Very cool indeed. Back in 3rd grade, I really wanted a Cray. I remember thinking when I grew up I could have a garage out back and fill it with the worlds MOST POWERFUL COMPUTER! I saw one up close and personal in a museum in france, had to tease it with my cell phone.
Some of those machine calculators are pretty awesome, but I really like the fact that we have now come some type of odd circle, and now we have games where we can virtually build something similar.
Also, I've seen this picture before. Two questions: one, is it real. Two: please tell me the steering wheel is to avoid computer crashes.
Exactly. Iowa's early primary ensures that any canidate trying to raise more money has to take the pledge to support ethanol as a biofuel. If they point out how wastefull and pointless it's been, they'll have a weak showing there, and their campaign contributions will take a hit. Plus no congressman with eyes on the presidency would be willing to vote against corn for the same reasons.
That wiki page also has some interesting stats on the taxes. "every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30." And we're STILL dependant on oil. It's not even that they take corporate welfare, I'd be mad enough just based off how lousy an investment that is.
The 360 is nearing the end of the typical console lifespan (which has always been about 5 years, give or take) and is getting a bit long in the tooth anyway.
I disagree. I'd rather not have to buy another console, the wii has, for better or worse, seems to have shifted console makers' focus off of cutting edge graphics to making it appealing to people who play fewer games. See project NATAL: that's not for people who play a lot of games, that's for the families, for parents, for party games, etc.
DVD player holding it back? Maybe there are some people who get irrationally angry and violent when they have to change discs, but I managed to play many games on the PSone which were on multiple discs without breaking down and crying. It's really not a big deal. If it saves me even a hundred bucks from not having to buy a bluray player with my console, I'm completely fine with changing discs.
CPU also I don't know about. I think the graphics are fine. And it's not going to happen because of computing power anyway: MS isn't going to spend a ton of money developing a more powerful console, when the console that's selling the best has about as much computing power as the first XBOX. Not saying that's the best reason to not have a new generation with a better CPU...
If they wait too long, Sony is going to start trouncing them with the stronger hardware of the PS3.
As I understand it, MS is already losing money on the 360. And of course, the wii is trouncing both of them.
On a personal note, how about making your online architecture a little more friendly to MMO's? The PS3 has several in the pipeline, and you don't have any. There are only so many FPS's and racing games I can put up with before I want some innovation.
MMOs= innovation? Really? I've seen plenty of innovative FPS and racing games. If you are a fan of MMO, ask for MMO because you want MMO, but don't confuse lack of MMO with lack of innovation.
Wow, about as insightful as the deathpanel nonsense.
First off...what? Research isn't driven by insurance companies, so I'm having a hard time understanding how that would remove incentives of any type. With nationalized healthcare are people going to still have heart attacks? Yes. Are people going to pay a lot of money for this to recover from a heart attack? Yes. Are people going to fund research like this? Obviously. I'm not seeing anything to suggest that our health insurance industry is responsible for any innovation besides the new ways of denying coverage they find. I realize I'm not an expert in the insurance field, so I'm willing to listen to your evidence as to how researchers in Israel (which APPEARS TO HAVE NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE) are funded by our healthcare system.
You seem to be suffering from the notion that the only reason researchers, doctors, and scientists come up with stuff is to make a boatload of money. That's absurd. That is a motivating factor for some researchers. Definitely not all, and definitely not most. Maybe that's why most medical doctors get into the biz, but as a scientist currently earning less than I would on unemployment... no. Just no. Even if it weren't for the money, there'd still be the accolades (beyond/. of course), the respect, the research grants, the good feeling that comes from coming up with something that saves lives, and the satisfaction that comes from discovery, to drive them on.
Hell, I'm a grad student, so I am proof the accolades, money, respect, grants, and good feelings of any type are even dispensable: some of us do it because we're masochists.
Sure, but they're not just paying for the defense, they're paying for the sticker, for the -status- that a Rayethon brings. You cruise around in a lockeed blimp, people ignore you. They see "Raytheon JLENS" and they want to know who you are, the valet makes sure not to scratch the doors.
In seriousness, it looks like raytheon built them. Their wiki page on them lists several controversies that seem pretty typical of the industry.
Another blurb on JLENS I found (http://defense-update.com/products/j/jlens.htm) had this interesting bit
A different concept of an untethered airship is pursued by Lockheed Martin. The program cost is estimated at US $149 million with completion expected by November 2010.
I'm not any kind of expert in defense or aerospace, so maybe the key differences would be obvious to an expert or someone who did more than skim over those two product descriptions, but yeah, an order of magnitude. Suspicious...
Your argument would be better applied to a more complex case of right vs wrong, such as more legitimate online advertisers. But we're not talking about that, these people are scum. Furthermore, this is/. where the general consensus is that adware and the people who make it are scum. Adressing the morality of adware would be preaching to the choir and would be beside the point. Lastly, I did NOT claim it was fact. Was it not obvious enough this is my opinion? If you're worried that people might read that and confuse it with fact, rest assured that such people are incapable of plugging a computer into the wall, and would not be reading it.
Yes adware is bad too, but its legal and calling adware companies cybercriminals is going to bring some lawsuits.
Others have adressed the actual legality, but I want to adress this anyway. I don't think we should refrain from calling bad guys "bad." Whether or not some asshole skates around laws faster than Estonia can make them (or outright bribes/lobbies lawmakers to keep what he's doing legal), or whether or not a particular asshole gets litigious for calling him an asshole, they're still an asshole. In fact, they're even bigger assholes if they bend laws and sue over it.
I think you'll actually be modded down to -5 (extreme failure in reading). I realize it did have "Naro space center" but the headline is "South Korea's first rocket," so either you were -trying- to see that or you have really bad reading skills.
It was a hypothetical scenario, presented as such. I was commenting on the lack of evidence, saying you could speculate just as easily the other direction.
Nothing specifically against people on meth... I guess I wasn't -trying- to insult their reasoning capabilities...
I heard that a few years ago, the page for George W Bush was vandalized on average every 30 seconds or so. It's definitely that people have proven themselves unequal when it comes to editing.
Criminals know how to defeat simple measures, it's what they do. So I would say that probably 1-2% of criminals would be completely deterred from robbing somebody, stealing a car, or whatever, but the rest would just scout out the cameras and not look at them and wear a hoodie to prevent good angle/shot of the face, or simply wear other methods of obscuring their faces.
I'd need to see actual data. Seems equally likely to me that only 1-2% of car thieves are smart enough to do avoid these measures. If you're running low on meth and see an ipod in a car at night, you may be thinking little more than smashed window = ipod = more meth, "wear a hoodie so you don't get photographed and caught" might be pretty advanced for you. After all, everyone knows the halfway intelligent criminals don't steal cars, they go to law school.
Not to mention the crimes they do solve are usually the ones we can live with, IE catching some kid shoplifting rather than catching CCTV camera manufacturers bribing lawmakers to erode privacy.
We need to know a lot more than that. It would be interesting if they found a way to break it down by redesigned 360 vs old 360. It would also be interesting if they broke it down by error type. The infamous red ring of death (or rather, red 3/4 circle of death) was a specific hardware problem that went wrong a lot before the redesign and was responsible for most of the failures. The redesign did two things, the big thing was to correct that problem, and the second was to add HDMI output on at least some of the models.
But microsoft didn't make a console that had only one flaw, there are still plenty of other ways the 360 can and does break. I got a redesigned 360, havent had the RROD. I did get an E74 error message, which has something to do with the video feed. I sent it in and got back a refurbished 360. Another problem arose: the cheap disc drives. About a week after I got it back, the disc drive quit, I had to send it back again. To attempt to address that third problem, MS did the update where you could install a game to the hard drive, so the disc drive wouldn't have to work as hard.
I've seen several polls that tried to get an idea of 360 failure rate, but none which even measured the new consoles. There has got to be a higher error rate than any of us consumers would like, but I'd expect it to be lower than the consoles that were more prone to RROD. Furthermore, the disc drive fix may have a temporary fix, but the E74 problem I'm still worried about.
Is it too much to ask that MS come forward and publish the actual numbers? If they don't, you wonder if the real number is actually higher than 54%, which doesn't sound right.
How a liberal, who generally is in favor of bigger government, can rail against the waste that is endemic in a big government
If you think liberals are in favor of "big government" for it's own sake, you've really confused partisan slander with reality.
We're for expanding effective programs and cutting the waste. It's only confusing if you don't realize that not everyone thinks that all government spending is inherently wasteful.
What say you put YOUR life on the line, and then tell others they are spending too much to protect you, hmmm?
You're being a simpleton. Not all military spending goes to protecting our soldiers.
how far can you heave a 10lb weight into a situation that you can't see directly in front of you?
Further than I would want to throw myself if we're talking about into a room with a lot of angry men with guns. Also, I'm not in the same shape a marine would be, I'd expect a marine would be able to throw a 10lb weight further. The article specifically mentions "can see around corners inside buildings, sewers, drainpipes, caves, courtyards" so corners, not distances, and it sounds kind of like they're looking into remote controlled after being thrown.
Yet another rash judgement from someone didn't even RTFA, let alone knows the full story. But lets not let trivial details like facts we don't know stand in the way of our statement that fully half our military budget is completely dispensable.
(For the record, I'm a liberal and also dislike the amount we spend on the military. It's not that I'm biased in favor of dumping all our money on the military, you're just making us look dumb.)
Although it doesn't sound like they really want a "robot," they just want something they can throw into a room and see what's in there. Just put a durable webcam in a clear hampster ball. Or if you do need it to move around after thrown, put the webcam on a small RC car.
Marines: I expect a good chunk of your R&D budget for this design.
The girls that went to your high school sound unusually not superficial and not follow-the-herd. I think most of the girls at my high school were convinced guys had to get the class ring to graduate.
Slashdot Mirror
Very cool indeed. Back in 3rd grade, I really wanted a Cray. I remember thinking when I grew up I could have a garage out back and fill it with the worlds MOST POWERFUL COMPUTER! I saw one up close and personal in a museum in france, had to tease it with my cell phone.
Some of those machine calculators are pretty awesome, but I really like the fact that we have now come some type of odd circle, and now we have games where we can virtually build something similar.
Also, I've seen this picture before. Two questions: one, is it real. Two: please tell me the steering wheel is to avoid computer crashes.
I guess reading the summary is hard
It's not his fault. The government also screwed up his schedule so he couldn't take reading 101.
Exactly. Iowa's early primary ensures that any canidate trying to raise more money has to take the pledge to support ethanol as a biofuel. If they point out how wastefull and pointless it's been, they'll have a weak showing there, and their campaign contributions will take a hit. Plus no congressman with eyes on the presidency would be willing to vote against corn for the same reasons.
Ethanol subsidies have been a huge waste, the money is all going to ADM, which is the last company we should be giving it to.
That wiki page also has some interesting stats on the taxes. "every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30." And we're STILL dependant on oil. It's not even that they take corporate welfare, I'd be mad enough just based off how lousy an investment that is.
The 360 is nearing the end of the typical console lifespan (which has always been about 5 years, give or take) and is getting a bit long in the tooth anyway.
I disagree. I'd rather not have to buy another console, the wii has, for better or worse, seems to have shifted console makers' focus off of cutting edge graphics to making it appealing to people who play fewer games. See project NATAL: that's not for people who play a lot of games, that's for the families, for parents, for party games, etc.
DVD player holding it back? Maybe there are some people who get irrationally angry and violent when they have to change discs, but I managed to play many games on the PSone which were on multiple discs without breaking down and crying. It's really not a big deal. If it saves me even a hundred bucks from not having to buy a bluray player with my console, I'm completely fine with changing discs.
CPU also I don't know about. I think the graphics are fine. And it's not going to happen because of computing power anyway: MS isn't going to spend a ton of money developing a more powerful console, when the console that's selling the best has about as much computing power as the first XBOX. Not saying that's the best reason to not have a new generation with a better CPU...
If they wait too long, Sony is going to start trouncing them with the stronger hardware of the PS3.
As I understand it, MS is already losing money on the 360. And of course, the wii is trouncing both of them.
On a personal note, how about making your online architecture a little more friendly to MMO's? The PS3 has several in the pipeline, and you don't have any. There are only so many FPS's and racing games I can put up with before I want some innovation.
MMOs= innovation? Really? I've seen plenty of innovative FPS and racing games. If you are a fan of MMO, ask for MMO because you want MMO, but don't confuse lack of MMO with lack of innovation.
Wow, about as insightful as the deathpanel nonsense.
First off...what? Research isn't driven by insurance companies, so I'm having a hard time understanding how that would remove incentives of any type. With nationalized healthcare are people going to still have heart attacks? Yes. Are people going to pay a lot of money for this to recover from a heart attack? Yes. Are people going to fund research like this? Obviously. I'm not seeing anything to suggest that our health insurance industry is responsible for any innovation besides the new ways of denying coverage they find. I realize I'm not an expert in the insurance field, so I'm willing to listen to your evidence as to how researchers in Israel (which APPEARS TO HAVE NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE) are funded by our healthcare system.
You seem to be suffering from the notion that the only reason researchers, doctors, and scientists come up with stuff is to make a boatload of money. That's absurd. That is a motivating factor for some researchers. Definitely not all, and definitely not most. Maybe that's why most medical doctors get into the biz, but as a scientist currently earning less than I would on unemployment... no. Just no. Even if it weren't for the money, there'd still be the accolades (beyond /. of course), the respect, the research grants, the good feeling that comes from coming up with something that saves lives, and the satisfaction that comes from discovery, to drive them on.
Hell, I'm a grad student, so I am proof the accolades, money, respect, grants, and good feelings of any type are even dispensable: some of us do it because we're masochists.
Yes you can: if the truck or suicide bomber has strapped himself to the side of a missile!
Sure, but they're not just paying for the defense, they're paying for the sticker, for the -status- that a Rayethon brings. You cruise around in a lockeed blimp, people ignore you. They see "Raytheon JLENS" and they want to know who you are, the valet makes sure not to scratch the doors.
In seriousness, it looks like raytheon built them. Their wiki page on them lists several controversies that seem pretty typical of the industry.
Another blurb on JLENS I found (http://defense-update.com/products/j/jlens.htm) had this interesting bit
A different concept of an untethered airship is pursued by Lockheed Martin. The program cost is estimated at US $149 million with completion expected by November 2010.
(a page on that airship here http://defense-update.com/products/h/HALE-airship.htm)
I'm not any kind of expert in defense or aerospace, so maybe the key differences would be obvious to an expert or someone who did more than skim over those two product descriptions, but yeah, an order of magnitude. Suspicious...
Hey, look, AC just started his philosophy class!
Your argument would be better applied to a more complex case of right vs wrong, such as more legitimate online advertisers. But we're not talking about that, these people are scum. Furthermore, this is /. where the general consensus is that adware and the people who make it are scum. Adressing the morality of adware would be preaching to the choir and would be beside the point. Lastly, I did NOT claim it was fact. Was it not obvious enough this is my opinion? If you're worried that people might read that and confuse it with fact, rest assured that such people are incapable of plugging a computer into the wall, and would not be reading it.
It's not an either/or. You can do both. For more fun, you can do both at the same time
Carefull: you can propose to do both at the same time and end up doing neither. ... I probably shouldn't have suggested the paper bag
Yes adware is bad too, but its legal and calling adware companies cybercriminals is going to bring some lawsuits.
Others have adressed the actual legality, but I want to adress this anyway. I don't think we should refrain from calling bad guys "bad." Whether or not some asshole skates around laws faster than Estonia can make them (or outright bribes/lobbies lawmakers to keep what he's doing legal), or whether or not a particular asshole gets litigious for calling him an asshole, they're still an asshole. In fact, they're even bigger assholes if they bend laws and sue over it.
I think you'll actually be modded down to -5 (extreme failure in reading). I realize it did have "Naro space center" but the headline is "South Korea's first rocket," so either you were -trying- to see that or you have really bad reading skills.
Strictly speaking I guess so. Stupid to put it like that though.
Those "no-longer restricted videos" have as much to do with teaching sex as a monster truck rally has to do with teaching you how to drive.
Exactly: it will teach you how to do it THE AWESOME WAY.
It was a hypothetical scenario, presented as such. I was commenting on the lack of evidence, saying you could speculate just as easily the other direction.
Nothing specifically against people on meth... I guess I wasn't -trying- to insult their reasoning capabilities...
I heard that a few years ago, the page for George W Bush was vandalized on average every 30 seconds or so. It's definitely that people have proven themselves unequal when it comes to editing.
(I'm no fan of Bush, that isn't bias)
Criminals know how to defeat simple measures, it's what they do. So I would say that probably 1-2% of criminals would be completely deterred from robbing somebody, stealing a car, or whatever, but the rest would just scout out the cameras and not look at them and wear a hoodie to prevent good angle/shot of the face, or simply wear other methods of obscuring their faces.
I'd need to see actual data. Seems equally likely to me that only 1-2% of car thieves are smart enough to do avoid these measures. If you're running low on meth and see an ipod in a car at night, you may be thinking little more than smashed window = ipod = more meth, "wear a hoodie so you don't get photographed and caught" might be pretty advanced for you. After all, everyone knows the halfway intelligent criminals don't steal cars, they go to law school.
Not to mention the crimes they do solve are usually the ones we can live with, IE catching some kid shoplifting rather than catching CCTV camera manufacturers bribing lawmakers to erode privacy.
100 years is plenty of time for evolution, at least for the vast majority of the earth's residents: bacteria.
No no no, it's they want people to PAY for those schedules in a future deal to be made.
The MTA provides its schedules to Google Transit...
Uh... okay nevermind about that.
We need to know a lot more than that. It would be interesting if they found a way to break it down by redesigned 360 vs old 360. It would also be interesting if they broke it down by error type. The infamous red ring of death (or rather, red 3/4 circle of death) was a specific hardware problem that went wrong a lot before the redesign and was responsible for most of the failures. The redesign did two things, the big thing was to correct that problem, and the second was to add HDMI output on at least some of the models.
But microsoft didn't make a console that had only one flaw, there are still plenty of other ways the 360 can and does break. I got a redesigned 360, havent had the RROD. I did get an E74 error message, which has something to do with the video feed. I sent it in and got back a refurbished 360. Another problem arose: the cheap disc drives. About a week after I got it back, the disc drive quit, I had to send it back again. To attempt to address that third problem, MS did the update where you could install a game to the hard drive, so the disc drive wouldn't have to work as hard.
I've seen several polls that tried to get an idea of 360 failure rate, but none which even measured the new consoles. There has got to be a higher error rate than any of us consumers would like, but I'd expect it to be lower than the consoles that were more prone to RROD. Furthermore, the disc drive fix may have a temporary fix, but the E74 problem I'm still worried about.
Is it too much to ask that MS come forward and publish the actual numbers? If they don't, you wonder if the real number is actually higher than 54%, which doesn't sound right.
How a liberal, who generally is in favor of bigger government, can rail against the waste that is endemic in a big government
If you think liberals are in favor of "big government" for it's own sake, you've really confused partisan slander with reality.
We're for expanding effective programs and cutting the waste. It's only confusing if you don't realize that not everyone thinks that all government spending is inherently wasteful.
What say you put YOUR life on the line, and then tell others they are spending too much to protect you, hmmm?
You're being a simpleton. Not all military spending goes to protecting our soldiers.
how far can you heave a 10lb weight into a situation that you can't see directly in front of you?
Further than I would want to throw myself if we're talking about into a room with a lot of angry men with guns. Also, I'm not in the same shape a marine would be, I'd expect a marine would be able to throw a 10lb weight further. The article specifically mentions "can see around corners inside buildings, sewers, drainpipes, caves, courtyards" so corners, not distances, and it sounds kind of like they're looking into remote controlled after being thrown.
Yet another rash judgement from someone didn't even RTFA, let alone knows the full story. But lets not let trivial details like facts we don't know stand in the way of our statement that fully half our military budget is completely dispensable.
(For the record, I'm a liberal and also dislike the amount we spend on the military. It's not that I'm biased in favor of dumping all our money on the military, you're just making us look dumb.)
Actually sounds more like those spider robots from "Minority report."
Although it doesn't sound like they really want a "robot," they just want something they can throw into a room and see what's in there. Just put a durable webcam in a clear hampster ball. Or if you do need it to move around after thrown, put the webcam on a small RC car.
Marines: I expect a good chunk of your R&D budget for this design.
Interesting. The wiki page I skimmed with whole genome replication, most of it seemed to be talking about PCR methods.
As far as viscous DNA goes, that happens to me every time I resuspend an ethanol precipitation from a maxi prep.
The girls that went to your high school sound unusually not superficial and not follow-the-herd. I think most of the girls at my high school were convinced guys had to get the class ring to graduate.