Having already played this game in the future, I can only say that things get really strange if you try to go back in time before the game was launched and try to prevent it from being installed on your opponents computers.
Also, if you see a player on the network named John Titor, don't play against him. He seems to know what's going to happen already. Fscking cheater!
Ask someone: Which would you prefer: that you candidate be good at doing only one thing at a time, or that he be good at doing many things at a time? What do you think their answer is likely to be? More is more, isn't it?
The problem is, the requirement going out doesn't get compared against the capabilities of actual working people.
How it should go is like this:
PHB: Find me someone who's good at doing lots of things all at once. HR: Can't; Tried, Looked, none exist. People are better at doing one thing at a time. PHB: OK, let's set up our processes so that people only do one thing.
How it actually goes:
PHB: Find me someone who's good at doing lots of things all at once. HR: These candidates who applied all say that they can do this. Interview them and pick the best one we can afford. PHB: OK. [Hires one]
[Weeks, months, or years pass]
PHB: Find me someone who's good at doing lots of things all at once. The last guy wasn't as good as he said he was, and burned out.. Now there's even more things that need to be done. HR: OK. Here's another pool of applicants.
And the thing is, I am good at doing a lot of different things. This makes me valuable, because I'm flexible and also because I can put my various skills together to better effect than I could if I only knew how to do one thing. That doesn't mean that I should be actively involved in several ongoing projects all at the same time.
I can't work well if I'm expected to work on several development projects concurrently, while at the same time supporting the production environment, all while thinking about our existing processes and policies and trying to think of better ones, and keep up with the constant changes with the existing ones that come from my supervisor or higher-ups on a day to day basis. And so, I don't work well. But I do manage to meet expectations. It's just that the expectations are managed downward to where we don't really expect all that much.
Conversely, I believe that being forced to multitask by my environment has created attention deficit disorder in me. I can't pay attention to things like I used to, and staying focused is very difficult for me. Even if NOTHING is demanding my attention, I feel like I have a compulsion to switch to a different task every few minutes. It's horrible. I used to be able to focus on a single task for long stretches, sometimes I could read a book for 14 hours or more in a day if I was sufficiently interested in it. Now, every three paragraphs or so, I feel like I want to check my email.
Not surprisingly, the mouse costs a lot more than I'd be willing to pay. My 3-button, scroll-wheel USB Intellimouse Explorer 3 is close to celebrating it's 10th birthday, and is still going strong, and still feels to me like the best mouse I've ever used. Microsoft sure knew how to put their name on quality hardware back then.
I don't see why this wouldn't be a figure that would fluctuate up and down depending on what's going on in the world. Just because it goes up for a long time, and then takes a dip, doesn't mean that it's only going to go down from here out.
I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it might well be that Canonical is a lot more involved with the integration of desktop environments and application packages, documentation, support, and so on, and not doing much at all with the kernel. Linux kernel development is one thing, Linux distro development is another.
I'm not saying that anti-Bush speech was taken down everywhere. It *is* true that mainstream media suppressed anti-war speech for a long time. It's also true that, wherever people spoke out against the war, there was a lot of "you're a traitor, you're with Al Quaeda, love it or leave it, my country right or wrong" in response to it.
The same assholes who shouted down dissent with those kind of remarks deserve to hear it thrown back in their faces now that they're on the minority side.
Al Quaeda sympathizers posting unpatriotic images of our glorious leader to Flickr is doubleplusungood.
(I disagree with Flicker taking down the images, and think that it's clearly not a copyright violation if the original creator of the Obama/Joker picture posted it and had it taken down.
But as long as republicans are going to act like jackholes, they can have their own rhetoric force fed back to them to see how they like it.
Why is it NOT OK for a pro-Obama citizen to use Bush/Rove style rhetoric to demonstrate to an anti-Obama citizen how wrong and stupid such rhetoric is?
I'd explain more, but I'm late for my appointment with my death panel. Mr. Tuttle is scheduled to die this week, I am Mr. Buttle. Don't want to be late, or I could end up the late Mr. Buttle.
We're still at war. Obama is a War President. If you are not with him, then you are with the terrorists. Any treasonous acts against the president must be quashed at all costs to preserve our freedom and the Cunstitution.
If it was good for W., then it's good for O. If you're going to whine about it, why did you think it was OK to give the President this power? Did you always think that the President would be a guy you approved of?
It's legal for me to make a backup copy of my media, in case of theft or destruction, except that owning or building the tools to allow me to create the copy is not legal -- although arguably this makes any turing machine attached to a CD/DVD/Blu-Ray drive illegal.
It's legal for me to watch tv or listen to radio for free by receiving transmissions, and I can even record them and keep the recording indefinitely as long as I only use it for personal use, but it's illegal for me to stream media over the internet and capture the stream, and it's illegal for me to transmit over the internet.
It's legal for me to trade or lend CDs, DVDs, etc. with friends I know, or to buy or sell used copies, as long as they're legitimate (not pirated), but it's illegal for me to use the internet to facilitate either the search or the trading or to expand my group of "friends", even though I could go to a public library and essentially achieve the same ends by swapping media with a large group of people (the public) who I don't actually know.
If something is out of print, or censored, or otherwise unavailable, but copyrighted, I have no legal recourse to obtain a copy.
Sucks to be you guys. I'm 34, within 10 lbs of my ideal weight, and reasonably happy considering the state of the world I live in. I'm in ur statistics skewing ur averages:P
After a ruling like this, congress should be proactive and fix the law. But they won't. Why? 'cause they could give two shits about making things right.
Because they can't do anything right.
Also, not to quibble, but if Congress did act now, it would be reactive, not proactive.
It seems to me that the judge applied the law correctly as it is written; however, the law is bad. It'd be nice if the law could be struck down in a court case, but that's only going to happen if the law violates the constitution, not simply because the law is stupid. Write your congressman, or run for congress yourself. This is why things like the (stupidly named) Pirate Party need to be supported.
If I drive an mains-rechargable electric/gas car for very short trips, such that I never actually burn gas, and always run off the battery, when I do finally take a long trip somewhere and the gasoline engine kicks on, I might find that the gas has gone bad and the engine won't run, and I'll be stranded.
This is probably not a very huge concern for most people, but I imagine that certain users might find it a problem -- the little old lady who only drives to church on Sundays, 2 blocks on a 25mph road, for example.
Apple can't dent the PC market the way Google can.
Apple's determined to sell OS X by selling Macintoshes. Microsoft doesn't sell personal computers at all, they sell operating systems, mostly to OEMs.
Macs only recently became x86, and in some sense they now compete more directly against Microsoft in the personal computer market. The competed only obliquely prior to that, delivering a completely different product on a completely different hardware architecture.
Chrome OS is not sold. It's not locked into non-x86 hardware only. These two factors enable Google to compete with Microsoft in a very different way.
If Apple wanted to go to war against Microsoft, they could do so by choosing to sell OS X for commodity non-Apple manufactured hardware, and not require it to be installed on Apple-branded hardware. They choose not to, and they end up with a small part of the market and apparently are quite happy with the amount of money they're making. Google doesn't care what hardware you run Chrome OS on, or who you buy it from. In fact, they want to give you Chrome OS for free.
Microsoft's only remaining advantages are their entrenched marketshare, backward compatibility with legacy Windows and DOS apps (which harms them with maintenance and security problems as well as helps them by locking in that entrenched marketshare), and the fact that they're bundled by default with over 90% of PC's shipped by hardware vendors. These are considerable advantages, but if I were Microsoft I'd be very scared right now as far as Windows is concerned.
It seems that if you install Windows 7 on the second hard drive, it will put it's system reserved boot partition on the first drive. This absolutely boggles my mind. Now I need both hard drives just to boot my system? I discovered this when Windows 7 fucked up my Chameleon installation. Then my Hackintosh wouldn't boot into OS X until I reinstalled Chameleon from the iAtkos disc. Then I had to unplug the OS X drive and reinstall Windows 7 so it would stick to it's own goddamned drive and leave the others alone.
Bad, BAD fucking move, Microsoft. Now Windows 7 can easily fuck up unrecognized partitions on other drives during installation. I really hope that gets fixed in the final version.
To Microsoft, breaking $OtherOS when Windows installs *is* fixing THEIR computer, which they kindly allow you to use.
It may be a waste of a few hundred billion dollars, but if it never gets working properly, I'm not concerned. It won't be the end of the world if large hadrons never collide on this planet.
I know sports games are popular, but MMOs require a lot of time and devotion. If you care enough about a sport to play it with others online and devote months or years of your life playing it, why not pick up a ball a play the real thing outside, with friends?
The offseason.
The climate where you are might not allow you to play when you want to (eg rain/snow/etc.).
The available facilities might be far away, busy all the time, managed by assholes, or cost too much.
Can't find enough people to play with locally, or they all suck or they are all disagreeable.
Sufficiently good virtual reality gaming might be good training for the real thing.
Besides, no one said you couldn't do both. When I was a kid, the videogame sports I liked most were the games I actually played in real life. Baseball Stars FTW.
Slashdot Mirror
Having already played this game in the future, I can only say that things get really strange if you try to go back in time before the game was launched and try to prevent it from being installed on your opponents computers.
Also, if you see a player on the network named John Titor, don't play against him. He seems to know what's going to happen already. Fscking cheater!
I don't attribute this to malice.
Ask someone: Which would you prefer: that you candidate be good at doing only one thing at a time, or that he be good at doing many things at a time? What do you think their answer is likely to be? More is more, isn't it?
The problem is, the requirement going out doesn't get compared against the capabilities of actual working people.
How it should go is like this:
PHB: Find me someone who's good at doing lots of things all at once.
HR: Can't; Tried, Looked, none exist. People are better at doing one thing at a time.
PHB: OK, let's set up our processes so that people only do one thing.
How it actually goes:
PHB: Find me someone who's good at doing lots of things all at once.
HR: These candidates who applied all say that they can do this. Interview them and pick the best one we can afford.
PHB: OK. [Hires one]
[Weeks, months, or years pass]
PHB: Find me someone who's good at doing lots of things all at once. The last guy wasn't as good as he said he was, and burned out.. Now there's even more things that need to be done.
HR: OK. Here's another pool of applicants.
And the thing is, I am good at doing a lot of different things. This makes me valuable, because I'm flexible and also because I can put my various skills together to better effect than I could if I only knew how to do one thing. That doesn't mean that I should be actively involved in several ongoing projects all at the same time.
I can't work well if I'm expected to work on several development projects concurrently, while at the same time supporting the production environment, all while thinking about our existing processes and policies and trying to think of better ones, and keep up with the constant changes with the existing ones that come from my supervisor or higher-ups on a day to day basis. And so, I don't work well. But I do manage to meet expectations. It's just that the expectations are managed downward to where we don't really expect all that much.
Conversely, I believe that being forced to multitask by my environment has created attention deficit disorder in me. I can't pay attention to things like I used to, and staying focused is very difficult for me. Even if NOTHING is demanding my attention, I feel like I have a compulsion to switch to a different task every few minutes. It's horrible. I used to be able to focus on a single task for long stretches, sometimes I could read a book for 14 hours or more in a day if I was sufficiently interested in it. Now, every three paragraphs or so, I feel like I want to check my email.
Wikipedia may be working their way into having stringent editorial standards, but slashdot will always remain free and unencumbered by such things.
Either that, or you have to create the Hermaphrodite Olympics.
I'll buy that for a dollar.
Oops, forgot to mention I paid something like $7 for it, too, back when pricewatch.com was actually good.
Not surprisingly, the mouse costs a lot more than I'd be willing to pay. My 3-button, scroll-wheel USB Intellimouse Explorer 3 is close to celebrating it's 10th birthday, and is still going strong, and still feels to me like the best mouse I've ever used. Microsoft sure knew how to put their name on quality hardware back then.
How many firefox/opera users are criminals? Probably a tiny, tiny percentage. Unless you count copyright violation, in which case everyone is guilty.
I don't see why this wouldn't be a figure that would fluctuate up and down depending on what's going on in the world. Just because it goes up for a long time, and then takes a dip, doesn't mean that it's only going to go down from here out.
I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it might well be that Canonical is a lot more involved with the integration of desktop environments and application packages, documentation, support, and so on, and not doing much at all with the kernel. Linux kernel development is one thing, Linux distro development is another.
0% SCO
I'm not saying that anti-Bush speech was taken down everywhere. It *is* true that mainstream media suppressed anti-war speech for a long time. It's also true that, wherever people spoke out against the war, there was a lot of "you're a traitor, you're with Al Quaeda, love it or leave it, my country right or wrong" in response to it.
The same assholes who shouted down dissent with those kind of remarks deserve to hear it thrown back in their faces now that they're on the minority side.
Al Quaeda sympathizers posting unpatriotic images of our glorious leader to Flickr is doubleplusungood.
(I disagree with Flicker taking down the images, and think that it's clearly not a copyright violation if the original creator of the Obama/Joker picture posted it and had it taken down.
But as long as republicans are going to act like jackholes, they can have their own rhetoric force fed back to them to see how they like it.
Why is it NOT OK for a pro-Obama citizen to use Bush/Rove style rhetoric to demonstrate to an anti-Obama citizen how wrong and stupid such rhetoric is?
I'd explain more, but I'm late for my appointment with my death panel. Mr. Tuttle is scheduled to die this week, I am Mr. Buttle. Don't want to be late, or I could end up the late Mr. Buttle.
We're still at war. Obama is a War President. If you are not with him, then you are with the terrorists. Any treasonous acts against the president must be quashed at all costs to preserve our freedom and the Cunstitution.
If it was good for W., then it's good for O. If you're going to whine about it, why did you think it was OK to give the President this power? Did you always think that the President would be a guy you approved of?
Did I miss anything?
Sucks to be you guys. I'm 34, within 10 lbs of my ideal weight, and reasonably happy considering the state of the world I live in. I'm in ur statistics skewing ur averages:P
Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? What's my name, bitch! Say it!
After a ruling like this, congress should be proactive and fix the law. But they won't. Why? 'cause they could give two shits about making things right.
Because they can't do anything right.
Also, not to quibble, but if Congress did act now, it would be reactive, not proactive.
It seems to me that the judge applied the law correctly as it is written; however, the law is bad. It'd be nice if the law could be struck down in a court case, but that's only going to happen if the law violates the constitution, not simply because the law is stupid. Write your congressman, or run for congress yourself. This is why things like the (stupidly named) Pirate Party need to be supported.
If I drive an mains-rechargable electric/gas car for very short trips, such that I never actually burn gas, and always run off the battery, when I do finally take a long trip somewhere and the gasoline engine kicks on, I might find that the gas has gone bad and the engine won't run, and I'll be stranded.
This is probably not a very huge concern for most people, but I imagine that certain users might find it a problem -- the little old lady who only drives to church on Sundays, 2 blocks on a 25mph road, for example.
Apple can't dent the PC market the way Google can.
Apple's determined to sell OS X by selling Macintoshes. Microsoft doesn't sell personal computers at all, they sell operating systems, mostly to OEMs.
Macs only recently became x86, and in some sense they now compete more directly against Microsoft in the personal computer market. The competed only obliquely prior to that, delivering a completely different product on a completely different hardware architecture.
Chrome OS is not sold. It's not locked into non-x86 hardware only. These two factors enable Google to compete with Microsoft in a very different way.
If Apple wanted to go to war against Microsoft, they could do so by choosing to sell OS X for commodity non-Apple manufactured hardware, and not require it to be installed on Apple-branded hardware. They choose not to, and they end up with a small part of the market and apparently are quite happy with the amount of money they're making. Google doesn't care what hardware you run Chrome OS on, or who you buy it from. In fact, they want to give you Chrome OS for free.
Microsoft's only remaining advantages are their entrenched marketshare, backward compatibility with legacy Windows and DOS apps (which harms them with maintenance and security problems as well as helps them by locking in that entrenched marketshare), and the fact that they're bundled by default with over 90% of PC's shipped by hardware vendors. These are considerable advantages, but if I were Microsoft I'd be very scared right now as far as Windows is concerned.
It seems that if you install Windows 7 on the second hard drive, it will put it's system reserved boot partition on the first drive. This absolutely boggles my mind. Now I need both hard drives just to boot my system? I discovered this when Windows 7 fucked up my Chameleon installation. Then my Hackintosh wouldn't boot into OS X until I reinstalled Chameleon from the iAtkos disc. Then I had to unplug the OS X drive and reinstall Windows 7 so it would stick to it's own goddamned drive and leave the others alone.
Bad, BAD fucking move, Microsoft. Now Windows 7 can easily fuck up unrecognized partitions on other drives during installation. I really hope that gets fixed in the final version.
To Microsoft, breaking $OtherOS when Windows installs *is* fixing THEIR computer, which they kindly allow you to use.
If determinism is true, then judges and police have no control over their actions, either. So, there's no way to modify anyone's behaviors.
It may be a waste of a few hundred billion dollars, but if it never gets working properly, I'm not concerned. It won't be the end of the world if large hadrons never collide on this planet.
I know sports games are popular, but MMOs require a lot of time and devotion. If you care enough about a sport to play it with others online and devote months or years of your life playing it, why not pick up a ball a play the real thing outside, with friends?
Besides, no one said you couldn't do both. When I was a kid, the videogame sports I liked most were the games I actually played in real life. Baseball Stars FTW.