I'm with you there - I love going through the games, and perfecting my setups for each car and track according to my style of driving. Takes a long time, but you get a real feeling of achievement when you hook it up.
But other people may not enjoy the game in the way that I do, and they should be given the choice to unlock everything and go wild. It's their game, after all, they bought it.
Definitely. And there's a cult of personality about it all, too. I don't edit articles for Wikipedia, so I don't have their groupthink, but I can't help but feel that the entire campaign this year has been set up by some of the more fawning members of the Wikipedia community.
Personally, I could give rocks about Jimmy Wales. I might consider giving money to Wikipedia, though, if they just had the barometer of cash donated vs. cash that they ran in the previous years.
I'm not buying into any conspiracy theories, and I'm going to watch this develop with interest - at the moment I think there are many possibilities here, and this is something of uncharted territory in govt affairs.
That said, I think there is a motive for the US to be pulling the strings here. This is from the article::
The investigation stems from separate encounters Assange had with two women during his August visit to Sweden, where he was applying for Swedish residency and attempting to secure the protection of Swedish free-press laws for his secret-spilling website
Maybe it's just a way of preventing Assange from getting Swedish citizenship and the protection that this would afford? The Swedish govt can't give him this while charges hang over his head - whether they're true or not. Doesn't explain how they govt would get these particular girls on board or anything, but it is a somewhat plausible motive.
Another close prediction of the internet, and strangely of the kind of social networking that is taking over the net experience only now for many people, is "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster.
Written in 1909. Just over 100 years ago.
So it is possible to predict these things from nothing. It is pretty difficult though, and I'd argue that for someone who is making corporate money out of prediction, it would be counterproductive: what you need to be doing is showing the execs how they can be tweaking their current products and tech, not that they have to create whole new fields from scratch. And its this process that Kurzweil seems very good at: people pay him. I'm not sure whether he keeps his good predictions for paying customers, or whether the standard is the same as his public one, but he wouldn't be the first man to make use of a reality distortion field to make huge amounts of money, and he certainly won't be the last.
Except that in some instances, the areas where these posts are being made are in what the posters deem to be a closed room, and I'm sure you'd be mad as hell if your comments in private are purposely eavesdropped.
Obviously there is a lack of control over this by most users, and maybe their understanding of the tech they're using is limited, but by posting something on a wall in facebook and thinking that only their friends can see it because those are their privacy settings does make it private to them.
I tend to take your advice for most things, but still, it's stifling to live constantly thinking about whether you can safely voice your opinion. And in my opinion, that is not exactly a free society, either.
I'm not a lawyer either, but under our legal system (which is heavily based on the British one) a contract needs to have a meeting of the minds: both parties need to agree on it explicitly, and both parties need to have the same understanding of the implications of it, before it becomes binding. You can't have a contract where information is withheld from one party until after the agreement is made: there can be no "Gotcha" after the fact.
Think about it less in terms of "How are we using this to help the students learn?" and more in terms of "How do I get a webcam in every student's bedroom?"
As recent forays into, and furores over, how this kind of tech is used in schools have demonstrated, teachers don't seem to be terribly good with handling these devices when they're in the hands of a student group.
The other point is to choose your university by checking whether the Profs are setting their own books as coursework.
If they are, and they're not the leading person in that field, pass, and go to a less corrupt bunch of hacks. In my experience (just finishing my fourth degree) the departments that allow that kind of behaviour are not going to give you a good educational experience.
And the need for this particular tech is a large, spread out population group. Which probably won't exist after the collapse of civilization as we know it.
And Apple have come out saying that there will be no silly apps anymore, specifically giving fart apps as an example of said silliness, and the lead approver's panda fart apps remain in the store - I would google for a link, but I'm too lazy.
Which is a handy way of giving him a monopoly on the (apparently important, but who would have guessed it) fart app sector of the app store.
If they don't have the money, maybe they should consider using the library to get the book? That's where a lot of my books come from, and they're free...
But they could be using the same scanned ISBN network info to sell the books that are worth something (not many of these books are) at market price, and using the extra cash to buy more books or even help to provide services to the poorer areas of their towns, such as mobile libraries or remedial reading classes. If it was about giving back to the community, that would surely be more valuable? Besides, if it was a straight giveaway, they wouldn't charge for the books at all.
I read the article a couple of days ago (in slate, not salon) and what struck me was the amount of money that is being thrown away here. Just 'cod taxpayer money was used in the first instance, doesn't mean that people shouldn't think about their resources at this stage.
In fact, Apple did. I just got my case for this today, which I chose through the iphone case app. There were a few options, the bumper one being one of them, but I thought "That's not going to stop scratches on the glass back of the phone" so I went with one of these clip-on ones.
I'll get back to you on whether it was a good choice in a couple of days, I guess.
I used to have twin albino rats, which had a genetic defect that caused them to bleed (pus or something) out of their eyes, and be blind (honestly!). They looked like zombies.
Jesus, you just freaked me out way more than TFA's videos. Never go into research like this, OK?
I doubt that would matter. China has a competitive advantage in the manufacturing side, so unless you can infringe on a patent and beat them out in making whatever, infringing a patent really wouldn't be too much of a big deal.
Of course, this doesn't take into account any software patents. But I guess the lack of worker's rights in China probably make their coding competitive for similar reasons that their manufacturing is.
Except the law is not on their side. This is from an article about this on Wired.com, though, so you're welcome to take it from whence it comes.
the basic gist of this is that in the UK, where these guys have been practicing, there is no statutory claim to damages, and the lawyers in the UK system in a case like this would usually be able to claim only as much as the retail price of one item in damages. That would mean 75p in the case of a single downloaded music track.
The law firms are sending letters of demand for much more than this, and sending them to people in financial difficulty - who cannot afford to get legal representation, and who often pay up to make it go away. Hearing about massive damages awarded in cases similar to this in the States probably is a factor.
The lawyers typically don't go after people who haven't paid, and bring them to court. But one of them is considering moving from the UK to the US just because of the statuary damages angle that RIAA have managed to make law.
For me, the issue here is the use of copyright law to stop this. I don't see why the police would have to get a copyright exemption for the creation of a database, as they are not planning to make or sell shoes with similar patterns.
As far as I can see it, this is research of an academic nature. Now, if people want to go after the police here in a civil liberties and person's rights issue - and I don't think there's an issue with these in this case anyway, because I don't see how the shoes you wear now, or may buy in the future, are unique enough to qualify as rights-qualifying - then that's fine. But copyright this is manifestly not.
I don't think it's meant to be completely unavailable to them, more like they're just not being in-your-face about selling this to them or their kids.
If anyone wants it, they can go off-base and get the game. It's just not going to be waiting at the corner store, ready to cause a breakdown, when a wife or kid of a recently dead soldier walks in.
you're wrong there. It was originally named the "Championship of the World" and this was then shortened to "World Championship Series", and again to "World Series".
Your way would make much more sense, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you there - I love going through the games, and perfecting my setups for each car and track according to my style of driving. Takes a long time, but you get a real feeling of achievement when you hook it up.
But other people may not enjoy the game in the way that I do, and they should be given the choice to unlock everything and go wild. It's their game, after all, they bought it.
Definitely. And there's a cult of personality about it all, too. I don't edit articles for Wikipedia, so I don't have their groupthink, but I can't help but feel that the entire campaign this year has been set up by some of the more fawning members of the Wikipedia community.
Personally, I could give rocks about Jimmy Wales. I might consider giving money to Wikipedia, though, if they just had the barometer of cash donated vs. cash that they ran in the previous years.
I'm not buying into any conspiracy theories, and I'm going to watch this develop with interest - at the moment I think there are many possibilities here, and this is something of uncharted territory in govt affairs.
That said, I think there is a motive for the US to be pulling the strings here. This is from the article::
Maybe it's just a way of preventing Assange from getting Swedish citizenship and the protection that this would afford? The Swedish govt can't give him this while charges hang over his head - whether they're true or not. Doesn't explain how they govt would get these particular girls on board or anything, but it is a somewhat plausible motive.
Another close prediction of the internet, and strangely of the kind of social networking that is taking over the net experience only now for many people, is "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster.
Written in 1909. Just over 100 years ago.
So it is possible to predict these things from nothing. It is pretty difficult though, and I'd argue that for someone who is making corporate money out of prediction, it would be counterproductive: what you need to be doing is showing the execs how they can be tweaking their current products and tech, not that they have to create whole new fields from scratch. And its this process that Kurzweil seems very good at: people pay him. I'm not sure whether he keeps his good predictions for paying customers, or whether the standard is the same as his public one, but he wouldn't be the first man to make use of a reality distortion field to make huge amounts of money, and he certainly won't be the last.
Except that in some instances, the areas where these posts are being made are in what the posters deem to be a closed room, and I'm sure you'd be mad as hell if your comments in private are purposely eavesdropped.
Obviously there is a lack of control over this by most users, and maybe their understanding of the tech they're using is limited, but by posting something on a wall in facebook and thinking that only their friends can see it because those are their privacy settings does make it private to them.
I tend to take your advice for most things, but still, it's stifling to live constantly thinking about whether you can safely voice your opinion. And in my opinion, that is not exactly a free society, either.
Studies have shown that comprehension levels this type of statement tend to correlate with levels of hair-pointiness.
I'm not a lawyer either, but under our legal system (which is heavily based on the British one) a contract needs to have a meeting of the minds: both parties need to agree on it explicitly, and both parties need to have the same understanding of the implications of it, before it becomes binding. You can't have a contract where information is withheld from one party until after the agreement is made: there can be no "Gotcha" after the fact.
A Transformers download? I think you may find that would be leg before... or possibly caught at silly mid on.
Think about it less in terms of "How are we using this to help the students learn?" and more in terms of "How do I get a webcam in every student's bedroom?"
As recent forays into, and furores over, how this kind of tech is used in schools have demonstrated, teachers don't seem to be terribly good with handling these devices when they're in the hands of a student group.
The other point is to choose your university by checking whether the Profs are setting their own books as coursework. If they are, and they're not the leading person in that field, pass, and go to a less corrupt bunch of hacks. In my experience (just finishing my fourth degree) the departments that allow that kind of behaviour are not going to give you a good educational experience.
And the need for this particular tech is a large, spread out population group. Which probably won't exist after the collapse of civilization as we know it.
I doubt THC had anything to do with a rant like that.
And Apple have come out saying that there will be no silly apps anymore, specifically giving fart apps as an example of said silliness, and the lead approver's panda fart apps remain in the store - I would google for a link, but I'm too lazy.
Which is a handy way of giving him a monopoly on the (apparently important, but who would have guessed it) fart app sector of the app store.
Yeah right. Like anyone would read those for the articles . Nice try, but we know it's all about the centerfolds, buddy.
You're paying so Microsoft can pay a graphic designer to develop a cool-looking video bashing the competition, obviously.
If they don't have the money, maybe they should consider using the library to get the book? That's where a lot of my books come from, and they're free...
But they could be using the same scanned ISBN network info to sell the books that are worth something (not many of these books are) at market price, and using the extra cash to buy more books or even help to provide services to the poorer areas of their towns, such as mobile libraries or remedial reading classes. If it was about giving back to the community, that would surely be more valuable? Besides, if it was a straight giveaway, they wouldn't charge for the books at all.
I read the article a couple of days ago (in slate, not salon) and what struck me was the amount of money that is being thrown away here. Just 'cod taxpayer money was used in the first instance, doesn't mean that people shouldn't think about their resources at this stage.
And of course the very concept of concentration camps is a British thing, invented during the Anglo-Boer war in South Africa.
In fact, Apple did. I just got my case for this today, which I chose through the iphone case app. There were a few options, the bumper one being one of them, but I thought "That's not going to stop scratches on the glass back of the phone" so I went with one of these clip-on ones.
I'll get back to you on whether it was a good choice in a couple of days, I guess.
Jesus, you just freaked me out way more than TFA's videos. Never go into research like this, OK?
I doubt that would matter. China has a competitive advantage in the manufacturing side, so unless you can infringe on a patent and beat them out in making whatever, infringing a patent really wouldn't be too much of a big deal.
Of course, this doesn't take into account any software patents. But I guess the lack of worker's rights in China probably make their coding competitive for similar reasons that their manufacturing is.
Except the law is not on their side. This is from an article about this on Wired.com, though, so you're welcome to take it from whence it comes.
the basic gist of this is that in the UK, where these guys have been practicing, there is no statutory claim to damages, and the lawyers in the UK system in a case like this would usually be able to claim only as much as the retail price of one item in damages. That would mean 75p in the case of a single downloaded music track.
The law firms are sending letters of demand for much more than this, and sending them to people in financial difficulty - who cannot afford to get legal representation, and who often pay up to make it go away. Hearing about massive damages awarded in cases similar to this in the States probably is a factor.
The lawyers typically don't go after people who haven't paid, and bring them to court. But one of them is considering moving from the UK to the US just because of the statuary damages angle that RIAA have managed to make law.
The wired article is here -http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/the-legal-blackmail-business/ - so everyone can ignore that one, as well, and write whatever comments they feel.
For me, the issue here is the use of copyright law to stop this. I don't see why the police would have to get a copyright exemption for the creation of a database, as they are not planning to make or sell shoes with similar patterns.
As far as I can see it, this is research of an academic nature. Now, if people want to go after the police here in a civil liberties and person's rights issue - and I don't think there's an issue with these in this case anyway, because I don't see how the shoes you wear now, or may buy in the future, are unique enough to qualify as rights-qualifying - then that's fine. But copyright this is manifestly not.
I don't think it's meant to be completely unavailable to them, more like they're just not being in-your-face about selling this to them or their kids.
If anyone wants it, they can go off-base and get the game. It's just not going to be waiting at the corner store, ready to cause a breakdown, when a wife or kid of a recently dead soldier walks in.
According to this page
http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/name.htm
you're wrong there. It was originally named the "Championship of the World" and this was then shortened to "World Championship Series", and again to "World Series". Your way would make much more sense, though.