the venture (but not really the death of pilots) is worth it.
That's a naive way to look at things. Advancements in flight have always held dangers for the test pilots, and the test pilots know it. They want to risk their lives pushing the envelope - if they didn't, they wouldn't have spent their lives reaching for the job. That's not to say they're doing ti for the danger, but they are doing it for either the adventure of being at the forefront of something new, or out of a sense of wanting to advance the human race.
The job is dangerous, yes. But so is race car driving, or firefighting, or any number of other jobs. Just because an accident happens at one of them doesn't mean its justifiable to shut down the whole industry. Lessons are learned, safety is improved (hopefully), and things get better.
SpaceShipTwo is not going to bring the human race into a new age. It's not a craft that can be used to reach space, no matter how much you test or develop it.
We already know how to reach space. This is not how. This is just for thrills.
This is the sort of thing that leads to further understanding and optimizations of underlying technologies. These technologies are also integral to space travel. So, while these ships may not be directly leading to an advancement in reaching orbit, there's a definite possibility that they will be influential on new designs and technologies that do.
I picked up a collection of Hugo Award winners, as edited by Isaac Asimov - I found the writing incredibly pretentious and the stories almost seemed to take a back seat. They were a massive disappointment to me.
Hugo winners are often incredible stories - I've read a lot of them, and while some of them are crap, a lot of them are very, very good. Really, it depends a lot on the year they were written - if the collection you read was from the 70s, then I can see why you thought they were crap; the popular scifi writing style in in that decade was... well... pretentious. It's also possible that you just don't like the same kinds of stories Asimov likes - as editor, the stories were chosen by him.
Yes, but none of them modified the game itself in any way, and were not implemented as one-time-use codes. You could easily get most of the items cheaply on eBay or Amazon Marketplace right after the game came out (and still can). Try to reliably get a one-time code (that most people put in right away), and if you do, trust that it's unused (and try to prove that you didn't use it if it's not).
Actually, the pre-order bonuses should be something outside the game, like the ones Dishonored did. Tarot cards, a game-themed USB lamp, etc.
Give us something tangible, none of this "exclusive content" crap that's either pointless (different in-game clothing, a slightly-better starting weaon that you won't use past 15 minutes into the game, etc.), or is cool but will be available in DLC/GotY/etc. in six months.
Make it T-shirts, skinned USB sticks, or something else that we might still give a crap about by the time the next game comes around.
Blame trademark law. They have to go after everybody or lose the mark.
Incorrect. They have to stop people from using the mark in a generic way, such as using it to refer to all similar styles of products. You cannot lose a trademark because someone unassociated with you refers to your products by that name; that is specifically what trademarks are for - identifying the origination of a product.
The US government is doing everything it can to make him a martyr.
Actually, they're doing everything they can try to NOT make him a martyr. If he's a martyr, it's makes the PR issue even worse, and can lead to others taking up his cause. They want to discredit him, turn public opinion against him, and then destroy him. (See: Julien Asagne)
They're the good guys, he's the bad guy, mission accomplished.
Decentralization isn't the solution to this. If you think the system is a clusterfuck now, just think about how much worse it would be if instead of one law there were 50+ (states + DC + territories) - or, thousands (county/city level). It would keep small businesses from easily doing work outside of one area, while allowing mega-corps the ability to even more easily venue-shop for their headquarters.
You want a solution that gives more authority to regional/etc. agencies? Simple: Allow each agency, at each level, to throw up a challenge to this type of shenanigans. Verizon pulled some bullshit costing NYC $4.4billion? Then NYC can turn around and enforce the Type II requirements, and send a ripple up the chain to have the feds declare it so nationally. However, you have to be able to stop some in-Verizon's-pocket federal agency from telling NYC, "no."
Taxes on businesses are *always* passed on to the consumer.
I never said they weren't. I just said that the zero-emission cars were the tax levied against the non-zero ones. Consumer-, dealer-, or manufacturer-level tax, it's all the same in the end.
You've got it backwards. The zero-emission cars are the tax. They're how CA is "taxing" the car manufacturers for the emissions their vehicles cause, while simultaneously reducing those emissions.
Most school boards have a mandate to prevent bullying, and the facebook comments probably fall under this category since it was made by a student of the school about an employee of the school.
1) It's almost impossible for a student to "bully" a school staff member. You've got the balance of power reversed here. 2) Even if you consider it "bullying", you just give the student detention or something. 3) The school called in the cops and severely intimidated her - i.e. bullying. (So all those administrators and the cop should have to give their FB passwords to the girl now, according to your logic.) 4) The school flipped shit over what amounted to a public declaration of "I don't like that person". No threats. No conspiracy. Clearly free speech. Massive overreaction. 5) In order to investigate a public statement, they found it necessary to read her private correspondence!?
The Netflix streaming player is much more mature than the Amazon streaming player (Amazon's is basically a half-step up from YouTube). Netflix will save my spot and I can get miniscreen previews as I'm selecting where I want to be in a film.
I get those same features from Amazon on my PS3. My friend's TV plays Netflix, but cannot choose subtitles/languages. What device you're using makes a big difference, as different ones have different feature support.
Research on seemingly unimportant connections that have curious correlations is how breakthroughs are made. It's done to try disprove a link as often as it's done to prove it; the point is to find out for sure, one way or the other.
As for who does it, there's tons of people who want these types of research done - marketing, policing, data mining, etc. In this case, it was likely either commissioned by a company or group with vested interest in social media, or was done by a grad student for a thesis.
That means modules with hardware that adds capabilities and not just speed. Problem is that, as seen in the console market, most apps don't cater to what can be connect but what is connected by default.
The difference is that you've started buying into the "phone = console" mentality, when it should really be "phone = PC". Yes, on consoles it's typically programmed for the base hardware because the console is hard to add any hardware to, and current phones are quite similar. These new modular types of phones would be much closer to PCs - hardware is easy to add and doesn't require the manufacturer's OK to do so.
R & D costs on a mass market phone are relatively easy to recapture with millions of identical units sold, and as fascinating as these are, I suspect their dissimilarity will lead to higher consumer cost.
You're missing the point; the idea here is to make the components mass marketed, rather than have it be the entire phone. Right now if you buy a phone from Apple, you get an Apple camera built into the Apple circuit board. The idea here is that Nikon mass-markets the cameras, and you plug it into your Motorola processor with a Lenovo battery and a Linksys broadband module. Don't like those brands? Pick whoever you want, in what combination you want. There will be pre-configured package deals, yes. But the fact that you can swap them out afterwards is the idea.
The point is that while the base phone may cost more, the modules will be cheaper (due to competition), and you can choose what quality level you want on each. And, instead if having to throw away your whole phone to replace/upgrade the camera/processor/antenna/whatever, you just buy the new module and the rest of your phone stays the same. So, more up-front cost, but less long-term cost.
Well, she may get fewer death threats from Muslims and more death threads from internet freedom nutters...
Only if she actually wins in the end, and even then they'll likely be less terrorizing and more pathetic.
Really, I think it's likely that she expected to lose this fight, and it's the publicity surrounding it she was after - even a temporary injunction done in her name is likely to give her some relief from the death threats. And who knows? Maybe her actions could lead to the fatwa being lifted against the actors, and only targeting the producers/director/etc. who actually did this on purpose.
There's a difference in this case; the Striesand Effect refers to the fact that trying to take something off the internet not only doesn't work, but gives you lots and lots of negative publicity for trying to do so (and highlighting the original issue which would otherwise be obscure and largely unknown), causing more damage than the original problem.
This doesn't apply in this case because: 1) The Innocence of Muslims is already known to pretty much everyone on the internet due to the events surrounding it in 2012. 2) The publicity can only help Ms. Garcia in this case, as making her disapproval known will likely help stop the death threats.
Keep pushing the envelope to be cool and edgy and this is what you get.
Actually, Windows 8.1 comes with IE11, so anyone who is completely up to date is immune to this one as well. So, being behind the curve is bad, being either at the forefront or way behind the curve is good.
Well, for one thing, the anti-MS slant has been tapering off here for years; they're no longer seen as "Big Evil", but more of a "McComputer" sort of thing.
For another thing, most/. readers may like the OSS movement, but they primarily work in Windows, have friends who use Windows, have family who use Windows, and are often the ones who provide tech support to those friends/family/co-workers. Knowledge of these vulnerabilities do more good for more people than knowledge of the latest bugs in Epiphany.
Slashdot Mirror
the venture (but not really the death of pilots) is worth it.
That's a naive way to look at things. Advancements in flight have always held dangers for the test pilots, and the test pilots know it. They want to risk their lives pushing the envelope - if they didn't, they wouldn't have spent their lives reaching for the job. That's not to say they're doing ti for the danger, but they are doing it for either the adventure of being at the forefront of something new, or out of a sense of wanting to advance the human race.
The job is dangerous, yes. But so is race car driving, or firefighting, or any number of other jobs. Just because an accident happens at one of them doesn't mean its justifiable to shut down the whole industry. Lessons are learned, safety is improved (hopefully), and things get better.
SpaceShipTwo is not going to bring the human race into a new age. It's not a craft that can be used to reach space, no matter how much you test or develop it.
We already know how to reach space. This is not how. This is just for thrills.
This is the sort of thing that leads to further understanding and optimizations of underlying technologies. These technologies are also integral to space travel. So, while these ships may not be directly leading to an advancement in reaching orbit, there's a definite possibility that they will be influential on new designs and technologies that do.
I picked up a collection of Hugo Award winners, as edited by Isaac Asimov - I found the writing incredibly pretentious and the stories almost seemed to take a back seat. They were a massive disappointment to me.
Hugo winners are often incredible stories - I've read a lot of them, and while some of them are crap, a lot of them are very, very good. Really, it depends a lot on the year they were written - if the collection you read was from the 70s, then I can see why you thought they were crap; the popular scifi writing style in in that decade was ... well ... pretentious. It's also possible that you just don't like the same kinds of stories Asimov likes - as editor, the stories were chosen by him.
Yes, but none of them modified the game itself in any way, and were not implemented as one-time-use codes. You could easily get most of the items cheaply on eBay or Amazon Marketplace right after the game came out (and still can). Try to reliably get a one-time code (that most people put in right away), and if you do, trust that it's unused (and try to prove that you didn't use it if it's not).
Actually, the pre-order bonuses should be something outside the game, like the ones Dishonored did. Tarot cards, a game-themed USB lamp, etc.
Give us something tangible, none of this "exclusive content" crap that's either pointless (different in-game clothing, a slightly-better starting weaon that you won't use past 15 minutes into the game, etc.), or is cool but will be available in DLC/GotY/etc. in six months.
Make it T-shirts, skinned USB sticks, or something else that we might still give a crap about by the time the next game comes around.
Blame trademark law. They have to go after everybody or lose the mark.
Incorrect. They have to stop people from using the mark in a generic way, such as using it to refer to all similar styles of products. You cannot lose a trademark because someone unassociated with you refers to your products by that name; that is specifically what trademarks are for - identifying the origination of a product.
The US government is doing everything it can to make him a martyr.
Actually, they're doing everything they can try to NOT make him a martyr. If he's a martyr, it's makes the PR issue even worse, and can lead to others taking up his cause. They want to discredit him, turn public opinion against him, and then destroy him. (See: Julien Asagne)
They're the good guys, he's the bad guy, mission accomplished.
Not sure what a British rock group has to do with a German/Swiss/American physicist's work, but whatever...
Decentralization isn't the solution to this. If you think the system is a clusterfuck now, just think about how much worse it would be if instead of one law there were 50+ (states + DC + territories) - or, thousands (county/city level). It would keep small businesses from easily doing work outside of one area, while allowing mega-corps the ability to even more easily venue-shop for their headquarters.
You want a solution that gives more authority to regional/etc. agencies? Simple: Allow each agency, at each level, to throw up a challenge to this type of shenanigans. Verizon pulled some bullshit costing NYC $4.4billion? Then NYC can turn around and enforce the Type II requirements, and send a ripple up the chain to have the feds declare it so nationally. However, you have to be able to stop some in-Verizon's-pocket federal agency from telling NYC, "no."
Taxes on businesses are *always* passed on to the consumer.
I never said they weren't. I just said that the zero-emission cars were the tax levied against the non-zero ones. Consumer-, dealer-, or manufacturer-level tax, it's all the same in the end.
You've got it backwards. The zero-emission cars are the tax. They're how CA is "taxing" the car manufacturers for the emissions their vehicles cause, while simultaneously reducing those emissions.
Actually, considering how well water works as a radiation shield, it would kill very little of them.
All I can really think to say about your post, and your understanding of the episode, is "Shaka, when the walls fell".
Most school boards have a mandate to prevent bullying, and the facebook comments probably fall under this category since it was made by a student of the school about an employee of the school.
1) It's almost impossible for a student to "bully" a school staff member. You've got the balance of power reversed here.
2) Even if you consider it "bullying", you just give the student detention or something.
3) The school called in the cops and severely intimidated her - i.e. bullying. (So all those administrators and the cop should have to give their FB passwords to the girl now, according to your logic.)
4) The school flipped shit over what amounted to a public declaration of "I don't like that person". No threats. No conspiracy. Clearly free speech. Massive overreaction.
5) In order to investigate a public statement, they found it necessary to read her private correspondence!?
Citation: Every baby ever.
The Netflix streaming player is much more mature than the Amazon streaming player (Amazon's is basically a half-step up from YouTube).
Netflix will save my spot and I can get miniscreen previews as I'm selecting where I want to be in a film.
I get those same features from Amazon on my PS3. My friend's TV plays Netflix, but cannot choose subtitles/languages. What device you're using makes a big difference, as different ones have different feature support.
Or maybe I have to wait for 70 years after the last author of the ROM is dead, I dont know much how copyright on software expires.
It doesn't. New legislation will ensure it.
Research on seemingly unimportant connections that have curious correlations is how breakthroughs are made. It's done to try disprove a link as often as it's done to prove it; the point is to find out for sure, one way or the other.
As for who does it, there's tons of people who want these types of research done - marketing, policing, data mining, etc. In this case, it was likely either commissioned by a company or group with vested interest in social media, or was done by a grad student for a thesis.
That means modules with hardware that adds capabilities and not just speed. Problem is that, as seen in the console market, most apps don't cater to what can be connect but what is connected by default.
The difference is that you've started buying into the "phone = console" mentality, when it should really be "phone = PC". Yes, on consoles it's typically programmed for the base hardware because the console is hard to add any hardware to, and current phones are quite similar. These new modular types of phones would be much closer to PCs - hardware is easy to add and doesn't require the manufacturer's OK to do so.
It did back then too, if you wanted a Pentium.
Actually, they made Pentium chips that would fit onto 486 motherboards.
R & D costs on a mass market phone are relatively easy to recapture with millions of identical units sold, and as fascinating as these are, I suspect their dissimilarity will lead to higher consumer cost.
You're missing the point; the idea here is to make the components mass marketed, rather than have it be the entire phone. Right now if you buy a phone from Apple, you get an Apple camera built into the Apple circuit board. The idea here is that Nikon mass-markets the cameras, and you plug it into your Motorola processor with a Lenovo battery and a Linksys broadband module. Don't like those brands? Pick whoever you want, in what combination you want. There will be pre-configured package deals, yes. But the fact that you can swap them out afterwards is the idea.
The point is that while the base phone may cost more, the modules will be cheaper (due to competition), and you can choose what quality level you want on each. And, instead if having to throw away your whole phone to replace/upgrade the camera/processor/antenna/whatever, you just buy the new module and the rest of your phone stays the same. So, more up-front cost, but less long-term cost.
Well, she may get fewer death threats from Muslims and more death threads from internet freedom nutters...
Only if she actually wins in the end, and even then they'll likely be less terrorizing and more pathetic.
Really, I think it's likely that she expected to lose this fight, and it's the publicity surrounding it she was after - even a temporary injunction done in her name is likely to give her some relief from the death threats. And who knows? Maybe her actions could lead to the fatwa being lifted against the actors, and only targeting the producers/director/etc. who actually did this on purpose.
There's a difference in this case; the Striesand Effect refers to the fact that trying to take something off the internet not only doesn't work, but gives you lots and lots of negative publicity for trying to do so (and highlighting the original issue which would otherwise be obscure and largely unknown), causing more damage than the original problem.
This doesn't apply in this case because:
1) The Innocence of Muslims is already known to pretty much everyone on the internet due to the events surrounding it in 2012.
2) The publicity can only help Ms. Garcia in this case, as making her disapproval known will likely help stop the death threats.
Still running IE8 so no problems.
Keep pushing the envelope to be cool and edgy and this is what you get.
Actually, Windows 8.1 comes with IE11, so anyone who is completely up to date is immune to this one as well. So, being behind the curve is bad, being either at the forefront or way behind the curve is good.
Well, for one thing, the anti-MS slant has been tapering off here for years; they're no longer seen as "Big Evil", but more of a "McComputer" sort of thing.
For another thing, most /. readers may like the OSS movement, but they primarily work in Windows, have friends who use Windows, have family who use Windows, and are often the ones who provide tech support to those friends/family/co-workers. Knowledge of these vulnerabilities do more good for more people than knowledge of the latest bugs in Epiphany.