart is probably the only company that could. They order everything in massive quantities, they already replicate most of their merchandise across 50 states, and they're renowned for running a lean (and mean) company.
I mean, you can easily spend $5-10 to get something small delivered like a video game. Fuel may be expensive, but $5 of diesel can push a smaller delivery truck a long way. If you can order a video game in the morning, and have it delivered by 7:00 PM, even if they charge $5-10, I could see that being an easy call for a lot of people.
And in other news, hundreds of top programmers in Russia have been summarily convicted of tax evasion and embezzlement, and have been sentenced to 20 years hard labor in the Siberian software mines.
If Nvidia wanted to fight Intel/AMD on this, now would be the time. Under the Bush Administration anti-trust basically ground to a halt, the EU was pretty much the only one holding the line. Now you've got a Democrat president, and Eric Holder already confirmed as AG. A political shift is probably already under way at the Justice Department. Due partially to both Intel's success, and AMD's incompetence, Intel is dominating the CPU market right now. It wouldn't take much to draw anti-trust attention.
I think this programs future has been uncertain because of the uncertainty of its success. Remember what happened to the first one. Governments tend to be very wary of failure in expensive scientific endeavors, even if those failures teach us lessons necessary to succeed. Now that they've had a pretty stunning success, at the very least the millitary is going to be VERY interested in continuing this project (they're already funding this part) and even if NASA's budget doesn't allow for continuing this program with current priorities, I think the Military has been convinced this is a direction worth pursuing further. Just a guess on my part, but I bet you see new funding quite soon.
Overstock.com has it for a little over $79 plus a couple bucks for shipping.
I'm all for this list, heck my numbers on it, but shouldn't they just have the FCC do it instead? Wasn't that the problem, that the FTC didn't have the congressional authority to regulate telephone calls like the FCC did? I mean if there's this much support in congress and the administration doesn't it just make more sense that rather than add another law to the books (and give the FTC jurisdiction over something that they may not be suited for) just let the FCC take quick action? We know the FCC supported the idea since they "combined" their authority with the FTC's and just let the FTC run the list. The only reason I can see for the FCC not doing it is because supposedly the FCC chariman is independent of the administration and isn't supposed to be influenced in day to day matters, but they are supposedly in support of this, so what gives?
Until/Unless consoles replace PC's by having control schemes that allow for more tactile manipulation of games, PC's will always have a distinct advantage when dealing with strategy and first person shooter games (unsurprisingly two of the most popular types of games out there). Even with many industry analysts predicting the doom of PC gaming as soon as the console war started, little has changed in my opinion. PC's still have the largest range of franchises, since none of them are "exclusive" to other systems in its marketplace (the last Mac advantage went out the window with Bungie). Sales for hit PC games are still more than high enough to provide for large production budgets. And maybe most of all, the emergence of customization and "total conversions" has been the ace up the sleeve of the PC gaming scene, Counter-Strike anyone? One might point out that Counter-Strike may be coming to consoles, but it will have arrived years after being out for PC's, and will only be released after strict quality control testing, something that isn't necessary on PC's. The console advantage is supposedly that even mediocre games on the console sell well enough to make some money for their publisher. But I think what companies are going to find is that as everyone comes to notice this, the console market will flood with games (which is happening already), and the market WILL adjust. With that adjustment the revenues for lower tier games will start to dissapear (just ask 3DO). Ultimately, the PC will always have the advantage of the niche & the constantly upgrading high-end market. And both of those are important when it comes to gaming.
You have to understand something about Scalia, he isn't necessarily a straight "conservative" as many people believe. People like to draw political lines around Supreme Court justices because they are nominated by politically minded animals (presidents). But those types of labels don't apply nearly as broadly on the Judicial branch (realistically they do still apply somewhat). As for Scalia, he's a strict constructionist, which means he doesn't like interpretation of the Constitution, he prefers to use the literal meaning. This often makes him very conservative in his view points (for instance he believes Roe v. Wade to be abhorrent in its interpretation of the intent of the Constitution). But then he turns around a makes himself the critical 5th vote in ruling in Texas v. Johnson (flag burning) which makes him seem liberal. For him, it's not a matter of political ideals, it's a matter of Constitutional interpretation.
Many things move in cycles, video game genres are no different. These genres will suffer for quite a few years as an influx of casual gamers causes the simpler action games to become so profitable that the more complex types suffer in development support. What will cause an eventual upswing is the paradigm shift (a bit cliche, I know) that society will experience with general acceptance of computers. Kids will grow up surrounded by computers, video games, and even parents who played those games themselves. As the technology becomes more integrated and common, and its use becomes daily routine, tolerance for complexity will increase as unfimiliarity with the medium decreases. Markets for the more "hard-core" genres will be re-created as shear size of the potential audience grows, and as platforms for video games continue to penetrate deeper into our culture. What I mean is, selling 50,000 units of a complex game today, can mean selling 200,000 units of that game to a larger potential audience tommorow, making the difference between a dud and a hit. With little to no games filling those niches in the future, the smarter game development firms will recognize the opportunity, and enthusiasts at those companies will act accordingly. So basically:
"Don't Worry, Everything Is Going To Be Okay" (tm)
If these DoS attacks turn out to be a form of cyber-protest, it might be illegal, but is illegal action "bad" if its in protest of something morally corrupt.
The problem with this type of social protest is there is also a large incentive for financial gain for the attackers through options trading, especially with companies with stock prices in the hundreds of dollars like many of these have. And when an earlier computer crash brought EBays stock price tumbling something like 25% you don't have to be a financial genius to figure out the opportunity for profit when able to intentionally cause such incidents. Though I'm not so sure that financial concerns were involved this time (the SEC should have been able to track them down, but it's still too early to tell) this attack may very well give others the idea to try something on this order in the future just for the money.