"The following image is an interim version, with reprocessing and enhancements being made constantly. A larger, raw version (2.2 GB in size) is now online at NASA's Lunar Science Institute. Larger view."
As to where the poster found the Moon Views link, who can say:P
I imagine that might take awhile to load into your browser. I can't imagine pictures being posted online in the gigabyte range... maybe 50 years from now that will be a standard porn format, who knows o_O
Both scifi and fantasy deal with impossible things happening. The difference is scifi attempts to justify how an impossible thing could happen via some new technology. Fantasy allows impossible things to occur and makes absolutely no attempt to rationalize those happenings. So, yes, Scifi and Fantasy are related areas of fiction. Should also be mentioned that scifi tends to focus on the future and fantasy on the past.
I'm not surprised at all that the Three Mile Island breakdown was ultimately caused by government. Legislation tends to have unforeseen effects like this. I'm sure the builders would've loved to put in computer control and this tragedy would've never happened. When, when will we learn, when?
I would love to see a future where rich libertarians build floating cities free of the governmental restraints and constraints of the pandering politicians. Live free on the water! No taxes. Everything accomplished by contract. It's like a paradise *sigh*
It's not exactly true. If you produce for the Wii, you don't need to sell a million copies, you can sell 150,000 copies and make a profit if your production cost is just a few million dollars, as can easily be true when developing for the Wii.
But, if you plan to develop for the PS3 or 360, and make a blockbuster, $10 million is just a starting point, the art assets for such a game are staggering. Just look at Lair, it virtually bankrupted Factor 5, who bet the company on it and on the PS3 (and alienated all their Nintendo fans in the process), and got burned hardcore (They couldn't break out of the Rogue Squadron mindset, anyway). Rather ironic that, had Factor 5 made Lair for the Wii, it would've been far less expensive, the control scheme would've actually worked, and they would've retained their name-loyalty from all the people that loved Rogue Squadron on both N64 and Cube (those were truly great games). Then you absolutely do need to sell millions of copies. Someone noted that the Matrix game cost $30 million, they sold 5 million copies... still didn't break even. That's messed up. Meanwhile, many movies are having $20 - $50 million opening weekends.
Remember the days when games would ask you the word on page 14, paragraph 2? Lol
I had this one game I loved, 4 colors, played on an Apple IIc, played it over and over, some AD&D game, it was truly great. Every once and awhile it would pop up these questions, and I'd lost the manual at some point! But, I loved the game so much I remember some and the others I just kept guessing and eventually learned 'em, until there was only like 2 questions I could never get, but it was still worth it.
Drudge's line for original news is on his site, though many don't see it, a little box that reads: "SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE[ANONYMITY GUARANTEED]".
While many send links, some send actual news. This news is then vetted by Drudge, as any professional reporter must do (save perhaps Dan Rather), so that the news reporter doesn't get taken by a prank or embarrass themselves.
When it came to Lewinsky, this is exactly what happened. Drudge broke that story, wrote the copy.
And you're aware that modern newspapers are news aggregators just like Drudge, adding little more than local flavor, etc.
You're also aware that Drudge breaks stories when he gets them, and conducts original reporting, just like the regular newspapers do, which they then submit to the AP, which is then aggregated (or printed) in newspapers everywhere. Did you forget that Drudge got his big break by breaking a story that the MSM did not want to report on, the Lewinsky scandal?
In other words, Drudge is not different from other newspaper at all.
There's nothing to stop a web-version of the AP from starting-up and thriving. The AP too will adapt or be replaced.
Today's version of news has lost its relevance, news organizations today try to create news rather than report it (Dan Rather, anyone?). Our news-makers lie to us, bury news on purpose (seen any Tea Party reporting lately? Me neither. Meanwhile, tiny leftist photo-op events have more reporters than protesters show up, and are big news).
Twitter, for instance, is closer to the original intent of news than anything. Citizen reporters and news created by crowd-reporting and crowd-interest, and concepts along these lines, seem to me to have a high chance of replacing the traditional biased-but-pretending-not-to-be-biased professional journalism. All I want is the facts of what's happening, and today's news completely fails at that goal. Every article in today's newspaper is an opinion piece. And if you've ever had a reporter interview you and write an article about you, you see then what a ripoff news is, what a lie today's news is, how slanted today's news is: in other words, how irrelevant today's news is.
News that is not news, is not news.
Because of that, who cares about print journalism. Obviously, so few that the papers are going bankrupt. Good riddance.
That's bullshit, if a news organization cannot survive in the market it doesn't deserve to exist. We don't need another NPR-style organization. News is not Sesame St. for adults. The papers are facing the 21st century with a 19th century technology, WHAT DID THEY THINK WAS GONNA HAPPEN? Meanwhile, New York Times still makes me laugh every time someone links to it and it asks for registration, BS, I close the window right there. Drudge is 21st century news, adapt or die.
If the song you play can be identified and reproduced to a good degree of the distortion created by your room and the bass levels, then removing that from the data stream is not particularly difficult. You would actually have to play two different songs at some non-standard or perhaps continuously variable playback-rate in order to create something hard to find and duplicate so that it couldn't be simply removed from the recording. It's like those Bose noise-canceling headphones, by sampling the sound as it comes in they can subtract that sound from what you actually hear. The same would apply here.
Are you crazy, $20 million? WTF is wrong with you, $20 billion more like. Okay, $40 billion, you talked me into it. This is a crisis WORSE THAN THE GREAT DEPRESSION, duh? To hell with it, new plan: we send $1 billion to everyone in the USA, that will -seriously- ramp up spending, I'm super seriously. And don't you dare call this trying to dig your way out of a hole:P
You're so right ^_^ My main gripe about Mac, and the main reason I don't think I could ever get used to one, is I want more than one goddamn button on my mouse >:
We can only hope that the transition to Internet 2 occurs in our lifetime, that will be a chance to revolutionize very many static technologies that are hard to remove from our lives.
Developers do not appreciate this at all. Live is more successful, both from a consumer and developer point of view. Not all consumers want to play online at all, so they don't need to pay for it. And shifting the burden to developers, to put them in a position where the more popular their game is the more money it costs them is not a good position at all.
Yeah, my memory ain't what it used to be;P I took a guess on the year, the facts are right though according to the professor I took the factoid from, clearly I got the decade off. Perhaps it was 1910, or 1900's. Let this be a lesson to you kids;P
Land is sold to the highest bidder. The highest bidder is the highest bidder because he believes the use he will put that land to is what society needs the most, he judges this by the price that use will bring in the market.
If they're building condos over apricot land, it's because society needs condos more than apricots, because that land is more useful as living space than as growing space.
Not exactly. The problem is how to provide incentive for those with rare but useful information to spread that info in society. Doesn't matter what topic we're worried about, that is a problem all of society has. The answer to that problem is a futures market on events.
As for manipulating the markets... lol. Let's say our janitor does bet that reactor 5 is currently leaking. If that's true there's no way to manipulate it. All that can be done is to take his bet. If someone takes his bet, buys his future, that simply generates more interest in that event. Since the janitor knows the reactor is leaking, and someone has taken his bet, he's likely to clap his hands in joy and bet more, which leads to more interest, more activity, etc.
As a regulator you track activity, it doesn't really matter whether the market has an event going up or down.
What actually happens when a futures market on events occurs is that multiple people with independent info about an event occurring can bet it's going to occur. Those who disagree take that bet. When lots of people bet something's gonna happen and no one bets against it, chances are that's good info about an event about to happen.
How exactly do you manipulate this, then? Bet millions of dollars on fake events occurring? I suppose it's possible, if you're willing to lose the money. However, you'd be just one person. Do you then create multiple fake personalities to bet in a similar way? So you draw attention to a non-event, but you can't achieve a groundswell, as happens with a natural event. And you cannot manipulate a market into deflecting attention, you can only draw attention.
I'm not an expert on these types of markets, however, just know that they do work extremely well for what they're designed to do: place value on rare and useful information that would help society if it were known. The market offers no way to subvert that process.
It's too bad predictive markets have been ruled politically impossible.
If you create a futures market for prediction of future events you give people incentive to share the info they have, and a way to benefit from putting this information on the market, to pay them for sharing knowledge. The Pentagon tried to create such a market for terrorist attacks a number of years ago and the political establishment caught wind of it and murdered it in its crib, calling it a cynical way to make money from terrorist attacks. The truth is, it's a damn effective way to get people to share rare but critical info and no other mechanism is as effective.
This reminds me of an old quote that is apropos in today's political and news-climate: "We should never choose what we want to be true over what we know to be true." Politics shouldn't kill things that produce results.
So, if you want to predict ecological disasters, nothing is stopping us from doing things in a similar way. Some lonely janitor in a nuclear facility with inside info about how poorly the place is being run could bet a thousand dollars in the ecological futures market that said reactor was going to experience an environmental problem within the next year and that would quickly become a sign, as others in the know bet the same way, that the place needs attention and needs it now.
Slashdot Mirror
On the Moon Views site.
The post above mine gave this link: http://www.moonviews.com/archives/2009/03/newly_restored_picture_of_the.html to another news item about this photo, and just above the first photo in the piece is a link to the 2gb version. Located in this paragraph:
"The following image is an interim version, with reprocessing and enhancements being made constantly. A larger, raw version (2.2 GB in size) is now online at NASA's Lunar Science Institute. Larger view."
As to where the poster found the Moon Views link, who can say :P
Here's a nice hi-res image: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/lo2.copernicus.med.jpg
Approx 2160px × 1825px and 700 kb
And if you're really brave, there's a 2gb scan online!!!
http://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/files/LOVframe162h3.tif
I imagine that might take awhile to load into your browser. I can't imagine pictures being posted online in the gigabyte range... maybe 50 years from now that will be a standard porn format, who knows o_O
Damn, we call it the 'oldest profession' and had no idea just how far back it went :P
Both scifi and fantasy deal with impossible things happening. The difference is scifi attempts to justify how an impossible thing could happen via some new technology. Fantasy allows impossible things to occur and makes absolutely no attempt to rationalize those happenings. So, yes, Scifi and Fantasy are related areas of fiction. Should also be mentioned that scifi tends to focus on the future and fantasy on the past.
I'm not surprised at all that the Three Mile Island breakdown was ultimately caused by government. Legislation tends to have unforeseen effects like this. I'm sure the builders would've loved to put in computer control and this tragedy would've never happened. When, when will we learn, when?
Government, get out of the way.
I would love to see a future where rich libertarians build floating cities free of the governmental restraints and constraints of the pandering politicians. Live free on the water! No taxes. Everything accomplished by contract. It's like a paradise *sigh*
So, our future AI overlords begin their research with the Lysine Contingency? Should we be worried?
See, FileFront got their bailout, THE SYSTEM WORKS.
It's not exactly true. If you produce for the Wii, you don't need to sell a million copies, you can sell 150,000 copies and make a profit if your production cost is just a few million dollars, as can easily be true when developing for the Wii.
But, if you plan to develop for the PS3 or 360, and make a blockbuster, $10 million is just a starting point, the art assets for such a game are staggering. Just look at Lair, it virtually bankrupted Factor 5, who bet the company on it and on the PS3 (and alienated all their Nintendo fans in the process), and got burned hardcore (They couldn't break out of the Rogue Squadron mindset, anyway). Rather ironic that, had Factor 5 made Lair for the Wii, it would've been far less expensive, the control scheme would've actually worked, and they would've retained their name-loyalty from all the people that loved Rogue Squadron on both N64 and Cube (those were truly great games). Then you absolutely do need to sell millions of copies. Someone noted that the Matrix game cost $30 million, they sold 5 million copies... still didn't break even. That's messed up. Meanwhile, many movies are having $20 - $50 million opening weekends.
Remember the days when games would ask you the word on page 14, paragraph 2? Lol
I had this one game I loved, 4 colors, played on an Apple IIc, played it over and over, some AD&D game, it was truly great. Every once and awhile it would pop up these questions, and I'd lost the manual at some point! But, I loved the game so much I remember some and the others I just kept guessing and eventually learned 'em, until there was only like 2 questions I could never get, but it was still worth it.
Drudge's line for original news is on his site, though many don't see it, a little box that reads: "SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE[ANONYMITY GUARANTEED]".
While many send links, some send actual news. This news is then vetted by Drudge, as any professional reporter must do (save perhaps Dan Rather), so that the news reporter doesn't get taken by a prank or embarrass themselves.
When it came to Lewinsky, this is exactly what happened. Drudge broke that story, wrote the copy.
And you're aware that modern newspapers are news aggregators just like Drudge, adding little more than local flavor, etc.
You're also aware that Drudge breaks stories when he gets them, and conducts original reporting, just like the regular newspapers do, which they then submit to the AP, which is then aggregated (or printed) in newspapers everywhere. Did you forget that Drudge got his big break by breaking a story that the MSM did not want to report on, the Lewinsky scandal?
In other words, Drudge is not different from other newspaper at all.
There's nothing to stop a web-version of the AP from starting-up and thriving. The AP too will adapt or be replaced.
Today's version of news has lost its relevance, news organizations today try to create news rather than report it (Dan Rather, anyone?). Our news-makers lie to us, bury news on purpose (seen any Tea Party reporting lately? Me neither. Meanwhile, tiny leftist photo-op events have more reporters than protesters show up, and are big news).
Twitter, for instance, is closer to the original intent of news than anything. Citizen reporters and news created by crowd-reporting and crowd-interest, and concepts along these lines, seem to me to have a high chance of replacing the traditional biased-but-pretending-not-to-be-biased professional journalism. All I want is the facts of what's happening, and today's news completely fails at that goal. Every article in today's newspaper is an opinion piece. And if you've ever had a reporter interview you and write an article about you, you see then what a ripoff news is, what a lie today's news is, how slanted today's news is: in other words, how irrelevant today's news is.
News that is not news, is not news.
Because of that, who cares about print journalism. Obviously, so few that the papers are going bankrupt. Good riddance.
That's bullshit, if a news organization cannot survive in the market it doesn't deserve to exist. We don't need another NPR-style organization. News is not Sesame St. for adults. The papers are facing the 21st century with a 19th century technology, WHAT DID THEY THINK WAS GONNA HAPPEN? Meanwhile, New York Times still makes me laugh every time someone links to it and it asks for registration, BS, I close the window right there. Drudge is 21st century news, adapt or die.
If the song you play can be identified and reproduced to a good degree of the distortion created by your room and the bass levels, then removing that from the data stream is not particularly difficult. You would actually have to play two different songs at some non-standard or perhaps continuously variable playback-rate in order to create something hard to find and duplicate so that it couldn't be simply removed from the recording. It's like those Bose noise-canceling headphones, by sampling the sound as it comes in they can subtract that sound from what you actually hear. The same would apply here.
Are you crazy, $20 million? WTF is wrong with you, $20 billion more like. Okay, $40 billion, you talked me into it. This is a crisis WORSE THAN THE GREAT DEPRESSION, duh? To hell with it, new plan: we send $1 billion to everyone in the USA, that will -seriously- ramp up spending, I'm super seriously. And don't you dare call this trying to dig your way out of a hole :P
Clearly Filefront is too big to fail, let's talk bailout. I can have Obama on the phone in 15 minutes flat, how's 2... no, $10 billion sound?
Take a lesson from Ghost in the Shell, hire digital Tachikoma to protect you :) Problem solved!
You're so right ^_^ My main gripe about Mac, and the main reason I don't think I could ever get used to one, is I want more than one goddamn button on my mouse >:
We can only hope that the transition to Internet 2 occurs in our lifetime, that will be a chance to revolutionize very many static technologies that are hard to remove from our lives.
Developers do not appreciate this at all. Live is more successful, both from a consumer and developer point of view. Not all consumers want to play online at all, so they don't need to pay for it. And shifting the burden to developers, to put them in a position where the more popular their game is the more money it costs them is not a good position at all.
Yeah, my memory ain't what it used to be ;P I took a guess on the year, the facts are right though according to the professor I took the factoid from, clearly I got the decade off. Perhaps it was 1910, or 1900's. Let this be a lesson to you kids ;P
More ignorance of economics?
Land is sold to the highest bidder. The highest bidder is the highest bidder because he believes the use he will put that land to is what society needs the most, he judges this by the price that use will bring in the market.
If they're building condos over apricot land, it's because society needs condos more than apricots, because that land is more useful as living space than as growing space.
Not exactly. The problem is how to provide incentive for those with rare but useful information to spread that info in society. Doesn't matter what topic we're worried about, that is a problem all of society has. The answer to that problem is a futures market on events.
As for manipulating the markets... lol. Let's say our janitor does bet that reactor 5 is currently leaking. If that's true there's no way to manipulate it. All that can be done is to take his bet. If someone takes his bet, buys his future, that simply generates more interest in that event. Since the janitor knows the reactor is leaking, and someone has taken his bet, he's likely to clap his hands in joy and bet more, which leads to more interest, more activity, etc.
As a regulator you track activity, it doesn't really matter whether the market has an event going up or down.
What actually happens when a futures market on events occurs is that multiple people with independent info about an event occurring can bet it's going to occur. Those who disagree take that bet. When lots of people bet something's gonna happen and no one bets against it, chances are that's good info about an event about to happen.
How exactly do you manipulate this, then? Bet millions of dollars on fake events occurring? I suppose it's possible, if you're willing to lose the money. However, you'd be just one person. Do you then create multiple fake personalities to bet in a similar way? So you draw attention to a non-event, but you can't achieve a groundswell, as happens with a natural event. And you cannot manipulate a market into deflecting attention, you can only draw attention.
I'm not an expert on these types of markets, however, just know that they do work extremely well for what they're designed to do: place value on rare and useful information that would help society if it were known. The market offers no way to subvert that process.
It's too bad predictive markets have been ruled politically impossible.
If you create a futures market for prediction of future events you give people incentive to share the info they have, and a way to benefit from putting this information on the market, to pay them for sharing knowledge. The Pentagon tried to create such a market for terrorist attacks a number of years ago and the political establishment caught wind of it and murdered it in its crib, calling it a cynical way to make money from terrorist attacks. The truth is, it's a damn effective way to get people to share rare but critical info and no other mechanism is as effective.
This reminds me of an old quote that is apropos in today's political and news-climate: "We should never choose what we want to be true over what we know to be true." Politics shouldn't kill things that produce results.
So, if you want to predict ecological disasters, nothing is stopping us from doing things in a similar way. Some lonely janitor in a nuclear facility with inside info about how poorly the place is being run could bet a thousand dollars in the ecological futures market that said reactor was going to experience an environmental problem within the next year and that would quickly become a sign, as others in the know bet the same way, that the place needs attention and needs it now.