I'm not against drilling; drill away. The problem is that there isn't enough; even if we just started drilling in every spot we could, we wouldn't have enough. It's. Not. Sustainable. Every time we find a new pocket of oil, everybody falls silent and slows down work on alternative energy. Look at our alternative energy options: all of them rely on oil in some way. We have no plans, and drilling to fix our oil problems is so short term that it's laughable.
This just seems to echo the idea brought up in, of all things, a pokemon movie, where Mewtwo has no idea what his purpose is so he starts trying to kill off all of the normal people and replace them with clones.
I think we're overthinking this. Treat the AI like a child and just explain to it that everything has an end, but that we should strive to do the best that we can with what time we have. Test a few full AI robots and if they just refuse to do anything because it's pointless, break them down and make some new robots with just partial AI. If you're building it, I can't see it as -that- hard to build it without depressed laziness built in.
Not dry, but not nearly enough to supply us. If we stopped importing oil and relied on just our remaining oil, we wouldn't even be able to power the country for a year.
Furthermore, we can't stop using oil until someone finds an alternative. Know why? Our public water, manufacturing, electricity, heating, transportation, food, shipping...you name it, you can trace oil back to it. We have the choice to stop using oil, but in doing so prematurely, we would be reduced to horse drawn carriages and made-by-hand stuff. If you pass a cursory glance at Congress, they're at best doing a half-assed attempt at fixing the oil problem, but it's not a priority to them.
So we'll probably end up in a similar situation with rare earth metals. With our own fields being opened up, the power of money will convince the users of these metals to make their product indispensable and integral to American life. Once demand goes way over American supply, we'll rely on China. Then we'll have the same discussion about whatever new quirky natural material America desires and thinks it can get on its own.
Actually, that just makes it more like oil. When we were first denied oil, we immediately plunged into our own giant oil fields and sucked 'em dry. Now we have no choice but to rely on the Middle East. So, unless these rare-Earth metals are renewing themselves, in the future we'll probably run out before China does and then have to rely on them.
China could possibly have purely innocent reasons to do it...but...I just don't see any government anywhere doing anything that doesn't simultaneously help them and harm someone else. In this case, cutting off the rest of the world and just sitting on the metals could lead to another monopoly that we need if we want to continue our research.
China sees that it can strike while the iron is hot. Without declaring war on everyone, at that. All they have to do is restrict trade while the major countries flop around with oil pains and they'll soon be the top country.
Not expecting such a problem until you go to college; half of the students on my campus don't even have a password put on their computers, making it extremely easy to access them remotely as is. If everyone had Win 7 installed, well...it'd make for some interesting work.
I love it when Microsoft self-sabotages. Windows 7 was already being called "Vista: Fixed"; now it's introducing fun new ways for "Vista" to fail. But let's be fair to Microsoft; they don't like introducing "new" things, so in tune with this philosophy, they're merely re-releasing an old problem and packaging it differently;)
Just like the other trials involving the music industry, this one looks like an overwhelming win for good. Somehow, I'm getting the feeling that all charges will be dropped; in fact, I get the feeling that the artist will somehow be -fined-. Just going with the track record for these trials, is all...
Nope; I would think that if, let's see, we tell it to install to drive c, it should uh...install to drive c. Vista doesn't let ya' touch programs unless they go to 'program files' in drive c, while Heretic installs straight to drive c.
I think the real problem here is that you dwell on tiny parts of a post and make that your only point.
Hah...I knew it was a poor idea to list my complaint with the 'Heretic' thing (and never mind that we were utilizing jHeretic so that it would run better, and that jHeretic does support Vista, AND that we got it running, dammit, I didn't elaborate enough so I -must- be a retard).
Maybe I should have just stepped back, and remembered, that when I am talking about a broad problem with Vista (search function did not handle the same, difficult to find things in comparison with what has already been out), if I DARE to use an old game as a reference to why it's a poor new interface for finding things, the problem is me.
The problem wasn't that it didn't work, it did, and we did play it: the problem was that most of the trouble was FINDING it after it installed.
But yes, it was stupid of me to include that example as to why Vista was poorly done: maybe I should have included mentioning that when she opened up 'My Computer', it really took her straight to 'Program Files', which meant anything that installed outside of their was inaccessible unless you did a lot of hoop jumping.
Excuse me, but maybe I failed to elaborate enough on the story. Or maybe you insist that I was banging a floppy into the CD drive wailing about how Heretic don't work no more.
I know it's a stretch, but it wasn't HERETIC that was the problem: it was that my friend could not LOCATE it, even though it installed, and no amount of phone-help from me could get her to find it. The INITIAL plan of my post was to state that everything was so backwards in where they put it, that someone who comfortably used XP for several years (and Win 98 before that), could not find things by simply popping open 'my computer' and running a search.
But no, clearly I am a Neanderthal.
Oh, and I am not an Apple fan: my Apple comment was to point out that the Vista commercials celebrated that Vista could do what earlier OSes could do, no matter what OS you used.
So back down, person who thinks I'm an inferior computer user. (I suppose this will be marked 'flamebait' or 'troll', too, to further how stupid I am being made to look right now)
For a looong time, I believed the spin on Vista. I accepted that it must be crap, because it was being called crap. I even made jokes about it.
Then, my friend got it.
With her ownership, I can proudly say....it sucks.
None of the programs we have work properly, and it took the two of us a good twenty-thirty minutes to figure out where Heretic had installed to. Search function was bizarre, the setup was even stranger. It took far longer to start up, despite being on a good laptop. Nothing was in the same place, and it popped up every time a program was run to ask if it was safe.
And then the 'Mohave' commercials came out, finally trying to cry that Vista was good. Instead, they made it sound as though retarded chimps loved it. "I can set a timer on computer usage so my kids aren't on it all day!" "I can make videos!" "It's so easy to view pictures!" "I just love it!"
What part of any of that couldn't be done already? XP did it, maybe not with pretty pretty lights, but it did it. And Apple users are heralded as music/video/picture fanatics. So, how was this positive hype for Vista? "Hey guys, look! When we tell people it's another product, they tell us they love it because it does everything a Windows 98 could pull off! See?"
So this wasn't just negative hype; this was 'it sucks'. When 7 comes out, casual users might like it, but most heavier users will begin seriously considering a switch. I'll probably keep my non internet computers on XP, but switch to Linux on my internet computer. I'd prefer to be confused with something cool then be confused with something frustratingly cheapened.
Did I miss something? I didn't buy the internet channel; I got it for free.
Of course, when I got it, it was a free beta test of the internet channel, buuuut it does everything the regular internet channel does, and if I go to the Wii Shop, it doesn't have an option to purchase the internet channel, and shows me as already having downloaded the internet channel.
So, if they made it cost money now, it was free for pretty much the first year that the Wii was being sold (if not longer, as I got the internet channel just before Wii Fit came out).
Saying it isn't free is a little misleading. I wouldn't know if it costs money NOW, but I can confirm it was free when I got it.
Um...I believe it because 99% of video game owners do not go on killing sprees.
In fact, before the news networks started telling us about as much killing as possible, there were video games in circulation, and an arcade game where the object was to run over pedestrians. We never saw anything stating that these were times of mass murders caused by 15 year olds who believed the game was real.
In fact, in most of these overhyped 'video games made them do it' cases, you can see a clear correlation: poor parenting. Columbine kids? If their parents gave half a shit, they would have noticed the kids were miserable. 9 year old saying he knew how to drive because of GTA? Where were the goddamn parents, when they decided to buy him an M for mature game? Kid believing his parents would revive after being shot? Doubtful (and certainly his pastor father telling him how heaven is better than Earth, and that Jesus revived after a brutal death could not be to blame).
But of course, it must be that video games cause violence. There are more deaths by automobile; maybe we should ban driving as it is clear that owning a car means you are prone to killing.
Doubt this will ever be on the news networks, though.
No no, folks. Video games baaaad. Hating video games gooood. They'll keep broadcasting how video games clearly caused x-murder or y-crime, and never bother with something as trivial as evidence.
This is like saying "Well, you own a kitchen knife, so you therefore have a tendency towards stabbing people".
Government poking its' nose in our fun...now that is amusing. "Stop where you are! We think we know how you should have fun!"
Nevermind glorifying war, 24 hour news networks showing us at least a murder a day, TV shows frequently having 'action' scenes and/or rape/sex scenes, movies doing every kind of horrifying thing to people (Hostel, eh?), and, my favorite of all, when they felt the need to take a picture of Saddam's dead sons and slap it on TV for all to see, with a swift 3 second warning that it would be disturbing.
Nope, all violence clearly stems from video games.
Ya know, some games rated E have swearing in them. In fact, most PG movies have swearing in them (so where is the angry picketing for Shrek and his ass?). As for horrific violence, I'm pretty sure every game involves a little (you're either popping someone's head off or you're setting a trap to have the anthro squirrel fall in a hole). Sex is pretty limited, but I do recall Tony Hawk's Underground having some sex hinted at, and that was T for teen.
In short...I think this will be fun. Once you decide one thing is unacceptable, it's hard to draw the line. They'll be stuck on if Super Mario Bros. really causes animal abuse next, and soon every game will emulate us hugging everyone. Now wouldn't that be FUN?
Not that many people are computer literate. Give them an OS that isn't as user friendly as Windows, and they won't be able to figure it out.
But it's not even the user-friendly issue as much as it is the familiarity issue. If you use something every day, it works, is easy, and fast, why switch? It's like saying 'instead of using a knife to butter my toast, I shall use a machine that butters my toast when I input a command. Yes, the machine probably works just as good as the knife, but given the choice, the average person would rather use a knife.
In short, linux is cool for people that know a computer. But the average user would feel much more comfortable with windows. I don't think it's 'entertaining' either; this is a fact, and you can't expect everybody to be comfortable using a new OS (especially not while taking online classes; the added pressure of due dates and tests on top of trying to figure out how to use a whole new OS is not a laughing matter).
I mean, I'm not a computer moron, but the first time I saw an Ubuntu desktop I got pretty tripped up. I've been on Windows OS for nearly 10 years, so it's not like going to Ubuntu in one fell swoop would be a seamless transition to begin with.
I own an SNES, GBA, and Gamecube emulator. I'm not ashamed of it, because I own the games that I play on them.
On the GBA, I play the pokemon games from time to time. My pokemon cartridges are so worn from overuse that they often just reset if I shake them a little. They weren't meant to last, that much is certain.
On the SNES, I play two games, a Fire Emblem game and the Clocktower game. These two I do -not- own, but this is partly because the games were never sold in America (my Japanese is not very good, which would lead to ultimate frustruation in playing a game, while I can get English translated ROMs), and partly because my SNES no longer works.
The Gamecube emulator I only have for Animal Crossing. I purchased Animal Crossing when it first came out, and once we moved, I lost it. I kept looking, until I found out my friend had my copy at her house...which is about 12 hours away. So, until she can come visit, I play it on my computer.
I am, therefore, a horrible thieving pirate, because I did not buy new pokemon cartridges (actually I did, for the older games, and then they wore out too), did not purchase a new SNES and import two Japanese games, and did not buy a new Animal Crossing disk.
Just as Marilyn Manson, GTA, and the devil make 3 people aggressively kill someone every year, clearly Halo 3 did this too -end sarcasm-.
As has been said already, if a seventeen year old thought they would revive, the video game certainly did not teach them that. How can I know this? I HAVE PLAYED GAMES FOR 10 YEARS NOW. I started when I was 8, playing Heretic. At no point did I revise my theory on human life. I was aware, at all times, that if I picked up any kind of weapon, be it chainsaw or magical phoenix wand, if I killed someone they weren't coming back.
But it makes me sneer that they don't even question if religion made him do it. Religion celebrates resurrection, and celebrates death. If he didn't think they were going to come back, he would think he did them a favor by removing them from this 'vale of tears' and sending them heaven.
Of course, we could just state that not every human is of sound mind. Good chance is he is either insane, or enjoys killing. You've seen people who enjoy hunting, right? Why is it so hard for people to accept that some people probably enjoy killing?
Slashdot Mirror
B-b-but then...you're lying too D: I'll never trust again!
I'm not against drilling; drill away. The problem is that there isn't enough; even if we just started drilling in every spot we could, we wouldn't have enough. It's. Not. Sustainable. Every time we find a new pocket of oil, everybody falls silent and slows down work on alternative energy. Look at our alternative energy options: all of them rely on oil in some way. We have no plans, and drilling to fix our oil problems is so short term that it's laughable.
Your post argues that everyone, including the oil companies, are lying to us. That we have plenty of oil that we're just not using because of hippies.
I think we're overthinking this. Treat the AI like a child and just explain to it that everything has an end, but that we should strive to do the best that we can with what time we have. Test a few full AI robots and if they just refuse to do anything because it's pointless, break them down and make some new robots with just partial AI. If you're building it, I can't see it as -that- hard to build it without depressed laziness built in.
Furthermore, we can't stop using oil until someone finds an alternative. Know why? Our public water, manufacturing, electricity, heating, transportation, food, shipping...you name it, you can trace oil back to it. We have the choice to stop using oil, but in doing so prematurely, we would be reduced to horse drawn carriages and made-by-hand stuff. If you pass a cursory glance at Congress, they're at best doing a half-assed attempt at fixing the oil problem, but it's not a priority to them.
So we'll probably end up in a similar situation with rare earth metals. With our own fields being opened up, the power of money will convince the users of these metals to make their product indispensable and integral to American life. Once demand goes way over American supply, we'll rely on China. Then we'll have the same discussion about whatever new quirky natural material America desires and thinks it can get on its own.
China could possibly have purely innocent reasons to do it...but...I just don't see any government anywhere doing anything that doesn't simultaneously help them and harm someone else. In this case, cutting off the rest of the world and just sitting on the metals could lead to another monopoly that we need if we want to continue our research.
China sees that it can strike while the iron is hot. Without declaring war on everyone, at that. All they have to do is restrict trade while the major countries flop around with oil pains and they'll soon be the top country.
Not expecting such a problem until you go to college; half of the students on my campus don't even have a password put on their computers, making it extremely easy to access them remotely as is. If everyone had Win 7 installed, well...it'd make for some interesting work.
You must be new here.
I love it when Microsoft self-sabotages. Windows 7 was already being called "Vista: Fixed"; now it's introducing fun new ways for "Vista" to fail. But let's be fair to Microsoft; they don't like introducing "new" things, so in tune with this philosophy, they're merely re-releasing an old problem and packaging it differently ;)
Just like the other trials involving the music industry, this one looks like an overwhelming win for good. Somehow, I'm getting the feeling that all charges will be dropped; in fact, I get the feeling that the artist will somehow be -fined-. Just going with the track record for these trials, is all...
It's a little known fact that Richard Reid only put the bombs in his shoes to try and stop the terrible shows he was forced to watch.
I think the real problem here is that you dwell on tiny parts of a post and make that your only point.
Maybe I should have just stepped back, and remembered, that when I am talking about a broad problem with Vista (search function did not handle the same, difficult to find things in comparison with what has already been out), if I DARE to use an old game as a reference to why it's a poor new interface for finding things, the problem is me.
The problem wasn't that it didn't work, it did, and we did play it: the problem was that most of the trouble was FINDING it after it installed.
But yes, it was stupid of me to include that example as to why Vista was poorly done: maybe I should have included mentioning that when she opened up 'My Computer', it really took her straight to 'Program Files', which meant anything that installed outside of their was inaccessible unless you did a lot of hoop jumping.
I know it's a stretch, but it wasn't HERETIC that was the problem: it was that my friend could not LOCATE it, even though it installed, and no amount of phone-help from me could get her to find it. The INITIAL plan of my post was to state that everything was so backwards in where they put it, that someone who comfortably used XP for several years (and Win 98 before that), could not find things by simply popping open 'my computer' and running a search.
But no, clearly I am a Neanderthal.
Oh, and I am not an Apple fan: my Apple comment was to point out that the Vista commercials celebrated that Vista could do what earlier OSes could do, no matter what OS you used.
So back down, person who thinks I'm an inferior computer user. (I suppose this will be marked 'flamebait' or 'troll', too, to further how stupid I am being made to look right now)
Then, my friend got it.
With her ownership, I can proudly say....it sucks.
None of the programs we have work properly, and it took the two of us a good twenty-thirty minutes to figure out where Heretic had installed to. Search function was bizarre, the setup was even stranger. It took far longer to start up, despite being on a good laptop. Nothing was in the same place, and it popped up every time a program was run to ask if it was safe.
And then the 'Mohave' commercials came out, finally trying to cry that Vista was good. Instead, they made it sound as though retarded chimps loved it. "I can set a timer on computer usage so my kids aren't on it all day!" "I can make videos!" "It's so easy to view pictures!" "I just love it!"
What part of any of that couldn't be done already? XP did it, maybe not with pretty pretty lights, but it did it. And Apple users are heralded as music/video/picture fanatics. So, how was this positive hype for Vista? "Hey guys, look! When we tell people it's another product, they tell us they love it because it does everything a Windows 98 could pull off! See?"
So this wasn't just negative hype; this was 'it sucks'. When 7 comes out, casual users might like it, but most heavier users will begin seriously considering a switch. I'll probably keep my non internet computers on XP, but switch to Linux on my internet computer. I'd prefer to be confused with something cool then be confused with something frustratingly cheapened.
Of course, when I got it, it was a free beta test of the internet channel, buuuut it does everything the regular internet channel does, and if I go to the Wii Shop, it doesn't have an option to purchase the internet channel, and shows me as already having downloaded the internet channel.
So, if they made it cost money now, it was free for pretty much the first year that the Wii was being sold (if not longer, as I got the internet channel just before Wii Fit came out).
Saying it isn't free is a little misleading. I wouldn't know if it costs money NOW, but I can confirm it was free when I got it.
Seconded. Holy freaking God that can't be legal.
In fact, before the news networks started telling us about as much killing as possible, there were video games in circulation, and an arcade game where the object was to run over pedestrians. We never saw anything stating that these were times of mass murders caused by 15 year olds who believed the game was real.
In fact, in most of these overhyped 'video games made them do it' cases, you can see a clear correlation: poor parenting. Columbine kids? If their parents gave half a shit, they would have noticed the kids were miserable. 9 year old saying he knew how to drive because of GTA? Where were the goddamn parents, when they decided to buy him an M for mature game? Kid believing his parents would revive after being shot? Doubtful (and certainly his pastor father telling him how heaven is better than Earth, and that Jesus revived after a brutal death could not be to blame).
But of course, it must be that video games cause violence. There are more deaths by automobile; maybe we should ban driving as it is clear that owning a car means you are prone to killing.
No no, folks. Video games baaaad. Hating video games gooood. They'll keep broadcasting how video games clearly caused x-murder or y-crime, and never bother with something as trivial as evidence.
This is like saying "Well, you own a kitchen knife, so you therefore have a tendency towards stabbing people".
Nevermind glorifying war, 24 hour news networks showing us at least a murder a day, TV shows frequently having 'action' scenes and/or rape/sex scenes, movies doing every kind of horrifying thing to people (Hostel, eh?), and, my favorite of all, when they felt the need to take a picture of Saddam's dead sons and slap it on TV for all to see, with a swift 3 second warning that it would be disturbing.
Nope, all violence clearly stems from video games.
Ya know, some games rated E have swearing in them. In fact, most PG movies have swearing in them (so where is the angry picketing for Shrek and his ass?). As for horrific violence, I'm pretty sure every game involves a little (you're either popping someone's head off or you're setting a trap to have the anthro squirrel fall in a hole). Sex is pretty limited, but I do recall Tony Hawk's Underground having some sex hinted at, and that was T for teen.
In short...I think this will be fun. Once you decide one thing is unacceptable, it's hard to draw the line. They'll be stuck on if Super Mario Bros. really causes animal abuse next, and soon every game will emulate us hugging everyone. Now wouldn't that be FUN?
But it's not even the user-friendly issue as much as it is the familiarity issue. If you use something every day, it works, is easy, and fast, why switch? It's like saying 'instead of using a knife to butter my toast, I shall use a machine that butters my toast when I input a command. Yes, the machine probably works just as good as the knife, but given the choice, the average person would rather use a knife.
In short, linux is cool for people that know a computer. But the average user would feel much more comfortable with windows. I don't think it's 'entertaining' either; this is a fact, and you can't expect everybody to be comfortable using a new OS (especially not while taking online classes; the added pressure of due dates and tests on top of trying to figure out how to use a whole new OS is not a laughing matter).
I mean, I'm not a computer moron, but the first time I saw an Ubuntu desktop I got pretty tripped up. I've been on Windows OS for nearly 10 years, so it's not like going to Ubuntu in one fell swoop would be a seamless transition to begin with.
On the GBA, I play the pokemon games from time to time. My pokemon cartridges are so worn from overuse that they often just reset if I shake them a little. They weren't meant to last, that much is certain.
On the SNES, I play two games, a Fire Emblem game and the Clocktower game. These two I do -not- own, but this is partly because the games were never sold in America (my Japanese is not very good, which would lead to ultimate frustruation in playing a game, while I can get English translated ROMs), and partly because my SNES no longer works.
The Gamecube emulator I only have for Animal Crossing. I purchased Animal Crossing when it first came out, and once we moved, I lost it. I kept looking, until I found out my friend had my copy at her house...which is about 12 hours away. So, until she can come visit, I play it on my computer.
I am, therefore, a horrible thieving pirate, because I did not buy new pokemon cartridges (actually I did, for the older games, and then they wore out too), did not purchase a new SNES and import two Japanese games, and did not buy a new Animal Crossing disk.
As has been said already, if a seventeen year old thought they would revive, the video game certainly did not teach them that. How can I know this? I HAVE PLAYED GAMES FOR 10 YEARS NOW. I started when I was 8, playing Heretic. At no point did I revise my theory on human life. I was aware, at all times, that if I picked up any kind of weapon, be it chainsaw or magical phoenix wand, if I killed someone they weren't coming back.
But it makes me sneer that they don't even question if religion made him do it. Religion celebrates resurrection, and celebrates death. If he didn't think they were going to come back, he would think he did them a favor by removing them from this 'vale of tears' and sending them heaven.
Of course, we could just state that not every human is of sound mind. Good chance is he is either insane, or enjoys killing. You've seen people who enjoy hunting, right? Why is it so hard for people to accept that some people probably enjoy killing?
Next they'll be saying that internet users who are online every day actually know something about the online community.