Because platforms like the PSP and the Nintendo DS were were the only portable gaming options on the market. Now with the rise of phones and tablets homebrew probably really will die because I can't really see a future for handheld consoles when tablets and phones do a much better job all-around. Once better controls are worked out for tablet games or peripherals for them become more common I don't think we'll see much in the way of handheld consoles unless Nintendo thinks up a new, compelling gimmick.
"And for the love of God... please tell them that correlation is not causation."
Actually, I have to say that psych students probably end up knowing this better than anyone. It's literally taught the first day in stats courses for behavioral science.
"Free" is increasingly becoming the new thing; free-to-play models are starting to rise and succeed in video games, free steaming tv shows and other video are becoming increasingly popular, and naturally there are companies that operate in a way someone-like Google does. How many android/iPhone apps are free? And then we see various music services cropping up that allow free streaming music..
Why would the news be different from this trend? It's harder and harder to prevent the dissemination and replication of information (pirating etc) and companies are finding creative new ways to still make money even in light of that. And the news is subject to the same problem; a paywall is not a big deal if one person has a subscription and can pass the text of the article around elsewhere.
All it takes is for one competitor to shit in the pot and go free or next-to-free to ruin the market for everyone else; I don't see pay-for news being a viable or stable strategy in the long-term.
Or maybe because even most scientists (actual scientists, not armchair commentators on slashdot) can't find an actual utilitarian reason to build a moon base other than juvenile delight at living out their sci-fi fantasies?
What makes you think they'll invest in something that has no guarantee of working, then takes perhaps 60yrs+ to have the first possible return on investment? No one does that these days, because all rewards must be immediate, apparently.
It almost sounds like you'd expect people to make an incredibly risky investment that probably won't pay out until they are dead, like someone has a social responsibility to do that or something.
Ron Paul doesn't support a direct return to the gold standard, so that's where I stopped reading your post. I certainly wouldn't vote for him (or anybody for that matter) but I'm not going to waste my time on Slashdot reading posts where someone didn't even do their most basic research. This is slashdot, not reddit.
Science should NOT be corporate-funded, it should be grant-funded -- directly from a scientific organization like NIST, or indirectly via university (or other educational) departments.
This is an extremely naive viewpoint born mostly out of ideology.
Much, perhaps most, scientific fraud in published studies has little to do with corporate R&D. In fact, it's fighting for grant money in the publish-or-perish environment in academia that contributes to most fraud. The grant system itself, in its current incarnation, is probably the largest contributor to scientific fraud.
It's this "business/capitalism-is-the-root-of-all-evil" Marxist reductionism that is getting really tiresome to read. I get it. You don't like business. Just don't try to boil down every ill in the world to "the corporations." When you do, you sometimes propose solutions that amplify the problem!
And what did you even want to propose, anyway? No private scientific R&D? Are you mad?
Except Ron Paul's position isn't for returning to a gold standard. He certainly doesn't believe in fiat currency, but a gold standard itself is not what he supports. His most direct position is allowing competing currencies; I'm not sure what he really wants, I think it is currency backed by some sort of asset though. Not a gold standard though.
$4.50 per gallon? That's ridiculously cheap - far less than I paid in the 90s back in Europe
So? Many places in Europe don't suffer from (or benefit from, depending on your point of view) suburban sprawl. In addition, many places have poor public transit, partially because the cities aren't populated enough to make it efficient (look at Omaha, Nebraska).
The question is, how long will a gallon last you in those regions?
Meanwhile, I can use a public restroom in the USA without paying any money whatsoever, and guess what? Water here is free! So much for being a nation of money-grubbing capitalists.
It's also amusing to think that Murdoch is some being looming evil upon the entire Earth corrupting everything... and you even drag religion into it when it's totally irrelevant! Please, do try to work in animal rights and the patriarchy into this discussion, too.
Nobody else in the world that I know of believes in a statistical method vs a scientific method, certainly not any philosophers of science I've read about.
In fact, even biology uses statistics; Gregor Mendel's experiments on pea plants are a good example. Yes, they do use statistics heavily there, and they have for quite some time!
Oh hey look, skeptics aren't skeptics because they don't always take public stands on political issues (despite the fact that many of them do). I love these "skeptics aren't skeptics" claims because most claimants never make their own argument, they just like to link to another one someone else made, usually in rant-format, that just furiously reiterates outrage that they don't accept magic and ancedote as proper argument or because they haven't addressed one particular issue or another; here, it's just a rant saying they must not be skeptics, if they haven't publicly come out on political issues they may-or-may not be informed about.
Which is even funnier, because if you actually follow these people, a lot of them do make mentions of these issues. James Randi once expressed some slight skepticism on global warming--a minority position in the skeptic community--listened to the arguments, and reversed his position a bit.
Also, a lot of skeptics are liberals--and not the kind of liberal I generally get along with, I don't like the skeptic community as a group of people because I simply think that, while their heads are in the right place in metaphysics their hearts are black and they're not very nice people--personal experience, one shared by some of my friends that are also intellectually on the same page as them. They definitely as a group tend not to support things like the Iraq war, so on and so forth, although there is a strange contingent among them that are highly in love with authority in all forms. A lot of skeptics are paternalistic liberals and I'm not sure why. This doesn't say anything about their skeptical activism though.
>Because unless you have been dead, you have _zero_ experience.
This is a howler because, by definition, death is a lack of biological functioning which entails a lack of ability to sense and perceive. By definition one cannot have experiences while dead. That's what death is. Dead. Asking what's beyond death is like asking what's souther than the south pole.
But it's hard to expect sanity from a guy trying to claim evidence of reincarnation (your personal pet issue that makes you angry with skeptics, I suspect) by bringing up books with little-to-no scientific content, without citing an actual single study, undoubtedly chock-full of anecdotes and personal, religious, spiritual belief without a shred of anything that would pass as evidence if held under the standard "scientific microscope."
Don't bother arguing with him. Others have in the past and they go nowhere. Guy's head is filled to the brim with Marx. If you're looking for a breathless defender of strong government that interferes in the lives of its citizens, go to PopeRatzo--except he'll just claim the shackles are made out of freedom and sunshine.
Everything bad a government does? Corporate boogeymen were secretly behind it. He can't tell you who or what, just that it's "them" behind everything. PopeRatzo comes from the Marxist tradition of reducing everything bad down to capitalism, and of course everything good down to government (or democracy).
Slashdot Mirror
Because platforms like the PSP and the Nintendo DS were were the only portable gaming options on the market. Now with the rise of phones and tablets homebrew probably really will die because I can't really see a future for handheld consoles when tablets and phones do a much better job all-around. Once better controls are worked out for tablet games or peripherals for them become more common I don't think we'll see much in the way of handheld consoles unless Nintendo thinks up a new, compelling gimmick.
So if I slander Muhammed the Prophet in Saudia Arabia...
"And for the love of God... please tell them that correlation is not causation."
Actually, I have to say that psych students probably end up knowing this better than anyone. It's literally taught the first day in stats courses for behavioral science.
If only the world could be fueled on socialist self-righteousness.
Ah, yes, it loses the essence of corn-dom.
Idiot.
"Free" is increasingly becoming the new thing; free-to-play models are starting to rise and succeed in video games, free steaming tv shows and other video are becoming increasingly popular, and naturally there are companies that operate in a way someone-like Google does. How many android/iPhone apps are free? And then we see various music services cropping up that allow free streaming music..
Why would the news be different from this trend? It's harder and harder to prevent the dissemination and replication of information
(pirating etc) and companies are finding creative new ways to still make money even in light of that. And the news is subject to the same problem; a paywall is not a big deal if one person has a subscription and can pass the text of the article around elsewhere.
All it takes is for one competitor to shit in the pot and go free or next-to-free to ruin the market for everyone else; I don't see pay-for news being a viable or stable strategy in the long-term.
Billions and billions of dollars?
Or maybe because even most scientists (actual scientists, not armchair commentators on slashdot) can't find an actual utilitarian reason to build a moon base other than juvenile delight at living out their sci-fi fantasies?
It almost sounds like you'd expect people to make an incredibly risky investment that probably won't pay out until they are dead, like someone has a social responsibility to do that or something.
At least he didn't do it in Minecraft.
Ron Paul doesn't support a direct return to the gold standard, so that's where I stopped reading your post. I certainly wouldn't vote for him (or anybody for that matter) but I'm not going to waste my time on Slashdot reading posts where someone didn't even do their most basic research. This is slashdot, not reddit.
This is an extremely naive viewpoint born mostly out of ideology.
Much, perhaps most, scientific fraud in published studies has little to do with corporate R&D. In fact, it's fighting for grant money in the publish-or-perish environment in academia that contributes to most fraud. The grant system itself, in its current incarnation, is probably the largest contributor to scientific fraud.
It's this "business/capitalism-is-the-root-of-all-evil" Marxist reductionism that is getting really tiresome to read. I get it. You don't like business. Just don't try to boil down every ill in the world to "the corporations." When you do, you sometimes propose solutions that amplify the problem!
And what did you even want to propose, anyway? No private scientific R&D? Are you mad?
This shoddy sort of evidence is typical of feminist argumentation.
Wittgenstein? Cool name drop, but the whole trusting-your-senses things predates him by a longshot.
Except Ron Paul's position isn't for returning to a gold standard. He certainly doesn't believe in fiat currency, but a gold standard itself is not what he supports. His most direct position is allowing competing currencies; I'm not sure what he really wants, I think it is currency backed by some sort of asset though. Not a gold standard though.
No surprise "PopeRatzo," one of slashdot's most outspoken religious catholics, would think so.
So? Many places in Europe don't suffer from (or benefit from, depending on your point of view) suburban sprawl. In addition, many places have poor public transit, partially because the cities aren't populated enough to make it efficient (look at Omaha, Nebraska).
The question is, how long will a gallon last you in those regions?
But is that due to speech / communication they didn't like, or because it was technology itself?
Meanwhile, I can use a public restroom in the USA without paying any money whatsoever, and guess what? Water here is free! So much for being a nation of money-grubbing capitalists.
It's also amusing to think that Murdoch is some being looming evil upon the entire Earth corrupting everything... and you even drag religion into it when it's totally irrelevant! Please, do try to work in animal rights and the patriarchy into this discussion, too.
The PEAR studies were discredited, which I'm sure is what you're referring to.
Nobody else in the world that I know of believes in a statistical method vs a scientific method, certainly not any philosophers of science I've read about.
In fact, even biology uses statistics; Gregor Mendel's experiments on pea plants are a good example. Yes, they do use statistics heavily there, and they have for quite some time!
Oh hey look, skeptics aren't skeptics because they don't always take public stands on political issues (despite the fact that many of them do). I love these "skeptics aren't skeptics" claims because most claimants never make their own argument, they just like to link to another one someone else made, usually in rant-format, that just furiously reiterates outrage that they don't accept magic and ancedote as proper argument or because they haven't addressed one particular issue or another; here, it's just a rant saying they must not be skeptics, if they haven't publicly come out on political issues they may-or-may not be informed about.
Which is even funnier, because if you actually follow these people, a lot of them do make mentions of these issues. James Randi once expressed some slight skepticism on global warming--a minority position in the skeptic community--listened to the arguments, and reversed his position a bit.
Also, a lot of skeptics are liberals--and not the kind of liberal I generally get along with, I don't like the skeptic community as a group of people because I simply think that, while their heads are in the right place in metaphysics their hearts are black and they're not very nice people--personal experience, one shared by some of my friends that are also intellectually on the same page as them. They definitely as a group tend not to support things like the Iraq war, so on and so forth, although there is a strange contingent among them that are highly in love with authority in all forms. A lot of skeptics are paternalistic liberals and I'm not sure why. This doesn't say anything about their skeptical activism though.
>Because unless you have been dead, you have _zero_ experience.
This is a howler because, by definition, death is a lack of biological functioning which entails a lack of ability to sense and perceive. By definition one cannot have experiences while dead. That's what death is. Dead. Asking what's beyond death is like asking what's souther than the south pole.
But it's hard to expect sanity from a guy trying to claim evidence of reincarnation (your personal pet issue that makes you angry with skeptics, I suspect) by bringing up books with little-to-no scientific content, without citing an actual single study, undoubtedly chock-full of anecdotes and personal, religious, spiritual belief without a shred of anything that would pass as evidence if held under the standard "scientific microscope."
Because PopeRatzo feels that expensive big-budget games are a travesty and against the community-oriented spirit of leftwing collectivism?
No, seriously.
The crash of the beanie baby market clearly shows that government regulation is needed.
Don't bother arguing with him. Others have in the past and they go nowhere. Guy's head is filled to the brim with Marx. If you're looking for a breathless defender of strong government that interferes in the lives of its citizens, go to PopeRatzo--except he'll just claim the shackles are made out of freedom and sunshine.
Everything bad a government does? Corporate boogeymen were secretly behind it. He can't tell you who or what, just that it's "them" behind everything. PopeRatzo comes from the Marxist tradition of reducing everything bad down to capitalism, and of course everything good down to government (or democracy).