Which makes you wonder what the legislators were thinking when they passed those laws... Those dirty old bastages
Actually, I think they're just old laws held over from when girls tended to marry much younger. Contrary to what many believe, overall teen pregnancy in the US has actually dropped quite a bit since the '50s. Unwed teenage pregnancy has gone up. Girls marrying at 16 was still relatively common at the time, as were shotgun weddings.
"When you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity."
Miley Cyrus is not a small child. She's 16. I could see the argument for saying a 16 year old can't legally consent, but certainly there's a difference between nude photos of a 16 year old versus a 9 year old (even if Miley herself was the one posing, which she isn't).
Plus, the RAID array can keep track of where the head is on each drive and choose the one that's closest to the requested sector. Linux software RAID does this, though I don't know specifically who else does.
I was, and still am, a consultant, which is technically a sole proprietorship. Leaving the game helped me spend more time on that.
Within the game itself, the POS plan didn't take off. Common moon resources (which are mined by POSes) had their market flooded by alliances who setup POSes for territory purposes rather than profit, and the less common resources were already snatched up.
I'd like to take a minute to address concerns over EBANK's solvency, that is, it's ability to pay out withdraws. As I mentioned before, EBANK moved a large portion of it's assets into cash and we've been merrily burning through it today as people have drawn their money out in concern. We also haven't had deposits coming in - so the money is only flowing in one direction....out.
That's ok.
We still have enough cash to handle withdraws and as of the time I write this; withdraws have been actioned. I would also like to point out a few other things; we have had many persons asking when they can deposit money again, as a show of support and to provide EBANK with an infusion of cash. On top of this, we have had private loans offered to us totaling 100 billion and if we really have to....we still have the ability to issue a Bond or if really required, we may finally launch an IPO.
Why am I pointing this out? I want to provide assurances to our customers that your money is safe with EBANK. We are solvent and continue to build liquidity even in this challenging environment. Even if we have a solvency issue, we have many options at hand to address that should it arise.
Again, thank you to those who have expressed support.
I don't play Eve anymore (purely out of regard for personal time management), but I've read many statements like the above of business dealings in the game (not necessarily about scams, just straight business). What I'm always struck by is that if you're capable of finagling all these things in the game, what's stopping you from doing it in real life?
When this thought first struck me, I was making plans to run an in game POS as a business, and had produced a full business plan and profit analysis spreadsheet. Which is exactly what you'd expect to need at the start of a real business.
Supply and demand, buy low/sell high, and negotiations are all key skills in running a business in the game, but no more or less than they are in real life. Real life has a lot more government regulation (CCP takes a largely hands-off policy as long as you're not trading ISK for real money), but as long as you can navigate that, you'll have the skills you need for a real business, too.
Because companies pay to be part of the w3c in order to be on standardization committees.
Mind you, the more well-thought-out standards out there tend to be created by a single expert or a small team of experts. Committees, especially when made up of a lot of competitors like this, tend to produce standards that nobody is particularly happy about.
Look around any indie game developer forum and you'll see tons of posts about games that sound great, but only a handful of posts about games that are working and finished. Many of these get through the initial design stages, but their creators stall out at some process after that. Sometimes the design is simply too complicated for a first project. Sometimes they get a few lines of code down, but never return. Sometimes they implement all the interesting parts, but get hung up on the final details necessary for making a release.
My first suggestion is to use Apple as a model and never talk about things you are planning. Only talk about things that are finished or very close to finishing. You may need some outside programming help at some point along the way, of course, but there's rarely a need to get too specific about your game when asking for help.
Second, finish something. It can be a simple as a pong clone. Doesn't matter if anybody ever downloads it, just finish it and release it. Just getting that far puts you above 90% of the indie "developers" out there.
"Parallel", in this case, doesn't usually mean parallel commands. It means it uses several wires to send a single command.
Implementing the electronics is easier on a serial connection. It's easier to jam the clock speed up than to add all the extra pins required on the ICs to support a parallel connection.
Mind you, SSD speeds are going to rise faster than the designed-by-committee SATA standard can keep up. It won't be long before SSDs are going to have be on the northbridge.
Alpha- and beta-version software is often given numerical versions less than 1 (such as 0.9), to suggest their approach toward a public "1.0" release
That's just your personal conception, conditioned by many years of commerical software development. Putting the '1.0' in is a totally arbitrary decision. Lots of Open Source projects are in perfectly stable, usable condition when in 0.x status. The Linux kernel itself was pretty stable in 0.9, with the only major changes between that and 1.0 being stabilizing the TCP/IP stack (IIRC).
Some projects don't even use that nomenclature; Gentoo just uses the date of release. On the opposite side of the fence, lots of commerical offerings are crud until they reach at least 3.0. Windows, for instance, was a sick joke in 1.0 and 2.0
But never mind that, because TFA has some problems interpreting the data. If all the numbers are coming out the same, that indicates the bottleneck is somewhere other than IO. For instance, when requesting a small static file over Apache, the file is probably being fetched right out of the cache. This test might catch a few badly implemented filesystems or hard drive electronics, but the ones in the article might as well be thrown out.
A file system whose version begings with zero means the author's don't feel like putting a one there. Nothing more.
That said, btrfs is still under heavy development, and the on-disk format hasn't been finalized. Avoid it for anything important, but not because of arbitrary version numbers.
Digital sampling works great however for modern largely electronic music. It's a shame that you can't really get analog recordings anymore... I miss real sound.
And yet, classical and jazz listeners were the first adaptors of CDs way back when, and are likewise the first/only adaptors of SACD.
Out of curiosity, did you ever happen to listen to the Telarc 1812 Overture? This was one of the earlist digital recordings, but was set to vinyl. The cannon blasts were said to leave pieces of woofer all over the living room floor.
Worse, the mere act of not using a cassette degrades it. Not even vinyl can say that. It just degrades in an analog way that will leave the tape technically playable for a long time. But it also starts with signficantly worse quality than either CDs or vinyl and goes downhill from there.
I can understand the nostalgic property of vinyl to a certain degree, but longing for cassettes is just pathetic.
BMI doesn't take into account fat vs muscle. It's also pretty hard to be in the obese range of BMI with a low bodyfat percentage (possible, I'm sure, but very difficult without drugs). Perhaps the effect they're actually seeing is a few well-built people throwing the average off for the overweight range.
No, there's more to it than that. It's also about adding an extra level of complexity to your purchase and guaranteeing that yet another thing could go wrong with your already insanely expensive purchase.
That's not their goal. They don't specifically want to give their customers headaches, because unless they're invested in asprin manufacturing, creating headaches doesn't get them any more money.
Rather, they take a problem that's affecting their bottom line (real or perceived) and come up with a ham-fisted solution. The actual motivation is nothing more than the OP said (eliminate the used market).
There is also a lucrative market for used video games to consider. After some gamers complete a title, they sell it back to the retailer. How will benefit denial handle that situation?"
It won't handle that situation, because it's exactly the one they're really trying to stop. Illicit copying on consoles is a lot more difficult than PCs; it's always possible, but you're cutting out a big chunk of the potential copying going on if it requires a soldering iron to get it done. Publishers can afford to completely ignore illicit copying on consoles.
However, they can use "piracy" as a rallying cry to put in measures to kill the used game market.
Yes, thank you. I'm not quite sure about this economist, specifically, but there most certainly is an important role for the field in solving this problem.
You said that the phrase "CO2 emissions *must* be reduced at *any* cost" "completely misrepresents the opinion of climatologists." No, it doesn't.
There is a huge difference between "any cost" and "reasonable cost". "Any cost" gets you ridiculous distractions like fretting about mecury in CFL bulbs, or what color our cars should be. "Any cost" tends to get you into a brand new problem.
To take an example from the other end of the political spectrum, solving Terrorisim at "any cost" makes you have to take your shoes off at the airports, or gets you into a useless quagmire of a war.
What the Copenhagen Climate Report said is "Inaction is inexcusable". That doesn't mean any and all action must be taken.
And more farmland in northern Canada is not a net-positive outcome when added to rising sea levels and desertification. It's one step forward, two steps back.
Quit twisting what I say. I said new farm land was an example of a positive benefit, not that climate change will be a net-positive benefit. I'm pointing out that costs and benefits must be weighed together.
It's extremely alarming that there is no longer any scientific debate about the existence of global warming, it's causes, it's effects or what to do about it.
You're as bad as most of the other replies in this thread, just in the opposite direction. Those debates don't happen anymore, because we've already had them and worked out a pretty solid idea of what's actually happening. The exact effects of high CO2 concentrations aren't known (computer sims aren't good enough to make useful predictions yet), but we can be certain that humans are driving CO2 and that's going to be an overall negative thing.
I've not found a climatologist who has said that raising CO2 levels are a good thing or even a neutral thing.
You're reading too much into what I said. There are potentially positive effects of CO2, such as opening up new farmland in northern Canada in what was once frozen tundra, or in just accelerating plant growth in general.
That doesn't mean that CO2 is a net positive when everything is taken on balance. It's a very bad thing for many species on the planet, and will likely be a bad thing for humans specifically.
True this does not mean "at all cost" but that is a pedantic nitpick rather than a misrepresentation of the consensus opinion on the part of the OP.
It isn't pedantic, and it's exactly the point that I have the most problem with. We can't solve AGW and while creating a much bigger problem while we're at it, which is what's going to happen with the "at all costs" scenario.
"Money" is an abstract value for the actual costs are in terms of labor, materials, etc. Economics often involves money, but it doesn't have to. Similarly, astronomy isn't necessarily about optical telescopes.
In terms of the environment, we have a limited amount of CO2 and other forms of pollution that we can put into the atmosphere without causing large amounts of harm. Figuring out the optimal point for CO2 output versus the level of harm is valid area of economic study. Money could play a part here, but it doesn't have to.
Slashdot Mirror
Which makes you wonder what the legislators were thinking when they passed those laws... Those dirty old bastages
Actually, I think they're just old laws held over from when girls tended to marry much younger. Contrary to what many believe, overall teen pregnancy in the US has actually dropped quite a bit since the '50s. Unwed teenage pregnancy has gone up. Girls marrying at 16 was still relatively common at the time, as were shotgun weddings.
Not only that, but:
"When you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity."
Miley Cyrus is not a small child. She's 16. I could see the argument for saying a 16 year old can't legally consent, but certainly there's a difference between nude photos of a 16 year old versus a 9 year old (even if Miley herself was the one posing, which she isn't).
Also, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 made simulated child porn illegal. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002.
Plus, the RAID array can keep track of where the head is on each drive and choose the one that's closest to the requested sector. Linux software RAID does this, though I don't know specifically who else does.
I was, and still am, a consultant, which is technically a sole proprietorship. Leaving the game helped me spend more time on that.
Within the game itself, the POS plan didn't take off. Common moon resources (which are mined by POSes) had their market flooded by alliances who setup POSes for territory purposes rather than profit, and the less common resources were already snatched up.
I'd like to take a minute to address concerns over EBANK's solvency, that is, it's ability to pay out withdraws. As I mentioned before, EBANK moved a large portion of it's assets into cash and we've been merrily burning through it today as people have drawn their money out in concern. We also haven't had deposits coming in - so the money is only flowing in one direction....out.
That's ok.
We still have enough cash to handle withdraws and as of the time I write this; withdraws have been actioned. I would also like to point out a few other things; we have had many persons asking when they can deposit money again, as a show of support and to provide EBANK with an infusion of cash. On top of this, we have had private loans offered to us totaling 100 billion and if we really have to....we still have the ability to issue a Bond or if really required, we may finally launch an IPO.
Why am I pointing this out? I want to provide assurances to our customers that your money is safe with EBANK. We are solvent and continue to build liquidity even in this challenging environment. Even if we have a solvency issue, we have many options at hand to address that should it arise.
Again, thank you to those who have expressed support.
I don't play Eve anymore (purely out of regard for personal time management), but I've read many statements like the above of business dealings in the game (not necessarily about scams, just straight business). What I'm always struck by is that if you're capable of finagling all these things in the game, what's stopping you from doing it in real life?
When this thought first struck me, I was making plans to run an in game POS as a business, and had produced a full business plan and profit analysis spreadsheet. Which is exactly what you'd expect to need at the start of a real business.
Supply and demand, buy low/sell high, and negotiations are all key skills in running a business in the game, but no more or less than they are in real life. Real life has a lot more government regulation (CCP takes a largely hands-off policy as long as you're not trading ISK for real money), but as long as you can navigate that, you'll have the skills you need for a real business, too.
Because companies pay to be part of the w3c in order to be on standardization committees.
Mind you, the more well-thought-out standards out there tend to be created by a single expert or a small team of experts. Committees, especially when made up of a lot of competitors like this, tend to produce standards that nobody is particularly happy about.
Look around any indie game developer forum and you'll see tons of posts about games that sound great, but only a handful of posts about games that are working and finished. Many of these get through the initial design stages, but their creators stall out at some process after that. Sometimes the design is simply too complicated for a first project. Sometimes they get a few lines of code down, but never return. Sometimes they implement all the interesting parts, but get hung up on the final details necessary for making a release.
My first suggestion is to use Apple as a model and never talk about things you are planning. Only talk about things that are finished or very close to finishing. You may need some outside programming help at some point along the way, of course, but there's rarely a need to get too specific about your game when asking for help.
Second, finish something. It can be a simple as a pong clone. Doesn't matter if anybody ever downloads it, just finish it and release it. Just getting that far puts you above 90% of the indie "developers" out there.
Yeah, let's wait for a perfect, 100% pure solution before replacing the ugly, dirty, nasty coal energy plants we have right now.
Nitrates are used as an oxidizer. You still need carbon to make it burn.
The problem with satirizing the right wing is that it's too easy to be mistaken for the real deal.
"Parallel", in this case, doesn't usually mean parallel commands. It means it uses several wires to send a single command.
Implementing the electronics is easier on a serial connection. It's easier to jam the clock speed up than to add all the extra pins required on the ICs to support a parallel connection.
Mind you, SSD speeds are going to rise faster than the designed-by-committee SATA standard can keep up. It won't be long before SSDs are going to have be on the northbridge.
Alpha- and beta-version software is often given numerical versions less than 1 (such as 0.9), to suggest their approach toward a public "1.0" release
That's just your personal conception, conditioned by many years of commerical software development. Putting the '1.0' in is a totally arbitrary decision. Lots of Open Source projects are in perfectly stable, usable condition when in 0.x status. The Linux kernel itself was pretty stable in 0.9, with the only major changes between that and 1.0 being stabilizing the TCP/IP stack (IIRC).
Some projects don't even use that nomenclature; Gentoo just uses the date of release. On the opposite side of the fence, lots of commerical offerings are crud until they reach at least 3.0. Windows, for instance, was a sick joke in 1.0 and 2.0
The SSD benchmark is coming.
But never mind that, because TFA has some problems interpreting the data. If all the numbers are coming out the same, that indicates the bottleneck is somewhere other than IO. For instance, when requesting a small static file over Apache, the file is probably being fetched right out of the cache. This test might catch a few badly implemented filesystems or hard drive electronics, but the ones in the article might as well be thrown out.
A file system whose version begings with zero means the author's don't feel like putting a one there. Nothing more.
That said, btrfs is still under heavy development, and the on-disk format hasn't been finalized. Avoid it for anything important, but not because of arbitrary version numbers.
Digital sampling works great however for modern largely electronic music. It's a shame that you can't really get analog recordings anymore... I miss real sound.
And yet, classical and jazz listeners were the first adaptors of CDs way back when, and are likewise the first/only adaptors of SACD.
Out of curiosity, did you ever happen to listen to the Telarc 1812 Overture? This was one of the earlist digital recordings, but was set to vinyl. The cannon blasts were said to leave pieces of woofer all over the living room floor.
Worse, the mere act of not using a cassette degrades it. Not even vinyl can say that. It just degrades in an analog way that will leave the tape technically playable for a long time. But it also starts with signficantly worse quality than either CDs or vinyl and goes downhill from there.
I can understand the nostalgic property of vinyl to a certain degree, but longing for cassettes is just pathetic.
BMI doesn't take into account fat vs muscle. It's also pretty hard to be in the obese range of BMI with a low bodyfat percentage (possible, I'm sure, but very difficult without drugs). Perhaps the effect they're actually seeing is a few well-built people throwing the average off for the overweight range.
No, there's more to it than that. It's also about adding an extra level of complexity to your purchase and guaranteeing that yet another thing could go wrong with your already insanely expensive purchase.
That's not their goal. They don't specifically want to give their customers headaches, because unless they're invested in asprin manufacturing, creating headaches doesn't get them any more money.
Rather, they take a problem that's affecting their bottom line (real or perceived) and come up with a ham-fisted solution. The actual motivation is nothing more than the OP said (eliminate the used market).
There is also a lucrative market for used video games to consider. After some gamers complete a title, they sell it back to the retailer. How will benefit denial handle that situation?"
It won't handle that situation, because it's exactly the one they're really trying to stop. Illicit copying on consoles is a lot more difficult than PCs; it's always possible, but you're cutting out a big chunk of the potential copying going on if it requires a soldering iron to get it done. Publishers can afford to completely ignore illicit copying on consoles.
However, they can use "piracy" as a rallying cry to put in measures to kill the used game market.
Yes, thank you. I'm not quite sure about this economist, specifically, but there most certainly is an important role for the field in solving this problem.
You said that the phrase "CO2 emissions *must* be reduced at *any* cost" "completely misrepresents the opinion of climatologists." No, it doesn't.
There is a huge difference between "any cost" and "reasonable cost". "Any cost" gets you ridiculous distractions like fretting about mecury in CFL bulbs, or what color our cars should be. "Any cost" tends to get you into a brand new problem.
To take an example from the other end of the political spectrum, solving Terrorisim at "any cost" makes you have to take your shoes off at the airports, or gets you into a useless quagmire of a war.
What the Copenhagen Climate Report said is "Inaction is inexcusable". That doesn't mean any and all action must be taken.
And more farmland in northern Canada is not a net-positive outcome when added to rising sea levels and desertification. It's one step forward, two steps back.
Quit twisting what I say. I said new farm land was an example of a positive benefit, not that climate change will be a net-positive benefit. I'm pointing out that costs and benefits must be weighed together.
It's extremely alarming that there is no longer any scientific debate about the existence of global warming, it's causes, it's effects or what to do about it.
You're as bad as most of the other replies in this thread, just in the opposite direction. Those debates don't happen anymore, because we've already had them and worked out a pretty solid idea of what's actually happening. The exact effects of high CO2 concentrations aren't known (computer sims aren't good enough to make useful predictions yet), but we can be certain that humans are driving CO2 and that's going to be an overall negative thing.
I've not found a climatologist who has said that raising CO2 levels are a good thing or even a neutral thing.
You're reading too much into what I said. There are potentially positive effects of CO2, such as opening up new farmland in northern Canada in what was once frozen tundra, or in just accelerating plant growth in general.
That doesn't mean that CO2 is a net positive when everything is taken on balance. It's a very bad thing for many species on the planet, and will likely be a bad thing for humans specifically.
True this does not mean "at all cost" but that is a pedantic nitpick rather than a misrepresentation of the consensus opinion on the part of the OP.
It isn't pedantic, and it's exactly the point that I have the most problem with. We can't solve AGW and while creating a much bigger problem while we're at it, which is what's going to happen with the "at all costs" scenario.
"Money" is an abstract value for the actual costs are in terms of labor, materials, etc. Economics often involves money, but it doesn't have to. Similarly, astronomy isn't necessarily about optical telescopes.
In terms of the environment, we have a limited amount of CO2 and other forms of pollution that we can put into the atmosphere without causing large amounts of harm. Figuring out the optimal point for CO2 output versus the level of harm is valid area of economic study. Money could play a part here, but it doesn't have to.