Quality frequently doesn't abide by a rule of progress. It is okay to continue to play old games and not treat it as a commentary on new ones. There were some real gems that were produced back then. Keeping them alive for the next generation is a noble end in itself. Recognizing that is not criticism of games that have been produced more recently. It is merely proper acknowledgment of the quality of those games.
You're going to get a lot of replies about U.S.-centric or U.S.-favoring media. And there's some truth to that. But a much bigger issue, methinks, is that the modern American media is _really_ lazy. It takes legwork to sift through gigabytes of information and follow up on leads. On the other hand, checking Twitter is trivial -- and it even comes in chunks of the right size. My grandfather used to criticize the news for "man on the street interviews" because it was really easy to do but virtually devoid of content. I think the same criticism applies to tweets, emails, random and radical guests (or worse, celebrities), and most everything else they do, these days. But this sort of non-news constitutes the bulk of American media on a good day.
None of this is to say that there was anything damning, vindicating, or otherwise valuable in the last batch. Merely, I wouldn't make inferences from the media's relative silence regarding the content.
This is a terrible rationalization. America kills tens of thousands of innocents, so Sweden should sleep comfortably knowing they've only knowingly killed a few hundred?
That blood aside, you don't seriously think the loss of informants will cause the U.S. to step down its attacks, merely because we have less reliable information? I mean, I like Obama, as politicians go, but I don't trust him. When it's been expedient for him to follow the Bush policies, he's done so.
Not removing critical names from documents is criminally irresponsible. The informants knew they were putting themselves in danger by helping the U.S., I don't think they expected their names to be posted on the web.
I don't think it's about selling more albums at all. It doesn't really matter whether they do.
The issue is that if they have a bad quarter (or worse, a series of bad quarters), they need to justify it to shareholders. Illegal downloading is a good scapegoat (and, for all I know, that's what's causing lost sales under their current business model), but in order for that excuse to work they have to launch a campaign against illegal downloaders. It's all about the perception the shareholders have of the executives.
By this reasoning, almost any amount of money they spend prosecuting illegal downloaders is justified because it's fighting a war against piracy. This is doubly effective if they have a successful quarter in which they sell more albums because it ostensibly means that their campaign is working. And now shareholders are convinced that these executives are the right people for the job.
I think that pretty much sums it up - IIS can easily be insecure, just like the rest of the Windows world. But why does that mean that the Mac's web server (Apache) should be a cause for concern?
His point is that he was simply using his personal computer, and there were people port scanning him. For a good long while (far too long), I was convinced I had security through obscurity. Why would anyone want to crack my computer? He probably had much the same perspective. With his logs, he was clearly wrong. It wasn't so much that Apache was a cause for concern in and of itself (or because IIS is more full of holes than Swiss cheese), but that he was missing the element of security on which he had previously been relying.
The United States (as opposed to European countries as an example), has artificially low gas prices. I don't think that the gas in any state is above $2.00/gallon, where in Europe it's easily that for a liter! To make these cars that don't use a lot of gas popular, the government has to inflate the price of gas. Before you moderate me down, let me say I don't want expensive gas. But it is likely that the number of SUVs is directly proportional to the price of gas. Also, companies have to start competing in the area of gas/electric hybrids. I think there is only one major manufacturer with one on the market (though I could be misinformed).
Long story short, there will probably be another "oil crisis" before the gas-guzzling/high-emissions cars begin to die out.
It takes a lot more than nuclear fuel to make a weapon. There are a number of countries that have the technology to develop a nuclear power plant, but very few can build breeder reactors. The waste from breeder reactors is weapons-grade, but as far as nuclear fuel is concerned, the United States doesn't really have to be worried about it except for the few countries to do posess this technology.
I have a number of friends who feel this way, and I've never understood it. I've tried to make programming part of my reality. I've always felt like I've been behind everybody else. I see all these people who aren't much older than I, kernel hacking, and I want to understand what they understand (it doesn't help that I go to a techie-school). At this point, I'm still pretty overwhelmed looking at my kernel's source. When I pick up a language, I try to learn as much as I can about all the ins and outs. As a result I'm limited to Perl, C++, and Java, but reasonably proficiently in all of them.
When I get out of school, I'd like to get into game development. For this my views have changed drastically over the last few years. At the beginning, it was for the purpose of making interesting and realistic graphics. That's still there, but at this point I'm more interested in 3D engines. I'd like to work for a company like Bungie that tests the limits of a language.
In any case, as much as I enjoy it, programming has never been euphoric in the same way it is for you.
One of the main reasons why games are easily written on Windows is the DirectX API, which provides support especially optimised for every area of gaming.
I think that directX is one of the main problems with Windows. As I understand it, it allows applications to directly access the hardware without having to go through the OS. This is not an Engineeringly sound idea. It increases performance, but it makes the system itself less stable.
From what I understand, IBM has the technology for faster G4s, but Motorola is slowing them down. Motorola probably wants to milk the "low-powered" G4s for all they're worth before they allow any manufacturing of a faster model. If you recall, at Steve Job's last keynote speach, he re-released the G4-500 even though it was predicted that Apple would go significantly higher in trying to keep up with Intel and AMD. Apple may be upset that Motorola is holding them back and is trying to adapt their technology simply to keep IBM and Motorolla from stalling Mac tech too much.
Read this response to the article. It's pretty funny. Considering the three systems I use to any extent are Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS9... What are the chances he's actually used any of them?
I completely agree with the idea that standardized tests are a poor judge of individual intelligence. I also agree that since people have different types of intelligence, standardized tests can be very misused in trying to rank people in relation to each other.
You point out that people have known this for a long time and query why standardized tests have been used for so long. But the reason is that these tests have been excellent at ranking schools in relation to each other. Using everybody's tests (not an individual's test), they become significantly more useful. Also, by looking at average scores in certain sections of tests, school districts have been able to tell which departments need help/funding and which don't.
If one very bright person does poorly on these tests, it isn't so important. If everybody does poorly, and a trend emerges, then it's a good indication of poor teaching or lack of resources.
A couple of the disadvantages of a test that uses Legos is that it can't test in nearly as many areas as the [still flawed] pencil and paper test. It's also difficult to tell what parts of the school system are and are not working properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Little Bobby Tables' mom strikes again.
Is it because of your mother that you say like the OP is suggesting you respond to trolls with me?
Quality frequently doesn't abide by a rule of progress. It is okay to continue to play old games and not treat it as a commentary on new ones. There were some real gems that were produced back then. Keeping them alive for the next generation is a noble end in itself. Recognizing that is not criticism of games that have been produced more recently. It is merely proper acknowledgment of the quality of those games.
You're going to get a lot of replies about U.S.-centric or U.S.-favoring media. And there's some truth to that. But a much bigger issue, methinks, is that the modern American media is _really_ lazy. It takes legwork to sift through gigabytes of information and follow up on leads. On the other hand, checking Twitter is trivial -- and it even comes in chunks of the right size. My grandfather used to criticize the news for "man on the street interviews" because it was really easy to do but virtually devoid of content. I think the same criticism applies to tweets, emails, random and radical guests (or worse, celebrities), and most everything else they do, these days. But this sort of non-news constitutes the bulk of American media on a good day.
None of this is to say that there was anything damning, vindicating, or otherwise valuable in the last batch. Merely, I wouldn't make inferences from the media's relative silence regarding the content.
People can manage turn signals where you live?
This is a terrible rationalization. America kills tens of thousands of innocents, so Sweden should sleep comfortably knowing they've only knowingly killed a few hundred?
That blood aside, you don't seriously think the loss of informants will cause the U.S. to step down its attacks, merely because we have less reliable information? I mean, I like Obama, as politicians go, but I don't trust him. When it's been expedient for him to follow the Bush policies, he's done so.
Not removing critical names from documents is criminally irresponsible. The informants knew they were putting themselves in danger by helping the U.S., I don't think they expected their names to be posted on the web.
I don't think it's about selling more albums at all. It doesn't really matter whether they do.
The issue is that if they have a bad quarter (or worse, a series of bad quarters), they need to justify it to shareholders. Illegal downloading is a good scapegoat (and, for all I know, that's what's causing lost sales under their current business model), but in order for that excuse to work they have to launch a campaign against illegal downloaders. It's all about the perception the shareholders have of the executives.
By this reasoning, almost any amount of money they spend prosecuting illegal downloaders is justified because it's fighting a war against piracy. This is doubly effective if they have a successful quarter in which they sell more albums because it ostensibly means that their campaign is working. And now shareholders are convinced that these executives are the right people for the job.
Simply create a GUI interface using Visual Basic to track his IP address.
I'm taking bets on how long it takes NASA to discover blue aliens on Mars.
Nom nom nom.
I think that pretty much sums it up - IIS can easily be insecure, just like the rest of the Windows world. But why does that mean that the Mac's web server (Apache) should be a cause for concern?
His point is that he was simply using his personal computer, and there were people port scanning him. For a good long while (far too long), I was convinced I had security through obscurity. Why would anyone want to crack my computer? He probably had much the same perspective. With his logs, he was clearly wrong. It wasn't so much that Apache was a cause for concern in and of itself (or because IIS is more full of holes than Swiss cheese), but that he was missing the element of security on which he had previously been relying.
-wml
I wouldn't worry too much about that. It opens up the economy for a new industry: Idiot-proofing your roof.
The United States (as opposed to European countries as an example), has artificially low gas prices. I don't think that the gas in any state is above $2.00/gallon, where in Europe it's easily that for a liter! To make these cars that don't use a lot of gas popular, the government has to inflate the price of gas. Before you moderate me down, let me say I don't want expensive gas. But it is likely that the number of SUVs is directly proportional to the price of gas. Also, companies have to start competing in the area of gas/electric hybrids. I think there is only one major manufacturer with one on the market (though I could be misinformed). Long story short, there will probably be another "oil crisis" before the gas-guzzling/high-emissions cars begin to die out.
-The Mighty Willtor
It takes a lot more than nuclear fuel to make a weapon. There are a number of countries that have the technology to develop a nuclear power plant, but very few can build breeder reactors. The waste from breeder reactors is weapons-grade, but as far as nuclear fuel is concerned, the United States doesn't really have to be worried about it except for the few countries to do posess this technology.
-The Mighty Willtor
I have a number of friends who feel this way, and I've never understood it. I've tried to make programming part of my reality. I've always felt like I've been behind everybody else. I see all these people who aren't much older than I, kernel hacking, and I want to understand what they understand (it doesn't help that I go to a techie-school). At this point, I'm still pretty overwhelmed looking at my kernel's source. When I pick up a language, I try to learn as much as I can about all the ins and outs. As a result I'm limited to Perl, C++, and Java, but reasonably proficiently in all of them.
When I get out of school, I'd like to get into game development. For this my views have changed drastically over the last few years. At the beginning, it was for the purpose of making interesting and realistic graphics. That's still there, but at this point I'm more interested in 3D engines. I'd like to work for a company like Bungie that tests the limits of a language.
In any case, as much as I enjoy it, programming has never been euphoric in the same way it is for you.
--The Mighty Willtor
One of the main reasons why games are easily written on Windows is the DirectX API, which provides support especially optimised for every area of gaming.
I think that directX is one of the main problems with Windows. As I understand it, it allows applications to directly access the hardware without having to go through the OS. This is not an Engineeringly sound idea. It increases performance, but it makes the system itself less stable.
--The Mighty Willtor
From what I understand, IBM has the technology for faster G4s, but Motorola is slowing them down. Motorola probably wants to milk the "low-powered" G4s for all they're worth before they allow any manufacturing of a faster model. If you recall, at Steve Job's last keynote speach, he re-released the G4-500 even though it was predicted that Apple would go significantly higher in trying to keep up with Intel and AMD. Apple may be upset that Motorola is holding them back and is trying to adapt their technology simply to keep IBM and Motorolla from stalling Mac tech too much.
--The Mighty Willtor
Read this response to the article. It's pretty funny. Considering the three systems I use to any extent are Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS9... What are the chances he's actually used any of them?
--Willtor
I completely agree with the idea that standardized tests are a poor judge of individual intelligence. I also agree that since people have different types of intelligence, standardized tests can be very misused in trying to rank people in relation to each other.
You point out that people have known this for a long time and query why standardized tests have been used for so long. But the reason is that these tests have been excellent at ranking schools in relation to each other. Using everybody's tests (not an individual's test), they become significantly more useful. Also, by looking at average scores in certain sections of tests, school districts have been able to tell which departments need help/funding and which don't.
If one very bright person does poorly on these tests, it isn't so important. If everybody does poorly, and a trend emerges, then it's a good indication of poor teaching or lack of resources.
A couple of the disadvantages of a test that uses Legos is that it can't test in nearly as many areas as the [still flawed] pencil and paper test. It's also difficult to tell what parts of the school system are and are not working properly.
--Willtor