people used to justify this commingling of academia with commercial interests by the peer-review process involved in journal publication, but the peer-review process provided by academic journals clearly isn't working here.
Well, if you're a crackpot, it follows that at least some of your peers will be crackpots too. That's the whole problem with trust-based systems. They don't work if everyone's a nutjob.
1. All major newspapers and most local ones have web versions of their content.
2. Freedom of Press covers more than just newspapers. All print media is covered by this right.
3. There's no such thing as objective news. All media outlets are influenced by politics and/or money, even supposedly neutral entities like NPR. A dry news report does not make it objective.
4. Online or not, news outlets will always have more clout than some blogger. If someone is stupid enough to think a blog is anything more than someone's opinion, then there was no help for them in the first place.
5. Newspapers are a waste of paper. Everything in a newspaper can be put online. Everything. And it seems, like me, most people would rather have one device to find all of their news, local, national and international, and have the ability to research topics and find counterpoints instantly online. Plus we'll save a few million acres of trees to boot.
I personally am sick and tired of all the bitching about losing business and 'it's not like it used to be'. FFS, the internet isn't new and it isn't a fad. Now that we've gotten used to having vast amounts of information immediately available, the push to an online society will only increase. If media companies want to stay in business, then they'd better learn to adapt to it. The only tragedy I can see here is that news companies won't need as many staff to do online publication. And again, they can see it coming, they should be preparing for the day the printing press is replaced by a server rack.
I'd guess a minimum of 100 years. It needs to be on a scale long enough to be reasonably accurate in terms of changing weather patterns, and short enough to be a reasonable amount of time in terms of human lifespan. If we can maintain or lower the average in that time then I think it's safe to say we've taken the right steps.
From another perspective, you could say we spent 100 years fucking up the planet with carbon emissions and gross amounts of waste, we should spend at least another 100 trying to clean it up.
Besides which, having a difficult question does not invalidate the problem. It's like saying, "How long do I have to shoo away this pack of wolves before I can climb down out of this tree?" Your statements imply guy should just climb down because the question is a real stumper so the problem must not exist, when really the answer is, "As long as it fucking takes."
Assuming this guy actually got permissions from Blizzard and they don't IRL permban him, all this guy has to do is offer an internet hotspot and he'll be China's version of McDonald's. He'd have WoW addicts in there 24/7 grubbin' and gamin'.
...The fact is the woman did something really dumb and hurt herself, then sued. She should have been laughed out of court. Instead, she and her lawyer got a huge payday, and each and every one of the rest of us, millions I have no doubt, who day in and day out bought the same coffee and had no problems because we used common sense, got screwed.
There needs to be a +5 Common Sense mod for this man.
Never underestimate how much complexity and cost people will put into the pursuit of coffee.
Which I find very strange, since some of the best coffee comes out of one of the simplest devices, a coffee percolator. Or for you espresso lovers, the Moka Pot.
There's some engineering axiom about this which I can't think of now, but it basically boils down to Occam's Razor: All things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the best.
I wholeheartedly agree. Who is the demographic for this? Well-intentioned-but-tragically-misguided mothers? For a kid, the only thing worse than reading Dickens is trying to read it on a 3-inch screen.
One can only hope it's old ladies shopping. When I read "simulations of everything" and "user-generated content" I immediately thought of the time I first discovered "Furry Island" in Second Life. The horror...
who thinks the Mona Lisa is a crappy painting? I've never understood why it's regarded as one of the best ever made. The girl is not attractive and nothing about the image seems revolutionary compared to other works of the time. What is supposed to make it the best ever?
It depends on whether the expansions are mutually exclusive or not. If you can pick and choose the expansions, then yes a review is beneficial. But if you need one expansion to play another, then my previous statement still applies. If you plan on playing the MMO for a significant amount of time, you might as well get the updates. No one likes to be the guy in the group with the crappy equipment because he doesn't have the expansion yet.
I think there is very little point in reviewing updates for MMOs. Considering the entire business model revolves around continuous content updates and subscription-based payments, it'd be ridiculous for someone planning to play that MMO for any real length of time not to buy the update for it.
I'm just glad Blizzard is the kind of company that focuses on quality and doesn't rush their shit, because at this point WoW is big enough that they really could take a dump in a box, slap on the WoW label, and watch the sales come in.
I'm still trying to figure out what contribution this "discovery" (reenactment?) brings. It's neat they can use this light echo technique to reconstruct a supernova, and it's nice they can now definitively classify Tycho's supernova, but everything else seems to be already known. Even the technique they used to do it doesn't seem new. Is there some new contribution to astronomy here or are they just showing off?
This is an old, flawed argument. A gun is a tool specifically designed to kill efficiently. A hammer is not. You could use a gun to hammer in a nail, but if you had a hammer, why would you? Technically a person can be killed by pretty much any object lying around if the wielder is creative enough. The difference is in the original intended use of the tool.
That's because for all the freedoms taken away/mangled by the patriot act, it's not immediately present in the mind of the average american. Americans just plain don't like to be bothered. Laws like the Patriot Act get passed because it doesn't affect the day-to-day grind. But, take away the ability to surf porn and chat up myspace and people will be pissed. God knows what would happen if some ISP decided to block fantasy football sites here.
It actually probably wouldn't be that hard to find people willing. Pretty much everyone is afraid of death to some extent, but some people are downright terrified. There was a craze over cryogenics not too long ago, with people wanting to be frozen and stored when they died until the day re-animation was invented, even though no one knows if it's even possible, let alone how far away the technology is. And if people are willing to do that, would it be so hard to find someone to try suspended animation, since it seems to be at least plausible?
This shouldn't even be news. I wouldn't doubt if this was true for every country. If they did a survey in the US, I'd bet money they'd find more people play sports games than play sports.
Where's the statistic for how many people play games vs watch sports as their primary recreation?
I'm more concerned with the claim that the T-Rex had "bird-like arms". Did I miss something in the evolutionary charts? I know the latest theory is dinosaurs may be related to birds, but I'm not seeing how an Archaeopterix could have flown with to-scale T-Rex arms.
Slashdot Mirror
people used to justify this commingling of academia with commercial interests by the peer-review process involved in journal publication, but the peer-review process provided by academic journals clearly isn't working here.
Well, if you're a crackpot, it follows that at least some of your peers will be crackpots too. That's the whole problem with trust-based systems. They don't work if everyone's a nutjob.
A few things...
1. All major newspapers and most local ones have web versions of their content.
2. Freedom of Press covers more than just newspapers. All print media is covered by this right.
3. There's no such thing as objective news. All media outlets are influenced by politics and/or money, even supposedly neutral entities like NPR. A dry news report does not make it objective.
4. Online or not, news outlets will always have more clout than some blogger. If someone is stupid enough to think a blog is anything more than someone's opinion, then there was no help for them in the first place.
5. Newspapers are a waste of paper. Everything in a newspaper can be put online. Everything. And it seems, like me, most people would rather have one device to find all of their news, local, national and international, and have the ability to research topics and find counterpoints instantly online. Plus we'll save a few million acres of trees to boot.
I personally am sick and tired of all the bitching about losing business and 'it's not like it used to be'. FFS, the internet isn't new and it isn't a fad. Now that we've gotten used to having vast amounts of information immediately available, the push to an online society will only increase. If media companies want to stay in business, then they'd better learn to adapt to it. The only tragedy I can see here is that news companies won't need as many staff to do online publication. And again, they can see it coming, they should be preparing for the day the printing press is replaced by a server rack.
I'd guess a minimum of 100 years. It needs to be on a scale long enough to be reasonably accurate in terms of changing weather patterns, and short enough to be a reasonable amount of time in terms of human lifespan. If we can maintain or lower the average in that time then I think it's safe to say we've taken the right steps.
From another perspective, you could say we spent 100 years fucking up the planet with carbon emissions and gross amounts of waste, we should spend at least another 100 trying to clean it up.
Besides which, having a difficult question does not invalidate the problem. It's like saying, "How long do I have to shoo away this pack of wolves before I can climb down out of this tree?" Your statements imply guy should just climb down because the question is a real stumper so the problem must not exist, when really the answer is, "As long as it fucking takes."
Assuming this guy actually got permissions from Blizzard and they don't IRL permban him, all this guy has to do is offer an internet hotspot and he'll be China's version of McDonald's. He'd have WoW addicts in there 24/7 grubbin' and gamin'.
Tell that to the poison arrow frogs. (I've heard that saying too though, but I can't place it either.)
I think it's more amazing Google actually got something out of Beta.
"Rouge" makes for better copy. It's all about marketing mate.
...The fact is the woman did something really dumb and hurt herself, then sued. She should have been laughed out of court. Instead, she and her lawyer got a huge payday, and each and every one of the rest of us, millions I have no doubt, who day in and day out bought the same coffee and had no problems because we used common sense, got screwed.
There needs to be a +5 Common Sense mod for this man.
Never underestimate how much complexity and cost people will put into the pursuit of coffee.
Which I find very strange, since some of the best coffee comes out of one of the simplest devices, a coffee percolator. Or for you espresso lovers, the Moka Pot.
There's some engineering axiom about this which I can't think of now, but it basically boils down to Occam's Razor: All things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the best.
I wholeheartedly agree. Who is the demographic for this? Well-intentioned-but-tragically-misguided mothers? For a kid, the only thing worse than reading Dickens is trying to read it on a 3-inch screen.
One can only hope it's old ladies shopping. When I read "simulations of everything" and "user-generated content" I immediately thought of the time I first discovered "Furry Island" in Second Life. The horror...
who thinks the Mona Lisa is a crappy painting? I've never understood why it's regarded as one of the best ever made. The girl is not attractive and nothing about the image seems revolutionary compared to other works of the time. What is supposed to make it the best ever?
It depends on whether the expansions are mutually exclusive or not. If you can pick and choose the expansions, then yes a review is beneficial. But if you need one expansion to play another, then my previous statement still applies. If you plan on playing the MMO for a significant amount of time, you might as well get the updates. No one likes to be the guy in the group with the crappy equipment because he doesn't have the expansion yet.
I think there is very little point in reviewing updates for MMOs. Considering the entire business model revolves around continuous content updates and subscription-based payments, it'd be ridiculous for someone planning to play that MMO for any real length of time not to buy the update for it.
I'm just glad Blizzard is the kind of company that focuses on quality and doesn't rush their shit, because at this point WoW is big enough that they really could take a dump in a box, slap on the WoW label, and watch the sales come in.
I'm still trying to figure out what contribution this "discovery" (reenactment?) brings. It's neat they can use this light echo technique to reconstruct a supernova, and it's nice they can now definitively classify Tycho's supernova, but everything else seems to be already known. Even the technique they used to do it doesn't seem new. Is there some new contribution to astronomy here or are they just showing off?
This is an old, flawed argument. A gun is a tool specifically designed to kill efficiently. A hammer is not. You could use a gun to hammer in a nail, but if you had a hammer, why would you? Technically a person can be killed by pretty much any object lying around if the wielder is creative enough. The difference is in the original intended use of the tool.
Yes, I can just see getting a new toilet with a little pamphlet on the side labeled "How to Take a Dump".
Or better: "So You've Decided to Take a Dump..."
That's because for all the freedoms taken away/mangled by the patriot act, it's not immediately present in the mind of the average american. Americans just plain don't like to be bothered. Laws like the Patriot Act get passed because it doesn't affect the day-to-day grind. But, take away the ability to surf porn and chat up myspace and people will be pissed. God knows what would happen if some ISP decided to block fantasy football sites here.
It actually probably wouldn't be that hard to find people willing. Pretty much everyone is afraid of death to some extent, but some people are downright terrified. There was a craze over cryogenics not too long ago, with people wanting to be frozen and stored when they died until the day re-animation was invented, even though no one knows if it's even possible, let alone how far away the technology is. And if people are willing to do that, would it be so hard to find someone to try suspended animation, since it seems to be at least plausible?
I tried to imagine a linux distro that combines all of the features of the others and the first thing that popped into my mind was turducken.
Because american football is a derivative of rugby, whose full name is rugby football.
Agreed.
This shouldn't even be news. I wouldn't doubt if this was true for every country. If they did a survey in the US, I'd bet money they'd find more people play sports games than play sports.
Where's the statistic for how many people play games vs watch sports as their primary recreation?
And don't forget full-auto weapons. I'm not at all against guns or gun ownership, but a firearm does not automatically level a playing field.
Marksmanship.
Fast Draw.
Murderous Intent.
Three ways to unlevel the level playing field.
I'm more concerned with the claim that the T-Rex had "bird-like arms". Did I miss something in the evolutionary charts? I know the latest theory is dinosaurs may be related to birds, but I'm not seeing how an Archaeopterix could have flown with to-scale T-Rex arms.