Then getting pregnant and dropping out of school to look after a kid who grows up in a poverty stricken household because daddy bought a stupid truck that he doesn't need.
I know there is a school of thought that the leader isn't all that important; that it is the company as a whole which really matters. But the evidence really calls that into question.
With Apple in particular. Apple was overtly run as a giant cult of personality. Products weren't prepared for customers, they were prepared for Steve. I don't see how you can replace that.
Apple's approach to design is antiseptic. They do everything they can to hide the machine, because the machine is not the part they make. This works fine for Lexus but...Lexus already exists. Apple doesn't do revolutionary hardware, they do revolutionary interfaces. But the interface for the car already works really well so I have to assume that they are eithe rgoing to try to convince us that it doesn't (not even Apple is that crazy) or focus on all the surrounding stuff. Allow people to manage the car from their phone...like a BMW i8...or develop a new way of interacting with all of the gadgets like every company has been doing since the dawn of internal combustion. But really, buttons are still the best way to interact with most things on a car. Because you don't need to look away from the road. I guess that's my point. Apple's identity is about making really good interfaces which you won't see because you're looking at the road.
The only way this makes sense if they are just building a buisness to take advantage of the autonomous car which we will undoubtedly be menaced with in the near future. If that's the case they don't need to make a great car, just one that isn't embarassing.
Oh, one last thing. People tend ot dismiss how much they pay for a phone. They do pay attention to the cost of a car. Good luck Apple.
So your saying rip them to start with. That sounds ideal, but there is no way I can afford to do it. Apart from anything else, I'd need 20 different cartridge readers. thanks anyway.
This is disconcerting. I have a very large collection (1500+) of games for all manner of consoles. Do you have any suggestions for how I might maintain them for as long as possible?
It can be invoked to discourage any question, and I don't believe that it should stop us for looking for answers. However, there is no point in denying a logically true fact. In my view the only way to be both intellectually honest AND productive is to say "I will never be able to fully explain anything, but the more I can the better".
I'm intrigued by the elimination of the word cause to which you allude. I like this very much because it fits in very well with the philosophy. If you ask somebody what the word cause means they will only be able to give you similies of the word cause, but nothing else that stands up to scrutiny. They might say "well, it's a factor without which the event would not have taken place", but then it is clearly in defiance of what we want to say for me to claim "I drove to Ottawa yesterday because there are roads. I couldn't have driven to Ottawa without roads, but neither did I drive there because there were roads. A set of circumstances existed under which me driving to Ottawa was an event that was going to happen. From your description, entaglement appears to be a way of replacing cause with sets of circumstances that only care about the entire state of the system. Cool!
Unfortunately I'm not at all equipped to answer those questions, and I hope that somebody here is. The one thing I can contribute is that it is theoretically possible for us to develop an internally consistent system of natural laws which both fit and predict all observable phenomena. If that were to happen then the question of what explains (or "causes", a term fraught with complication) that system would be purely academic and almost certainly unprovable, since we would already have developed the ability to predict and explain anything which we might use as a subject for experiment. Quantum physics may be on the edge of such system. It would be cooler if it wasn't though:p
I have a BA in philosophy and I took as many courses as I could on science and epistemology. The general concensus in these fields (of course with some disenters) is that you will always be able to ask this question about anything once you reach the scale boundries of our knowledge. When we say "gravity", what we really mean is a collection of rules which we are able to consistently produce accurate predictions from when applied to our observations. We can describe how a waterfall works in terms of gravity, but then when we ask how gravity works we must defer to some other system which then itself we will need to explain in terms of something else etcetera. I once grilled a chemist friend on what he meant when he said "electrons will always try to such and such" and he was stumped. It wasn't fair, because really the questions I was asking were based on a false appreciation of what the human study of natural law is able to be.
Entanglement is a set of circumstances which we observe under certain conditions and believe are related to the point that we can give them a name. So are an apple, rugby, paint thinner and pornography. It is our own need for certainty that makes it difficult for us to accept this limitation of language and meaning.
That is compelling but I don't feel entirely convinced by it. However, that piece of info combined with the fact that it differs notably (including in the spelling of play station) from the unit posted here (http://playstationmuseum.com/history/) does give me very VERY serious doubts. It looks cheaper in a few key areas than the museum image which I presume is from the 1991 reveal (of course that itself would need verification from somebody with a very old magazine collection). I doubt that they would announce it and then release something that appeared cheaper a la the Jaguar XJ220. If it was a prototype which was created BEFORE the reveal, how did it get out of the Sony lab? That stuff only leaves the office in briefcases chained to executives.
Bascially, we could use a little more information about the original announcement. Maybe we can find some archives from a magazine that covered CES that year.
I'm not really sure what is meant by "the first hybrid console". It isn't the first dedicated games machine to have multiple formats in one box (I believe that honor goes to the Sega Master System) and it isn't the first system to be backwards compatible (I'm pretty sure that was the Atari 7800, but there may have been something earlier).
Yes I AM being pedantic.
If your life revolves around video games, by definition you're a shallow person. I might be interested in a brief conversation with a person about the latest games, but if that's the extent of your interests then it's going to be a short conversation.
I know where you are coming from, but I find that a tad offensive as a general statement. Certainly if somebody essentially lives for the next big budget release they probably don't have much to contribute, but video games as a field are broad complex and fascinating. Understanding them requires knowledge of technology, psychology, drama, economics...name any major category of human endeavour and I'm sure I can come up with a way that it is relevant to video games.
Blizzard employs several full time psychologists to time the drops in their games. There are many aspects of game design which are about spacing out reward stimulus and the results are pretty much identical to drug use. When somebody talks about WoW addiction that is absolutely accurate. It's a pretty simple mechanism: the player performs actions and recieves a reward triggering endorphins. In real life rewards are often spaced very far apart and the actions performed are often tedious. In a properly designed game the actions are at a bare minimum not annoying to perform and you need to perform far less of them to get a reward. People are becoming addicted to short term rewards. CoD is based on a very similar principle. I am normally skeptical of this sort of "these younguns" reasoning, but in this case it is simply evidence that the games are working as they were intended to by the creators.
By the way, I love video games and in fact am actively working to become a professional game designer. It is this particular type of game design that I am criticizing. There are many others which aren't so insidious and ethically problematic.
Evidently don't spend much time around young adults (possibly a good thing?). Nintendo 3DS are a frequent sight around my campus, and they are all running Pokemon. They aren't as common as phones of course, but certainly enough to base a business on.
He who does not see with his eyes is blind.
Case1:
Person see's with eyes
Person does not see with mind
Person is blind
Case 2:
Person sees with eyes
Person sees with mind
Person is not blind
Case 3:
Person does not see with his eyes
Person does not see with his mind
Person is blind
Case 4:
Person does not see with his eyes
Person sees with his eyes
Person is blind
Ergo: Seeing with your eyes is a prerequisite to not being blind.
There does seem to be a difference here between eating animals, using them as labour or performing experiments on them. Those are examples of us sacrificing animals to serve our own ends. That is one type of ethical debate which our society is generally decided upon.
This is an example of needlessly harming and terrorizing an animal. We do not allow cockfighting or recreational animal torture. This seems, at least to me, to be an example of that sort of relationship with animals. The fact that we are teaching children that such treatment of animals is acceptable (as opposed to slapping their wrists for engaging in it) is just a bonus problem.
To that point, in "The Captive Mind" by Czesaw Miosz, he describes Communism as "The New Faith." In his view (he was an underground writer in Poland during WWII), Communism filled the same role as religion.
On a more personal note, I consider Socialism to be the closest thing that I have to a religion, since it is on the whole unlikely to ever transpire, and may well not work. Yet I cling to it for guidance.
I think that we have just gone as far off topic as is reasonably possible.
If I am denied a cure to this frustrating debilitation because somebody thinks that it will lead to Gattica, I am going to track them down, take off one of their arms and tell them that prosthetics are unethical. And painkillers.
Seriously, It sucks. Be glad if you don't have it, join me in moderate irritation if you do.
My internal philosophy majour Is absolutely fascinated by this whole idea. The ethical complexities (and how we have decided to to put them into law) are totally cool, though perhaps in a rather morbid way. Forget the science: How do we deal with potential no-win scenarioes and, more interestingly, how scalable is the law?
Wouldn't Ralph Baer (or Magnavox) have a patent on this? Given that all of that work was done in the 70s, I can't imagine nobody registered for a patent like this until 98.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm pretty sure it was made in the 90s.
Then getting pregnant and dropping out of school to look after a kid who grows up in a poverty stricken household because daddy bought a stupid truck that he doesn't need.
That is my idea of hell. I realize that other people think it sounds excellent. They would be better off if they didn't.
I know there is a school of thought that the leader isn't all that important; that it is the company as a whole which really matters. But the evidence really calls that into question.
With Apple in particular. Apple was overtly run as a giant cult of personality. Products weren't prepared for customers, they were prepared for Steve. I don't see how you can replace that.
Apple's approach to design is antiseptic. They do everything they can to hide the machine, because the machine is not the part they make. This works fine for Lexus but...Lexus already exists. Apple doesn't do revolutionary hardware, they do revolutionary interfaces. But the interface for the car already works really well so I have to assume that they are eithe rgoing to try to convince us that it doesn't (not even Apple is that crazy) or focus on all the surrounding stuff. Allow people to manage the car from their phone...like a BMW i8...or develop a new way of interacting with all of the gadgets like every company has been doing since the dawn of internal combustion. But really, buttons are still the best way to interact with most things on a car. Because you don't need to look away from the road. I guess that's my point. Apple's identity is about making really good interfaces which you won't see because you're looking at the road. The only way this makes sense if they are just building a buisness to take advantage of the autonomous car which we will undoubtedly be menaced with in the near future. If that's the case they don't need to make a great car, just one that isn't embarassing. Oh, one last thing. People tend ot dismiss how much they pay for a phone. They do pay attention to the cost of a car. Good luck Apple.
So your saying rip them to start with. That sounds ideal, but there is no way I can afford to do it. Apart from anything else, I'd need 20 different cartridge readers. thanks anyway.
This is disconcerting. I have a very large collection (1500+) of games for all manner of consoles. Do you have any suggestions for how I might maintain them for as long as possible?
It can be invoked to discourage any question, and I don't believe that it should stop us for looking for answers. However, there is no point in denying a logically true fact. In my view the only way to be both intellectually honest AND productive is to say "I will never be able to fully explain anything, but the more I can the better".
I'm intrigued by the elimination of the word cause to which you allude. I like this very much because it fits in very well with the philosophy. If you ask somebody what the word cause means they will only be able to give you similies of the word cause, but nothing else that stands up to scrutiny. They might say "well, it's a factor without which the event would not have taken place", but then it is clearly in defiance of what we want to say for me to claim "I drove to Ottawa yesterday because there are roads. I couldn't have driven to Ottawa without roads, but neither did I drive there because there were roads. A set of circumstances existed under which me driving to Ottawa was an event that was going to happen. From your description, entaglement appears to be a way of replacing cause with sets of circumstances that only care about the entire state of the system. Cool!
Unfortunately I'm not at all equipped to answer those questions, and I hope that somebody here is. The one thing I can contribute is that it is theoretically possible for us to develop an internally consistent system of natural laws which both fit and predict all observable phenomena. If that were to happen then the question of what explains (or "causes", a term fraught with complication) that system would be purely academic and almost certainly unprovable, since we would already have developed the ability to predict and explain anything which we might use as a subject for experiment. Quantum physics may be on the edge of such system. It would be cooler if it wasn't though :p
I have a BA in philosophy and I took as many courses as I could on science and epistemology. The general concensus in these fields (of course with some disenters) is that you will always be able to ask this question about anything once you reach the scale boundries of our knowledge. When we say "gravity", what we really mean is a collection of rules which we are able to consistently produce accurate predictions from when applied to our observations. We can describe how a waterfall works in terms of gravity, but then when we ask how gravity works we must defer to some other system which then itself we will need to explain in terms of something else etcetera. I once grilled a chemist friend on what he meant when he said "electrons will always try to such and such" and he was stumped. It wasn't fair, because really the questions I was asking were based on a false appreciation of what the human study of natural law is able to be. Entanglement is a set of circumstances which we observe under certain conditions and believe are related to the point that we can give them a name. So are an apple, rugby, paint thinner and pornography. It is our own need for certainty that makes it difficult for us to accept this limitation of language and meaning.
Yes, but I was trying to stick to examples of a single box that covered two systems without an add-on. A SNES will play gameboy games with an adapter.
That is compelling but I don't feel entirely convinced by it. However, that piece of info combined with the fact that it differs notably (including in the spelling of play station) from the unit posted here (http://playstationmuseum.com/history/) does give me very VERY serious doubts. It looks cheaper in a few key areas than the museum image which I presume is from the 1991 reveal (of course that itself would need verification from somebody with a very old magazine collection). I doubt that they would announce it and then release something that appeared cheaper a la the Jaguar XJ220. If it was a prototype which was created BEFORE the reveal, how did it get out of the Sony lab? That stuff only leaves the office in briefcases chained to executives. Bascially, we could use a little more information about the original announcement. Maybe we can find some archives from a magazine that covered CES that year.
I'm not really sure what is meant by "the first hybrid console". It isn't the first dedicated games machine to have multiple formats in one box (I believe that honor goes to the Sega Master System) and it isn't the first system to be backwards compatible (I'm pretty sure that was the Atari 7800, but there may have been something earlier). Yes I AM being pedantic.
If your life revolves around video games, by definition you're a shallow person. I might be interested in a brief conversation with a person about the latest games, but if that's the extent of your interests then it's going to be a short conversation.
I know where you are coming from, but I find that a tad offensive as a general statement. Certainly if somebody essentially lives for the next big budget release they probably don't have much to contribute, but video games as a field are broad complex and fascinating. Understanding them requires knowledge of technology, psychology, drama, economics...name any major category of human endeavour and I'm sure I can come up with a way that it is relevant to video games.
Blizzard employs several full time psychologists to time the drops in their games. There are many aspects of game design which are about spacing out reward stimulus and the results are pretty much identical to drug use. When somebody talks about WoW addiction that is absolutely accurate. It's a pretty simple mechanism: the player performs actions and recieves a reward triggering endorphins. In real life rewards are often spaced very far apart and the actions performed are often tedious. In a properly designed game the actions are at a bare minimum not annoying to perform and you need to perform far less of them to get a reward. People are becoming addicted to short term rewards. CoD is based on a very similar principle. I am normally skeptical of this sort of "these younguns" reasoning, but in this case it is simply evidence that the games are working as they were intended to by the creators. By the way, I love video games and in fact am actively working to become a professional game designer. It is this particular type of game design that I am criticizing. There are many others which aren't so insidious and ethically problematic.
Evidently don't spend much time around young adults (possibly a good thing?). Nintendo 3DS are a frequent sight around my campus, and they are all running Pokemon. They aren't as common as phones of course, but certainly enough to base a business on.
He who does not see with his eyes is blind. Case1: Person see's with eyes Person does not see with mind Person is blind Case 2: Person sees with eyes Person sees with mind Person is not blind Case 3: Person does not see with his eyes Person does not see with his mind Person is blind Case 4: Person does not see with his eyes Person sees with his eyes Person is blind Ergo: Seeing with your eyes is a prerequisite to not being blind.
There does seem to be a difference here between eating animals, using them as labour or performing experiments on them. Those are examples of us sacrificing animals to serve our own ends. That is one type of ethical debate which our society is generally decided upon. This is an example of needlessly harming and terrorizing an animal. We do not allow cockfighting or recreational animal torture. This seems, at least to me, to be an example of that sort of relationship with animals. The fact that we are teaching children that such treatment of animals is acceptable (as opposed to slapping their wrists for engaging in it) is just a bonus problem.
I feel like even /. isn't quite nerdy enough for EVE jokes.
To that point, in "The Captive Mind" by Czesaw Miosz, he describes Communism as "The New Faith." In his view (he was an underground writer in Poland during WWII), Communism filled the same role as religion. On a more personal note, I consider Socialism to be the closest thing that I have to a religion, since it is on the whole unlikely to ever transpire, and may well not work. Yet I cling to it for guidance. I think that we have just gone as far off topic as is reasonably possible.
On the other hand, I like painting miniatures and video games. Both get alot harder when you can't discern between red, green and yellow properly.
If I am denied a cure to this frustrating debilitation because somebody thinks that it will lead to Gattica, I am going to track them down, take off one of their arms and tell them that prosthetics are unethical. And painkillers. Seriously, It sucks. Be glad if you don't have it, join me in moderate irritation if you do.
My internal philosophy majour Is absolutely fascinated by this whole idea. The ethical complexities (and how we have decided to to put them into law) are totally cool, though perhaps in a rather morbid way. Forget the science: How do we deal with potential no-win scenarioes and, more interestingly, how scalable is the law?
Wouldn't Ralph Baer (or Magnavox) have a patent on this? Given that all of that work was done in the 70s, I can't imagine nobody registered for a patent like this until 98.