The floating platform enables them to take the turbines to where the wind blows and birds are few, and people even fewer. His objective in commencing this project 12 years ago was to come up with a power solution for developing nations.
If it's for developing nations, why not take it where the wind blows and the birds are many. He could provide power and an unlimited supply of pre-diced stir fry at the same time!
I like to play all kinds of games...on a variety of systems. My son and I play games on the PC, PS2, Xbox, GameCube...and they range from Warcraft, to Halo to Grand Turismo...to Civilization.:)
And all of that legitimately tax deductible. Nevermind how much fun the guy has at work, that's the really cool part. Government subsidized computers, console, and games. I'm in the wrong industry.*
Cheers -b
* (well, I do get to deduct pr0n, so I guess it's not all that bad)
So if this guy's willing to but his money where his mouth is, I will cheerfully sell him a copy of Windows XP SP2 with a guarantee that it will not delete any of his data, crash, or otherwise act badly.
My sale price will be (retail cost of XP) + ((Cost of LLoyd's insurance policy)*1.10). What's the big deal? For a mere million percent of the retail price, this guy can get the kind of product liability he wants.
My point is that this guy is missing the point: liability is a market force. The fact that he doesn't mention the flip side -- that increased product liability would mean increased costs for software companies and those would be passed on in the price of software -- shows that he's more in the "I'm entitled to a perfect world, at no cost to me" camp than the "Every piece of software should be flawless, whatever the cost" camp.
Sure, it's possible. For that matter, isn't it possible that all sex is rape?
As soon as you use a phrase like "just because a person agrees to it," all bets are off. That's the rationale that permits outlawing rare beef or proper caesar salads in restaurants, lets me sue the skydiving company when I break an ankle even after signing a waiver, and so on.
For the record, BDSM is no more abuse than sex is rape. The key element that keeps either from being really arguable is the concept of *prior consent*. At that point, so long as everyone involved is responsible for themselves (that is, over 18 years old, not mentally ill, etc), what people do should be entirely their business, no matter how distasteful you or anyone else might find it.
New "photographs" may be useless for archival purposes
Scientiests say that the dyes used in so-called "cameras" may not provide the kind of lasting record that traditional stone tablets have provided. In fact, left in bright sunlight for 50 years or more, photographs may be completely unreadable by even the latest 1890 technology.
This will surely mean the demise of modern civilization, since future generations are very unlikely to care enough about the past to devote any energy at all into preservation and reclamation of older information. Anything that can't be read by 1900 is likely to be lost forever.
It's yet another sad commentary on the state of modern civilization, and one more reason why manufacturers of stone tablets and chisels shouldn't throw into the towel too soon.
Unfortunately, this sounds like yet another case of mistaking perception for reality. While "pornified" is a clever title, in reality the interesting here is the increasing *acceptance* of porn, not its increased availability.
People like food, and look at all of the food porn out there: magazines, cable channels, websites, etc.
People like shelter, and again, look at all of the home porn out there: magazines, cable channels, websites, etc.
People like sex, and, surprise, all of that same stuff exists (and always has, since the invention of the appropriate mediums).
The real revolution here is that the internet has made it clear to everyone that they're not the only ones who like sex. In fact, as most of us suspected all along, the puritans are in the minority, and it was only through dilligent and thorough application of the shame principle that they kept everyone else from realizing that sexuality is totally normal.
Bottom line: sounds like the book makes valid points based on flawed assumptions.
Hey now. So you're not into the game, can't tell the difference between plays... yet you're knowledgeable enoguh to complain that there's not a lot of new stuff happening?
Your same argument could be made about modern art ("it all looks the same"), rock music ("it all sounds the same"), etc. It basically boils down to "I'm not well enough educated in the subject to understand it, but let me tell you why it's no good."
And saying that any given play is either dependent on the coach *or* a player is terribly ignorant; it's like saying that the success of a tech product comes down to *either* the CEO or *an* engineer. It doesn't make any sense; like any team activity, the interesting thing is the sum of the contributions and interactions by everyone involved.
Football's not for everyone, certainly. Heck, I have a lot of problems with it. But then again, I understand the game well enough to have *educated* complaints.
You're right that football involves a lot of standing around. However, if you think that's the sport, you're seriously missing the point.
The *reason* there's so much standing around in football is that the 4-10 seconds when a play is happening is a pretty serious exercise in complexity. You have 11 people on offense and 11 on defense, all dynamically reacting to each other.
In a basic play where things go pretty much right on both offense and defense, there are probably about 100 human interactions in 5 seconds. In more complex plays, and plays where something doesn't go right, that number is much higher. Between planned blocking assignments, adjustments to blocking by the QB, center, or defensive captain (often a linebacker), then the defensive backs who are trying to 1) cover a receiver, but 2) come back in to help if it's a running game, but 3) not get tricked by play action, and 4) either block the reciever or not be blocked themselves... the permutations can get pretty enormous.
It takes some time to reset and get ready to go again, because if you didn't stop, you'd have something more like rugby, basketball, or (everywhere else in the world) football. All of them great sports, mind you, but all of them too fluid to allow for highly compelx plays, let alone highly complex gamesmanship by coaches.
The reason Americans like football is that sense of stop/start. Everyone lines up, and other than what players are on the field (it's different each play), nobody knows what's going to happen in the next few seconds. But *something* involving about 5,500 pounds of human flesh is going to go down.
Because football has those stops and starts, coaches have time to play a mental game with each play. It's 3rd and 2; will they go for the (relatively likely) run play, or will they bet that the defense is heavily stacking against the run and therefore more vulnerable to play action or a pass?
As you might guess, I'm a huge football fan. I hate TV timeouts (commercials), and there are certainly times when the game grinds to a halt. But you're dead wrong in thinking that 1) not a lot happens in football, and 2) football fans like it that way.
I'm with you about football in general. I'm a huge fan of the game and have done what I coudl to educate myself about it thoroughly; after 20 years or so of watching, I pretty much grasp what's going on in real life.
However, I disagree with your assesment of why Madden is pretty much the same each year. In my opinion, it's become a case of diminishing returns for EA; they *could* make it better, but it's cheaper not too, and doesn't hurt sales (especially when you lock up and exclusive license!)
Remember when Madden was new and innovative, and everyone talked about how it was the most detailed and realistic "simulation"? Things like hot routes and defensive audibles made the game hands-down the most accurate representation of football (although, in my opinion, not always the most fun game to play).
The QB cam thing in the new version is a weak attempt to continue that. Weak because it's trying to simulate a *physical* participatory element of the game in a video game. It doesn't make any sense: playing football on a TV, we're already subject to many limitations. Taking away an offsetting advantage -- being able to see the whole field -- is just weird.
What the Madden team *should* be doing is following a two-pronged approach. First, continue modeling the game in greater detail. Let me design my own defensive line stunts. Let me control a receiver as he catches the ball (a slight push-off, maybe). Give me a greater ability to design and customize plays, and an easier way to deal with substitutions.
Then, since the game is getting a lot more complex, completely revamp the "training camp" portion of the game so that it really educates players. Provide a mode where you it walks you through the same offensive play against a couple of different defenses, and points out what to look for ("See, in the 3-4 defense with the outside linebacker in the normal position, your tight end runs right past him rather than blocking, and you get sacked. When the defense moves the linebacker to a down position, your tight end knows to block, and your QB has to take that receiver out of the equation").
However, clearly that's a complex undertaking and there's only so much money to be made. Better to sew up the license and just do minor roster updates.
If you play with the flash-based demonstration on TFA's site, you'll see that the gap, if any, is speedy indeed.
(For those who didn't / couldn't / wouldn't go to the site, basically it's a series of more or less random images, each one staying for 1/10th of a second or so, with a "target" image buried in the sequence. The "target" is identifiable because it's rotated 90 degrees)
However, they don't include a control: a series of images *without* a a "disturbing" image. From my way of thinking and from my firsthand experience with the site, it may be that the same "blindess" would be caused whenever there's an image rotated 90 degrees.
I'm sure the research is more thorough than that, but the implementation here doesn't seem to reflect that. Unless I'm just missing something.
How about stories about lesbians munching pussy? How about telling ones' friends over the phone about a hot pussy-munching session?
If the discussion and depiction of sexuality isn't speech, then what other types of content somehow don't count? Discussion / depiction of violence? Advertisements? Culturally worthless, sex-oriented TV shows?
I don't know about you, but I positively expect and demand that my sexual expression should be at least as protected as McDonalds' "really, it's health food" commercials.
And you're wrong about any kind of drift in the interpretation of the constitution, at least at the federal level. To the best of my knowledge, the only times where the issue of pornography has come up at the Supreme Court, it has always been ruled as protected speech (note that this excludes "obscenity", that troublesomely vague concept that essentially outlaws "bad taste" and leaves it up to every jury to define "bad taste" for themselves).
Yeah, because the country would be a lot better off if things like Watergate never came to light. The whole problem here is that irksome press that insists on *reporting* that our elected officials are crooks and liars. Make those inside sources identify themselves publicly, and stop the truth in its tracks!
FWIW, I personally think that someone should go to jail for the Plame incident. However, using that once incident to justify ditching anonymous sources in general is absolutely crazy.
Actually, the proposed law says that any website that is covered by the Title 18, Section 2257 will be taxed. 2257 is the law providing that all adult content shall be considered child porn unless the producers and distributors can prove that it's not. Doesn't matter if it's grandma porn, if you don't meet 2257 it's serious bad news.
Of course, 2257 itself has recently been expanded to cover sites that carry so much as banner ads that contain content that's covered by 2257, so this proposed tax would hit LiveJournal and other sites that allow users to post banner ads or thumbnails that show depictions of "actual sexual activity" as defined in 2257.
That expansion is currently being fought in court by the Free Speech Coalition, and who knows how that will go. Best case, the new regulations get thrown out and we go back to the old (already very onerous) ones, which would mean that 2257 (and therefor this proposed tax) would only cover websites that produce their own content, and not "seconday producers" who buy content elsewhere.
It's a total clusterfuck, and between the vagueness and presumption of guilt inherent in the proposed tax, the content-specific nature of the tax, and the way it's linked to the already nonsensical and legally endangered 2257 regulations, I can't see this tax actually being implemented. It makes for good "we Democrats are just as 'moral' and censorius as those Republicans" sound bites, though.
Oh, and if somehow the tax *were* implemented, all it means is that the cost of porn goes up 30% or so across the board. It's not going to hurt pornographers: sales don't dip when we raise prices, and even if costs only went up by the amount of the tax (and don't count on that), extra cashflow is always helpful, even if it doesn't amount to extra bottom line income.
Gillen seems to be suggesting that linking pacifism with good guys and violence with monsters is somehow "liberal." The corrollary, I suppose, is that in a game shop that could be characterized as "conservative," the monsters would be suggesting peace and the good ol' boys would be advocating random and terrible acts of violence.
On the one hand, I'm not convinced that a world view with "violent monsters" is inherently "liberal," and on the other hand I'm a little dismayed that anyone (whichever meaningless dogmatic label they choose) would argue that "conservatives" would make nice cheerful, peaceful monsters.
I think we have a case here of a valid point (developers' opinions and world views inevitably appearing in their work) being stretched to a rather ridiculous degree.
There is no other explanation for the recent series of coincidental stories and events
Pshaw. He may or may not be right about the MS conspiracy, but this kind of blantant intellecutal dishonesty makes me take his point with a huge grain of salt, since right there he demonstrates that he either doesn't understand things as much as he pretends, or that he's chosen not to relate as much as he understands. Either way, minus points.
There are plenty of other explanations for the "recent series of coincidental stories and events":
It could be a coincidence. Duh.
The press has occaisionally been known (this may come as a surprise to you) to follow itself around and get sucked into "trendy" stories, even if they're not at all newsworthy. School shootings, mothers killing kids, celebrity whatever. You'd have to live under a rock not to notice this phenomenon.
There could be a conspiracy by someone other than Microsoft. If I were looking around for a villain who was covertly planting stories to disparage a major P2P application, I can think of some more likely candidates. Two of 'em, in fact, and they share a couple letters of their acronym.
There you go. Three easy, plausible alternatives. "No other explanation," indeed.
How are we going to secure our borders without a national ID system? A nation without the power to control its own borders isn't really nation. It's just a hunk of land.
Damn, so for the past 229 years, the United States hasn't really been a nation? Just a hunk of land? And this ID card will fix that?
And remind me exactly how a national ID card will "secure our borders"? Last time I checked, most illegal immigration happened away from our border checkpoints. How exactly will that change with a national ID card?
I'd certainly agree that people should do research before diving into HDTV. However, there's a ton of misinformation in the parent post.
- The HDTV spec includes three resolution,s not two: 1080p in addition to 720p and 1080i. Few devices support 1080p today, but a bunch will appear around the end of this year.
- Any modern HDTV will support both 720p and 1080i. There may be scaling going on (and the quality of that scaling is the point of the original article), but any modern device will happily display both.
- DLP and LCD devices can certainly do scaling as well as anything else. CRT's are the only devices that can switch their native resolution, but with the proper signal DLP, LCD, and LCOS are all fine with 720p and 1080i.
- I have never seen an HDTV device that accepts only its native resolution. At the very least, they've always accepted 480i (NTSC) and 480p (progressive scan DVD's) in addition to their native resolution. I haven't seen a device manufactured in the past three years that couldn't accept all current HDTV resolutions (that is, everything except 1080p).
- Fox is not "way behind" in HDTV support: last season, they broadcast 6 or 7 HDTV football games a week. CBS did 2 HDTV gaames and the rest in SD.
- Most XBox games don't even support 720p. And again, native resolution is meaningless with a decent scaler, which more and more devices have built into them today.
- "Most" projectors that are intended for home theater use are indeed HDTV capable today, though many of the cheaper ones (http://www.projectorcentral.com/ , http://www.avsforum.com/ , and good old Google.
The only problem is that while you're out there yelling and screaming to get the fuck out before someone dies, most of the real world is inside getting on with life, annoyed in equal parts with the poor construction of the house and with the maniacs outside who are screaming bloody murder all night.
Linux / Windows is *not* a life or death choice for most of us who have jobs to do. So-called advocates who would present it as such do far more harm than good to Linux's reputation in the business world.
If the top secret information has made it to some random journalist, it's probably too late to keep the secret. And trade secret law IS unconstitutional if it gags those who have not agreed to the confidentiality agreements.
What you're saying is that the law only applies to first actors. If someone steals something, it's illegal, but if you resell stolen property it's all cool. I can see an argument there, but I can't say that I'm entirely sympathetic. The way I see it, someone who makes their living as a fence for stolen goods is a criminal. To the extent that you support trade secret law and confidentiality agreements, can you really argue that it should be legal to repeatedly, professionally, and commercially receive and publish information provided by someone who is violatiing those legally binding agreements... and have some kind of constitutional right not to identify the thief, so your commercial endeavor can continue without interruption?
If you really, truly support that position... please elaborate on how either 1) you believe fencing stolen goods should be legal, or 2) you believe that stolen documents or trade secrets should be less protected than stolen goods. If you're going for 2), please follow up by explaining why I should be prosecuted for identity theft if I happen to come into posession of your SSN and address and order a couple of thousand dollars worth of goods.
By your argument it should be legal to yell the proverbial "fire" in a crowded theater, or to lie to potential investors about a company's finances.
Heck, by your argument trade secret law is unconstitutional, and "top secret" information should be legally publishable willy-nilly.
You've confused two issues here. First, freedom of speech has never covered the publication of stolen (or secret) documents; it is the freedom to say what you think and to communicate freely. That does not mean you're free to consipire to kill people; it means that you can express unpopular opinions (or at least it used to; today that's not so clear).
Second, you're touching on public interest, ala Watergate. The judge also wrote a cogent bit about that and how there's a difference between public interest in corruption in govenment and, as he put it, an "interested public" that's just hungry for details about whether the next iCrap will be pink or purple.
Because other forms of advertising tend to be iterative; that is, you put together a print ad and tell the local paper to run it for the next four sundays. Or you buy TV time and run a particlar ad a few times.
While the restaurant was clearly stupid for not doing anything even after being warned, I'm not at all convinced that commercial enterprises are (or should be) under an obligation to find and destroy all out of date promotional material. Which is essentially what this judgement amounts to.
Once you start a website, should you be legally obligated to keep it up to date? What if it's a personal website that gives obsolte directions on how to get somewhere? This seems like a really hasty and simplistic decision by people who haven't thought the situation through.
Ah, the old "sometimes true = always true" argument.
Nobody, including the guy you're responding to, denied that CFC's deplete ozone. The question is, to what degree are CFC's responsible for the measured ozone depletion we've seen over the past 20 years or so.
Nothing in a complex system is black and white. The whole point of this article, and the poster you replied to, is that this is a good example of why it's overly simplistic to link CFC's to ozone depletion and to believe that, therefore, reducing CFC emissions will necessarily have a significant impact on the rate of ozone depletion.
More evidence is always good. Jumping to conclusions is generally bad. Black-and-white answers to questions raised by complex systems are generally flawed. Simple as that.
Universe Takes Off
The entire rest of the Universe suddenly accelerated to over 670km/sec and is fleeing our vicinity at an astonishing rate. In fact, the Universe seems to have decided to move a large region of intergalactic space into our vicinity, which will have a dramatic negative effect on property values.
Scientists are at a loss to explain the sudden move by the entire Universe, but have assured the Theocracy that the subspace ether is still intact and that our sun is still planted firmly in exactly the same spot it always has been. The scientists did say that the sudden movement by the entire Universe may have stressed the subspace ether, and that concerned citizens should at least double their daily offerings to Zugbat lest our sun lose its attachment to the ether and be sucked across space with the rest of the Universe.
There will be an execution of two atheists who suggested that our sun had begun moving at a high rate of speed, and not the rest of the universe. See page 6.
I agree with all of your points, but have a minor quibble with your terminology.
I think you want "totalitarian" where you used "socialist." There are plenty of democratic socialist countries (Sweden, for instance, and some would say Canada). And you could have a democratic communist country; "democracy" is a political system, whereas "communism" is an economic system.
Sure, in point of fact, most communist governments have been totalitarian. But it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. And socialism certainly doesn't correlate with dictatorships or totalitarian regimes.
Not a huge big deal; it's just that that confusion of terms is a pet peeve of mine.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's for developing nations, why not take it where the wind blows and the birds are many. He could provide power and an unlimited supply of pre-diced stir fry at the same time!
Cheers
-b
And all of that legitimately tax deductible. Nevermind how much fun the guy has at work, that's the really cool part. Government subsidized computers, console, and games. I'm in the wrong industry.*
Cheers
-b
* (well, I do get to deduct pr0n, so I guess it's not all that bad)
So if this guy's willing to but his money where his mouth is, I will cheerfully sell him a copy of Windows XP SP2 with a guarantee that it will not delete any of his data, crash, or otherwise act badly.
My sale price will be (retail cost of XP) + ((Cost of LLoyd's insurance policy)*1.10). What's the big deal? For a mere million percent of the retail price, this guy can get the kind of product liability he wants.
My point is that this guy is missing the point: liability is a market force. The fact that he doesn't mention the flip side -- that increased product liability would mean increased costs for software companies and those would be passed on in the price of software -- shows that he's more in the "I'm entitled to a perfect world, at no cost to me" camp than the "Every piece of software should be flawless, whatever the cost" camp.
Cheers
-b
Sure, it's possible. For that matter, isn't it possible that all sex is rape?
As soon as you use a phrase like "just because a person agrees to it," all bets are off. That's the rationale that permits outlawing rare beef or proper caesar salads in restaurants, lets me sue the skydiving company when I break an ankle even after signing a waiver, and so on.
For the record, BDSM is no more abuse than sex is rape. The key element that keeps either from being really arguable is the concept of *prior consent*. At that point, so long as everyone involved is responsible for themselves (that is, over 18 years old, not mentally ill, etc), what people do should be entirely their business, no matter how distasteful you or anyone else might find it.
Cheers
-b
Dateline: February, 1890
New "photographs" may be useless for archival purposes
Scientiests say that the dyes used in so-called "cameras" may not provide the kind of lasting record that traditional stone tablets have provided. In fact, left in bright sunlight for 50 years or more, photographs may be completely unreadable by even the latest 1890 technology.
This will surely mean the demise of modern civilization, since future generations are very unlikely to care enough about the past to devote any energy at all into preservation and reclamation of older information. Anything that can't be read by 1900 is likely to be lost forever.
It's yet another sad commentary on the state of modern civilization, and one more reason why manufacturers of stone tablets and chisels shouldn't throw into the towel too soon.
Cheers
-b
Unfortunately, this sounds like yet another case of mistaking perception for reality. While "pornified" is a clever title, in reality the interesting here is the increasing *acceptance* of porn, not its increased availability.
People like food, and look at all of the food porn out there: magazines, cable channels, websites, etc.
People like shelter, and again, look at all of the home porn out there: magazines, cable channels, websites, etc.
People like sex, and, surprise, all of that same stuff exists (and always has, since the invention of the appropriate mediums).
The real revolution here is that the internet has made it clear to everyone that they're not the only ones who like sex. In fact, as most of us suspected all along, the puritans are in the minority, and it was only through dilligent and thorough application of the shame principle that they kept everyone else from realizing that sexuality is totally normal.
Bottom line: sounds like the book makes valid points based on flawed assumptions.
Cheers
-b
Hey now. So you're not into the game, can't tell the difference between plays... yet you're knowledgeable enoguh to complain that there's not a lot of new stuff happening?
Your same argument could be made about modern art ("it all looks the same"), rock music ("it all sounds the same"), etc. It basically boils down to "I'm not well enough educated in the subject to understand it, but let me tell you why it's no good."
And saying that any given play is either dependent on the coach *or* a player is terribly ignorant; it's like saying that the success of a tech product comes down to *either* the CEO or *an* engineer. It doesn't make any sense; like any team activity, the interesting thing is the sum of the contributions and interactions by everyone involved.
Football's not for everyone, certainly. Heck, I have a lot of problems with it. But then again, I understand the game well enough to have *educated* complaints.
Cheers
-b
You're right that football involves a lot of standing around. However, if you think that's the sport, you're seriously missing the point.
The *reason* there's so much standing around in football is that the 4-10 seconds when a play is happening is a pretty serious exercise in complexity. You have 11 people on offense and 11 on defense, all dynamically reacting to each other.
In a basic play where things go pretty much right on both offense and defense, there are probably about 100 human interactions in 5 seconds. In more complex plays, and plays where something doesn't go right, that number is much higher. Between planned blocking assignments, adjustments to blocking by the QB, center, or defensive captain (often a linebacker), then the defensive backs who are trying to 1) cover a receiver, but 2) come back in to help if it's a running game, but 3) not get tricked by play action, and 4) either block the reciever or not be blocked themselves... the permutations can get pretty enormous.
It takes some time to reset and get ready to go again, because if you didn't stop, you'd have something more like rugby, basketball, or (everywhere else in the world) football. All of them great sports, mind you, but all of them too fluid to allow for highly compelx plays, let alone highly complex gamesmanship by coaches.
The reason Americans like football is that sense of stop/start. Everyone lines up, and other than what players are on the field (it's different each play), nobody knows what's going to happen in the next few seconds. But *something* involving about 5,500 pounds of human flesh is going to go down.
Because football has those stops and starts, coaches have time to play a mental game with each play. It's 3rd and 2; will they go for the (relatively likely) run play, or will they bet that the defense is heavily stacking against the run and therefore more vulnerable to play action or a pass?
As you might guess, I'm a huge football fan. I hate TV timeouts (commercials), and there are certainly times when the game grinds to a halt. But you're dead wrong in thinking that 1) not a lot happens in football, and 2) football fans like it that way.
Now, baseball I can't explain the appeal of.
Cheers
-b
I'm with you about football in general. I'm a huge fan of the game and have done what I coudl to educate myself about it thoroughly; after 20 years or so of watching, I pretty much grasp what's going on in real life.
However, I disagree with your assesment of why Madden is pretty much the same each year. In my opinion, it's become a case of diminishing returns for EA; they *could* make it better, but it's cheaper not too, and doesn't hurt sales (especially when you lock up and exclusive license!)
Remember when Madden was new and innovative, and everyone talked about how it was the most detailed and realistic "simulation"? Things like hot routes and defensive audibles made the game hands-down the most accurate representation of football (although, in my opinion, not always the most fun game to play).
The QB cam thing in the new version is a weak attempt to continue that. Weak because it's trying to simulate a *physical* participatory element of the game in a video game. It doesn't make any sense: playing football on a TV, we're already subject to many limitations. Taking away an offsetting advantage -- being able to see the whole field -- is just weird.
What the Madden team *should* be doing is following a two-pronged approach. First, continue modeling the game in greater detail. Let me design my own defensive line stunts. Let me control a receiver as he catches the ball (a slight push-off, maybe). Give me a greater ability to design and customize plays, and an easier way to deal with substitutions.
Then, since the game is getting a lot more complex, completely revamp the "training camp" portion of the game so that it really educates players. Provide a mode where you it walks you through the same offensive play against a couple of different defenses, and points out what to look for ("See, in the 3-4 defense with the outside linebacker in the normal position, your tight end runs right past him rather than blocking, and you get sacked. When the defense moves the linebacker to a down position, your tight end knows to block, and your QB has to take that receiver out of the equation").
However, clearly that's a complex undertaking and there's only so much money to be made. Better to sew up the license and just do minor roster updates.
Cheers
-b
If you play with the flash-based demonstration on TFA's site, you'll see that the gap, if any, is speedy indeed.
(For those who didn't / couldn't / wouldn't go to the site, basically it's a series of more or less random images, each one staying for 1/10th of a second or so, with a "target" image buried in the sequence. The "target" is identifiable because it's rotated 90 degrees)
However, they don't include a control: a series of images *without* a a "disturbing" image. From my way of thinking and from my firsthand experience with the site, it may be that the same "blindess" would be caused whenever there's an image rotated 90 degrees.
I'm sure the research is more thorough than that, but the implementation here doesn't seem to reflect that. Unless I'm just missing something.
Cheers
-b
How about stories about lesbians munching pussy? How about telling ones' friends over the phone about a hot pussy-munching session?
If the discussion and depiction of sexuality isn't speech, then what other types of content somehow don't count? Discussion / depiction of violence? Advertisements? Culturally worthless, sex-oriented TV shows?
I don't know about you, but I positively expect and demand that my sexual expression should be at least as protected as McDonalds' "really, it's health food" commercials.
And you're wrong about any kind of drift in the interpretation of the constitution, at least at the federal level. To the best of my knowledge, the only times where the issue of pornography has come up at the Supreme Court, it has always been ruled as protected speech (note that this excludes "obscenity", that troublesomely vague concept that essentially outlaws "bad taste" and leaves it up to every jury to define "bad taste" for themselves).
Cheers
-b
Yeah, because the country would be a lot better off if things like Watergate never came to light. The whole problem here is that irksome press that insists on *reporting* that our elected officials are crooks and liars. Make those inside sources identify themselves publicly, and stop the truth in its tracks!
FWIW, I personally think that someone should go to jail for the Plame incident. However, using that once incident to justify ditching anonymous sources in general is absolutely crazy.
Cheers
-b
Actually, the proposed law says that any website that is covered by the Title 18, Section 2257 will be taxed. 2257 is the law providing that all adult content shall be considered child porn unless the producers and distributors can prove that it's not. Doesn't matter if it's grandma porn, if you don't meet 2257 it's serious bad news.
Of course, 2257 itself has recently been expanded to cover sites that carry so much as banner ads that contain content that's covered by 2257, so this proposed tax would hit LiveJournal and other sites that allow users to post banner ads or thumbnails that show depictions of "actual sexual activity" as defined in 2257.
That expansion is currently being fought in court by the Free Speech Coalition, and who knows how that will go. Best case, the new regulations get thrown out and we go back to the old (already very onerous) ones, which would mean that 2257 (and therefor this proposed tax) would only cover websites that produce their own content, and not "seconday producers" who buy content elsewhere.
It's a total clusterfuck, and between the vagueness and presumption of guilt inherent in the proposed tax, the content-specific nature of the tax, and the way it's linked to the already nonsensical and legally endangered 2257 regulations, I can't see this tax actually being implemented. It makes for good "we Democrats are just as 'moral' and censorius as those Republicans" sound bites, though.
Oh, and if somehow the tax *were* implemented, all it means is that the cost of porn goes up 30% or so across the board. It's not going to hurt pornographers: sales don't dip when we raise prices, and even if costs only went up by the amount of the tax (and don't count on that), extra cashflow is always helpful, even if it doesn't amount to extra bottom line income.
Cheers
-b
Gillen seems to be suggesting that linking pacifism with good guys and violence with monsters is somehow "liberal." The corrollary, I suppose, is that in a game shop that could be characterized as "conservative," the monsters would be suggesting peace and the good ol' boys would be advocating random and terrible acts of violence.
On the one hand, I'm not convinced that a world view with "violent monsters" is inherently "liberal," and on the other hand I'm a little dismayed that anyone (whichever meaningless dogmatic label they choose) would argue that "conservatives" would make nice cheerful, peaceful monsters.
I think we have a case here of a valid point (developers' opinions and world views inevitably appearing in their work) being stretched to a rather ridiculous degree.
Cheers
-b
Pshaw. He may or may not be right about the MS conspiracy, but this kind of blantant intellecutal dishonesty makes me take his point with a huge grain of salt, since right there he demonstrates that he either doesn't understand things as much as he pretends, or that he's chosen not to relate as much as he understands. Either way, minus points.
There are plenty of other explanations for the "recent series of coincidental stories and events":
There you go. Three easy, plausible alternatives. "No other explanation," indeed.
Cheers
Damn, so for the past 229 years, the United States hasn't really been a nation? Just a hunk of land? And this ID card will fix that?
And remind me exactly how a national ID card will "secure our borders"? Last time I checked, most illegal immigration happened away from our border checkpoints. How exactly will that change with a national ID card?
Sheesh
-b
I'd certainly agree that people should do research before diving into HDTV. However, there's a ton of misinformation in the parent post.
- The HDTV spec includes three resolution,s not two: 1080p in addition to 720p and 1080i. Few devices support 1080p today, but a bunch will appear around the end of this year.
- Any modern HDTV will support both 720p and 1080i. There may be scaling going on (and the quality of that scaling is the point of the original article), but any modern device will happily display both.
- DLP and LCD devices can certainly do scaling as well as anything else. CRT's are the only devices that can switch their native resolution, but with the proper signal DLP, LCD, and LCOS are all fine with 720p and 1080i.
- I have never seen an HDTV device that accepts only its native resolution. At the very least, they've always accepted 480i (NTSC) and 480p (progressive scan DVD's) in addition to their native resolution. I haven't seen a device manufactured in the past three years that couldn't accept all current HDTV resolutions (that is, everything except 1080p).
- Fox is not "way behind" in HDTV support: last season, they broadcast 6 or 7 HDTV football games a week. CBS did 2 HDTV gaames and the rest in SD.
- Most XBox games don't even support 720p. And again, native resolution is meaningless with a decent scaler, which more and more devices have built into them today.
- "Most" projectors that are intended for home theater use are indeed HDTV capable today, though many of the cheaper ones (http://www.projectorcentral.com/ , http://www.avsforum.com/ , and good old Google.
Cheers
-b
The only problem is that while you're out there yelling and screaming to get the fuck out before someone dies, most of the real world is inside getting on with life, annoyed in equal parts with the poor construction of the house and with the maniacs outside who are screaming bloody murder all night.
Linux / Windows is *not* a life or death choice for most of us who have jobs to do. So-called advocates who would present it as such do far more harm than good to Linux's reputation in the business world.
Cheers
-b
That's why I use an acrostic made from the first letter on pages 217-219 of The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Er, wait. Clear cache! Clear cache!
-b
What you're saying is that the law only applies to first actors. If someone steals something, it's illegal, but if you resell stolen property it's all cool. I can see an argument there, but I can't say that I'm entirely sympathetic. The way I see it, someone who makes their living as a fence for stolen goods is a criminal. To the extent that you support trade secret law and confidentiality agreements, can you really argue that it should be legal to repeatedly, professionally, and commercially receive and publish information provided by someone who is violatiing those legally binding agreements... and have some kind of constitutional right not to identify the thief, so your commercial endeavor can continue without interruption?
If you really, truly support that position... please elaborate on how either 1) you believe fencing stolen goods should be legal, or 2) you believe that stolen documents or trade secrets should be less protected than stolen goods. If you're going for 2), please follow up by explaining why I should be prosecuted for identity theft if I happen to come into posession of your SSN and address and order a couple of thousand dollars worth of goods.Cheers
-b
By your argument it should be legal to yell the proverbial "fire" in a crowded theater, or to lie to potential investors about a company's finances.
Heck, by your argument trade secret law is unconstitutional, and "top secret" information should be legally publishable willy-nilly.
You've confused two issues here. First, freedom of speech has never covered the publication of stolen (or secret) documents; it is the freedom to say what you think and to communicate freely. That does not mean you're free to consipire to kill people; it means that you can express unpopular opinions (or at least it used to; today that's not so clear).
Second, you're touching on public interest, ala Watergate. The judge also wrote a cogent bit about that and how there's a difference between public interest in corruption in govenment and, as he put it, an "interested public" that's just hungry for details about whether the next iCrap will be pink or purple.
Cheers
-b
Because other forms of advertising tend to be iterative; that is, you put together a print ad and tell the local paper to run it for the next four sundays. Or you buy TV time and run a particlar ad a few times.
While the restaurant was clearly stupid for not doing anything even after being warned, I'm not at all convinced that commercial enterprises are (or should be) under an obligation to find and destroy all out of date promotional material. Which is essentially what this judgement amounts to.
Once you start a website, should you be legally obligated to keep it up to date? What if it's a personal website that gives obsolte directions on how to get somewhere? This seems like a really hasty and simplistic decision by people who haven't thought the situation through.
Cheers
-b
Ah, the old "sometimes true = always true" argument.
Nobody, including the guy you're responding to, denied that CFC's deplete ozone. The question is, to what degree are CFC's responsible for the measured ozone depletion we've seen over the past 20 years or so.
Nothing in a complex system is black and white. The whole point of this article, and the poster you replied to, is that this is a good example of why it's overly simplistic to link CFC's to ozone depletion and to believe that, therefore, reducing CFC emissions will necessarily have a significant impact on the rate of ozone depletion.
More evidence is always good. Jumping to conclusions is generally bad. Black-and-white answers to questions raised by complex systems are generally flawed. Simple as that.
Cheers
-b
From the SDSS J090745.0+24507 Daily News:
Cheers
-b
I agree with all of your points, but have a minor quibble with your terminology.
I think you want "totalitarian" where you used "socialist." There are plenty of democratic socialist countries (Sweden, for instance, and some would say Canada). And you could have a democratic communist country; "democracy" is a political system, whereas "communism" is an economic system.
Sure, in point of fact, most communist governments have been totalitarian. But it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. And socialism certainly doesn't correlate with dictatorships or totalitarian regimes.
Not a huge big deal; it's just that that confusion of terms is a pet peeve of mine.
Cheers
-b