Actually, this will make the games more like simulators for killing people. Hell, I played a (crappy) sniper game for an hour and then walked out of the arcade onto a catwalk above a food court... and couldn't help picking out targets. Mentally, of course.
In this case anyone playing will learn that you can't reload just by firing off-screen, and that real guns are loud, kick, eject shells... and they'll get used to it. I'm not saying that it will turn an ordinary person into a killer, but there is an argument to be made, and it does get stronger in this case.
As a designer who's used Flash since v4, I agree. Plus, the reason Flash is so prevalent is because of its incredibly high installed base -- and that's not going to go away overnight.
he is alleged to have said "FASCISM should more properly be called corporatism, because it combines the power of the business sector with the power of the state".
I knew that was wrong, but SO many people here may not... C'mon, Mods, get with the program!
Given all of the positively-modded responses this has gotten, isn't it a good question? C'mon, mod parent up.
Plus, I'd wonder about the possibility of sticking radioactive isotopes into it. A half-pound of Cesium 137 would cause some trouble, wouldn't it? Not targeted, obviously, but in a "tainted tylenol" sense.
"Plain wrong"? Nice try. Let's look at the inefficiencies of eating meat, shall we?
One acre of land could produce 25 tons of tomatoes, 20 tons of potatoes, 15 tons of carrots... or 250 pounds of beef. (Dworkin, Norine, "22 Reasons to Go Vegetarian Right Now," Vegetarian Times, April 1999, p. 91.)
It takes 100 times the amount of water to produce one pound of beef as to produce one pound of wheat. (Jeffrey Hollender. How to Make the World a Better Place, NY: William Morrow & Co., 1990: p. 122.)
To produce a year's supply of beef for a family requires over 260 gallons of fossil fuel, or approximately one gallon of gasoline per pound of grain-fed beef. (Ibid)
Two out of every three people in the world lead healthy lives eating primarily meatless diets. (2 Jeremy Rifkin. Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture. Dutton: New York, 1992.)
As for the "what nature intended" aspect, a) what secondhand_Buddah said, or b) humanity is that which defies what "nature intends" otherwise we'd still be hunter-gatherers.
You seem to delight in the fact that the author got an undergraduate degree in History before his Harvard MBA. Either you have an MBA from a competing school, and think that Harvard MBAs don't have to work as hard as other folks, or you have NO MBA, and believe that your "life experience" is better than any graduate degree. Neither qualifies you to judge "arts graduates" as a whole.
This is an outstandingly bogus article, what happens when arts graduates attempt to understand anything except celebrity gossip.
>"The result is that the slower-moving investors paid $1.4 million for about 56,000 shares, or $7,800 more than if they had been able to move as quickly as the high-frequency traders." That's really quite amazingly precise. So precise that I believe not a word of it.
Yes, by all means let's distrust "precise" figures -- you probably ignore facts as well.
I can arrive at a slightly more accurate figure with some simple math. The stock opened at $26.20. The threshold being exploited was $26.39, 19 cents above the opening price. If we allow a for a 5 cent rise from the opening stock price (supposition on my part, but I think it's reasonable to guess that the price moved before the exploits occurred), then the algos gained $0.14 per share on 56,000 shares (from TFA), equaling -- huh, look at that -- $7840.
Wait, I thought we were talking about brains? You said mind.
Regardless, I wasn't quibbling with your entire argument, just the part that said equating a brain with a person is as stupid as attributing emotions to a heart.
Plus, I have to imaging that anyone talking about "modeling a brain" would include modeling INPUTS such as the ones you're talking about coming from other parts of the body.
FTFA: "And it's not even because that item has a gameplay effect; it's that cool mount, or that cool pet that is a super rare drop or that kind of thing. [...] But if I had the opportunity to get something that was similar or something that I felt was equally cool, so not even necessarily the exact same thing, I might say, 'Oh cool, I'm going to buy this cool pet for myself.' I don't think that negates from the enjoyment of my game, or the enjoyment other people have with their game because they're going to be getting stuff that's equally as cool if not cooler by playing, but they didn't have to spend any money on it."...except that then it would no longer be "super rare" or, probably, "cool". Duh.
Well, when you take a person, and cut away ALMOST everything that isn't brain, you end up with... a person (see "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", among others). So it's not quite that stupid.
Admittedly I didn't read TFA, but just from the OP's summary, it sounds like the proposed terrorists need to know their way around weapons systems, they just need to successfully fool those who are in control of them into thinking they're under attack. Considering the military SNAFU response that followed the 9/11 hijackings (and no, I'm not talking about Iraq), it seems to be within the realm of the possible.
The Geneva conventions apply to uniformed soldiers fighting in declared wars between states. They specifically exclude "irregular" combatants who dress as civilians or are not acting on behalf of a state.
Such as, say, people fighting on behalf of fellow citizens, against what they deem to be an oppressive power which attempts to dictate their actions from afar?
So obviously there's no direct parallel for the American Revolution today, but my point is that standards of war change -- and if we continue to believe that only "proper" war combatants should be protected, we're betraying principles which most of us believe to be more important than any government.
Later in the poll they asked people what a deficit is. Most of the people who said yes to the earlier question couldn't answer.
That, right there, is very sad. And scary. Seriously, can we institute some kind of comprehension requirement before people are allowed to vote? And I don't just mean in phone polls.
Is it possible to check whether a website is on the filtered list? The only way to check whether the website is filtered is by attempting to access it.
If a website is filtered is it possible to find out why? No.
And if you do access a site on the filtered list, your IP is logged, your bank accounts frozen, and the Gestapo kick in your door...
FTA: " Physical Security â" the IronKey cryptographic module includes the following physical security mechanisms that meet or exceed the Level 3 requirements:...Hard epoxy potting material (opaque to the visible spectrum) that encapsulates the multi-chip circuitry, thereby preventing removal/penetration attempts without causing serious damage to the chips "
I'm sorry, that's so straight-outta-Neuromancer-Gibsonesque I need to change my pants.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be able to argue that he's a charlatan now but in my mind he's Thomas Edison turned Nostradamus.
Hey, now -- careful there. Isn't that Tesla's gambit?
Actually, this will make the games more like simulators for killing people. Hell, I played a (crappy) sniper game for an hour and then walked out of the arcade onto a catwalk above a food court... and couldn't help picking out targets. Mentally, of course.
In this case anyone playing will learn that you can't reload just by firing off-screen, and that real guns are loud, kick, eject shells... and they'll get used to it. I'm not saying that it will turn an ordinary person into a killer, but there is an argument to be made, and it does get stronger in this case.
Hey, that's cool. ...wait a minute... ... /. is an educational game!
As a designer who's used Flash since v4, I agree. Plus, the reason Flash is so prevalent is because of its incredibly high installed base -- and that's not going to go away overnight.
he is alleged to have said "FASCISM should more properly be called corporatism, because it combines the power of the business sector with the power of the state".
I knew that was wrong, but SO many people here may not... C'mon, Mods, get with the program!
Given all of the positively-modded responses this has gotten, isn't it a good question? C'mon, mod parent up.
Plus, I'd wonder about the possibility of sticking radioactive isotopes into it. A half-pound of Cesium 137 would cause some trouble, wouldn't it? Not targeted, obviously, but in a "tainted tylenol" sense.
"Plain wrong"? Nice try. Let's look at the inefficiencies of eating meat, shall we?
One acre of land could produce 25 tons of tomatoes, 20 tons of potatoes, 15 tons of carrots... or 250 pounds of beef. (Dworkin, Norine, "22 Reasons to Go Vegetarian Right Now," Vegetarian Times, April 1999, p. 91.)
It takes 100 times the amount of water to produce one pound of beef as to produce one pound of wheat. (Jeffrey Hollender. How to Make the World a Better Place, NY: William Morrow & Co., 1990: p. 122.)
To produce a year's supply of beef for a family requires over 260 gallons of fossil fuel, or approximately one gallon of gasoline per pound of grain-fed beef. (Ibid)
Two out of every three people in the world lead healthy lives eating primarily meatless diets. (2 Jeremy Rifkin. Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture. Dutton: New York, 1992.)
As for the "what nature intended" aspect, a) what secondhand_Buddah said, or b) humanity is that which defies what "nature intends" otherwise we'd still be hunter-gatherers.
"First they came for the sex offenders, and I was silent, because I was not a sex offender..."
You seem to delight in the fact that the author got an undergraduate degree in History before his Harvard MBA. Either you have an MBA from a competing school, and think that Harvard MBAs don't have to work as hard as other folks, or you have NO MBA, and believe that your "life experience" is better than any graduate degree. Neither qualifies you to judge "arts graduates" as a whole.
This is an outstandingly bogus article, what happens when arts graduates attempt to understand anything except celebrity gossip.
>"The result is that the slower-moving investors paid $1.4 million for about 56,000 shares, or $7,800 more than if they had been able to move as quickly as the high-frequency traders."
That's really quite amazingly precise. So precise that I believe not a word of it.
Yes, by all means let's distrust "precise" figures -- you probably ignore facts as well.
I can arrive at a slightly more accurate figure with some simple math. The stock opened at $26.20. The threshold being exploited was $26.39, 19 cents above the opening price. If we allow a for a 5 cent rise from the opening stock price (supposition on my part, but I think it's reasonable to guess that the price moved before the exploits occurred), then the algos gained $0.14 per share on 56,000 shares (from TFA), equaling -- huh, look at that -- $7840.
Not bad for a BFA, if I say so myself.
Wait, I thought we were talking about brains? You said mind.
Regardless, I wasn't quibbling with your entire argument, just the part that said equating a brain with a person is as stupid as attributing emotions to a heart.
Plus, I have to imaging that anyone talking about "modeling a brain" would include modeling INPUTS such as the ones you're talking about coming from other parts of the body.
FTFA: "And it's not even because that item has a gameplay effect; it's that cool mount, or that cool pet that is a super rare drop or that kind of thing. [...] But if I had the opportunity to get something that was similar or something that I felt was equally cool, so not even necessarily the exact same thing, I might say, 'Oh cool, I'm going to buy this cool pet for myself.' I don't think that negates from the enjoyment of my game, or the enjoyment other people have with their game because they're going to be getting stuff that's equally as cool if not cooler by playing, but they didn't have to spend any money on it." ...except that then it would no longer be "super rare" or, probably, "cool". Duh.
Except for some projects, like -- say -- the moon landing. Go NASA!
Well, when you take a person, and cut away ALMOST everything that isn't brain, you end up with... a person (see "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", among others). So it's not quite that stupid.
Admittedly I didn't read TFA, but just from the OP's summary, it sounds like the proposed terrorists need to know their way around weapons systems, they just need to successfully fool those who are in control of them into thinking they're under attack. Considering the military SNAFU response that followed the 9/11 hijackings (and no, I'm not talking about Iraq), it seems to be within the realm of the possible.
Amusing point about the Vuze POS.
But SHAME for not marking the PDF as such! Shame, shame to Animats!
1) Send $2.5 Million overseas.
2) Get divorced.
3) ??? (x14 years)
4) PROFIT!
Yeah, I was thinking along these lines -- and a cubic centimeter isn't really what I'd call a "precision operation".
On the other hand, TFA says that it's more precise than radiation, so...
Okay, I'll start...
The Geneva conventions apply to uniformed soldiers fighting in declared wars between states. They specifically exclude "irregular" combatants who dress as civilians or are not acting on behalf of a state.
Such as, say, people fighting on behalf of fellow citizens, against what they deem to be an oppressive power which attempts to dictate their actions from afar?
So obviously there's no direct parallel for the American Revolution today, but my point is that standards of war change -- and if we continue to believe that only "proper" war combatants should be protected, we're betraying principles which most of us believe to be more important than any government.
Later in the poll they asked people what a deficit is. Most of the people who said yes to the earlier question couldn't answer.
That, right there, is very sad. And scary. Seriously, can we institute some kind of comprehension requirement before people are allowed to vote? And I don't just mean in phone polls.
Also from the FAQ:
Is it possible to check whether a website is on the filtered list?
The only way to check whether the website is filtered is by attempting to access it.
If a website is filtered is it possible to find out why?
No.
And if you do access a site on the filtered list, your IP is logged, your bank accounts frozen, and the Gestapo kick in your door...
FTA: " Physical Security â" the IronKey cryptographic module includes the following physical security mechanisms that meet or exceed the Level 3 requirements:...Hard epoxy potting material (opaque to the visible spectrum) that encapsulates the multi-chip circuitry, thereby preventing removal/penetration attempts without causing serious damage to the chips "
I'm sorry, that's so straight-outta-Neuromancer-Gibsonesque I need to change my pants.
Thank you for the debunking link; I was starting to drink the wharrgarbl!