More importantly, would the band "Flock of Seagulls" disrupt the beam? After all, they apperantly run, they run so far away. Maybe they'll run into the beam.
I really don't get the need for people to have coop/multiplayer in EVERY GAME they come across.
It's a bit of a vicious cycle. GP demonstrates that well: old fashioned? Justification for not including it? Que? People are putting multiplayer into almost every game, so players come to expect it from almost every game, which justifies putting multiplayer into almost every game. A game is old fashioned if it doesn't include multiplayer? Multiplayer is pretty old, I had the option of multiplayer for Marathon (the FPS) 15 years ago. Shoot, Mario Bros had multiplayer. Not having multiplayer feels old fashioned only because so many games have multiplayer tacked on. Justification wise, they probably didn't want to delay release to make a good multiplayer system. I've heard there's constant pressure to get the game out as quickly as possible, for obvious reasons.
If they didn't spend much time on it, and slapped one out that was weak, they'd get dinged in reviews. If the multiplayer option is pretty terrible on a game that is clearly for single player, I think that's alright, that's not what I bought it for. Crappy multiplayer on a great single player game is a little bit better than just the single player game by itself. Even if I only play the multiplayer once as a novelty, that's more use that I'm getting out of it than just the single player mode. But that's not how everyone else thinks apperantly. Reviewers would point out the bad multiplayer and game sales would suffer.
Attacking me or my credibility will not make the message less true. It will not change the fact of the marches of that the people of a particular culture and nationality ARE deliberately attacking our own culture and nation.
Seeing no evidence of a conspiracy to erode our precious culture myself, it does come down to your credibility. And since you come off as slightly paranoid, THAT really does hurt your case.
That fact you speak of, that they are deliberately attacking our culture? That's not a fact.
Why are you trying to regulate culture anyway? What are the big harms of changing culture and becoming bilingual, the ones that outweigh pearl harbor? If more spanish than english speakers populate a state, does a military base blow up? No, you just don't like hearing latin americans talking in spanish, because when they do, you judge them and you worry they're judging you. You worry that you'll have to learn a new language and you don't want to bother. I don't either, but look at it realistically: to graduate college and get a real job, you need to speak english. Most americans speak English. Most americans alive today are not going to ever learn spanish. Spanish is not going to replace English in your lifetime.
Anyway, don't act like English is the language of the gods. English replaced native american languages, it would be fair if it was replaced itself.
Aren't they entitled to monopolises and control an entire market sector based on the fact that they were the first to file a completely straightforward innovation? Why must they be subject to the same competitive forces as every other field of human endeavour?
Sarcasm? They shouldn't in some contexts. Here it doesn't make sense, in others, ones requiring significant investment in refining the idea, it does.
So lift requirements for the ER to care for illegal aliens. It isn't like they'll voluntarily do so. All they have to do to avoid dying due to an emergency medical condition is stay home.
I think you underestimate doctors. Some (most?) do what they do because they want to help people. Furthermore, I'd argue that a society posts "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore," on it's front door and then lets them die on their streets without lifting a finger to help them is a society that has failed to live up to it's own standards, the ones that made it a great society in the first place.
Regardless, the point is that a certain class of individuals generally known as "liberals" tend to want to help everyone (for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it makes the liberal feel good about himself) but don't always consider whether that's actually in everyone's best interests.
Explain to me how, besides the word "liberals" that doesn't apply equally well to conservatives. Is it the "help everyone" part?
It's like a piece of wood, a tape measure and a saw. If the person doesn't use the tape measure properly, and saws the wood too short, there isn't any magic that can fix the problem.
Hell, I'd wager that the same improvements would make it easier for elderly people to play these games.
When it comes to online games at least, this would not be a good thing. Possibly would have some benefits, some of those whippersnappers learning how to curse on XBLA really could stand to have the fear of God put into them by some army vet grandfathers. Nonetheless, I was never quite successful at explaining to my grandmother that anything in an e-mail that was along the lines of "Fwd: TOTALLY true! Tell all your friends!" was usually lies. Convincing an octogenarian not to run along as a medic healing a spy in disguise? Ugh.
Should I sue because they didn't accommodate for people with my particular disability? Plenty of people are missing limbs. Why aren't they in an uproar over Guitar Hero?
Whatever court hears completely bat-shit insane lawsuits by greedy jerks trying to get money they didn't earn from successful games must be pretty backlogged.
Wow, so you banned beatings for ONE class of prisoners. What a step forward China.
Change takes time. If they keep the rate of one ban on beating certian types of prisoners, they won't have any more beatings in just three short years!
Along those same lines I was pondering the question at the top of the article "Why would a little girl in Yorkshire think Jesus was born in an egg?" Oddly phrased, and I don't think google is the place to search for insight on the immaculate conception, but if you believe that, it WOULD be an interesting embryological issue. Was it like a human egg and, er... a set of divine chromesomes or what? I bet some church scholar has talked about that more than any person reasonably should, it's entirely possible that got transcribed and computerized.
Later on if I'm still as interested as I am now, I may run a google search of my own, though more along the lines of "immaculate conception, human egg fertilization." Probably not though.
Then there are summaries like this which throw everything and the kitchen sink in. What's worse, there is only one submitted link, so it's not like there are multiple sources gathered together making this summary long, it's just a lazy submitter cutting and pasting from the article.
I'm not quite sure what your complaint is. It's too long but doesn't include enough sources? The actual article is here and the free abstract is here. The article is 6 pages long, and is obviously quite dense. The slashdot summary is more for general audiences, Greg George could have included more material from the original source, but you're already saying tl:dr. Summarizing biomedical research so that everyone can understand it but including all the essential details is frankly something even biology professors rarely achieve.
Growing axons is a nice step, but Christopher Reeves is dead already. It'll be hard to get another celebrity to put their weight behind this kind of research.
And of course, THAT is the critical step, having a good celebrity endosement, that is holding spinal cord repair back. It's a well known fact that scientists won't try anything unless there's a sympathetic celebrity asking them to do it. It's a morale thing, after Mr Reeves died, they just all lost hope, figured there was no point in trying anymore, and became shoe salesmen ~.
This is the typical, in this case subtle (but in other cases not subtle) blaming of the consumer for overusing network resources beyond some mythical "reasonable/predictable" amount that service providers cling to in rationalizing their retarded infrastructure expansion plans.
Indeed, it's telling that THEY HAVEN'T STOPPED ADVERTISING.
Car metaphor: you're a car dealership. You run some ads in which you say "Buy our cars: we have them to sell", and then you sell all the cars you have. Do you A: Order more cars to sell B: Stop running the ads, since, no, you don't have cars to sell C: Complain about customers buying your product faster than you expected while still running the ads and not buying more cars
If you threw more money at it, you'd probably just be buying the original researchers PostDocs a new car apiece, and maybe funding a Phd or two. If you want more scientists today, start by changing culture 20 years ago.
Bull shit.
There are plenty of projects that would yield good results out there, and people to do them, but the money is lacking, so said projects get put on the backburner or scaled down. There may be a point at which dumping more money on research will just be wasted, but we are nowhere close to that point. I look at progenitor cells that eventually make up the spinal cord, we use microscopes that cost a lot of money per hour. Really limits the experiments I can do. Extra money would mean I could look at those cells with different markers, under different conditions. Every time I run one of those experiments, I learn more than I was expecting to about how an embryo makes it's spinal cord. Some of those lessons may be useful to treating diseases of the spinal cord or how to repair injured spinal cords.
To be fair though, some stimulus money has been given out, with some unusual strings attached. And also to be fair, putting "stimulus" money into basic research doesn't seem like a very good way to stimulate the economy in the short term. It's a good long-term investment that does need more money, but stimulus, no. Bottom line though, research could definitely use more money, we're far from saturation, and it would definitely be a better investment than giving it to some fucking bank CEO.
I know this isn't as nice as being able to select individual features of a song, but what are you going to do?
Whine on slashdot about a free service that lacks one feature I think would be good.
Oh, that was probably rhetorical...
No, I have heard that, but in the case I said, nearly every hip hop artist can accurately be described as boastful, because they all do. Giving -any- thumbs up seems to strengthen that.
I just wish I could tweak the individual conditions to see where it'd get me... like having all criteria match except genre.
Even a line-item veto for the "why did you play this song" would be ideal. Thumbs up or thumbs down on every song seems to make the music selections worse, not better. Obviously which songs I like and which ones I don't doesn't neatly boil down to criteria that pandora can identify, so I think it's unavoidable that it will pick up on what it thinks I like but I don't.
For example, I like hip hop with clever lyrics, but hate rappers who can only talk about themselves. Most hip hop artists though rap about themselves at least a little, even the ones I enjoy. Simply because all rappers rap about themselves at least a little, any song I give a thumbs up, it's always going to think I like that and will start playing songs that are -only- about the rapper. If I make a station around Aesop Rock, who rap about things besides how well they rap, the selections are good. If I hit "I like" for too many songs though, the selections get worse, looking in "why did you play this song" there is always a line about "boastful lyrics." Being able to select "no, not that one" would be a plus, as the other criteria get better.
(Please, try to resist the temptation to post on how you don't like hip hop. I know, I know, rap music is missing a c, that's very clever.)
Nobody actually relied on MAD during the Cold War. MAD is an idea that theorists use to explain ex post facto how politicians failed to actually push the button even though they spent all that time and money on building the weapons, and what students are taught because of the formalisms of common pedagogy.
Citation? I may have been subjected to the formalisms of common pedagogy, but those ex post facto ideas by theorists to explain how politicians failed to actually push the button even though they spent all that time and money on building the weapons are actually pretty convincing. I've never heard that the mentality on the US side was "We could totally take a nuclear hit if it would wipe out the Soviets."
Notwithstanding _history_, however, MAD is actually a very elegant and sophisticated model for emergent behavior.
Doesn't MAD boil down to mutually assured destruction? Not very sophisticated or elegant if you ask me.
Yeah... I must be badanalogyguy in disguise. Not the best comparison (by far), I just wanted to point out that while the Iraqis are doing stupid things with bomb detectors, we were setting up a situation where we and Russia would do much stupider things with much bigger bombs, so implying we can be trusted with those same bigger bombs but the Iraqis can't is absurd.
Right, because we're so much smarter than the Iraqis. We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military. Therefore they can't handle nukes and we can./sarcasm
I'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we're seeing here. Both are pretty shocking, but "magic bomb detector" risks at most several soldiers' lives, not, you know, everything.
In case you forgot, our leaders were the ones that relied on MAD. With all our eductation and logic, that is what we came up with. If this is the dumbest thing Iraq is doing coming out of Saddam's rule, with little recent history of competent leaders, they're doing pretty well. I wouldn't want them to have nukes, but we're not people who should have nukes either.
Slashdot Mirror
Sushi is raw fish with this everything gets cooked even you.
We are talking about japan, not soviet russia, right?
Would a flock of birds disrupt the beam?
More importantly, would the band "Flock of Seagulls" disrupt the beam? After all, they apperantly run, they run so far away. Maybe they'll run into the beam.
I really don't get the need for people to have coop/multiplayer in EVERY GAME they come across.
It's a bit of a vicious cycle. GP demonstrates that well: old fashioned? Justification for not including it? Que? People are putting multiplayer into almost every game, so players come to expect it from almost every game, which justifies putting multiplayer into almost every game. A game is old fashioned if it doesn't include multiplayer? Multiplayer is pretty old, I had the option of multiplayer for Marathon (the FPS) 15 years ago. Shoot, Mario Bros had multiplayer. Not having multiplayer feels old fashioned only because so many games have multiplayer tacked on. Justification wise, they probably didn't want to delay release to make a good multiplayer system. I've heard there's constant pressure to get the game out as quickly as possible, for obvious reasons.
If they didn't spend much time on it, and slapped one out that was weak, they'd get dinged in reviews. If the multiplayer option is pretty terrible on a game that is clearly for single player, I think that's alright, that's not what I bought it for. Crappy multiplayer on a great single player game is a little bit better than just the single player game by itself. Even if I only play the multiplayer once as a novelty, that's more use that I'm getting out of it than just the single player mode. But that's not how everyone else thinks apperantly. Reviewers would point out the bad multiplayer and game sales would suffer.
Informative? You mean the movies were real? Shit, some of my friends are over there now!
Attacking me or my credibility will not make the message less true. It will not change the fact of the marches of that the people of a particular culture and nationality ARE deliberately attacking our own culture and nation.
Seeing no evidence of a conspiracy to erode our precious culture myself, it does come down to your credibility. And since you come off as slightly paranoid, THAT really does hurt your case.
That fact you speak of, that they are deliberately attacking our culture? That's not a fact.
Why are you trying to regulate culture anyway? What are the big harms of changing culture and becoming bilingual, the ones that outweigh pearl harbor? If more spanish than english speakers populate a state, does a military base blow up? No, you just don't like hearing latin americans talking in spanish, because when they do, you judge them and you worry they're judging you. You worry that you'll have to learn a new language and you don't want to bother. I don't either, but look at it realistically: to graduate college and get a real job, you need to speak english. Most americans speak English. Most americans alive today are not going to ever learn spanish. Spanish is not going to replace English in your lifetime.
Anyway, don't act like English is the language of the gods. English replaced native american languages, it would be fair if it was replaced itself.
Aren't they entitled to monopolises and control an entire market sector based on the fact that they were the first to file a completely straightforward innovation? Why must they be subject to the same competitive forces as every other field of human endeavour?
Sarcasm? They shouldn't in some contexts. Here it doesn't make sense, in others, ones requiring significant investment in refining the idea, it does.
So lift requirements for the ER to care for illegal aliens. It isn't like they'll voluntarily do so. All they have to do to avoid dying due to an emergency medical condition is stay home.
I think you underestimate doctors. Some (most?) do what they do because they want to help people. Furthermore, I'd argue that a society posts "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore," on it's front door and then lets them die on their streets without lifting a finger to help them is a society that has failed to live up to it's own standards, the ones that made it a great society in the first place.
Regardless, the point is that a certain class of individuals generally known as "liberals" tend to want to help everyone (for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it makes the liberal feel good about himself) but don't always consider whether that's actually in everyone's best interests.
Explain to me how, besides the word "liberals" that doesn't apply equally well to conservatives. Is it the "help everyone" part?
My mom used to say 'Want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.'
Well? What were the results? How many times did you repeat the experiment?
It's like a piece of wood, a tape measure and a saw. If the person doesn't use the tape measure properly, and saws the wood too short, there isn't any magic that can fix the problem.
Ah muggles... you never cease to amuse me!
Hell, I'd wager that the same improvements would make it easier for elderly people to play these games.
When it comes to online games at least, this would not be a good thing. Possibly would have some benefits, some of those whippersnappers learning how to curse on XBLA really could stand to have the fear of God put into them by some army vet grandfathers. Nonetheless, I was never quite successful at explaining to my grandmother that anything in an e-mail that was along the lines of "Fwd: TOTALLY true! Tell all your friends!" was usually lies. Convincing an octogenarian not to run along as a medic healing a spy in disguise? Ugh.
Should I sue because they didn't accommodate for people with my particular disability? Plenty of people are missing limbs. Why aren't they in an uproar over Guitar Hero?
They might be actually, but are in line behind pathetic one hit wonders mad that the guitar hero version sounds like the original song, a talentless trailer trash bimbo suing because she thinks her dead husband is copyrighted, and a delusional guitar maker that seems to claim a patent on pretending you're playing guitar without actually playing guitar.
Whatever court hears completely bat-shit insane lawsuits by greedy jerks trying to get money they didn't earn from successful games must be pretty backlogged.
Electroshock therapy for Internet addiction? Are you sure this isn't from The Onion?
You mean using onions to beat teens to break them of their shameful internet addictions? Interesting, I'll have to try that at my bootcamp.
Wow, so you banned beatings for ONE class of prisoners. What a step forward China.
Change takes time. If they keep the rate of one ban on beating certian types of prisoners, they won't have any more beatings in just three short years!
client=firefox
As an Opera user, I cannot in good conscience click that link.
Along those same lines I was pondering the question at the top of the article "Why would a little girl in Yorkshire think Jesus was born in an egg?" Oddly phrased, and I don't think google is the place to search for insight on the immaculate conception, but if you believe that, it WOULD be an interesting embryological issue. Was it like a human egg and, er... a set of divine chromesomes or what? I bet some church scholar has talked about that more than any person reasonably should, it's entirely possible that got transcribed and computerized.
Later on if I'm still as interested as I am now, I may run a google search of my own, though more along the lines of "immaculate conception, human egg fertilization." Probably not though.
Then there are summaries like this which throw everything and the kitchen sink in. What's worse, there is only one submitted link, so it's not like there are multiple sources gathered together making this summary long, it's just a lazy submitter cutting and pasting from the article.
I'm not quite sure what your complaint is. It's too long but doesn't include enough sources? The actual article is here and the free abstract is here. The article is 6 pages long, and is obviously quite dense. The slashdot summary is more for general audiences, Greg George could have included more material from the original source, but you're already saying tl:dr. Summarizing biomedical research so that everyone can understand it but including all the essential details is frankly something even biology professors rarely achieve.
Growing axons is a nice step, but Christopher Reeves is dead already. It'll be hard to get another celebrity to put their weight behind this kind of research.
And of course, THAT is the critical step, having a good celebrity endosement, that is holding spinal cord repair back. It's a well known fact that scientists won't try anything unless there's a sympathetic celebrity asking them to do it. It's a morale thing, after Mr Reeves died, they just all lost hope, figured there was no point in trying anymore, and became shoe salesmen ~.
This is the typical, in this case subtle (but in other cases not subtle) blaming of the consumer for overusing network resources beyond some mythical "reasonable/predictable" amount that service providers cling to in rationalizing their retarded infrastructure expansion plans.
Indeed, it's telling that THEY HAVEN'T STOPPED ADVERTISING.
Car metaphor: you're a car dealership. You run some ads in which you say "Buy our cars: we have them to sell", and then you sell all the cars you have. Do you
A: Order more cars to sell
B: Stop running the ads, since, no, you don't have cars to sell
C: Complain about customers buying your product faster than you expected while still running the ads and not buying more cars
If you threw more money at it, you'd probably just be buying the original researchers PostDocs a new car apiece, and maybe funding a Phd or two. If you want more scientists today, start by changing culture 20 years ago.
Bull shit.
There are plenty of projects that would yield good results out there, and people to do them, but the money is lacking, so said projects get put on the backburner or scaled down. There may be a point at which dumping more money on research will just be wasted, but we are nowhere close to that point. I look at progenitor cells that eventually make up the spinal cord, we use microscopes that cost a lot of money per hour. Really limits the experiments I can do. Extra money would mean I could look at those cells with different markers, under different conditions. Every time I run one of those experiments, I learn more than I was expecting to about how an embryo makes it's spinal cord. Some of those lessons may be useful to treating diseases of the spinal cord or how to repair injured spinal cords.
To be fair though, some stimulus money has been given out, with some unusual strings attached. And also to be fair, putting "stimulus" money into basic research doesn't seem like a very good way to stimulate the economy in the short term. It's a good long-term investment that does need more money, but stimulus, no. Bottom line though, research could definitely use more money, we're far from saturation, and it would definitely be a better investment than giving it to some fucking bank CEO.
I know this isn't as nice as being able to select individual features of a song, but what are you going to do?
Whine on slashdot about a free service that lacks one feature I think would be good.
Oh, that was probably rhetorical...
No, I have heard that, but in the case I said, nearly every hip hop artist can accurately be described as boastful, because they all do. Giving -any- thumbs up seems to strengthen that.
I just wish I could tweak the individual conditions to see where it'd get me... like having all criteria match except genre.
Even a line-item veto for the "why did you play this song" would be ideal. Thumbs up or thumbs down on every song seems to make the music selections worse, not better. Obviously which songs I like and which ones I don't doesn't neatly boil down to criteria that pandora can identify, so I think it's unavoidable that it will pick up on what it thinks I like but I don't.
For example, I like hip hop with clever lyrics, but hate rappers who can only talk about themselves. Most hip hop artists though rap about themselves at least a little, even the ones I enjoy. Simply because all rappers rap about themselves at least a little, any song I give a thumbs up, it's always going to think I like that and will start playing songs that are -only- about the rapper. If I make a station around Aesop Rock, who rap about things besides how well they rap, the selections are good. If I hit "I like" for too many songs though, the selections get worse, looking in "why did you play this song" there is always a line about "boastful lyrics." Being able to select "no, not that one" would be a plus, as the other criteria get better.
(Please, try to resist the temptation to post on how you don't like hip hop. I know, I know, rap music is missing a c, that's very clever.)
Ah, good point, I was mistaken when I said nukes had no purpose and we should have unilaterally never made them.
Wait a minute, no, I didn't say anything to that effect.
Nobody actually relied on MAD during the Cold War. MAD is an idea that theorists use to explain ex post facto how politicians failed to actually push the button even though they spent all that time and money on building the weapons, and what students are taught because of the formalisms of common pedagogy.
Citation? I may have been subjected to the formalisms of common pedagogy, but those ex post facto ideas by theorists to explain how politicians failed to actually push the button even though they spent all that time and money on building the weapons are actually pretty convincing. I've never heard that the mentality on the US side was "We could totally take a nuclear hit if it would wipe out the Soviets."
Notwithstanding _history_, however, MAD is actually a very elegant and sophisticated model for emergent behavior.
Doesn't MAD boil down to mutually assured destruction? Not very sophisticated or elegant if you ask me.
Agree, but MAD is hardly the best example...
Yeah... I must be badanalogyguy in disguise. Not the best comparison (by far), I just wanted to point out that while the Iraqis are doing stupid things with bomb detectors, we were setting up a situation where we and Russia would do much stupider things with much bigger bombs, so implying we can be trusted with those same bigger bombs but the Iraqis can't is absurd.
Right, because we're so much smarter than the Iraqis. We have never had dumb/superstitious people in charge of our military. Therefore they can't handle nukes and we can. /sarcasm
I'd argue that mutually assured destruction is dumber than what we're seeing here. Both are pretty shocking, but "magic bomb detector" risks at most several soldiers' lives, not, you know, everything.
In case you forgot, our leaders were the ones that relied on MAD. With all our eductation and logic, that is what we came up with. If this is the dumbest thing Iraq is doing coming out of Saddam's rule, with little recent history of competent leaders, they're doing pretty well. I wouldn't want them to have nukes, but we're not people who should have nukes either.