I think the issue pertains more to the physical size of the machine, rather than the actual weight. If they were able to make vinyl records weigh as little as CDs, there'd still be zero market for a vinyl car stereo.
jgerman, your team got the shaft because they decided to take a nap on their 24 point lead. Come on, let's not blame this on the officials when Jason Sehorn can't cover Terrell Owens (who's still an asshole), and Jeremy Shockey can't run a simple slant route. Maybe think about where your defense went in the second half. Perhaps they were flying back to Giants Stadium already? You have absolutely no right to boil that game down to one play -- one call. The NFL admitted that they were wrong because they were, in fact, wrong. They did not admit that the better team lost. They know just as well as I do that any team that blows a 24 point lead doesn't deserve to advance in the playoffs.
E-Rock-23, come on, now. You don't actually think that one call blew the game for you. Look at the Steelers' secondary if you want a solution of why they lost. Not to mention that your division was the second-worst division in football this year. The reason that the Steelers-Browns game was so good was that the two teams can play on basically the same level, but if you look at the stats for the Titans game, Tennessee is clearly the more complete team. Pittsburgh doesn't have a pass defense or a running game. Do you actually think they could've had a better chance at beating Oakland than Tennessee did? I didn't think so.
Moral of the story: officials make mistakes, but it's a mistake to blame a game on the officials. In both cases, the better team won, so stop your whining. My Cowboys earned themselves last in the NFC East. At least your games mattered and were exciting to the end.
I think the parent's point was that even if you do get this information without looking at a screen, what good is it to you? If you're trying to detect a huge difference so that you can stop working without worrying about packets being lost, then you can just use numbers. The "tone theory" is for hearing ultra-minute differences in network reliability, but at this small scale (I imagine we're talking ten-thousandths of seconds and lower, though the article didn't say specifically), it seems like jitter would fluctuate almost to the point of never being the same at any two instants.
What tangible advantage would this give a remote surgeon?
Don't you consider it slightly unfair that you're writing off the entire government as being paid off?..or that every single person at Microsoft is a monopolist and will stop at nothing to own the world? And somehow you equate this all to being the end of free software?
I know, just as much as anyone else on Slashdot (though probably a bit less), that there are some pretty bad things happening in the way of tech these days, specifically inside the confines of Washington D.C. But taking up the radical agenda of standing on a soapbox yelling "Microsoft and the government are killing free software in a joint effort to rule the world" (or other similar demonic goal) seems like the wrong sort of thing to be doing.
You said yourself that Slashdot users can't be bothered to participate in government. I haven't quite decided whether I think you yourself participate, but I would certainly think that if you believe that Microsoft and the government are linked, you'd be doing what you can to stop it.
My ultimate point is that maybe your efforts (and the efforts of everyone else against this) would be better spent rallying voters, forming an interest group, or etc. Maybe there will be a day when people will say that the government is being paid off by a Linux Advocacy Group rather than Enron or Standard Oil, ad nauseum.
I think these new TLDs are gonna be better for the net society, simply because they give the web a higher degree of "organization". If you think about it, with just the old standard domains (.com,.net,.org, and.edu), where would a personal webpage go? Obviously, the person is not a company, network, organization, or education institution. I dunno, I could be delusional about all this.
Conversely, I don't think I'll ever find myself typing '.museum'. I think that'll just be TOO awkward for me, just because I'm used to seeing no more than 3 letters after the 'dot'. It seems like ICANN should've put in some kind of ordinance declaring that TLDs should not exceed 3 characters (not including the dot, of course). Just my opinion, though.
Eh.. I saw this post on the "VIM 6.0 Is Out" bored, and it kinda irked me there. It's not spelled "Koran" (assuming you're trying to refer to the Muslim scripture). It's "Qur'an".
It was indeed a terrible reference, but in his own little world, Katz was probably referring to the "director" of the Good Will Hunting spoof, who indeed was Gus Van Sant.
The second-greatest advancement in viewing sports in all of history (the first being, of course, the instant replay). I have thought, for several years, that the only thing keeping officials from calling a completely correct game, looking at plays from each camera angle they have, is that the fans wouldn't enjoy the amount of time that they spent reviewing the play. With this one camera trick (though it's really not any trick at all), referees can now not only see the play, but see the play from almost any angle regardless of where the cameras were positioned. Better yet, it can be seen in one feel swoop with one video. Absolutely wonderful. I hope all stations can adopt this for football.
The only disadvantage to this is that it can be easily overused. CBS: Go ahead and show it off on Sunday night, but in the regular season, please only use it when necessary!
I agree with both of those. To people that complain about taxes going up so they go down: "It has to start somewhere."
This could possibly be the solution to a lot of our nation's financial flaws.
I don't really see how this will mess up the economy. If anything, I think this could only turn out for the better. The government isn't looking for new ways to come down on the Internet (at least, not apparently), they're looking for new ways to solve the national debt. Now, while I am a very big tightwad and hate paying more than the next guy, I think the good points overweigh the bad points here. This certainly won't discourage online sales. I mean, there are exorbitant prices on cigarettes and alcohol but people still buy them. Until we have more details, I don't think this is anything to get too riled up about.
Why are we living in a society where we have to quantify everything against everything else? Why is it that people can see things so dramatically different, due to a little education? Why is it that people are always seeming to be so disatisfied with this, that, and the other, that the original point of something has been distorted and completely lost?
In today's society, the age of the Internet, if you will, speed is one of the most key things to have. It seems like no matter what you do, if you don't have enough speed, you're not going to be successful, either with yourself, or with other people. If you think about it, everything involves speed these days: computers, cars, sporting events, food. Given that, it's only natural that video game systems would also want a lot of speed. But the double standard steps in when video games should only want speed to impress, not to satisfy. You can apply that logic to anything involved with a video game (system). If you were to talk with the old video game companies (Atari, pre-SNES Nintendo, pre-Saturn SEGA), they would tell you that they weren't out to just satisfy people. They were out to impress, whether through graphics, or gameplay, or speed, it seemed like whatever they did was always cutting-edge, because it had never been seen before. Assuming that the same sort of logic applies to today, why are everyone's panties in a bunch because they think that the PS2 might have some flaws when compared to the Dreamcast? There's absolutely no necessity to compare the two systems, except to make people feel stupid about the 4-pound piece of plastic that they've just purchased. Quantification doesn't make things better, it's just makes them less-impressive.
Just a few weeks ago, I was reading a story in my English class at school. A (nonfiction) story about a marine biologist who was plagued with seeing sea otters, and the such, in a purely scientific way. He was upset that he couldn't truly appreciate marine life how non-marine biologists do: with wonder and enjoyment. He had to look at the animals with a purely scientific view, not necessarily because that was what he was paid for, but simply because it's what he'd gotten used to. Essentially, the moral of that story was that looking at things with wonder and enjoyment, without having to dissect them and assign numbers to different categories of their existence, is a lost feeling when you become too educated about a topic. Given that, who on Earth wants to see two video game systems compared. If these plastic boxes are here for people to enjoy them, then what's the point of taking that away? Education doesn't make things less interesting, it just makes them less mystical.
Even though I'm only a sophomore in high school, I know that there used to be a time when people considered themselves lucky; they figured that there was nothing better than living in the most opportunistic country, having faithful friends, and watching a movie every Thursday night on NBS (in color, to boot). Where along the line did people start looking for things to be disappointed in? In every single idea these days, a flaw of some sort is always made apparent by someone. Keeping in mind that I'm not counting flaws that HAVE to be pointed out (things like those Firestone tires, etc.). I'm talking about the unnecessary things, like comparing a video game's system specs to another's. I'm talking about things that seem to serve very little purpose other than pissing on someone's parade (NOTE: One of the sure-fire ways of finding one of these stupid comments are to look for sentences that start "Sorry to tell you this, but.."). Disatisfaction doesn't change the product, it just changes the world around it.
So now that I've addressed all three of my initial questions, I'll just do a little real-world ranting. The other day, I was in CompUSA and I played Madden 2001 on the PS2. My eyes were probably as large as dinner plates because I was so amazed at the quality of the graphics, sound (particularly the commentary), and really just the whole presentation of the game. Who cares if the PS2 has 4MB of video ram and the DC has 8? It's not quantity; it's what you do with the quantity (a.k.a. quality:). Honestly, I think they're both absolutely amazing system, so why try to convince me, or anyone else, of otherwise?
It's really just a sad fact that geeks always want numbers to understand things. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love numbers. Math has always been my favorite class, but some things should just go unquantified, particularly if that was never the intent. I'll propose one last question: What happened to fun?
Slashdot Mirror
Would you please mirror it, then?
Later,
Patrick
I think the issue pertains more to the physical size of the machine, rather than the actual weight. If they were able to make vinyl records weigh as little as CDs, there'd still be zero market for a vinyl car stereo.
Later,
Patrick
My apologies. The second paragraph was directed to leviramsey, not E-Rock-23.
Later,
Patrick
jgerman, your team got the shaft because they decided to take a nap on their 24 point lead. Come on, let's not blame this on the officials when Jason Sehorn can't cover Terrell Owens (who's still an asshole), and Jeremy Shockey can't run a simple slant route. Maybe think about where your defense went in the second half. Perhaps they were flying back to Giants Stadium already? You have absolutely no right to boil that game down to one play -- one call. The NFL admitted that they were wrong because they were, in fact, wrong. They did not admit that the better team lost. They know just as well as I do that any team that blows a 24 point lead doesn't deserve to advance in the playoffs.
E-Rock-23, come on, now. You don't actually think that one call blew the game for you. Look at the Steelers' secondary if you want a solution of why they lost. Not to mention that your division was the second-worst division in football this year. The reason that the Steelers-Browns game was so good was that the two teams can play on basically the same level, but if you look at the stats for the Titans game, Tennessee is clearly the more complete team. Pittsburgh doesn't have a pass defense or a running game. Do you actually think they could've had a better chance at beating Oakland than Tennessee did? I didn't think so.
Moral of the story: officials make mistakes, but it's a mistake to blame a game on the officials. In both cases, the better team won, so stop your whining. My Cowboys earned themselves last in the NFC East. At least your games mattered and were exciting to the end.
Later,
Patrick
I'd like to read the story, but it's Slashdotted right now (could someone cut/paste it?). Is there any evidence of this besides someone's blog entry?
Later,
Patrick
I think the parent's point was that even if you do get this information without looking at a screen, what good is it to you? If you're trying to detect a huge difference so that you can stop working without worrying about packets being lost, then you can just use numbers. The "tone theory" is for hearing ultra-minute differences in network reliability, but at this small scale (I imagine we're talking ten-thousandths of seconds and lower, though the article didn't say specifically), it seems like jitter would fluctuate almost to the point of never being the same at any two instants.
What tangible advantage would this give a remote surgeon?
Later,
Patrick
Don't you consider it slightly unfair that you're writing off the entire government as being paid off? ..or that every single person at Microsoft is a monopolist and will stop at nothing to own the world? And somehow you equate this all to being the end of free software?
I know, just as much as anyone else on Slashdot (though probably a bit less), that there are some pretty bad things happening in the way of tech these days, specifically inside the confines of Washington D.C. But taking up the radical agenda of standing on a soapbox yelling "Microsoft and the government are killing free software in a joint effort to rule the world" (or other similar demonic goal) seems like the wrong sort of thing to be doing.
You said yourself that Slashdot users can't be bothered to participate in government. I haven't quite decided whether I think you yourself participate, but I would certainly think that if you believe that Microsoft and the government are linked, you'd be doing what you can to stop it.
My ultimate point is that maybe your efforts (and the efforts of everyone else against this) would be better spent rallying voters, forming an interest group, or etc. Maybe there will be a day when people will say that the government is being paid off by a Linux Advocacy Group rather than Enron or Standard Oil, ad nauseum.
Later,
Patrick
I can barely afford food at Subway. :(
Later,
Patrick
http://whatthen.biz/natch/ :D
Later,
Patrick
I think these new TLDs are gonna be better for the net society, simply because they give the web a higher degree of "organization". If you think about it, with just the old standard domains (.com, .net, .org, and .edu), where would a personal webpage go? Obviously, the person is not a company, network, organization, or education institution. I dunno, I could be delusional about all this.
Conversely, I don't think I'll ever find myself typing '.museum'. I think that'll just be TOO awkward for me, just because I'm used to seeing no more than 3 letters after the 'dot'. It seems like ICANN should've put in some kind of ordinance declaring that TLDs should not exceed 3 characters (not including the dot, of course). Just my opinion, though.
Later,
Patrick
Eh.. I saw this post on the "VIM 6.0 Is Out" bored, and it kinda irked me there. It's not spelled "Koran" (assuming you're trying to refer to the Muslim scripture). It's "Qur'an".
;).
I guess I'll have to be grammar_nazi for now
Later,
Patrick
i'm just typing text to fulfill the 20 second marker
This is neither "news for nerds" OR "stuff that matters".
It was indeed a terrible reference, but in his own little world, Katz was probably referring to the "director" of the Good Will Hunting spoof, who indeed was Gus Van Sant.
Later,
Patrick
*** no such channel "#warez" (irc.umn.edu)
Later,
Later,
Later,
I agree with both of those. To people that complain about taxes going up so they go down: "It has to start somewhere." This could possibly be the solution to a lot of our nation's financial flaws.
I don't really see how this will mess up the economy. If anything, I think this could only turn out for the better. The government isn't looking for new ways to come down on the Internet (at least, not apparently), they're looking for new ways to solve the national debt. Now, while I am a very big tightwad and hate paying more than the next guy, I think the good points overweigh the bad points here. This certainly won't discourage online sales. I mean, there are exorbitant prices on cigarettes and alcohol but people still buy them. Until we have more details, I don't think this is anything to get too riled up about.
Why are we living in a society where we have to quantify everything against everything else? Why is it that people can see things so dramatically different, due to a little education? Why is it that people are always seeming to be so disatisfied with this, that, and the other, that the original point of something has been distorted and completely lost?
:). Honestly, I think they're both absolutely amazing system, so why try to convince me, or anyone else, of otherwise?
In today's society, the age of the Internet, if you will, speed is one of the most key things to have. It seems like no matter what you do, if you don't have enough speed, you're not going to be successful, either with yourself, or with other people. If you think about it, everything involves speed these days: computers, cars, sporting events, food. Given that, it's only natural that video game systems would also want a lot of speed. But the double standard steps in when video games should only want speed to impress, not to satisfy. You can apply that logic to anything involved with a video game (system). If you were to talk with the old video game companies (Atari, pre-SNES Nintendo, pre-Saturn SEGA), they would tell you that they weren't out to just satisfy people. They were out to impress, whether through graphics, or gameplay, or speed, it seemed like whatever they did was always cutting-edge, because it had never been seen before. Assuming that the same sort of logic applies to today, why are everyone's panties in a bunch because they think that the PS2 might have some flaws when compared to the Dreamcast? There's absolutely no necessity to compare the two systems, except to make people feel stupid about the 4-pound piece of plastic that they've just purchased. Quantification doesn't make things better, it's just makes them less-impressive.
Just a few weeks ago, I was reading a story in my English class at school. A (nonfiction) story about a marine biologist who was plagued with seeing sea otters, and the such, in a purely scientific way. He was upset that he couldn't truly appreciate marine life how non-marine biologists do: with wonder and enjoyment. He had to look at the animals with a purely scientific view, not necessarily because that was what he was paid for, but simply because it's what he'd gotten used to. Essentially, the moral of that story was that looking at things with wonder and enjoyment, without having to dissect them and assign numbers to different categories of their existence, is a lost feeling when you become too educated about a topic. Given that, who on Earth wants to see two video game systems compared. If these plastic boxes are here for people to enjoy them, then what's the point of taking that away? Education doesn't make things less interesting, it just makes them less mystical.
Even though I'm only a sophomore in high school, I know that there used to be a time when people considered themselves lucky; they figured that there was nothing better than living in the most opportunistic country, having faithful friends, and watching a movie every Thursday night on NBS (in color, to boot). Where along the line did people start looking for things to be disappointed in? In every single idea these days, a flaw of some sort is always made apparent by someone. Keeping in mind that I'm not counting flaws that HAVE to be pointed out (things like those Firestone tires, etc.). I'm talking about the unnecessary things, like comparing a video game's system specs to another's. I'm talking about things that seem to serve very little purpose other than pissing on someone's parade (NOTE: One of the sure-fire ways of finding one of these stupid comments are to look for sentences that start "Sorry to tell you this, but.."). Disatisfaction doesn't change the product, it just changes the world around it.
So now that I've addressed all three of my initial questions, I'll just do a little real-world ranting. The other day, I was in CompUSA and I played Madden 2001 on the PS2. My eyes were probably as large as dinner plates because I was so amazed at the quality of the graphics, sound (particularly the commentary), and really just the whole presentation of the game. Who cares if the PS2 has 4MB of video ram and the DC has 8? It's not quantity; it's what you do with the quantity (a.k.a. quality
It's really just a sad fact that geeks always want numbers to understand things. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love numbers. Math has always been my favorite class, but some things should just go unquantified, particularly if that was never the intent. I'll propose one last question: What happened to fun?