As someone who enjoyed both Tribes 1 and 2 (but doesn't remember the first one as well anymore), what was so bad about 2? I certainly remember some of the T1 mods being REALLY fun or neat (including AAOD/Archangels of death--which appears to have disappeared off the internet), but I thought T2 was solid, especially with the added vehicles.
And feel free to not bitch or exaggerate, I'm really just curious because I never knew anyone else in my area who was a Tribes fan.
Sometimes it isn't setting, or even characters. The Final Fantasy franchise has had the same monsters and a few recurring characters, but often enough there's nothing in "the setting" that's really the same.
If you consider "property" in the same way land is property--as in, something to build upon--"intellectual property" almost makes sense as a term.
No, Linux is perfectly applicable, as it has won the analogous battle: being put on or in new devices. Windows has won over and over when people are buying desktops, because desktops are an entrenched market; when consumers think of things they want to do on one, they think of Windows more than anything else. When they hear of desktops, they hardly know anything else exists. It's simply the way it is.
However, when a developer wants to create an embedded system, or a small portable thingamabob, often enough they use a version of the Linux kernel. Because? Because it's freaking open technology, which means they don't have to start over from scratch, and they don't have to pay yet another license fee on every unit.
Phones aren't a locked in market. When you look at the history of phones, they've had diverse interfaces the entire time. iPhone and Blackberry are solid competition and have been for years, but they don't have that 90% mind-share such that any difference from What Is Expected is weird and off-putting. That makes it closer to Embedded Linux than Desktop Linux, and the one is more successful than the other.
So, you're saying that a dictatorship is the form of government least likely to abuse power, because it concentrates it all on a single person?
A dictatorship is the only form of government where one single person can prevent the abuse of power in an entire nation for his entire life. That doesn't say anything about how likely it is that that will happen. I refer you to my previous statement:
Now if only we could actually get rid of people when they DO abuse it... and prevent it from happening again in the future.
There's no reason this problem won't exist for other forms of government, too.
Government exists to allow cooperation of a group of people large enough that everyone doesn't know everyone else. That's all.
Very little of what government does is about cooperation--only the legislative, really. The executive and judicial branches are effectively handed mandates as to what sort of world they must be enforcing, and even if they can alter the course by 5-10%, they can't steer the ship (unless it's malfunctioning and people like the TSA, or the military with Guantanamo, are overstepping their bounds).
No... at least not in any current form I'm aware of, the government isn't about cooperation; it's about consistency more than anything, consistency that's often at the cost of flexibility.
If all axes were independent--if every product were judged exactly on its merits, and used only and ever for what it was intended for--big players getting bigger until they reached saturation would in fact be the ideal. But the axes aren't, they're oblique, with a lot of nuances that will drag things in the wrong direction.
Say you were the first person to invent the hammer, and it swept the market. There's no reason to suspect that, being the hammer king, your product would replace screwdrivers, belt-sanders, hacksaws, or drills. However, if in order to manufacture your first million hammers, you had to contract with a reseller of shop tools, you might make a hard sell and push it as the be-all shop tool that it definitely isn't, and they'd market it like all the world's a nail. So, for no good reason at all, the whole thing would have become incestuous, with ties to other bits of hardware that really have nothing to do with your product. Because of all the hype, most likely lawyers would get involved, especially whenever someone did something that might possibly be a knockoff, because it's nothing but a racket, and they need to nail anyone who might get in the way.
If instead you just made hammers and sold them, with no stupid third parties there making mountains into molehills into nails in order to sell hammers, then you'd (probably) be rich, and you'd probably keep making new hammers because that's just what you're awesome at, and you'd be recognized forever as the genius hammer-maker, with a TV show called "Hammertime" that everyone is compelled to stop and watch. And people who saw how easy it was would make cheaper knockoffs, but people who saw the quality of your tools would come back, and would stay interested in what you were doing next, and even if someday you're replaced as Mr. Hammer, and go retire to a life running a laundromat, it's still you, and nothing you did was wrong. That's capitalism working.
I think I may have digressed. It's like I'm hammered, which is funny because I don't drink.
Stop trying to think for us, and be what Google originally was - simple, lightweight, doing only what I need and nothing more.
From the first time that I read that, in order to keep up with the expectations of being publicly traded (specifically, ever more profits) they'd keep tweaking things and adding new features, I figured it'd be mostly bad news.
As soon as something else becomes #1, usability takes a backseat; double when that something is money. I mean literally, money shoves it back even further, even if usability is still #2.
I think the original question (to give it fair credit) is "which is a better predictor of behavior?" Are criminals only criminals because nobody was there to hug them as they were growing up--will outreach programs solve the problem after a few generations? Is criminality something that a person is born with--is the blood of a criminal something that is passed down, and should they be persecuted for it? What about nobility? Is that in the blood, or can anyone, no matter how low their birth, be the next (proverbial) king? What about genius? Idiocy? Empathy, sadism?
While I believe in nurture (especially in most of the situations above), I can completely understand and accept that thousands of scientists (and philosophers) through the ages have tried to make sense of it all and failed. Unfortunately, there's no clean experimental slate, and there won't be probably until AI is developed. There's no way to figure out every damned nuance, especially since the more you (coldly, unfeelingly) stare at them and control their life, the more you affect the results. And you can't step back from your feelings to properly test some things, not without being a terrible parent/guardian.
I suggest the perpetrator stays in jail the length of time it takes the company(s) involved to make the target amount of money in revenue. Or maybe profits, if you can say they're reporting them fairly. Point is, to show everyone involved how astoundingly amazing the impact on their bottom line is.
So, you know, seeing as it's several million dollars in this case, maybe a couple hours to a few days. Serial perpetrators? A few weeks to a couple months. The kings of filesharing, the proverbial Captain Jack Sparrows? Maybe 5-10 years. Maybe.
The RIAA can make this more painful by losing revenue almost to the point of going out of business, but then... problem solved!
don't be stupid. someone is out a car. do not use theft examples in regard to copyright, they don't work.
More to the point: When you have a car, you stop buying cars immediately and it lasts for many, many years afterwards. Unless you're rich enough (or have special circumstances like family, pets, work, etc) to want 2, or heaven forbid 3-4 cars; but even then, point is, there is a saturation point that is hit, very very fast.
However, when taking in things like food, music, art, and movies, you tend to require a selection, and you want that selection to change at intervals, because it's entertainment and things stop being entertaining when they get repetitive. And when you want a new selection, you can easily decide to dip back into a well you trust, such as one you've already heard. And maybe you'll buy it this time, if the prices are reasonable and not artificially propping up asshole middlemen.
In short: 5 minutes of audio is not the same thing as 4000 lbs of steel. If the GP wanted to make a point, it's better to comparing it to stealing books, magazines, or newspapers, which still isn't quite right, but at least it's vaguely in the ballpark of the economics involved. If you went 5-10 years between music purchases, it might be an argument. But it's not.
Except instead of Rei or Asuka you get Buzz Aldrin... the future is a terrifying place children...
And in space, no one can hear you scream...
That does make it easier to appear polite, though. Just be sure not to pantomime your screaming, then switch the mike back on. "Hello sir, nice to meet you."
Apollo 13, this is Houston, be advised you're on VOX, we heard everything you just said... $#!%.
Sorta, except without the crimes against humanity (slavery), and without the war.
And also, the mere fact of secession wouldn't divide the country based on its ideals, most likely. I have no reason to think that it wouldn't return to business as usual (or thereabouts) on both sides of the border.
American democracy explained: the people want stuff for free. One side says "you get to have stuff but you have to pay for it." The other side says, "if you don't want to pay for anything, you shouldn't have to get anything." So every couple years, the voters alternate between "Waahh! I want more stuff!" or "Waahh! I don't like spending money!" It doesn't have any more to do with theoretical ideals of capitalism this time around than it did with theoretical ideals about socialism or progress last time around.
Somehow it seems like this wouldn't be a problem if you could just divide the country regionally between these two philosophies, and then let people choose which to live in. It'd be an interesting experiment.
Bias is an issue of trust; ad hominem is an attack on the listener's trust in a source, rightfully or wrongly. Because most people are going to go to news as a way to check facts in the first place (read: not doing independent research), whether or not you can trust them becomes a pivotal question in who deserves to be read/heard/seen.
Whether or not an article contains The Facts, or conveys The Truth, is in all cases a statistic. The best possible news source (pragmatically speaking) would publicly redact or edit every mistake they find in order to end up as close to 100% Fact as they can. The more any news source diverges from this path, and especially if they diverge from it as a matter of policy, the more lies they may spread, intentionally or not.
If, statistically speaking, a person's only source of facts contains some non-trivial amount of lies, and especially if this is done intentionally, it is no longer a valid source, and the person should look elsewhere. If the listener or viewer is doing their own fact-checking, or uses many different sources of facts with differing biases, their tolerance will rise appropriately. If not, the policies of the news source may do significant damage to the understanding of a population.
TL;DR: Bias is important because there are a lot of people reading, and many of them don't look deeper for the facts of the case. Especially over time, it adds up.
You're beyond wrong. You get close to being right, but you blow right past it into nonsense.
Everyone's going to be imperfect, forever. However, not everyone embraces that. Some people are constantly fighting against their own corruption, their own tendency to lie, their own willingness to force other people to pay the cost of their ignorance. There are people out there that try, and the world could not be as good as it is without that fact.
And the world is shitty. To a lot of people, in a lot of places. However, there are huge whole swaths of land where it is a crime to rape, steal, murder and lie. Within that area, sometimes things don't work quite the way they should--people still do those things and get away with it, usually because they worked their way into law or governance. However, there are still huge, huge areas of the world where things actually do work the way they should. You don't see them on the 10-o-clock news because a)it's not fucking news, it's been that way for centuries, and b)people who are still living in rotten places in the world don't want to hear about that.
In some of those cases--maybe most or all, if it's a structural problem--that's built on the backs of innocents, like child labor or 3rd world sweatshops. But when you look at those places, you understand that it could be made to work without that bullshit, it just hasn't been. And it probably won't be. Governments are NOT engineered in this world, nor is international politics. It's not planned, and it's not following a blueprint. It was a whole bunch of people throwing themselves at the problems around them, and the result is in many places a jumbled mess.
What happened with the founding of America is a few people took a step back, took a deep breath, and said, "Fuck it, we can make this work." They did astoundingly. It's not perfect, I'm not sure this model ever CAN be perfect, but they did amazingly.
"All you can ever do is steer society in the direction you want by voting" is part of the problem, not part of the solution. You don't think you can make it work. You don't want it to work. You want your needs right away, and damn the consequences, damn the future. If governments were designed, they would be designed to minimize the impact of people like you, not to support you. They would instead be upholding people who stopped, thought it out, maybe worked it out on paper, THEN went for it.
You wanna say you're angry. You wanna say it's all fucking stupid. You're fucking right. Think of a better design, and I don't mean give me a 100-word summary, much less a pithy reply. Find the things that do work--and I'm telling you, not suggesting, but telling you, that those things are out there. Figure out why they work. Figure out why other things don't. The answers are always gonna be there. Use them to make tomorrow better.
Naw, we can just torrent the part specs from Car-PirateBay.com and get em for free. Additionally the torrented parts have stripped out the DRM that requires the printer to use substandard plastics and intentionally place flaws and weak spots in the printing pattern to ensure a frequent replacement rate.
And they'll call it, grand piracy auto.
The lawyers will make a mess of themselves just thinking about it.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who enjoyed both Tribes 1 and 2 (but doesn't remember the first one as well anymore), what was so bad about 2? I certainly remember some of the T1 mods being REALLY fun or neat (including AAOD/Archangels of death--which appears to have disappeared off the internet), but I thought T2 was solid, especially with the added vehicles.
And feel free to not bitch or exaggerate, I'm really just curious because I never knew anyone else in my area who was a Tribes fan.
Sometimes it isn't setting, or even characters. The Final Fantasy franchise has had the same monsters and a few recurring characters, but often enough there's nothing in "the setting" that's really the same.
If you consider "property" in the same way land is property--as in, something to build upon--"intellectual property" almost makes sense as a term.
"Extra-extra-extra-medium" large? I'm not sure how you get "extra-medium" in the first place, much less even moreso.
Well, I also took a year off in the middle, so you could claim it took me six. Five years worth of classes, though.
People talk about studying and cheating. I got a 4 year degree without doing either, so I don't get it. Of course, it took me 5 years...
Just like Linux....
er, hmm, never mind.
No, Linux is perfectly applicable, as it has won the analogous battle: being put on or in new devices. Windows has won over and over when people are buying desktops, because desktops are an entrenched market; when consumers think of things they want to do on one, they think of Windows more than anything else. When they hear of desktops, they hardly know anything else exists. It's simply the way it is.
However, when a developer wants to create an embedded system, or a small portable thingamabob, often enough they use a version of the Linux kernel. Because? Because it's freaking open technology, which means they don't have to start over from scratch, and they don't have to pay yet another license fee on every unit.
Phones aren't a locked in market. When you look at the history of phones, they've had diverse interfaces the entire time. iPhone and Blackberry are solid competition and have been for years, but they don't have that 90% mind-share such that any difference from What Is Expected is weird and off-putting. That makes it closer to Embedded Linux than Desktop Linux, and the one is more successful than the other.
So, you're saying that a dictatorship is the form of government least likely to abuse power, because it concentrates it all on a single person?
A dictatorship is the only form of government where one single person can prevent the abuse of power in an entire nation for his entire life. That doesn't say anything about how likely it is that that will happen. I refer you to my previous statement:
Now if only we could actually get rid of people when they DO abuse it... and prevent it from happening again in the future.
There's no reason this problem won't exist for other forms of government, too.
Government exists to allow cooperation of a group of people large enough that everyone doesn't know everyone else. That's all.
Very little of what government does is about cooperation--only the legislative, really. The executive and judicial branches are effectively handed mandates as to what sort of world they must be enforcing, and even if they can alter the course by 5-10%, they can't steer the ship (unless it's malfunctioning and people like the TSA, or the military with Guantanamo, are overstepping their bounds).
No... at least not in any current form I'm aware of, the government isn't about cooperation; it's about consistency more than anything, consistency that's often at the cost of flexibility.
Problem is - you're trained from day 1 to entrust your power to them.
That's literally what government is for. The fewer hands power is in, the fewer can abuse it. That part of the equation is on solid ground.
Now if only we could actually get rid of people when they DO abuse it... and prevent it from happening again in the future.
Any mistake at this point will doom you, and your colonists, to certain death. Have a nice day.
If all axes were independent--if every product were judged exactly on its merits, and used only and ever for what it was intended for--big players getting bigger until they reached saturation would in fact be the ideal. But the axes aren't, they're oblique, with a lot of nuances that will drag things in the wrong direction.
Say you were the first person to invent the hammer, and it swept the market. There's no reason to suspect that, being the hammer king, your product would replace screwdrivers, belt-sanders, hacksaws, or drills. However, if in order to manufacture your first million hammers, you had to contract with a reseller of shop tools, you might make a hard sell and push it as the be-all shop tool that it definitely isn't, and they'd market it like all the world's a nail. So, for no good reason at all, the whole thing would have become incestuous, with ties to other bits of hardware that really have nothing to do with your product. Because of all the hype, most likely lawyers would get involved, especially whenever someone did something that might possibly be a knockoff, because it's nothing but a racket, and they need to nail anyone who might get in the way.
If instead you just made hammers and sold them, with no stupid third parties there making mountains into molehills into nails in order to sell hammers, then you'd (probably) be rich, and you'd probably keep making new hammers because that's just what you're awesome at, and you'd be recognized forever as the genius hammer-maker, with a TV show called "Hammertime" that everyone is compelled to stop and watch. And people who saw how easy it was would make cheaper knockoffs, but people who saw the quality of your tools would come back, and would stay interested in what you were doing next, and even if someday you're replaced as Mr. Hammer, and go retire to a life running a laundromat, it's still you, and nothing you did was wrong. That's capitalism working.
I think I may have digressed. It's like I'm hammered, which is funny because I don't drink.
What were we talking about?
I didn't know Candlejack was also steali
Urine trouble if that's the best you can do.
Stop trying to think for us, and be what Google originally was - simple, lightweight, doing only what I need and nothing more.
From the first time that I read that, in order to keep up with the expectations of being publicly traded (specifically, ever more profits) they'd keep tweaking things and adding new features, I figured it'd be mostly bad news.
As soon as something else becomes #1, usability takes a backseat; double when that something is money. I mean literally, money shoves it back even further, even if usability is still #2.
I guess they thought it would make a bigger splash.
I think the original question (to give it fair credit) is "which is a better predictor of behavior?" Are criminals only criminals because nobody was there to hug them as they were growing up--will outreach programs solve the problem after a few generations? Is criminality something that a person is born with--is the blood of a criminal something that is passed down, and should they be persecuted for it? What about nobility? Is that in the blood, or can anyone, no matter how low their birth, be the next (proverbial) king? What about genius? Idiocy? Empathy, sadism?
While I believe in nurture (especially in most of the situations above), I can completely understand and accept that thousands of scientists (and philosophers) through the ages have tried to make sense of it all and failed. Unfortunately, there's no clean experimental slate, and there won't be probably until AI is developed. There's no way to figure out every damned nuance, especially since the more you (coldly, unfeelingly) stare at them and control their life, the more you affect the results. And you can't step back from your feelings to properly test some things, not without being a terrible parent/guardian.
I suggest the perpetrator stays in jail the length of time it takes the company(s) involved to make the target amount of money in revenue. Or maybe profits, if you can say they're reporting them fairly. Point is, to show everyone involved how astoundingly amazing the impact on their bottom line is.
So, you know, seeing as it's several million dollars in this case, maybe a couple hours to a few days. Serial perpetrators? A few weeks to a couple months. The kings of filesharing, the proverbial Captain Jack Sparrows? Maybe 5-10 years. Maybe.
The RIAA can make this more painful by losing revenue almost to the point of going out of business, but then... problem solved!
don't be stupid. someone is out a car. do not use theft examples in regard to copyright, they don't work.
More to the point: When you have a car, you stop buying cars immediately and it lasts for many, many years afterwards. Unless you're rich enough (or have special circumstances like family, pets, work, etc) to want 2, or heaven forbid 3-4 cars; but even then, point is, there is a saturation point that is hit, very very fast.
However, when taking in things like food, music, art, and movies, you tend to require a selection, and you want that selection to change at intervals, because it's entertainment and things stop being entertaining when they get repetitive. And when you want a new selection, you can easily decide to dip back into a well you trust, such as one you've already heard. And maybe you'll buy it this time, if the prices are reasonable and not artificially propping up asshole middlemen.
In short: 5 minutes of audio is not the same thing as 4000 lbs of steel. If the GP wanted to make a point, it's better to comparing it to stealing books, magazines, or newspapers, which still isn't quite right, but at least it's vaguely in the ballpark of the economics involved. If you went 5-10 years between music purchases, it might be an argument. But it's not.
Except instead of Rei or Asuka you get Buzz Aldrin... the future is a terrifying place children...
And in space, no one can hear you scream...
That does make it easier to appear polite, though. Just be sure not to pantomime your screaming, then switch the mike back on. "Hello sir, nice to meet you."
Apollo 13, this is Houston, be advised you're on VOX, we heard everything you just said... $#!%.
Sorta, except without the crimes against humanity (slavery), and without the war.
And also, the mere fact of secession wouldn't divide the country based on its ideals, most likely. I have no reason to think that it wouldn't return to business as usual (or thereabouts) on both sides of the border.
American democracy explained: the people want stuff for free. One side says "you get to have stuff but you have to pay for it." The other side says, "if you don't want to pay for anything, you shouldn't have to get anything." So every couple years, the voters alternate between "Waahh! I want more stuff!" or "Waahh! I don't like spending money!" It doesn't have any more to do with theoretical ideals of capitalism this time around than it did with theoretical ideals about socialism or progress last time around.
Somehow it seems like this wouldn't be a problem if you could just divide the country regionally between these two philosophies, and then let people choose which to live in. It'd be an interesting experiment.
Bias is an issue of trust; ad hominem is an attack on the listener's trust in a source, rightfully or wrongly. Because most people are going to go to news as a way to check facts in the first place (read: not doing independent research), whether or not you can trust them becomes a pivotal question in who deserves to be read/heard/seen.
Whether or not an article contains The Facts, or conveys The Truth, is in all cases a statistic. The best possible news source (pragmatically speaking) would publicly redact or edit every mistake they find in order to end up as close to 100% Fact as they can. The more any news source diverges from this path, and especially if they diverge from it as a matter of policy, the more lies they may spread, intentionally or not.
If, statistically speaking, a person's only source of facts contains some non-trivial amount of lies, and especially if this is done intentionally, it is no longer a valid source, and the person should look elsewhere. If the listener or viewer is doing their own fact-checking, or uses many different sources of facts with differing biases, their tolerance will rise appropriately. If not, the policies of the news source may do significant damage to the understanding of a population.
TL;DR: Bias is important because there are a lot of people reading, and many of them don't look deeper for the facts of the case. Especially over time, it adds up.
So, they're late because time is an illusion? I'd hate to see how long their lunches last...
You're beyond wrong. You get close to being right, but you blow right past it into nonsense.
Everyone's going to be imperfect, forever. However, not everyone embraces that. Some people are constantly fighting against their own corruption, their own tendency to lie, their own willingness to force other people to pay the cost of their ignorance. There are people out there that try, and the world could not be as good as it is without that fact.
And the world is shitty. To a lot of people, in a lot of places. However, there are huge whole swaths of land where it is a crime to rape, steal, murder and lie. Within that area, sometimes things don't work quite the way they should--people still do those things and get away with it, usually because they worked their way into law or governance. However, there are still huge, huge areas of the world where things actually do work the way they should. You don't see them on the 10-o-clock news because a)it's not fucking news, it's been that way for centuries, and b)people who are still living in rotten places in the world don't want to hear about that.
In some of those cases--maybe most or all, if it's a structural problem--that's built on the backs of innocents, like child labor or 3rd world sweatshops. But when you look at those places, you understand that it could be made to work without that bullshit, it just hasn't been. And it probably won't be. Governments are NOT engineered in this world, nor is international politics. It's not planned, and it's not following a blueprint. It was a whole bunch of people throwing themselves at the problems around them, and the result is in many places a jumbled mess.
What happened with the founding of America is a few people took a step back, took a deep breath, and said, "Fuck it, we can make this work." They did astoundingly. It's not perfect, I'm not sure this model ever CAN be perfect, but they did amazingly.
"All you can ever do is steer society in the direction you want by voting" is part of the problem, not part of the solution. You don't think you can make it work. You don't want it to work. You want your needs right away, and damn the consequences, damn the future. If governments were designed, they would be designed to minimize the impact of people like you, not to support you. They would instead be upholding people who stopped, thought it out, maybe worked it out on paper, THEN went for it.
You wanna say you're angry. You wanna say it's all fucking stupid. You're fucking right. Think of a better design, and I don't mean give me a 100-word summary, much less a pithy reply. Find the things that do work--and I'm telling you, not suggesting, but telling you, that those things are out there. Figure out why they work. Figure out why other things don't. The answers are always gonna be there. Use them to make tomorrow better.
Well, they'll understand if they just RTFA... I mean, RTFS... I mean, uh...
Yeah, maybe they won't even notice.
Naw, we can just torrent the part specs from Car-PirateBay.com and get em for free. Additionally the torrented parts have stripped out the DRM that requires the printer to use substandard plastics and intentionally place flaws and weak spots in the printing pattern to ensure a frequent replacement rate.
And they'll call it, grand piracy auto.
The lawyers will make a mess of themselves just thinking about it.