Guess what, lady: it was your website. If you didn't want people to see you spreading loony extremist messages, maybe you shouldn't have supported them in the first place.
I agree with your statement but I can't help but think how your response may differ if the political parties were flipped.
It is also very common that you swing far left/right to get the primary then come back towards the middle to win the regular election. Look at Obama's campaign. Look at McCain's campaign. I'm willing to bet a lollipop that over 75% of mainstream candidates are the same way.
Ok, I admit that I like the idea of screwing over the scalpers and I see a ticket as more of a renting of a seat so not being able to resale it isn't a problem. However the scalper and the Grandmother are the same thing to the ticket seller. What is the difference from a sales point of view of a Grandmother giving a ticket to her grandson for free and a scalper giving a ticket to a customer for twice the price? They are both transferring the ownership of the ticket to someone else.
Yea I know they are two different things but like I said think of it from a sales perspective. Ever solution has its own problems.
I agree with the point you are making but let me provide a counter point. If the game you are making takes 1-4 years and costs between 12-18 million you have to have at least a reasonable chance of making that back which means you have to have as broad of a market as possible. Game making is still a business. They still need to turn a profit.
With that said, I think the best solution would be to focus and make a fun game as you mentioned but try and make it cheaper. This is also one of the reasons why the Wii is doing so well. Casual games are much cheaper to make.
'We realized there was a need to create a program that prepared students in careers in data analytics and business intelligence,' said Raffaella Settimi, an associate professor at DePaul's College of Computing and Digital Media, who helped craft the program.
It has got to be right up there with military intelligence and giant ants.
The problem may be that Apple (or rather developers using Apple) is presenting Apps as a content distribution media (iTunes). People with content that could easily be placed on the (unrestricted) web, are choosing to use Apps as a means of selling their wares. I doubt very much that Apple will restrict what books it sells on the iBooks store based on their content. Or maybe they will.
That actually raises some interesting questions. At what point does Apple's restrictive policies move from the realm of merely selling an app that could prove useful (like a grocer) to being censorship (as in the news)? Will it be when a majority of sources have to go through the Apple store to get seen or when things never get seen by a majority of people because Apple restricted it? Will the collection of distribution through the Apple store force it to become a news distribution source?
then these services are the creepy stalker that follows you around in case you leave your blinds open.
Bottom line, if you are going to do something you don't want anyone to know about, don't use these services, leave the cell phone at home and pay everything in cash!
Thank you. An intelligent response to the why - to make money.
I appreciate the answer and no I'm not being snarky or sarcastic. I do find it amusing that I got more comments for this 'dumb' post then I did for comments that were rated 4-5.
Ok, I'll admit it is a cool idea and cool tech. The thing about 3D that always drove me nuts were those glasses the never fit well over another pair of glasses so this is a step up but I'm still left asking, 'Why?'
I can't be the only one who just doesn't see the point of 3D and something like 10% of the population can't even see in 3D to begin with.
Re:One of the most un-American things I've ever re
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I realize reading the article is hard, difficult and long but at least it isn't broken up into many different pages but it is worth reading. Trust me, I did.
However as someone actually dealing with the crap associated with the sciences, it is dead on in the things it address. Why bother spending many lonely nights working on home work when you could be out getting laid in college? Why go into grad school to spend 6-10 years learning more about your field when you could actually be earning more money by not doing so? And lets not forget the 4-6 years of marking time in a postdoc position where you're basically the lab grunt to pad out your resume so you may have a chance at a position down the line. This is then followed by 5-6 years of probation before you can get tenure if you're lucky but more then likely you will end up marking more time before you even get a tenure track position. Then you spend the rest of your career fighting for funding to pay for your research and more suckers...er grad students and postdocs and never actually doing science again.
People go into science because they love it but it gets quickly destroyed because they realize that all science requires a community, expensive journals, massive amounts of time, politics and lots of other bullshit. If you haven't been through it or are going through it, you have no fucking clue.
You want to know why colleges have art history departments? It is so that those sports stars have easy majors to pass so they can play. It is because many students realized that it doesn't matter what the degree is in only that they have a degree for a job and who wants to study something difficult when there is something easy.
The only way to get the best and brightest to go into the sciences is to make sure they know there are job opportunities available for them that are worth taking. I know I sure in the hell didn't spend 4 years in college and 6 years in grad school doing physics to be making NIH standard ($37k/year) which is only slightly higher then what my high school dropout of a brother pulls in doing construction work for a guy he meet at a 7-11.
Let's not kid ourselves - the real reason those gifted enough to excel shy away from science is that this path is not conducive to having a life. It requires working long hours, frequently 7 days per week, for little pay (NIH stipends for graduate students are around $20'000), and in a highly stressful environment (those who've done research know how emotionally crushing doing scientific research can often be), just to become a sub-$40k post-doc for another decade thereafter, and then desperately search for a faculty position, to spend the next 20 years stressing over grant deadlines that threaten to destroy whatever little autonomy you've managed to gain, in an environment where something like 5% of the projects get funded.
In an environment, where most work to the limit of their bodily ability, and get paid less than their intelligence and time commitment would yield them elsewhere, young men and women find it difficult to acquire and hold onto a mate, and those who want to have families find themselves unable to support them, as well as spend adequate time with them.
And people wonder why in many top-tier institutions 75% of the graduate students in science are foreign-born?
And lets not forget that the mate maybe in the same situation because they are the only ones that understand the pursuit but finding a job for two people in the same state, let alone the same city is next to impossible. A good friend of mine just got married and he will be spending the next 2-3 years in a different country then his wife.
My personally belief for why most Americans don't go the science path is either 1)they aren't smart enough to do the work or 2)they are smart enough to realize it isn't worth doing the work. It's a shame I'm neither of those things.
I agree with the fact that the motion controller fad is fading fast but I have to disagree with needing new consoles. Yes the 360 is showing its age but the PS3 hasn't even been pushed to its extremes yet. In fact I'd argue that a new console would just do more harm then good considering the cost and time it takes to make a single game for either system. How much money and time will it take to make games for the next generation of consoles?
Sony should be focusing on making it easier and cheaper to make games for their system.
MS should figure out a way to incorporate a blueray drive onto the 360.
With these changes we might be able to get some fun (remember that fun?) games that all don't feel like FPS clones.
Google, like Apple, is no longer any better/different than the companies they claim to be better than (from an ethical stand point).
I don't know about that. MS could have really used this to their advantage - 'We praise Google in finding and releasing this exploit of our windows XP OS. This is just another example of why everyone should transition to Windows 7. Insert fancy marketing for windows 7'
I'd also argue that anyone still using windows really should upgrade to a more modern OS and Google was just trying to put XP out of its misery. Sometimes you have to do harm to not do evil, like cutting off a leg to save a life.
Evolution needs to be undisturbed to work. You implying that the competitors should be adopted because it will heighten security through obscurity is Design, not evolution. Evolution picks the best choice from a group, and right now that choice is Microsoft.
Don't preach evolution if you aren't happy with the results.
Not quite right. Evolution needs pressure to work which arise through imposed forces which can be applied by nature or by humans. Evolution also does not necessarily pick the best choice, it picks the choice that has the greatest success of producing offspring. Human caused cows to evolve to their current state even though the cows would now never survive in the wilderness right now.
The OP is very much correct, by having a computer ecosystem with multiple OS's, there is a greater ability to defend against continual threats. Think of it like a forest full of one type of tree which is much more likely to get wiped out by a single contagion then a forest of many types of trees.
All handguns are banned in the UK because someone went on a killing spree with it.
AND the last one has worked because nobody has used a handgun since to go on a killing spree. The next one used a shotgun. The one before the handgun used an automatic rifle which have also been banned and since then nobody has used one either.
Hard to argue that it doesn't work, when it does.
Actually I'd argue that what you described shows that banning guns doesn't work. One guy used an automatic rifle, so they banned it. The next guy used a handgun, so they banned that. The next guy used a shotgun, so they banned that. What's next a guy using a butcher's cleaver so they ban that?
You can always find a way to cause physical harm against another person ranging from string, table legs, anvils to guns. Should we ban all those when a single person miss uses them? Washington DC has one of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and one of the highest crime rates (not counting political crimes, which would really skew the numbers). I'd say at least in the US, banning things when a very small subset of people miss use them doesn't work. If you want a historical example, look at prohibition which caused more harm then good to the country.
There will be. Just as soon as the damned EMACS is burned off the face of this world, we can finally have peace. Until then, the corpses will just keep getting stacked up.
something.com is easier to remember than city.state.gov? In what world? I find it particularly difficult to forget the city and state I live in, yet you think it easier to have some weird city abbreviation coupled with a non-standard abbreviation for some department in the city followed by the.com (commercial) domain name. Hell, I'm not even sure I wouldn't think a.com domain wasn't in fact a parody or scam site. Government websites should be under.gov.
Reminds me of a mistake a prof once made on a homework. He had directed us to go to the whitehouse website at whitehouse.com instead of whitehouse.gov. One is the actual site, the other is a porn site.
Indeed he does. And the people that threw him into prison should be sent to prison instead.
What's happening here is outrageous. Prosecuting someone for exposing criminals undermines everything our justice system should stand for. It clearly shows how through and through corrupted the military is.
Maybe. Maybe not. The guy did a good thing by leaking videos and exposing criminal actions but if he had to break the law while doing this then legally he should be in jail as well. Mitigating circumstances should effect the punishment but not the fact that he did commit a crime and should pay for that crime. It has nothing to do with corruption in the military.
Wow, you really don't get it do you? Every other civilized country in the world has done it. Corruption is headline news in these countries. The US is not the norm, it's the sick exception.
Really every other civilized country has removed corruption? I'm betting India has a few words to say about not being a civilized country. Oh and China. There is also Russia. And I don't know, every fucking country in Europe.
Since you're obviously not American let me informed you that corruption is front page news here as well. The problem is that it is much harder to separate corruption from a legitimate contribution in the US system because of the way it is set up. I fully admit, the American system needs to be improved and I'll even go so far as to admit that we should take some clues from other countries. However to claim that other countries have eliminated corruption is either incredibly naive or just plain stupid.
IANAL, but if I remember correctly intentionally misrepresenting someone as something that is patently false is libel or slander depending on how it is done. This is a criminal offense. The school should report it to the police, charges should be filed and life goes on. Unless the actions happened on school equipment or on school time, the school districts have no business getting involved.
The kids did go too far but this isn't a school mater, it is a criminal one.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what, lady: it was your website. If you didn't want people to see you spreading loony extremist messages, maybe you shouldn't have supported them in the first place.
I agree with your statement but I can't help but think how your response may differ if the political parties were flipped.
It is also very common that you swing far left/right to get the primary then come back towards the middle to win the regular election. Look at Obama's campaign. Look at McCain's campaign. I'm willing to bet a lollipop that over 75% of mainstream candidates are the same way.
Ok, I admit that I like the idea of screwing over the scalpers and I see a ticket as more of a renting of a seat so not being able to resale it isn't a problem. However the scalper and the Grandmother are the same thing to the ticket seller. What is the difference from a sales point of view of a Grandmother giving a ticket to her grandson for free and a scalper giving a ticket to a customer for twice the price? They are both transferring the ownership of the ticket to someone else.
Yea I know they are two different things but like I said think of it from a sales perspective. Ever solution has its own problems.
I agree with the point you are making but let me provide a counter point. If the game you are making takes 1-4 years and costs between 12-18 million you have to have at least a reasonable chance of making that back which means you have to have as broad of a market as possible. Game making is still a business. They still need to turn a profit.
With that said, I think the best solution would be to focus and make a fun game as you mentioned but try and make it cheaper. This is also one of the reasons why the Wii is doing so well. Casual games are much cheaper to make.
I have to disagree with the summery because I don't see it as
both a lesson in the pitfalls of technology management and a massive exercise in largely useless spending.
It served the purpose of making the voters think something was being done which is all that is important in US politics.
'We realized there was a need to create a program that prepared students in careers in data analytics and business intelligence,' said Raffaella Settimi, an associate professor at DePaul's College of Computing and Digital Media, who helped craft the program.
It has got to be right up there with military intelligence and giant ants.
The problem may be that Apple (or rather developers using Apple) is presenting Apps as a content distribution media (iTunes). People with content that could easily be placed on the (unrestricted) web, are choosing to use Apps as a means of selling their wares. I doubt very much that Apple will restrict what books it sells on the iBooks store based on their content. Or maybe they will.
That actually raises some interesting questions. At what point does Apple's restrictive policies move from the realm of merely selling an app that could prove useful (like a grocer) to being censorship (as in the news)? Will it be when a majority of sources have to go through the Apple store to get seen or when things never get seen by a majority of people because Apple restricted it? Will the collection of distribution through the Apple store force it to become a news distribution source?
I don't know but it is something to think about.
then these services are the creepy stalker that follows you around in case you leave your blinds open.
Bottom line, if you are going to do something you don't want anyone to know about, don't use these services, leave the cell phone at home and pay everything in cash!
Thank you. An intelligent response to the why - to make money.
I appreciate the answer and no I'm not being snarky or sarcastic. I do find it amusing that I got more comments for this 'dumb' post then I did for comments that were rated 4-5.
I thought the iMac was the entry point.
Actually they call them gateways instead of entry points, you know as in gateway drug...
Ok, I'll admit it is a cool idea and cool tech. The thing about 3D that always drove me nuts were those glasses the never fit well over another pair of glasses so this is a step up but I'm still left asking, 'Why?'
I can't be the only one who just doesn't see the point of 3D and something like 10% of the population can't even see in 3D to begin with.
Who couldn't use more RAM?
And switch out the dvd for a blueray player.
I realize reading the article is hard, difficult and long but at least it isn't broken up into many different pages but it is worth reading. Trust me, I did.
However as someone actually dealing with the crap associated with the sciences, it is dead on in the things it address. Why bother spending many lonely nights working on home work when you could be out getting laid in college? Why go into grad school to spend 6-10 years learning more about your field when you could actually be earning more money by not doing so? And lets not forget the 4-6 years of marking time in a postdoc position where you're basically the lab grunt to pad out your resume so you may have a chance at a position down the line. This is then followed by 5-6 years of probation before you can get tenure if you're lucky but more then likely you will end up marking more time before you even get a tenure track position. Then you spend the rest of your career fighting for funding to pay for your research and more suckers...er grad students and postdocs and never actually doing science again.
People go into science because they love it but it gets quickly destroyed because they realize that all science requires a community, expensive journals, massive amounts of time, politics and lots of other bullshit. If you haven't been through it or are going through it, you have no fucking clue.
You want to know why colleges have art history departments? It is so that those sports stars have easy majors to pass so they can play. It is because many students realized that it doesn't matter what the degree is in only that they have a degree for a job and who wants to study something difficult when there is something easy.
The only way to get the best and brightest to go into the sciences is to make sure they know there are job opportunities available for them that are worth taking. I know I sure in the hell didn't spend 4 years in college and 6 years in grad school doing physics to be making NIH standard ($37k/year) which is only slightly higher then what my high school dropout of a brother pulls in doing construction work for a guy he meet at a 7-11.
Let's not kid ourselves - the real reason those gifted enough to excel shy away from science is that this path is not conducive to having a life. It requires working long hours, frequently 7 days per week, for little pay (NIH stipends for graduate students are around $20'000), and in a highly stressful environment (those who've done research know how emotionally crushing doing scientific research can often be), just to become a sub-$40k post-doc for another decade thereafter, and then desperately search for a faculty position, to spend the next 20 years stressing over grant deadlines that threaten to destroy whatever little autonomy you've managed to gain, in an environment where something like 5% of the projects get funded.
In an environment, where most work to the limit of their bodily ability, and get paid less than their intelligence and time commitment would yield them elsewhere, young men and women find it difficult to acquire and hold onto a mate, and those who want to have families find themselves unable to support them, as well as spend adequate time with them.
And people wonder why in many top-tier institutions 75% of the graduate students in science are foreign-born?
And lets not forget that the mate maybe in the same situation because they are the only ones that understand the pursuit but finding a job for two people in the same state, let alone the same city is next to impossible. A good friend of mine just got married and he will be spending the next 2-3 years in a different country then his wife.
My personally belief for why most Americans don't go the science path is either 1)they aren't smart enough to do the work or 2)they are smart enough to realize it isn't worth doing the work. It's a shame I'm neither of those things.
I agree with the fact that the motion controller fad is fading fast but I have to disagree with needing new consoles. Yes the 360 is showing its age but the PS3 hasn't even been pushed to its extremes yet. In fact I'd argue that a new console would just do more harm then good considering the cost and time it takes to make a single game for either system. How much money and time will it take to make games for the next generation of consoles?
Sony should be focusing on making it easier and cheaper to make games for their system.
MS should figure out a way to incorporate a blueray drive onto the 360.
With these changes we might be able to get some fun (remember that fun?) games that all don't feel like FPS clones.
Google, like Apple, is no longer any better/different than the companies they claim to be better than (from an ethical stand point).
I don't know about that. MS could have really used this to their advantage - 'We praise Google in finding and releasing this exploit of our windows XP OS. This is just another example of why everyone should transition to Windows 7. Insert fancy marketing for windows 7'
I'd also argue that anyone still using windows really should upgrade to a more modern OS and Google was just trying to put XP out of its misery. Sometimes you have to do harm to not do evil, like cutting off a leg to save a life.
Evolution needs to be undisturbed to work. You implying that the competitors should be adopted because it will heighten security through obscurity is Design, not evolution. Evolution picks the best choice from a group, and right now that choice is Microsoft.
Don't preach evolution if you aren't happy with the results.
Not quite right. Evolution needs pressure to work which arise through imposed forces which can be applied by nature or by humans. Evolution also does not necessarily pick the best choice, it picks the choice that has the greatest success of producing offspring. Human caused cows to evolve to their current state even though the cows would now never survive in the wilderness right now.
The OP is very much correct, by having a computer ecosystem with multiple OS's, there is a greater ability to defend against continual threats. Think of it like a forest full of one type of tree which is much more likely to get wiped out by a single contagion then a forest of many types of trees.
Besides, most gun deaths in the US are suicides.
If I remember correctly, there are approximately 30,000 deaths by firearms a year in the US. Of those close to 15,000 are suicides.
I hate being the grammar nazi but really, English, do any of you people here speak it?
Nope. Sorry. We all speak geek.
All handguns are banned in the UK because someone went on a killing spree with it.
AND the last one has worked because nobody has used a handgun since to go on a killing spree. The next one used a shotgun. The one before the handgun used an automatic rifle which have also been banned and since then nobody has used one either.
Hard to argue that it doesn't work, when it does.
Actually I'd argue that what you described shows that banning guns doesn't work. One guy used an automatic rifle, so they banned it. The next guy used a handgun, so they banned that. The next guy used a shotgun, so they banned that. What's next a guy using a butcher's cleaver so they ban that?
You can always find a way to cause physical harm against another person ranging from string, table legs, anvils to guns. Should we ban all those when a single person miss uses them? Washington DC has one of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and one of the highest crime rates (not counting political crimes, which would really skew the numbers). I'd say at least in the US, banning things when a very small subset of people miss use them doesn't work. If you want a historical example, look at prohibition which caused more harm then good to the country.
There will be. Just as soon as the damned EMACS is burned off the face of this world, we can finally have peace. Until then, the corpses will just keep getting stacked up.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about VI...
something.com is easier to remember than city.state.gov? In what world? I find it particularly difficult to forget the city and state I live in, yet you think it easier to have some weird city abbreviation coupled with a non-standard abbreviation for some department in the city followed by the .com (commercial) domain name. Hell, I'm not even sure I wouldn't think a .com domain wasn't in fact a parody or scam site. Government websites should be under .gov.
Reminds me of a mistake a prof once made on a homework. He had directed us to go to the whitehouse website at whitehouse.com instead of whitehouse.gov. One is the actual site, the other is a porn site.
Best homework assignment ever.
...facebook did something useful.
Indeed he does. And the people that threw him into prison should be sent to prison instead. What's happening here is outrageous. Prosecuting someone for exposing criminals undermines everything our justice system should stand for. It clearly shows how through and through corrupted the military is.
Maybe. Maybe not. The guy did a good thing by leaking videos and exposing criminal actions but if he had to break the law while doing this then legally he should be in jail as well. Mitigating circumstances should effect the punishment but not the fact that he did commit a crime and should pay for that crime. It has nothing to do with corruption in the military.
Wow, you really don't get it do you? Every other civilized country in the world has done it. Corruption is headline news in these countries. The US is not the norm, it's the sick exception.
Really every other civilized country has removed corruption? I'm betting India has a few words to say about not being a civilized country. Oh and China. There is also Russia. And I don't know, every fucking country in Europe.
Since you're obviously not American let me informed you that corruption is front page news here as well. The problem is that it is much harder to separate corruption from a legitimate contribution in the US system because of the way it is set up. I fully admit, the American system needs to be improved and I'll even go so far as to admit that we should take some clues from other countries. However to claim that other countries have eliminated corruption is either incredibly naive or just plain stupid.
IANAL, but if I remember correctly intentionally misrepresenting someone as something that is patently false is libel or slander depending on how it is done. This is a criminal offense. The school should report it to the police, charges should be filed and life goes on. Unless the actions happened on school equipment or on school time, the school districts have no business getting involved. The kids did go too far but this isn't a school mater, it is a criminal one.