You do, however, remember what you did on september 11th, 2001.
What where the most interesting things that happened to you on september 8th 2001, and september 14th, 2001?
Social relations over the internet is valid for what they are. The danger about developing social relations inside a video game with a monthly payment plan is that the social circle might become the reason you keep on paying a gaming company. There's nothing wrong with online friends - however, it could be argued that there's something wrong with paying a 3rd party for creating the artificial boundaries for you to interact with your friends, rather than paying to play a game that you find amusing. And it could be argued that the social relation is not particularly significant if you would not care enough about each other to stay in touch outside of these artificial boundaries.
Also, "real friends" are a lot more handy when you need to move heavy objects.
"real life social circle" = people regularly interacted with in a face-to-face manner. People that you would consider friends even if doesn't say so on Facebook.
It's bad to give more weight to online social life than real life social circles, because otherwise, you might find yourself grouping your acquintances into "online" and "casual", and completely miss out on the rewarding experience of doing actual stuff in the physical world with real friends.
in my opinion enjoying Heavy Rain is a huge sign that you don't actually like games.
A bit harsh I'd say. I too enjoyed Heavy Rain, but I also enjoy StarCraft 2 league matches.
But indeed, if Heavy Rain is the best example of what you desire from a game, you should definitely stick to the path of big budget titles with hours of dialogs, well scripted story lines... BioWare comes to mind. Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age. Provided you're not being put off by sci-fi/fantasy settings.
Forget about the indie scene of Steam. It's cool, but it's generally for people who enjoy the gaming aspect of games, not the interactive-story aspect of interactive stories.
The idea that there's consensus about anything more profound than "it works, so we're probably on to something" is largely a misunderstanding. In terms of the universe expanding, the consensus so far is that it does indeed appear to be expanding. For now.
But I'm sure I'm alone in my worries and it's just because I'm a celebrity that my bitching gets put up with.
At least reason is not lost on you.
P.S. You're discarding a working, free product because you're pissed. You're being a zealot. If you were religious, you'd be considered extremist and dangerous.
I'd like to think people who deal with technology are rational.
lol
"Everything should be free as long as it's just data, long live TPB!"
"Oracle/Apple/Microsoft is evul - EVUL I TELL YOU! Google are OK though. Trust them with everything. They told us directly that they're not evul."
"If I can't tamper with the source code, the product sucks. How is this not obvious to everyone?"
Lame article. A remote controlled robot will only ever be able to act as well as the person controlling it (and currently, it acts far worse).
Assuming it actually COULD act on it's own, and believably so, it still wouldn't replace human actors untill interfacing with it becomes more intuitive than simply yelling "I NEED MORE EMOTIONS!" at a real actor, who can actually, like, understand language, and has half a clue what these "emotions" even are.
The fact that the real actor states that it feels like being alone on the stage, seems a good indicator of just how unconvincing the robot is.
Maybe some day in the foreseeable future, we'll have an actual robot playing the part of a robot in a movie about robots. This article does not illustrate that we're close to anything beyond that.
In SC2, any person playing entirely based on a memorized build order is likely to be a bronze league noob. He's probably very engaged in what's going on, he's just too overwhelmed with practicing his fundamentals to actually have the capacity to respond to your actions. If you're playing against such a person, you're probably a bronze league noob yourself. If you out-think their canned routine, then congratulations! You've just proven that you're able to defeat a bronze league noob using build X! Most likely, some of the things you did will be good against OTHER people using a similar build. If their canned routine runs you over, then you have learned that build X kills you, EVEN when executed by a bronze league noob - you probably have a real weakness there!
You either haven't played SC2, or you're stuck in bronze league, spending half your matches getting facerolled by people using "supreme memorized build orders", who in fact probably just are quite good at macro'ing and/or randomly stumbled on a good counter for your build, and the other half, you're steamrolling noobs who seem incapable of making clever decisions based on your army. Maybe they're not being machines, maybe they just suck.
So, given that the people who are hostile towards competitive multiplayer, are the people that suck at playing... isn't it sensible to make single player games easier?
And what really makes my head spin: If this galaxy is moving away from us at the speed of light, and has been doing so for almost the entire age of the universe, doesn't that mean that it (and all observeable universe) started out from "our" position, even though the big bang should NOT be considered to extend from a central position?
Does the hubble constant change over time? By the time our universe is 20 billion years old, that galaxy will be 19.4 billion light years away. The above math would then result in the galaxy moving away at a speed greater than the speed of light. I guess we'll see time moving backwards?
It seems this new galaxy is right on the border of what part of the universe will ever be observable.
One parsec is 3.262 light years
13.1 billion light years = 3980 Mpc
Apparently, Hubbles constant places the rate of expansion at 77 (km/s) / Mpc:
77 (km/s) / Mpc * 3980 Mpc = 306460 km/s
So, this galaxy is moving away from us roughly at the speed of light. I guess that means time will appear to stand still when we observe that galaxy?
So iOS is definitely a bad choice for users who want to tweak.
However, despite allowing users to tweak, Android is not a bad choice for people who just want the device to work.
If somebody steals your credit card or computer password, for example, you can just get another card or change your password, thereby limiting the damage.
This remains true. Behavioural data alone is worth nothing.
Also, I'd argue that credit card fraud becomes a lot less interesting when the scammer is limited to buying things that the original card holder would be interested in.
I believe that making the assumption that all humans have the right to make any sort of publication available for the entire world to see with a minimum of effort is short-sighted, dangeroues, and possibly wrong. I'm all for freedom of speech, but 20 years ago, teenagers could not simply make a blog about their hardships for the world to deal with. Humanity has not only survived, but developed concepts such as democracy without the convenience granted by the internet.
Fact: On a historical scale, the internet is VERY NEW! It's proper place in human culture is not yet fully understood or established.
I absolutely believe that the convenience of allowing people to do their banking, rent movies, buy music, watch porn, etc., from the comfort of their own home, is great, and such premium services are likely gonna be the first to offer paying the premium rates to ISP's.
Well-established social networking sites will likely keep up. So what exactly is gonna hit the bottom of the priority pipe? I'm sure we'll "get rid" of timecube.com.
Should Gene Ray have the liberty of speaking his mind about his theory? Absolutely!
Is it his god-given human right to be able to simply set up a domain and get his "publication" google-able? I think not.
I've certainly observed the trend you're describing, but I'm refusing to obey by this ridiculous twist of an established word. Differentiating between apps and applications pisses me off the same way it pisses me off when people differentiate between potatoes and potatoes.
We would love to hear the Slashdot crowd feedback on whether you want more, are artistic interpretations of scientific data acceptable
To be honest, I always have that "why? Isn't it impressive enough as it is?" when artistic interpretations are applied to astronomy. Whenever I'm shown amazing pictures of galaxies and gigantic colored gas clouds, and I go all "Whoa, so cool!", I die a little inside when I scroll down to the small text mentioning artistic interpretation.
I suspect the known universe has plenty of beautiful sights as it is, and every time astronomy-sites feel the need to involve artistic interpretations, I'm left wondering if the universe is in fact not at all as beautiful as I want it to be, or if it's just that all our technology isn't adequate to actually produce a decent image.
Artistic interpretations makes it feel like astronomers need to tell us a lie to keep us interested.
All slashdot posters has had a live though. Most of these lives were lost as the poster discovered computers, and realized that "having a life" means "getting laid".
It's truly terrible.
However, I did once find myself on the headset with a bunch of friends, playing WoW. Someone said something funny, and I laughed. When I was done laughing, I instinctively pressed my push-to-talk button, and said "lol". And then I was like, "I did NOT just say that". Given the context though, and that I actually DID laugh out loud, I think I may be excused.
Slashdot Mirror
You do, however, remember what you did on september 11th, 2001.
What where the most interesting things that happened to you on september 8th 2001, and september 14th, 2001?
Social relations over the internet is valid for what they are. The danger about developing social relations inside a video game with a monthly payment plan is that the social circle might become the reason you keep on paying a gaming company. There's nothing wrong with online friends - however, it could be argued that there's something wrong with paying a 3rd party for creating the artificial boundaries for you to interact with your friends, rather than paying to play a game that you find amusing. And it could be argued that the social relation is not particularly significant if you would not care enough about each other to stay in touch outside of these artificial boundaries.
Also, "real friends" are a lot more handy when you need to move heavy objects.
"real life social circle" = people regularly interacted with in a face-to-face manner. People that you would consider friends even if doesn't say so on Facebook.
It's bad to give more weight to online social life than real life social circles, because otherwise, you might find yourself grouping your acquintances into "online" and "casual", and completely miss out on the rewarding experience of doing actual stuff in the physical world with real friends.
in my opinion enjoying Heavy Rain is a huge sign that you don't actually like games.
A bit harsh I'd say. I too enjoyed Heavy Rain, but I also enjoy StarCraft 2 league matches.
But indeed, if Heavy Rain is the best example of what you desire from a game, you should definitely stick to the path of big budget titles with hours of dialogs, well scripted story lines... BioWare comes to mind. Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age. Provided you're not being put off by sci-fi/fantasy settings.
Forget about the indie scene of Steam. It's cool, but it's generally for people who enjoy the gaming aspect of games, not the interactive-story aspect of interactive stories.
The idea that there's consensus about anything more profound than "it works, so we're probably on to something" is largely a misunderstanding. In terms of the universe expanding, the consensus so far is that it does indeed appear to be expanding. For now.
But I'm sure I'm alone in my worries and it's just because I'm a celebrity that my bitching gets put up with.
At least reason is not lost on you.
P.S. You're discarding a working, free product because you're pissed. You're being a zealot. If you were religious, you'd be considered extremist and dangerous.
I'd like to think people who deal with technology are rational.
lol
"Everything should be free as long as it's just data, long live TPB!"
"Oracle/Apple/Microsoft is evul - EVUL I TELL YOU! Google are OK though. Trust them with everything. They told us directly that they're not evul."
"If I can't tamper with the source code, the product sucks. How is this not obvious to everyone?"
Slashdot modding is indeed seriously degraded when "lol" earns +5 insightful - no matter what's being lol'ed at.
Lame article. A remote controlled robot will only ever be able to act as well as the person controlling it (and currently, it acts far worse).
Assuming it actually COULD act on it's own, and believably so, it still wouldn't replace human actors untill interfacing with it becomes more intuitive than simply yelling "I NEED MORE EMOTIONS!" at a real actor, who can actually, like, understand language, and has half a clue what these "emotions" even are.
The fact that the real actor states that it feels like being alone on the stage, seems a good indicator of just how unconvincing the robot is.
Maybe some day in the foreseeable future, we'll have an actual robot playing the part of a robot in a movie about robots. This article does not illustrate that we're close to anything beyond that.
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic and believe this could be abused. How?
In SC2, any person playing entirely based on a memorized build order is likely to be a bronze league noob. He's probably very engaged in what's going on, he's just too overwhelmed with practicing his fundamentals to actually have the capacity to respond to your actions. If you're playing against such a person, you're probably a bronze league noob yourself. If you out-think their canned routine, then congratulations! You've just proven that you're able to defeat a bronze league noob using build X! Most likely, some of the things you did will be good against OTHER people using a similar build. If their canned routine runs you over, then you have learned that build X kills you, EVEN when executed by a bronze league noob - you probably have a real weakness there!
You either haven't played SC2, or you're stuck in bronze league, spending half your matches getting facerolled by people using "supreme memorized build orders", who in fact probably just are quite good at macro'ing and/or randomly stumbled on a good counter for your build, and the other half, you're steamrolling noobs who seem incapable of making clever decisions based on your army. Maybe they're not being machines, maybe they just suck.
So, given that the people who are hostile towards competitive multiplayer, are the people that suck at playing... isn't it sensible to make single player games easier?
And what really makes my head spin: If this galaxy is moving away from us at the speed of light, and has been doing so for almost the entire age of the universe, doesn't that mean that it (and all observeable universe) started out from "our" position, even though the big bang should NOT be considered to extend from a central position?
Does the hubble constant change over time? By the time our universe is 20 billion years old, that galaxy will be 19.4 billion light years away. The above math would then result in the galaxy moving away at a speed greater than the speed of light. I guess we'll see time moving backwards?
It seems this new galaxy is right on the border of what part of the universe will ever be observable.
One parsec is 3.262 light years
13.1 billion light years = 3980 Mpc
Apparently, Hubbles constant places the rate of expansion at 77 (km/s) / Mpc:
77 (km/s) / Mpc * 3980 Mpc = 306460 km/s
So, this galaxy is moving away from us roughly at the speed of light. I guess that means time will appear to stand still when we observe that galaxy?
So iOS is definitely a bad choice for users who want to tweak.
However, despite allowing users to tweak, Android is not a bad choice for people who just want the device to work.
If somebody steals your credit card or computer password, for example, you can just get another card or change your password, thereby limiting the damage.
This remains true. Behavioural data alone is worth nothing.
Also, I'd argue that credit card fraud becomes a lot less interesting when the scammer is limited to buying things that the original card holder would be interested in.
I believe that making the assumption that all humans have the right to make any sort of publication available for the entire world to see with a minimum of effort is short-sighted, dangeroues, and possibly wrong. I'm all for freedom of speech, but 20 years ago, teenagers could not simply make a blog about their hardships for the world to deal with. Humanity has not only survived, but developed concepts such as democracy without the convenience granted by the internet.
Fact: On a historical scale, the internet is VERY NEW! It's proper place in human culture is not yet fully understood or established.
I absolutely believe that the convenience of allowing people to do their banking, rent movies, buy music, watch porn, etc., from the comfort of their own home, is great, and such premium services are likely gonna be the first to offer paying the premium rates to ISP's.
Well-established social networking sites will likely keep up. So what exactly is gonna hit the bottom of the priority pipe? I'm sure we'll "get rid" of timecube.com.
Should Gene Ray have the liberty of speaking his mind about his theory? Absolutely!
Is it his god-given human right to be able to simply set up a domain and get his "publication" google-able? I think not.
I've certainly observed the trend you're describing, but I'm refusing to obey by this ridiculous twist of an established word. Differentiating between apps and applications pisses me off the same way it pisses me off when people differentiate between potatoes and potatoes.
What exactly is the contradiction? You don't have to be pro-open to realize that using openness to advocate a closed product is nonsense.
We would love to hear the Slashdot crowd feedback on whether you want more, are artistic interpretations of scientific data acceptable
To be honest, I always have that "why? Isn't it impressive enough as it is?" when artistic interpretations are applied to astronomy. Whenever I'm shown amazing pictures of galaxies and gigantic colored gas clouds, and I go all "Whoa, so cool!", I die a little inside when I scroll down to the small text mentioning artistic interpretation.
I suspect the known universe has plenty of beautiful sights as it is, and every time astronomy-sites feel the need to involve artistic interpretations, I'm left wondering if the universe is in fact not at all as beautiful as I want it to be, or if it's just that all our technology isn't adequate to actually produce a decent image.
Artistic interpretations makes it feel like astronomers need to tell us a lie to keep us interested.
Slashdot already covered this.
I'm pretty sure the true number doesn't lie *below* the range.
All slashdot posters has had a live though. Most of these lives were lost as the poster discovered computers, and realized that "having a life" means "getting laid".
It's truly terrible.
However, I did once find myself on the headset with a bunch of friends, playing WoW. Someone said something funny, and I laughed. When I was done laughing, I instinctively pressed my push-to-talk button, and said "lol". And then I was like, "I did NOT just say that". Given the context though, and that I actually DID laugh out loud, I think I may be excused.
Actually, in hindsight, I don't wanna know. I'm already embarassed when I accidentally say "lol".