Wait, I am posting this from my blackberry via BIS (RIM internet)...
Oh well, apparently the Armageddon is still a few days off.
Re:Both game developers and artists need money
on
The Nuking of Duke Nukem
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think the point to that statement was that getting the money up front usually tied the artist (game or music) in to deliver on someone elses' timeline, which in this case is what DNF needed more than anything else since even a stream of crappy, poorly selling titles would have been better than, well, nothing.
It highlights the cautionary tale that DNF has become: don't let a mountain of cash take your eye off the development process that usually ends when the investors tighten the leash and say its time to start paying back, since that part is only avoidable if you want to fade into oblivion with nothing to show for it.
It's all documented in the Library of Congress. In fact, a lot of information is contained in the Library of Congress. Ten Terabytes: and if each bit was a "0" or "1" in 12-point font, laid end-to-end, it would stretch to the Apophis asteroid and back nine times (at its closest point to Earth).
Seriously, what's this "1 in 250,000" chance of hitting the Earth? It's only going to pass once, and it'll either hit or miss. So it's one in 2.
That's why it's important for lottery money to go toward education. These scientists can't calculate probabilities!
Ironic then, that as I win the lottery every other time I play (the odds being 1:2) the education fund will no doubt go into the red delivering my payouts... Take that, book learnin'!
That depends on how many times the speed of sound the Volkswagen beetles are going...
Is 'speed of sound' an obscure enough unit (when referring to something in a vacuum) or is furlongs/fortnight required? Maybe conversion to 'force(s) of a mack truck' to imply speed and mass? I am certain we can clear this up somehow...
Yeah it seems like it will only really help the patent writers (who will get to charge double for each patent idea they write up) and, hence, the companies with fat enough wallets to spend twice as much on the patent process. The losers will be anyone trying to get a patent on a budget. Yay, progress!
No one has batted an eye at all the other companies owning swaths of public opinion (News Corp comes to mind). Why start now? Big company deals happen all the time. Aside from the notion that some people hold that "bigger is never better" what is the actual accusation here? That they are going to turn into the next News Corp? Oh wait, News Corp is still News Corp. Nevermind.
What, exactly, is "too big to fail" about Comcast (a large but certainly not the only large cable company) owning half of NBC (a large but certainly not the only large TV network)? Save your energy for when Comcast buys up Time Warner or one of the other similarly large content/delivery companies. Until then, this is business as usual.
The basic counter argument is that TCP "fairness" assumes everyone wants the same experience. As you pointed out, a true bandwidth hog doesn't care about the latency during their hogging sessions since they plan around them, and therefore arguing that TCP is fair because it treats all packets the same is pure rubbish. If everyone (including the hog) is trying to make a VOIP call or play WOW then sure, the system is fair because the hog has degraded service just like everyone else. The enterprising hog simply waits for periods when they don't care about latency and cranks up the download speed, ruining the experience for everyone else.
I'm not posting off topic, YOU are posting off topic!
If I were a Verizon FiOS customer I would change my sig to "That may seem off topic but it isn't." See? These aren't the droids you are looking for, after all.
Electric heat? In the US at least, natural gas costs about 1/3 of what electricity does per rendered BTU. Many homes have natural gas heating for this purpose, and deriving heat from electricity could be seen as only contributing 1/3 cost efficiency when considered to be a heat source. Not to mention summer cooling costs; are you suggesting swapping out incandescents for CFLs during the summer months? Interesting theory, I look forward to some math on the subject.
Each particle has 7 TeV (or it will when the LHC is at full power). Considering there may be a million or more particles in the beam at any given time, the energy is actually quite immense. Of course, the issue of aiming it still comes into play, as I imagine picking up a 27 KM ring and pointing it at invading aliens would be mildly unrealistic.
When does the Science ever begin with a particle accelerator project? What do you define as science? They are now crashing particles faster than the Tevatron (as is the subject of the article) and have taken the title of "most powerful particle accelerator". Will this yield results different from what the Tevatron has seen for the past few years? We won't know until it happens. Will the LHC quickly ramp up to 7 TeV? We won't know until it happens. Will anything come of the data produced when it runs at 7 TeV? Again, we won't know until it happens. Considering how much time and money has been spent we should expect the odds are really good that some unique science will come of it some day, but to say that a decade long project is going too slowly because full power won't be reached for another year seems a little short sighted.
Saying "you shouldn't cite wikipedia" as a shorthand for "wikipedia isn't a 'source' of information and therefore not eligible to use as the basis for information in a paper" is just fine. However, this is not the same as saying "you shouldn't cite wikipedia because it is not accurate enough to bear citing" which is clearly a misnomer. Anyone spending more than a few minutes on Wikipedia should come across this core value: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." As such, ipso facto Wikipedia is not a "source" to cite at all, it relies purely on information provided from other, *actual* sources. If kids don't get that, you need to address the problem with the kid, not Wikipedia.
Honestly, I would criticize a kid equally for citing a dead tree Encyclopedia and for citing Wikipedia; either one demonstrates a severe lack of motivation to seek knowledge, not to mention that it's been demonstrated that the prose contained in each are prone to factual errors.
Ugh, the Capitalism snark was an attempt to find humor in the notion that someone is somehow "unable" to use a paid-for version of an encyclopedia simply because it was charged money for at some point.
Yes, I get that you are being sarcastic, I just had to clear myself up.
What does "paying for" have to do with dated or biased encyclopedias (or encyclopedias in general for that matter)? The point was that dead tree Encyclopedias are less expensive to the average citizen (granted, this only applies to sufficiently developed nations) than Wikipedia is. It costs money to obtain a computer, and connect it to the internet. However, walking into a public library and pulling an Encyclopedia off the shelf is still free-as-in-beer.
Yes, I do realize that most libraries also have free internet available, putting Wikipedia and dead tree Encyclopedias on an even footing. Maybe my allergic snark was a little too quick, I will give you that.
That's funny, the express goal of Wikipedia is to NOT be an authoritative source for ANY information. It's a repository, a starting point that happens to include prose to allow for a concise understanding. People try to use the "it's not citeable" line as a criticism of Wikipedia, but you are just showing off how little you know about it.
That being said, it is sad how many more pages are dedicated to The Office than to particle physics or other subjects of actual intellectual value.
You can't use any that cost anything? Are you allergic to capitalism? Maybe a stipulation should be "it must rhyme with 'brickerspelia'"? You should probably read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_library and then reconsider the accessibility of non-free-as-in-beer information.
The paradox is that as the number of useful contributors leave, the number of vandals is sure to only increase. If there are no provisions for better restricting the damage caused by vandals, the nature of the project as a reliable repository of information could in fact vanish.
If the budget really isn't in question, wouldn't they be looking into the blade server version of the cell processor, you know, the one that powers a good many of the supercomputers on the top500 list? As it is, this is PURELY a budget decision. Playstation 3 units at $300 per cpu node beats the HELL out of $1000-2000 or more per node for the conventional computing version. Add to that the fact that Sony still takes a loss on every PS3 unit that goes out the door, meaning it's basically a Sony subsidized supercomputer for a fraction of what a legit one would cost. This is nothing more than a well publicized exercise in unconventional supercomputing on a shoestring. Hats off to the Air Force, I for one am looking forward to some nice pictures of row after row of glimmering black PS3s with heat ripples coming off of them.
The black holes or universe-ending paradoxes are still a few months off, at least. They are colliding at a paltry 450 GeV, a level we have been able to produce at other colliders for many years. Wake me when they are passing 1 TeV, on their way to 8...
Somehow I doubt "yes but MY letter was printed with the utmost of speed" will impress any ladies... And that was what letter writing was all about. I suppose that you could argue the advantages of being able to court 1,500 girls at once...
Does this survey actually look at the failure of each unit across the board or just those units that have had a SquareTrade warranty purchased? And, following that line of thought, are those that paid extra for a third party warranty more likely to abuse their hardware knowing that they will have a free replacement on the way if something breaks? And finally, does this sampling error completely invalidate the thesis of their study?
If you are going to reply with "you can still assume the failure rate is higher for one vs. the other" please don't. If the sample is so blatantly biased, any number of other factors might be involved. For example, psychologically there may be little hesitation for someone to say "why not balance a jug of water on my head whilst I type on my $300 netbook, it's warrantied" whereas they would be less likely to do so when using a $3000 laptop, regardless of the warranty they have on it.
I think I was in a high school 'comp sci for dummies' class based on that principle. You would be surprised how much qBasic can do with generous use of GOTO.
Well, at least, it seemed like an impressive program at the time. Good thing I don't write code for a living!
You got him backward, he wants HIGH dpi monitors, meaning more, smaller pixels in the same space. Fortunately Newegg.com lets you search for LCD screens by pixel pitch, answering ALL the questions in this thread (at least for the product space that Newegg carries).
Slashdot Mirror
Panic panic panicpanicpanic
Wait, I am posting this from my blackberry via BIS (RIM internet)...
Oh well, apparently the Armageddon is still a few days off.
I think the point to that statement was that getting the money up front usually tied the artist (game or music) in to deliver on someone elses' timeline, which in this case is what DNF needed more than anything else since even a stream of crappy, poorly selling titles would have been better than, well, nothing.
It highlights the cautionary tale that DNF has become: don't let a mountain of cash take your eye off the development process that usually ends when the investors tighten the leash and say its time to start paying back, since that part is only avoidable if you want to fade into oblivion with nothing to show for it.
It's all documented in the Library of Congress. In fact, a lot of information is contained in the Library of Congress. Ten Terabytes: and if each bit was a "0" or "1" in 12-point font, laid end-to-end, it would stretch to the Apophis asteroid and back nine times (at its closest point to Earth).
Seriously, what's this "1 in 250,000" chance of hitting the Earth? It's only going to pass once, and it'll either hit or miss. So it's one in 2.
That's why it's important for lottery money to go toward education. These scientists can't calculate probabilities!
Ironic then, that as I win the lottery every other time I play (the odds being 1:2) the education fund will no doubt go into the red delivering my payouts... Take that, book learnin'!
Thank god, more rocks on the moon. What a prize.
That depends on how many times the speed of sound the Volkswagen beetles are going...
Is 'speed of sound' an obscure enough unit (when referring to something in a vacuum) or is furlongs/fortnight required? Maybe conversion to 'force(s) of a mack truck' to imply speed and mass? I am certain we can clear this up somehow...
Yeah it seems like it will only really help the patent writers (who will get to charge double for each patent idea they write up) and, hence, the companies with fat enough wallets to spend twice as much on the patent process. The losers will be anyone trying to get a patent on a budget. Yay, progress!
No one has batted an eye at all the other companies owning swaths of public opinion (News Corp comes to mind). Why start now? Big company deals happen all the time. Aside from the notion that some people hold that "bigger is never better" what is the actual accusation here? That they are going to turn into the next News Corp? Oh wait, News Corp is still News Corp. Nevermind.
"Chicken Coup"; my thoughts exactly.
What, exactly, is "too big to fail" about Comcast (a large but certainly not the only large cable company) owning half of NBC (a large but certainly not the only large TV network)? Save your energy for when Comcast buys up Time Warner or one of the other similarly large content/delivery companies. Until then, this is business as usual.
The basic counter argument is that TCP "fairness" assumes everyone wants the same experience. As you pointed out, a true bandwidth hog doesn't care about the latency during their hogging sessions since they plan around them, and therefore arguing that TCP is fair because it treats all packets the same is pure rubbish. If everyone (including the hog) is trying to make a VOIP call or play WOW then sure, the system is fair because the hog has degraded service just like everyone else. The enterprising hog simply waits for periods when they don't care about latency and cranks up the download speed, ruining the experience for everyone else.
I'm not posting off topic, YOU are posting off topic!
If I were a Verizon FiOS customer I would change my sig to "That may seem off topic but it isn't." See? These aren't the droids you are looking for, after all.
Electric heat? In the US at least, natural gas costs about 1/3 of what electricity does per rendered BTU. Many homes have natural gas heating for this purpose, and deriving heat from electricity could be seen as only contributing 1/3 cost efficiency when considered to be a heat source. Not to mention summer cooling costs; are you suggesting swapping out incandescents for CFLs during the summer months? Interesting theory, I look forward to some math on the subject.
Each particle has 7 TeV (or it will when the LHC is at full power). Considering there may be a million or more particles in the beam at any given time, the energy is actually quite immense. Of course, the issue of aiming it still comes into play, as I imagine picking up a 27 KM ring and pointing it at invading aliens would be mildly unrealistic.
When does the Science ever begin with a particle accelerator project? What do you define as science? They are now crashing particles faster than the Tevatron (as is the subject of the article) and have taken the title of "most powerful particle accelerator". Will this yield results different from what the Tevatron has seen for the past few years? We won't know until it happens. Will the LHC quickly ramp up to 7 TeV? We won't know until it happens. Will anything come of the data produced when it runs at 7 TeV? Again, we won't know until it happens. Considering how much time and money has been spent we should expect the odds are really good that some unique science will come of it some day, but to say that a decade long project is going too slowly because full power won't be reached for another year seems a little short sighted.
Saying "you shouldn't cite wikipedia" as a shorthand for "wikipedia isn't a 'source' of information and therefore not eligible to use as the basis for information in a paper" is just fine. However, this is not the same as saying "you shouldn't cite wikipedia because it is not accurate enough to bear citing" which is clearly a misnomer. Anyone spending more than a few minutes on Wikipedia should come across this core value: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." As such, ipso facto Wikipedia is not a "source" to cite at all, it relies purely on information provided from other, *actual* sources. If kids don't get that, you need to address the problem with the kid, not Wikipedia.
Honestly, I would criticize a kid equally for citing a dead tree Encyclopedia and for citing Wikipedia; either one demonstrates a severe lack of motivation to seek knowledge, not to mention that it's been demonstrated that the prose contained in each are prone to factual errors.
Ugh, the Capitalism snark was an attempt to find humor in the notion that someone is somehow "unable" to use a paid-for version of an encyclopedia simply because it was charged money for at some point.
Yes, I get that you are being sarcastic, I just had to clear myself up.
What does "paying for" have to do with dated or biased encyclopedias (or encyclopedias in general for that matter)? The point was that dead tree Encyclopedias are less expensive to the average citizen (granted, this only applies to sufficiently developed nations) than Wikipedia is. It costs money to obtain a computer, and connect it to the internet. However, walking into a public library and pulling an Encyclopedia off the shelf is still free-as-in-beer.
Yes, I do realize that most libraries also have free internet available, putting Wikipedia and dead tree Encyclopedias on an even footing. Maybe my allergic snark was a little too quick, I will give you that.
That's funny, the express goal of Wikipedia is to NOT be an authoritative source for ANY information. It's a repository, a starting point that happens to include prose to allow for a concise understanding. People try to use the "it's not citeable" line as a criticism of Wikipedia, but you are just showing off how little you know about it.
That being said, it is sad how many more pages are dedicated to The Office than to particle physics or other subjects of actual intellectual value.
You can't use any that cost anything? Are you allergic to capitalism? Maybe a stipulation should be "it must rhyme with 'brickerspelia'"? You should probably read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_library and then reconsider the accessibility of non-free-as-in-beer information.
The paradox is that as the number of useful contributors leave, the number of vandals is sure to only increase. If there are no provisions for better restricting the damage caused by vandals, the nature of the project as a reliable repository of information could in fact vanish.
If the budget really isn't in question, wouldn't they be looking into the blade server version of the cell processor, you know, the one that powers a good many of the supercomputers on the top500 list? As it is, this is PURELY a budget decision. Playstation 3 units at $300 per cpu node beats the HELL out of $1000-2000 or more per node for the conventional computing version. Add to that the fact that Sony still takes a loss on every PS3 unit that goes out the door, meaning it's basically a Sony subsidized supercomputer for a fraction of what a legit one would cost. This is nothing more than a well publicized exercise in unconventional supercomputing on a shoestring. Hats off to the Air Force, I for one am looking forward to some nice pictures of row after row of glimmering black PS3s with heat ripples coming off of them.
The black holes or universe-ending paradoxes are still a few months off, at least. They are colliding at a paltry 450 GeV, a level we have been able to produce at other colliders for many years. Wake me when they are passing 1 TeV, on their way to 8...
Somehow I doubt "yes but MY letter was printed with the utmost of speed" will impress any ladies... And that was what letter writing was all about. I suppose that you could argue the advantages of being able to court 1,500 girls at once...
Does this survey actually look at the failure of each unit across the board or just those units that have had a SquareTrade warranty purchased? And, following that line of thought, are those that paid extra for a third party warranty more likely to abuse their hardware knowing that they will have a free replacement on the way if something breaks? And finally, does this sampling error completely invalidate the thesis of their study?
If you are going to reply with "you can still assume the failure rate is higher for one vs. the other" please don't. If the sample is so blatantly biased, any number of other factors might be involved. For example, psychologically there may be little hesitation for someone to say "why not balance a jug of water on my head whilst I type on my $300 netbook, it's warrantied" whereas they would be less likely to do so when using a $3000 laptop, regardless of the warranty they have on it.
I think I was in a high school 'comp sci for dummies' class based on that principle. You would be surprised how much qBasic can do with generous use of GOTO.
Well, at least, it seemed like an impressive program at the time. Good thing I don't write code for a living!
You got him backward, he wants HIGH dpi monitors, meaning more, smaller pixels in the same space. Fortunately Newegg.com lets you search for LCD screens by pixel pitch, answering ALL the questions in this thread (at least for the product space that Newegg carries).
http://www.newegg.com/
Carry on.