...of the phrase "adventure game". Is this because it truly can't be defined as one, or they're afraid consumers will freak out, say, "I refuse to play a game in which I have to think," and skip it?
If the second case is true, I might actually be interested.
Arguably, they no longer have the same market dominance.
We'll see, though. If that continuing case was keeping them honest at all and they're able to use what market dominance they do have to stifle competition (again), they'll be back in court eventually. What makes me have doubts that this will happen is that the truly genius snake-in-the-grass (Gates) no longer makes decision for Microsoft. Anyone else is likely to bungle the attempt.
Of course I know these things. I am the gubmint, after all. I know everything. I'm going to make you want a cheeseburger right now. It worked, didn't it? Of course it did.
I hope you keep following me and responding to me as AC. I'll know when you do. I'm watching from several cameras. It's very important that you keep responding to my posts. Don't stop. Don't ever stop.
You know, you're right. Looking at what I wrote, I kind of regressed to a time years ago when the choice was Microsoft or nuthin' for most people and decisions like what they bundled with their OS mattered more for many reasons, one being their market domination, another being limited disk space, etc.
And tell me: In what country is the economy completely lawless? All countries, including the United States, have regulations on business practices. (Try to open a restaurant with improper kitchen ventilation or even something as simple as the wrong sized sink.) Most countries, including the United States, have some sort of attempt at legal protections for both consumers and competitors. Even McCarthy wouldn't have completely opposed that.
To those who support economic anarchy, I must ask the same question that I ask social anarchists: What would prevent anarchy from remaining anarchic, without some sort of oligarchy forming after everything settles?
Then you need to work on your sense of irony. If it's untrue that Microsoft uses such strong-arm tactics, then say that. However, the comment did not dispute what the post it was responding to claimed, rather it alluded to results, implying agreement. The overall implication appeared to be, "Unfair? So what?"
I am not making the claim that Microsoft uses strong-arm tactics, neither am I making a claim against it. However, if someone takes the position that they do and that it's a good thing, I take issue with that.
Including any AV product in Windows would have increased the security of the OS. If Microsoft does bundle an AV package in Windows, it gets a ridiculously huge market advantage. If it successfully snowballs and takes out the competition, it doesn't have to be such a great solution anymore so they get lazy with it. A lot like just about every other Microsoft product bundled with Windows, of which Internet Explorer has, most times, been a very good example.
Are you saying it's okay that they're strong-armed because they've made money? Are you suggesting that those who have indeed made money did so because of strong arming by Microsoft?
Hey, if someone's completely anti-corporation, I can totally dig that to a degree. I'll probably agree with some of their points. But if there are valid points, they don't need to make up any.
If you need to pay someone to convince people, you are selling lies, plain and simple.
I don't disagree with the fact of this, but I will say that it's a necessary thing in big business. Your competition will definitely engage in hyperbole. Answering with cold, hard facts can backfire. Ditto with politics, but they perhaps have a little more cushion, usually having at least a year before they have to fight for their job again.
In this post, I'm not defending anyone or condemning anyone. It's just something to consider.
Autopilot could be called a precursor to this, but I wouldn't equate it. Autopilot is more of a fail safe system that doesn't have anywhere near the capabilities needed to carry out an entire flight.
One could argue that every initiative since Kennedy's time was massively unprofitable. One could also argue the complete opposite. I'm not an accountant or market historian, so I won't even try to go into it. However, that sort of informed discussion is very common and easy to find. But if you're unaware, there have been actual, real-world benefits from the space program during its entire existence. Even up until this point.
Increasing the funding of NASA with the specific purpose of "[moving] out into the solar system" would be a really ridiculous, middle-management type of decision at this point. (Now that I think about it, I won't be surprised if it happens.) It's unrealistic at the moment, but I have a prediction for you: Once the problems with spending extended periods outside of this atmosphere have even tenuous solutions, public (and political) interest will not only catch up, it'll surpass safe considerations.
Gosh, you know a lot about what the public wants. As I showed figures from which I could derive my statement and you've showed nothing to support what you say, you must surely have your finger on the pulse of America, man!
1% sounds like a little and you seem to be counting on that. 1% of the United States budget is fairly impressive to me, however.
And how are people not "putting their money where their mouth is in voting"? Seriously. How? The results of those polls are fairly well known and discussed. If the people are so hard against paying for NASA, as you say, I'm kind of surprised it even still exists. Every president since Kennedy has talked about the importance of funding further space exploration... particularly when campaign season came around. Perhaps you should have saved them some headache and informed them that people don't really want it. Better hurry, because it doesn't seem like there are any candidates running on the oh-so-important "cut funding for NASA" platform. At least not any popular ones. Thank goodness the people have visionaries like you to tell them what they really want.
Similarly, the public wants roads, drainage systems, sewer maintenance, garbage pickup, police service, a local fire department, and still complain about the taxes they have to pay for these. The politicians play it like pool hustlers.
As in the previous case, I bet a majority would say they support these things, but would prefer not to pay for them. Would you say that "doesn't seem supportive"? Furthermore, would you support getting rid of these public services?
You missed my point. If I expected our leaders to "think intellectually", I'd be shit out of luck on this planet. The will of the people, like it or not, will always go with further exploration unless they're convinced otherwise and that will always be for a short time. You yourself might feel it's unimportant, and that opinion is just as important as the opposite in keeping things within the realms of reality, I suppose, but the tendency for people to say, "Society is against this," simply because they are against it is wearying.
If you were not yourself alive to witness public excitement when we first went to the moon, ask people who were. You could also read accounts - they're numerous and easily available. Documentaries have been made ad nauseum about how crazy for space exploration the United States became after that. (I was about to make a comment about little boys trading cowboy hats for astronaut helmets, and that made me think of "Toy Story". Cool. I'd not thought about that correlation before.) The moon is "old hat" now, but when the next big and novel thing comes along, people will be just as excited. In general, people do know that it takes time and effort to reach that next big and novel thing, but they also know they'll appreciate it when it gets here.
Going back to my point (of which the "intellectual thought" discussion I had with my friend was only an example), anything beyond continuing to function (and possibly raise children) is something that not every person in society is going to do, but often they can still generally agree that it needs to be done. Few people putting effort into something does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that many disagree with it. Furthermore, if those few stopped doing it, it would be likely that others would take over.
Your position appears to be, "It's difficult, so screw it." The thing is that what's difficult today won't be difficult down the road because people are working on it. Why are people working on it? Because a lot of people are interested. A lot of people see benefits, real or imagined, and more importantly, we have a drive to spread out and expand. Engage in nihilism if you want, humanity as a group wants it. It really doesn't matter what the individual wants. If we can do it, some way, somehow, we will.
The problem with all of this might be a lack of imagination and might be simple arrogance. Who's to say that a creature that had some desire or need to go into space wouldn't find a way to make it trivial? My own problem with sci-fi in general is that it assumes too much. "We did things this way, therefore any sentient being would do things this way."
Of course, maybe they are all oxygen-breathing humanoids with fucked up foreheads who speak English. It's possible.
You're assuming that the longterm survival of the species is a strong motivator for the average person.
It doesn't need to be. The average person is an individual who relies on the group and it's the group that's interested in long term survival. I was recently discussing intellectual laziness with a friend and made a conjecture: Thinking intellectually requires more effort than the average person is willing to spend, therefore few do it; however, if every one of those few in a culture or society was wiped out, there would be a few who would rise from the masses to think more intellectually. Makes sense, doesn't it? We seem to have evolved in a way that we naturally delegate things socially, but if the tribe loses its main hunters, other tribe members will step up to become the main hunters. It seems to me to be a function of the group. Not everyone can take on every role at once, but those roles are important to them.
We didn't need to leave Africa to spread across the world. We didn't need to commit ourselves to the agricultural revolution. We didn't need to build cities or kingdoms or empires. We didn't need the Industrial Revolution. And we sure as heck didn't need to go to the moon. It's kind of silly at this point to say that further exploration is unimportant to humanity, doesn't it?
It sounds more logical that schizophrenia is more associated with the brains dream function activates and slips into the conscious state.
Except that the "dream function" is merely the brain's attempt to continue living in a way, recreating reality when your conscious shuts down and you're no longer consciously receiving sensory input with which to interpret a reality. I'd say that makes it the reverse: The dream state doesn't "[slip] into the conscious state", rather there is a failure to separate imagination from sensory input. It's a subtle difference, but an important one, I think.
Those Kinesis keyboards look pretty damn awesome and I suppose they're the best if you can budget it, but when you take price into account, I still have to give it to the Microsoft one. And I know, it took them a long time to get to it, but it's there and it's good and it's cheap and the next time I'm in the market, it'll be that one that I compare others to.
Slashdot Mirror
When I feel someone up, the only enhancement I want is for it to be less creepy. Less creepy. Can we try for that, Japanese robotics researchers?
One possible benefit, I suppose, is that it might make it less objectionable when I cop a feel in person simply by comparison.
"At least he's not doing it with that... stub thing this time."
...of the phrase "adventure game". Is this because it truly can't be defined as one, or they're afraid consumers will freak out, say, "I refuse to play a game in which I have to think," and skip it?
If the second case is true, I might actually be interested.
Arguably, they no longer have the same market dominance.
We'll see, though. If that continuing case was keeping them honest at all and they're able to use what market dominance they do have to stifle competition (again), they'll be back in court eventually. What makes me have doubts that this will happen is that the truly genius snake-in-the-grass (Gates) no longer makes decision for Microsoft. Anyone else is likely to bungle the attempt.
Read my later comment. Nonetheless, Apple is not and has never been in the position of market dominance that Microsoft (at least) once was.
How many people have to have that spelled out for them when discussing antitrust?
Er... what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Of course I know these things. I am the gubmint, after all. I know everything. I'm going to make you want a cheeseburger right now. It worked, didn't it? Of course it did.
I hope you keep following me and responding to me as AC. I'll know when you do. I'm watching from several cameras. It's very important that you keep responding to my posts. Don't stop. Don't ever stop.
Wacko.
You know, you're right. Looking at what I wrote, I kind of regressed to a time years ago when the choice was Microsoft or nuthin' for most people and decisions like what they bundled with their OS mattered more for many reasons, one being their market domination, another being limited disk space, etc.
There was a time when this mattered more, really.
And tell me: In what country is the economy completely lawless? All countries, including the United States, have regulations on business practices. (Try to open a restaurant with improper kitchen ventilation or even something as simple as the wrong sized sink.) Most countries, including the United States, have some sort of attempt at legal protections for both consumers and competitors. Even McCarthy wouldn't have completely opposed that.
To those who support economic anarchy, I must ask the same question that I ask social anarchists: What would prevent anarchy from remaining anarchic, without some sort of oligarchy forming after everything settles?
Then you need to work on your sense of irony. If it's untrue that Microsoft uses such strong-arm tactics, then say that. However, the comment did not dispute what the post it was responding to claimed, rather it alluded to results, implying agreement. The overall implication appeared to be, "Unfair? So what?"
I am not making the claim that Microsoft uses strong-arm tactics, neither am I making a claim against it. However, if someone takes the position that they do and that it's a good thing, I take issue with that.
Try to keep up, some guy on the Internet.
Including any AV product in Windows would have increased the security of the OS. If Microsoft does bundle an AV package in Windows, it gets a ridiculously huge market advantage. If it successfully snowballs and takes out the competition, it doesn't have to be such a great solution anymore so they get lazy with it. A lot like just about every other Microsoft product bundled with Windows, of which Internet Explorer has, most times, been a very good example.
That's the point of antitrust cases.
Are you saying it's okay that they're strong-armed because they've made money? Are you suggesting that those who have indeed made money did so because of strong arming by Microsoft?
To simplify: What are you talking about?
Hey, if someone's completely anti-corporation, I can totally dig that to a degree. I'll probably agree with some of their points. But if there are valid points, they don't need to make up any.
If you need to pay someone to convince people, you are selling lies, plain and simple.
I don't disagree with the fact of this, but I will say that it's a necessary thing in big business. Your competition will definitely engage in hyperbole. Answering with cold, hard facts can backfire. Ditto with politics, but they perhaps have a little more cushion, usually having at least a year before they have to fight for their job again.
In this post, I'm not defending anyone or condemning anyone. It's just something to consider.
Autopilot could be called a precursor to this, but I wouldn't equate it. Autopilot is more of a fail safe system that doesn't have anywhere near the capabilities needed to carry out an entire flight.
...for one way transport, don't you think? You transport troops or what have you with a human pilot, then send the plane back like a carrier pigeon.
Attach a system like this to a canoe and you'll never have to worry about crossing rivers with cannibals again. (I couldn't help it.)
One could argue that every initiative since Kennedy's time was massively unprofitable. One could also argue the complete opposite. I'm not an accountant or market historian, so I won't even try to go into it. However, that sort of informed discussion is very common and easy to find. But if you're unaware, there have been actual, real-world benefits from the space program during its entire existence. Even up until this point.
Increasing the funding of NASA with the specific purpose of "[moving] out into the solar system" would be a really ridiculous, middle-management type of decision at this point. (Now that I think about it, I won't be surprised if it happens.) It's unrealistic at the moment, but I have a prediction for you: Once the problems with spending extended periods outside of this atmosphere have even tenuous solutions, public (and political) interest will not only catch up, it'll surpass safe considerations.
...from long distances. If someone were actually doing that in my mouth in person, I'd throw them out of my apartment.
Gosh, you know a lot about what the public wants. As I showed figures from which I could derive my statement and you've showed nothing to support what you say, you must surely have your finger on the pulse of America, man!
1% sounds like a little and you seem to be counting on that. 1% of the United States budget is fairly impressive to me, however.
And how are people not "putting their money where their mouth is in voting"? Seriously. How? The results of those polls are fairly well known and discussed. If the people are so hard against paying for NASA, as you say, I'm kind of surprised it even still exists. Every president since Kennedy has talked about the importance of funding further space exploration... particularly when campaign season came around. Perhaps you should have saved them some headache and informed them that people don't really want it. Better hurry, because it doesn't seem like there are any candidates running on the oh-so-important "cut funding for NASA" platform. At least not any popular ones. Thank goodness the people have visionaries like you to tell them what they really want.
Similarly, the public wants roads, drainage systems, sewer maintenance, garbage pickup, police service, a local fire department, and still complain about the taxes they have to pay for these. The politicians play it like pool hustlers.
As in the previous case, I bet a majority would say they support these things, but would prefer not to pay for them. Would you say that "doesn't seem supportive"? Furthermore, would you support getting rid of these public services?
You say the public is against space exploration, I say the public is for it. I think one of us should come up with figures to back up what we say to prove we are not simply making it up.
You missed my point. If I expected our leaders to "think intellectually", I'd be shit out of luck on this planet. The will of the people, like it or not, will always go with further exploration unless they're convinced otherwise and that will always be for a short time. You yourself might feel it's unimportant, and that opinion is just as important as the opposite in keeping things within the realms of reality, I suppose, but the tendency for people to say, "Society is against this," simply because they are against it is wearying.
If you were not yourself alive to witness public excitement when we first went to the moon, ask people who were. You could also read accounts - they're numerous and easily available. Documentaries have been made ad nauseum about how crazy for space exploration the United States became after that. (I was about to make a comment about little boys trading cowboy hats for astronaut helmets, and that made me think of "Toy Story". Cool. I'd not thought about that correlation before.) The moon is "old hat" now, but when the next big and novel thing comes along, people will be just as excited. In general, people do know that it takes time and effort to reach that next big and novel thing, but they also know they'll appreciate it when it gets here.
Going back to my point (of which the "intellectual thought" discussion I had with my friend was only an example), anything beyond continuing to function (and possibly raise children) is something that not every person in society is going to do, but often they can still generally agree that it needs to be done. Few people putting effort into something does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that many disagree with it. Furthermore, if those few stopped doing it, it would be likely that others would take over.
Your position appears to be, "It's difficult, so screw it." The thing is that what's difficult today won't be difficult down the road because people are working on it. Why are people working on it? Because a lot of people are interested. A lot of people see benefits, real or imagined, and more importantly, we have a drive to spread out and expand. Engage in nihilism if you want, humanity as a group wants it. It really doesn't matter what the individual wants. If we can do it, some way, somehow, we will.
Of course, maybe they are all oxygen-breathing humanoids with fucked up foreheads who speak English. It's possible.
You're assuming that the longterm survival of the species is a strong motivator for the average person.
It doesn't need to be. The average person is an individual who relies on the group and it's the group that's interested in long term survival. I was recently discussing intellectual laziness with a friend and made a conjecture: Thinking intellectually requires more effort than the average person is willing to spend, therefore few do it; however, if every one of those few in a culture or society was wiped out, there would be a few who would rise from the masses to think more intellectually. Makes sense, doesn't it? We seem to have evolved in a way that we naturally delegate things socially, but if the tribe loses its main hunters, other tribe members will step up to become the main hunters. It seems to me to be a function of the group. Not everyone can take on every role at once, but those roles are important to them.
We didn't need to leave Africa to spread across the world. We didn't need to commit ourselves to the agricultural revolution. We didn't need to build cities or kingdoms or empires. We didn't need the Industrial Revolution. And we sure as heck didn't need to go to the moon. It's kind of silly at this point to say that further exploration is unimportant to humanity, doesn't it?
It sounds more logical that schizophrenia is more associated with the brains dream function activates and slips into the conscious state.
Except that the "dream function" is merely the brain's attempt to continue living in a way, recreating reality when your conscious shuts down and you're no longer consciously receiving sensory input with which to interpret a reality. I'd say that makes it the reverse: The dream state doesn't "[slip] into the conscious state", rather there is a failure to separate imagination from sensory input. It's a subtle difference, but an important one, I think.
Those Kinesis keyboards look pretty damn awesome and I suppose they're the best if you can budget it, but when you take price into account, I still have to give it to the Microsoft one. And I know, it took them a long time to get to it, but it's there and it's good and it's cheap and the next time I'm in the market, it'll be that one that I compare others to.
I had no idea. Why I assumed that this was different from any other Microsoft product without first checking is beyond me.
Other than that, I stand by what I said.