The developers went to the PS2 and XBox because the Dreamcast was stupidly easy to pirate games for. If the developers weren't making money, why support the system?
I doubt that was the reason. PS2 is also very easy to pirate games for and it was the most popular console of that generation.
IT pros(or geeks in general) will prefer being a jerk who is always right over a nice person who is always wrong.
Lets be realistic. Nobody likes a jerk, competent or not, and if someone is always wrong, it shouldn't be there from begin with. In theory, the jerk could be handled, but it might take more effort than it is worth, and if you lump a lot of genius jerks together, there is a slim chance of working very well and a great chance of becoming a battle of prides, of which, eventually, everyone will get tired.
And, yes, it will have a vastly different feel from the LotR trilogy. And that's not a bad thing given his vision for fantasy/faerie tales is beautiful.
I hope so, because, as a book, The Hobbit does have a vastly different from th LotR trilogy.
I believe this is a good concern. If we want computers "think by themselves", creating AIs, we need to make sure they will not only follow a set of laws, which an intelligent being can work around*, but, in fact, have a motivation to do so. The closer we get from having a human-like AI, the harder will be to create enough restrictions to stop unwanted behavior without severely supressing its usefulness, and I don't think automating this task would be a good idea.
And I don't think pure eeeevil is a good motivation:D
(*) Something like: I am not allowed hurt people. Can I create conditions for someone hurt itself? Can I make someone unwittingly create these conditions? Can I make several people partially contribute to create this condition?
You may use the help of auto-aim (Deus Ex also have it, so I guess it's not a crime), but I found it very usable even without it. In fact, it's better than the optional FPS view (well, I'm not too good with FPS, so YMMV).
It is easy for us on Slashdot to see how stupid this is. But you are talking about a country where a large portion of the population prides themselves in being ignorant and rejecting good science for 'alternative theories'.
I think you should use "or", meaning the logic XOR. Those are not the same things.
I would also like to add that some of our "good science" were an "alternative theory" in the past.
It could go right if both parents support and provide resources and children follow their curiosity and put effort in it. It would end up being a kind of home schooling, but I don't know if parents can spare enough attention to their children to this go right nowadays.
It could also end up with parents not caring and children caring even less.
It's the latest take on thin-client to server connectivity. Why buy a $1500 computer when you can get 100x more power from a $100 thin client and $20 a month. (or what ever)
The main difference this time is a web browser typically becomes your thin client and the server is actually a massively parallel cluster of servers. Every time you use Google you are using the cloud.
The problem is that you become dependent of the cloud. If your network fails or the server overloads, the $100 client/netbook/whatever will not be able to handle the same tasks.
It's good to have local devices capable of accomplishing the tasks you need. Cloud computing have its advantages, but isn't as reliable.
In ST:TOS, the Enterprise would often be "three weeks out" from the starbase of the week. It had a crew of about 1,000. So, the ship had to have enough food, water, and air for 1,000 people for three weeks. Even with the "replicators", there would need to be source matter to create the food from. Let us not forget waste handling. Ejecting it from the ship means loss of material, water, and air. Storing requires voids. Recycling it requires space for the recycling equipment.
Idiocracy may reach extreme levels and an AI born from the technological singularity may control everything.
People may even have a total lack of privacy.
As long as everyone is confortable (lack of privacy is not uncomfortable by itself, it's the negative reactions of the other people and your broken expectations that do it.) and entertained, nobody will care.
Correct. This is 3D, by the notable Johnny Lee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
True 3D involves more than just a screen and glasses, and I doubt it would work for several people. Unless, of course, they can send a different images to different angles or use the glasses as the actual screens.
What we have now is just an illusion of depth. It's not even a new concept, it's just that the glasses aren't colored anymore, and became way more expensive.
I understand "active shutter" is a different execution of the concept, but it has been done already and did not become popular. It's too gimmicky...
Surely. How could someone possibly patent the design of a webpage?
The Google trademark is indicated as an optional element on the design, meaning a similar design with a different name would be infringing. What is even the purpose of this trademark? Sue random sites just because they seem a little similar to Google's main page?
As if someone wouldn't notice a page with a different name is not Google. If that was the case, they should be sued for fraud, not patent infringement.
This patent(as many others) is pointless and should not be.
It's official now: Google is Evil... and it watches us.
The rest of the world can broadcast what they're doing when and where... I will just laugh when their house is ransacked because their tweets all say how fun their vacation is.
There is a large number of people that don't use Twitter as initially intended. They use it as a way to leave their thoughts (things they want other people to know) and getting links to interesting articles.
It ends up being a news reader in which you can subscribe not only to article sources, but also to people. It may be useless, and it may be informative. It depends who you subscribe to, i.e. "follow".
Seems that now anyone who provides a service can be held liable for illegal activities from its users.
You know, it's unfeasible to keep control of user content. An automated system can only detect so much, and may block legitimate content. Having employees responsible of verifying the user content would cause delay and extra costs to the service provider. Even so, it would still be possible to ignore these measures by requiring authentication.
They would need both an advanced AI/an army of moderators and destroy all privacy to make sure no user content is infringing laws. Very unlikely to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The developers went to the PS2 and XBox because the Dreamcast was stupidly easy to pirate games for. If the developers weren't making money, why support the system?
I doubt that was the reason. PS2 is also very easy to pirate games for and it was the most popular console of that generation.
The same competent jerk might see anyone less competent than him as the "wrong who is evil and has to be defeated".
IT pros(or geeks in general) will prefer being a jerk who is always right over a nice person who is always wrong.
Lets be realistic. Nobody likes a jerk, competent or not, and if someone is always wrong, it shouldn't be there from begin with. In theory, the jerk could be handled, but it might take more effort than it is worth, and if you lump a lot of genius jerks together, there is a slim chance of working very well and a great chance of becoming a battle of prides, of which, eventually, everyone will get tired.
And, yes, it will have a vastly different feel from the LotR trilogy. And that's not a bad thing given his vision for fantasy/faerie tales is beautiful.
I hope so, because, as a book, The Hobbit does have a vastly different from th LotR trilogy .
...but I don't.
I believe this is a good concern. If we want computers "think by themselves", creating AIs, we need to make sure they will not only follow a set of laws, which an intelligent being can work around*, but, in fact, have a motivation to do so. The closer we get from having a human-like AI, the harder will be to create enough restrictions to stop unwanted behavior without severely supressing its usefulness, and I don't think automating this task would be a good idea.
And I don't think pure eeeevil is a good motivation :D
(*) Something like: I am not allowed hurt people. Can I create conditions for someone hurt itself? Can I make someone unwittingly create these conditions? Can I make several people partially contribute to create this condition?
...it is still hard to compete with something like WOW that has a brazillion dollars thrown at it on a daily basis.
There are no Brazilian Dollars. Our currency is the Real.
Final Fantasy: Dirge of Cerberus is quite decent as a 3rd person shooter.
You may use the help of auto-aim (Deus Ex also have it, so I guess it's not a crime), but I found it very usable even without it. In fact, it's better than the optional FPS view (well, I'm not too good with FPS, so YMMV).
It is easy for us on Slashdot to see how stupid this is. But you are talking about a country where a large portion of the population prides themselves in being ignorant and rejecting good science for 'alternative theories'.
I think you should use "or", meaning the logic XOR. Those are not the same things.
I would also like to add that some of our "good science" were an "alternative theory" in the past.
Are they going to blow up the sun next?
For the sake of Mother Earth!
exclusivity arrangements promote our side of the competition and innovation in jailbreaking.
I think this one is more accurate.
It could go right if both parents support and provide resources and children follow their curiosity and put effort in it. It would end up being a kind of home schooling, but I don't know if parents can spare enough attention to their children to this go right nowadays.
It could also end up with parents not caring and children caring even less.
It's the latest take on thin-client to server connectivity. Why buy a $1500 computer when you can get 100x more power from a $100 thin client and $20 a month. (or what ever)
The main difference this time is a web browser typically becomes your thin client and the server is actually a massively parallel cluster of servers. Every time you use Google you are using the cloud.
The problem is that you become dependent of the cloud. If your network fails or the server overloads, the $100 client/netbook/whatever will not be able to handle the same tasks.
It's good to have local devices capable of accomplishing the tasks you need. Cloud computing have its advantages, but isn't as reliable.
"Cloud Computing" is a very nebulous term...
Yes, it is.
Aren't open source license agreements also enforced by patent law?
Your task today it to look up the words "patent" and "copyright" and when you are done give us 100 words on why that was a stupid comment.
And make them available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives.
You are missing a step:
?. ???
In ST:TOS, the Enterprise would often be "three weeks out" from the starbase of the week. It had a crew of about 1,000. So, the ship had to have enough food, water, and air for 1,000 people for three weeks. Even with the "replicators", there would need to be source matter to create the food from. Let us not forget waste handling. Ejecting it from the ship means loss of material, water, and air. Storing requires voids. Recycling it requires space for the recycling equipment.
This problem is solved.
Idiocracy may reach extreme levels and an AI born from the technological singularity may control everything.
People may even have a total lack of privacy.
As long as everyone is confortable (lack of privacy is not uncomfortable by itself, it's the negative reactions of the other people and your broken expectations that do it.) and entertained, nobody will care.
Correct. This is 3D, by the notable Johnny Lee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
True 3D involves more than just a screen and glasses, and I doubt it would work for several people. Unless, of course, they can send a different images to different angles or use the glasses as the actual screens.
What we have now is just an illusion of depth. It's not even a new concept, it's just that the glasses aren't colored anymore, and became way more expensive.
I understand "active shutter" is a different execution of the concept, but it has been done already and did not become popular. It's too gimmicky...
That does raise the question of whether a computer built with vacuum tubes gives mp3 files a warmer sound.
Nah, they are from Russia, nothing is warm there.
Actually, the tubes give a cool sound, just be careful to don't get them clogged.
Surely. How could someone possibly patent the design of a webpage?
The Google trademark is indicated as an optional element on the design, meaning a similar design with a different name would be infringing. What is even the purpose of this trademark? Sue random sites just because they seem a little similar to Google's main page?
As if someone wouldn't notice a page with a different name is not Google. If that was the case, they should be sued for fraud, not patent infringement.
This patent(as many others) is pointless and should not be.
It's official now: Google is Evil... and it watches us.
The rest of the world can broadcast what they're doing when and where... I will just laugh when their house is ransacked because their tweets all say how fun their vacation is.
There is a large number of people that don't use Twitter as initially intended. They use it as a way to leave their thoughts (things they want other people to know) and getting links to interesting articles.
It ends up being a news reader in which you can subscribe not only to article sources, but also to people. It may be useless, and it may be informative. It depends who you subscribe to, i.e. "follow".
Seems that now anyone who provides a service can be held liable for illegal activities from its users.
You know, it's unfeasible to keep control of user content. An automated system can only detect so much, and may block legitimate content. Having employees responsible of verifying the user content would cause delay and extra costs to the service provider. Even so, it would still be possible to ignore these measures by requiring authentication.
They would need both an advanced AI/an army of moderators and destroy all privacy to make sure no user content is infringing laws. Very unlikely to happen.
Nintendo has hired Neil Boyd
He was named Nintendo's official milkman.
He was entitled to deliver what the world wants. What the world deserves.
I don't think lead would be effective enough. It would be very hard to fire a cannonball with enough precision to the necessary height.