You mean datacenters. When you need additional space, are you going to install new hard drives, or install optical drives with those robotic disc swappers? What's going to cost more and is more likely to fail? Which one's faster and more flexible?
Ok, that's one example. How much media consumption takes place in vehicles, of any type? You can't give the general "mobile/smartphone" example because these devices don't have optical drives, so we're left between the not-at-home and not-walking-around space. How large is that market?
That's probably not going to happen. It appears that someone turned the mod-points faucet down to the point where just "off-topic" doesn't cut it. You need a certain about of mod points available just to keep the racist AC comments down, and there are tons of them. I haven't seen a +5 funny in days, and not due to some mysterious disappearance of humor -- "funny" is just the least important mod point, and mods try to at least make the article's interesting/insightful/informative posts pop-up first. We're left with articles sporting 300 Score:0/1/2 comments, because most mods that do have mod points move to the latest articles as quickly as possible.
Unless we're talking about areas with no infrastructure at all, then broadband and data caps will increase long before this is commercially viable. Consider how much CD burners cost initially, and it was the same for DVD and Blu-ray. Not to mention, the first ~2 generations of each were A) slow, and B) unreliable. Broadband is already here and there's already a legislative push in most countries to get it to every home. This really is a "science project".
TFA's using the phrases "optical disc", "optical storage", and "micro-holographic" in a way that makes you wonder when they're talking about which. When they write "optical disc originally had an advantage over tape media", do they mean CD/DVD/Blu-Ray or the new holographic technology?
They just don't learn. Who at Ubisoft was so stupid that they forgot the reaction last time they did this? And wouldn't that idiot's decision have to go through some other people? This is irresponsible from both a PR and a revenue point of view.
I thought that at first, but then realized that you're not going to see some glowing poodle wagging its tail -- you're going to see some poor, sick, probably unconscious little creature that's barely alive.
(I'm not dissing research on animals as a whole, just pointing out that you probably don't want to see a picture of the results)
Also, developers aren't actively losing money when players use the game for free (and I don't mean "potential" revenue, I mean really bleeding cash). This is not strictly true if the game is an online multiplayer, but at that point the people who play for free often become the game's content. They're also more likely to spread the word and get their friends playing, so it's arguably beneficial to allow people to play for free, even if you're maintaining the servers.
I clarified what I meant in the reply post above (the original post was more of a gut reaction).
In theory, sure, I'd like everyone's work/research to be looked over with a skeptical eye, and then a few more skeptical eyes. In reality, achieving that goal is difficult. I mean in the most practical sense -- how do you find the right "intensity" of adversarial critique? The only solution I can think of involves multiple reviews. If an academic paper is published in journal X, readers will have some incentive to disprove it because that in itself is something they can add to their resume. But suppose no one cares. Suppose it's in no one's best interest to review the research, unless they're paid to do so -- and no one's willing to pay.
Like I said above, I'm kind of biased because I've "been there", if indirectly.
I gave the medical example because that's something that an individual would seek a second opinion about, rather than a group or an organization.
But in broad terms, how do you define "skeptical"? And where/when do you apply it? Do you set up "rival" teams of researchers? Do you have two isolated teams each do the research, and when they're done they have to review the other team's work? I can think of all sorts of "mechanical" solutions, as well as real-world examples ("a jury of your peers"...), but any effective, reproducible solution would require redundancy, and thus more funding, which is always where the buck stops.
Maybe I'm just overly-pessimistic, but I've witnessed too many examples where proper research was denied because it was in no-one's interest to fund it. It's just the nature of things. You have to find a party who will -- A) have an incentive to verify the data with some veracity, and B) do not have a clear objective to oppose/disprove the research. That would be almost impossible to find.
So if a doctor says you're ill, you'd get a second opinion from a carpenter? People of the same profession will "flock together". We can hope that some competitive spirit exists which will push some to criticize others (I wanted to say "we can hope that integrity and morality will guide them", but I couldn't stop laughing...). Most other alternatives will end up like the fairness doctrine.
People who live in hot climates have larger sinuses, and vice-versa, due to body heat regulation. Different people are different, period. Do we have to keep saying that everyone's the same because if they aren't then it's automatically offensive? If we're different, then we have to find out who's "better"?
This discussion is so old, and it skews science. It's the same with genders -- are we allowed to say that men and women have different thought patterns yet, or do we have to whisper? This PC bullshit always pisses me off.
Well, we've looked at practically every Ape species that we could find, because we're land mammals and we have access to, well, land. If you want to find surprises, I'd look to the oceans. Do we really know every "variant" of dolphins? What about whales? We judge intelligence by how *like us* species are, which means (among other things) that we want to see them using tools. Who's to say there aren't several whale "languages" (there probably are), or that dolphins don't "discuss" hunting tactics.
I'm temped to use "there are more things in heaven and earth", since Shakespeare seems to have neglected the sea.
I thought that 9/11 was planned by Republicans as an excuse to invade oil-land, and Zionists were focusing on gradually replacing all seats of power in the US with sympathizers. Clearly I haven't been keeping up with the news...
Let me get this straight: Your complaint is that the story disappointed you? You got your hopes up, spent an entire 15 seconds to understand what it was about, and then bothered to post a comment complaining that it let you down?
Seriously, I'm not baiting here, but you're just not making any sense. How could anyone possibly gauge what would live up to your personal expectations? I'm a big fan of complaining, it's one of my favorite passtimes, but even I have some notion of when my complaint demands something of someone else that is literally impossible.
You're right -- I was too specific. What I meant to say was: any religious belief had, as some point in time, people killing or dying for it. It's just that I don't think that these days someone would do anything violent in the name of Zeus or Ra. These days people kill and die for entirely different deities. History speaks for itself: just like people kill for what they know exists, they also kill for what they believe exists.
If we had rain falling from the moon, different religions would have different explanations for it. And people who believed in these explanations would, inevitably, kill for them. I'm not even coming at this from an atheistic direction -- just browse human history.
The Greeks would have some weird story of how Luna/Selene "cries" or something, and Egyptians would have one of their animal-head-on-human-body dudes pouring water from the sky.
As for the Judeo-Christian stuff... Well, I can't be sure, but I can tell you that it would be the cause of killing people.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean datacenters. When you need additional space, are you going to install new hard drives, or install optical drives with those robotic disc swappers? What's going to cost more and is more likely to fail? Which one's faster and more flexible?
Ok, that's one example. How much media consumption takes place in vehicles, of any type? You can't give the general "mobile/smartphone" example because these devices don't have optical drives, so we're left between the not-at-home and not-walking-around space. How large is that market?
That's probably not going to happen. It appears that someone turned the mod-points faucet down to the point where just "off-topic" doesn't cut it. You need a certain about of mod points available just to keep the racist AC comments down, and there are tons of them. I haven't seen a +5 funny in days, and not due to some mysterious disappearance of humor -- "funny" is just the least important mod point, and mods try to at least make the article's interesting/insightful/informative posts pop-up first. We're left with articles sporting 300 Score:0/1/2 comments, because most mods that do have mod points move to the latest articles as quickly as possible.
Someone's broken Slashdot. Find them!
Unless we're talking about areas with no infrastructure at all, then broadband and data caps will increase long before this is commercially viable. Consider how much CD burners cost initially, and it was the same for DVD and Blu-ray. Not to mention, the first ~2 generations of each were A) slow, and B) unreliable. Broadband is already here and there's already a legislative push in most countries to get it to every home. This really is a "science project".
TFA's using the phrases "optical disc", "optical storage", and "micro-holographic" in a way that makes you wonder when they're talking about which.
When they write "optical disc originally had an advantage over tape media", do they mean CD/DVD/Blu-Ray or the new holographic technology?
std::string reply = "your wrong.";
They just don't learn. Who at Ubisoft was so stupid that they forgot the reaction last time they did this? And wouldn't that idiot's decision have to go through some other people? This is irresponsible from both a PR and a revenue point of view.
Erm... forget I said that. Go here. I'm really glad I was wrong.
I thought that at first, but then realized that you're not going to see some glowing poodle wagging its tail -- you're going to see some poor, sick, probably unconscious little creature that's barely alive.
(I'm not dissing research on animals as a whole, just pointing out that you probably don't want to see a picture of the results)
[dog barks]
damn dogs never let me sleep at night (closes window)
[dog glows]
damn dogs never let me sleep at night (closes curtains)
Apple is the exception to the rule. As they so often are...
Also, developers aren't actively losing money when players use the game for free (and I don't mean "potential" revenue, I mean really bleeding cash). This is not strictly true if the game is an online multiplayer, but at that point the people who play for free often become the game's content. They're also more likely to spread the word and get their friends playing, so it's arguably beneficial to allow people to play for free, even if you're maintaining the servers.
Counter-argument here. Funny that it's actually from the same site...
I clarified what I meant in the reply post above (the original post was more of a gut reaction).
In theory, sure, I'd like everyone's work/research to be looked over with a skeptical eye, and then a few more skeptical eyes. In reality, achieving that goal is difficult. I mean in the most practical sense -- how do you find the right "intensity" of adversarial critique? The only solution I can think of involves multiple reviews. If an academic paper is published in journal X, readers will have some incentive to disprove it because that in itself is something they can add to their resume. But suppose no one cares. Suppose it's in no one's best interest to review the research, unless they're paid to do so -- and no one's willing to pay.
Like I said above, I'm kind of biased because I've "been there", if indirectly.
I gave the medical example because that's something that an individual would seek a second opinion about, rather than a group or an organization.
But in broad terms, how do you define "skeptical"? And where/when do you apply it? Do you set up "rival" teams of researchers? Do you have two isolated teams each do the research, and when they're done they have to review the other team's work? I can think of all sorts of "mechanical" solutions, as well as real-world examples ("a jury of your peers"...), but any effective, reproducible solution would require redundancy, and thus more funding, which is always where the buck stops.
Maybe I'm just overly-pessimistic, but I've witnessed too many examples where proper research was denied because it was in no-one's interest to fund it. It's just the nature of things. You have to find a party who will -- A) have an incentive to verify the data with some veracity, and B) do not have a clear objective to oppose/disprove the research.
That would be almost impossible to find.
So if a doctor says you're ill, you'd get a second opinion from a carpenter? People of the same profession will "flock together". We can hope that some competitive spirit exists which will push some to criticize others (I wanted to say "we can hope that integrity and morality will guide them", but I couldn't stop laughing...). Most other alternatives will end up like the fairness doctrine.
I code in the dark.
People who live in hot climates have larger sinuses, and vice-versa, due to body heat regulation. Different people are different, period. Do we have to keep saying that everyone's the same because if they aren't then it's automatically offensive? If we're different, then we have to find out who's "better"?
This discussion is so old, and it skews science. It's the same with genders -- are we allowed to say that men and women have different thought patterns yet, or do we have to whisper? This PC bullshit always pisses me off.
No, Santa has Rudolph.
Well, we've looked at practically every Ape species that we could find, because we're land mammals and we have access to, well, land. If you want to find surprises, I'd look to the oceans. Do we really know every "variant" of dolphins? What about whales? We judge intelligence by how *like us* species are, which means (among other things) that we want to see them using tools. Who's to say there aren't several whale "languages" (there probably are), or that dolphins don't "discuss" hunting tactics.
I'm temped to use "there are more things in heaven and earth", since Shakespeare seems to have neglected the sea.
I thought that 9/11 was planned by Republicans as an excuse to invade oil-land, and Zionists were focusing on gradually replacing all seats of power in the US with sympathizers. Clearly I haven't been keeping up with the news...
More information and analysis on ars.
Let me get this straight: Your complaint is that the story disappointed you? You got your hopes up, spent an entire 15 seconds to understand what it was about, and then bothered to post a comment complaining that it let you down?
Seriously, I'm not baiting here, but you're just not making any sense. How could anyone possibly gauge what would live up to your personal expectations? I'm a big fan of complaining, it's one of my favorite passtimes, but even I have some notion of when my complaint demands something of someone else that is literally impossible.
You're right -- I was too specific. What I meant to say was: any religious belief had, as some point in time, people killing or dying for it. It's just that I don't think that these days someone would do anything violent in the name of Zeus or Ra. These days people kill and die for entirely different deities. History speaks for itself: just like people kill for what they know exists, they also kill for what they believe exists.
If we had rain falling from the moon, different religions would have different explanations for it. And people who believed in these explanations would, inevitably, kill for them. I'm not even coming at this from an atheistic direction -- just browse human history.
The Greeks would have some weird story of how Luna/Selene "cries" or something, and Egyptians would have one of their animal-head-on-human-body dudes pouring water from the sky.
As for the Judeo-Christian stuff... Well, I can't be sure, but I can tell you that it would be the cause of killing people.