No, everyone is born an agnostic, not knowing anything at all about this crazy place other than that it's really bright and really cold, and that you have to breathe air instead of amniotic fluid...
Just read the summary so far, but I don't like the comment about having to make a causal or MMORPG game in order to make money. First, I think this is thinking inside the box; second, you have to realize that flooding the market with more and more MMORPGs is going to result in one or two big ones with lots of players, plus a hojillion small ones with not enough players to be fun.
Why the fuck is this flamebait? Because you can see the word "liberal"?
No, because of the immature ad hominem attacks. Next time try debating the points presented in the post being replied to without resorting to adversarial name-calling and maybe the mods will be more merciful.
It may be worth noting that very similar studies have produced the opposite conclusion.
If the same test performed twice shows opposing results, the only valid conclusion is that these tests were obviously not controlled enough to enable people to draw valid conclusions from their respective outcomes. Or, maybe the researchers are trying to find a connection between "games" and "violence" (as defined by the test) where there is none (or at least none perceivable by means of this test).
If they can't do a quick query to see who owns the most patents, is it so very odd that they can't do a simple search and find prior art for the patents they grant today?
Well, you see, I patented both of those ideas already and am refusing to let the patent office use them;)
Music, like everything else in a capitalist economy, can and probably will be sold for as much as the desired number of people are willing to pay for it. Logic dictates that maximum revenue will be generated at the point where number of buyeres multiplied by price is at its highest value. Furthermore, number of buyers is probably rougly inversely proportional to price, to a point (as there will only by a finite number of buyers interested in any given product in the first place, even if it's offered for free) Now, make up some numbers and you can come up with an easy algebra problem. I'm sure economists already have books on this type of stuff, but I didn't take any business classes in college so I wouldn't know.
Getting back to my original point, what's going on is that the value of music as a product has decreased now that the Internet can be used as a distribution medium in place of CDs. As a result, businesses are now fumbling about trying to find the sweet spot at which they can maximize their profits using this new distribution medium.
Also, to those who have brought up supply and demand: Supply effectively no longer exists with Internet distribution but demand still does, and demand should still be a valid factor in pricing.
Just because somebody has a cool idea and shares it doesn't mean if anybody implements that idea they can sue.
He can (and should) file suit if EA signed documents saying that they wouldn't use this idea without licensing it from him first. The article alludes to a confidentiality agreement/contract but isn't specific, so there's no way to know what the deal is that they had.
Does this mean that it's unconstitutional to ban the sale of Playboys to minors?
You're confused - let me set you straight: - Sex (including porn) is evil and should be kept from children at all cost. - Violence is okay (especially when protecting it as free speech gets politicians re-elected), except when hating violence gets politicians re-elected, in which case it is also evil. - Video games are potentially evil and parents and politicians should be suspicious of them.
Honestly, when I was a kid my Atari 2600 couldn't depict violence very well, so I just went outside and played violence-simulating games with my brother in the yard.
It's the same thing as guns: take them away and people will use baseball bats. Take those away and they'll use fists. You have to address the problem at it's source if you're worried about it (and I'm not, at least at the government legislation level) and not screw around with bandaid solutions like restricting the freedoms of responsible/mature parents, children, and game developers.
Let's deconstruct this: 1. Laden with customer-oriented marketing BS. What does AI have to do with customers? Shouldn't it be purely a research thing? 2. What is "True AI"? I thought it had more to do with learning than with interacting with humans based on some database. And I have no fscking idea what emotions have to do with AI.
I think they just came up with another silly chatbot that works harder to simulate emotion but has no AI beyond what the programmers have given it.
"True AI" in my opinion would be something autonomous that has learned how to interact with the real world on its own and can make complex decisions, assimilate complex ideas, discuss complex topics (with humans or other AIs) and show other signs of intelligence. A program spewing random phrases and then winking at you, all generated by data from a database, is not anything I'd write home about.
What annoys me is that after all this time, most stores STILL don't bother to shrink-wrap PC game boxes. Last year my brother bought me Half-Life 2 for Christmas and I had to take it back to my local GameStop because someone had already stolen the CD key and carefully replaced the plastic tape on the box flap. Now I have to inspect the tape very carefully before making any PC game purchases to ensure that it hasn't been tampered with.
No, I honestly don't think games are significantly worse than movies, but I think it's understandable that some people might think that way?
Well sure, but that doesn't mean that those people should be able to pass laws to restrict the choice of people like you and me. In fact, I think letting them do that would be pretty much in direct opposition to what the USA was supposed to stand for...
I know a lot of people say comments are unnecessary if you have nice self-documenting code. But personally I find nothing beats a short comment at the top of chunks of code to give a quick idea what it's doing (or supposed to do).
My thoughts exactly. I can't recall how many times I've looked at sparsely-commented code and ran away in terror (or at least scratching my head). In my opinion it's essential to comment your code at some level. Finding that level is the hard part: you have to step back from what you're doing and think about the thought process of someone looking at your code who is unfamiliar with it. This usually means a comment of appropriate length at the beginning of most chunks of code, with a few more specific comments along the way if you feel you're doing something obscure.
I feel fortunate to have a programming job in which a good portion of my code is peer-reviewed (and - perhaps more importantly - in which I also review others' code), as I feel that I've gained some valuable insight into how to better write and comment code.
I find it likely that the majority of those who believe that well-written code is always self-documenting probably haven't worked on a large project in which people bend a code framework around to do all sorts of crazy things, nor have they had to do a significant amount of review of others' code in such an environment.
What he meant is the HTTP server isn't configured to send torrents with application/x-bittorrent as the Content-Type. Instead, it sends them as a generic application/octet-stream or worse text/plain which Firefox doesn't know what to do with.
That's a poor excuse, since it can figure it out enough to show me Azureus as the suggested option in the Open With dropdown when it asks me every single time...
When you make Sid Meier's Civilization V, you should make it more realistic by allowing America to convert to a Police State over the course of a few years without suffering a period of anarchy.
Slashdot Mirror
A ho lot of them ;)
> How much would you pay for a company when its assets are hidden from view?
5 bucks and a bag of potato chips. Next question, please.
Sold!
That's a broad definition that can be used to apply a religion label in any number of absurd ways in addition to the one you provided:
Cause:
So fighting for, say, gay marriage is a religious war?
Principle:
Those who believe in following the editing guidelines for Wikipedia are religious fanatics?
System of Beliefs:
Anyone who believes in upholding the constitution of any particular country is practicing religion?
I didn't know President Bush ran Fox.
Yeah, I think it's part of the PATRIOT Act.
No, everyone is born an agnostic, not knowing anything at all about this crazy place other than that it's really bright and really cold, and that you have to breathe air instead of amniotic fluid...
Just read the summary so far, but I don't like the comment about having to make a causal or MMORPG game in order to make money. First, I think this is thinking inside the box; second, you have to realize that flooding the market with more and more MMORPGs is going to result in one or two big ones with lots of players, plus a hojillion small ones with not enough players to be fun.
Renew! Renew!
Why the fuck is this flamebait? Because you can see the word "liberal"?
No, because of the immature ad hominem attacks. Next time try debating the points presented in the post being replied to without resorting to adversarial name-calling and maybe the mods will be more merciful.
I'll have to add it to my list: http://yro.slashdot.org/~HunterZ/journal/119625
oops, i mean, FIRST POST ...damn... a little late now...
***HONNNNK!***
It may be worth noting that very similar studies have produced the opposite conclusion.
If the same test performed twice shows opposing results, the only valid conclusion is that these tests were obviously not controlled enough to enable people to draw valid conclusions from their respective outcomes. Or, maybe the researchers are trying to find a connection between "games" and "violence" (as defined by the test) where there is none (or at least none perceivable by means of this test).
If they can't do a quick query to see who owns the most patents, is it so very odd that they can't do a simple search and find prior art for the patents they grant today?
;)
Well, you see, I patented both of those ideas already and am refusing to let the patent office use them
Damn, and I thought the article was about my excellent karma along with a summary of my last 24 of 334 beautifully-written comments! :(
It's like pointing a gun at someone, they "could" not get shot, but is it worth the risk when you could just give them your watch and be done with it?
Funny thing is, it's illegal to point a gun at someone and threaten them into doing something...
Disclaimer: IANAE (I am not an economist)
Music, like everything else in a capitalist economy, can and probably will be sold for as much as the desired number of people are willing to pay for it. Logic dictates that maximum revenue will be generated at the point where number of buyeres multiplied by price is at its highest value. Furthermore, number of buyers is probably rougly inversely proportional to price, to a point (as there will only by a finite number of buyers interested in any given product in the first place, even if it's offered for free) Now, make up some numbers and you can come up with an easy algebra problem. I'm sure economists already have books on this type of stuff, but I didn't take any business classes in college so I wouldn't know.
Getting back to my original point, what's going on is that the value of music as a product has decreased now that the Internet can be used as a distribution medium in place of CDs. As a result, businesses are now fumbling about trying to find the sweet spot at which they can maximize their profits using this new distribution medium.
Also, to those who have brought up supply and demand: Supply effectively no longer exists with Internet distribution but demand still does, and demand should still be a valid factor in pricing.
Just because somebody has a cool idea and shares it doesn't mean if anybody implements that idea they can sue.
He can (and should) file suit if EA signed documents saying that they wouldn't use this idea without licensing it from him first. The article alludes to a confidentiality agreement/contract but isn't specific, so there's no way to know what the deal is that they had.
Does this mean that it's unconstitutional to ban the sale of Playboys to minors?
You're confused - let me set you straight:
- Sex (including porn) is evil and should be kept from children at all cost.
- Violence is okay (especially when protecting it as free speech gets politicians re-elected), except when hating violence gets politicians re-elected, in which case it is also evil.
- Video games are potentially evil and parents and politicians should be suspicious of them.
Honestly, when I was a kid my Atari 2600 couldn't depict violence very well, so I just went outside and played violence-simulating games with my brother in the yard.
It's the same thing as guns: take them away and people will use baseball bats. Take those away and they'll use fists. You have to address the problem at it's source if you're worried about it (and I'm not, at least at the government legislation level) and not screw around with bandaid solutions like restricting the freedoms of responsible/mature parents, children, and game developers.
Let's deconstruct this:
1. Laden with customer-oriented marketing BS. What does AI have to do with customers? Shouldn't it be purely a research thing?
2. What is "True AI"? I thought it had more to do with learning than with interacting with humans based on some database. And I have no fscking idea what emotions have to do with AI.
I think they just came up with another silly chatbot that works harder to simulate emotion but has no AI beyond what the programmers have given it.
"True AI" in my opinion would be something autonomous that has learned how to interact with the real world on its own and can make complex decisions, assimilate complex ideas, discuss complex topics (with humans or other AIs) and show other signs of intelligence. A program spewing random phrases and then winking at you, all generated by data from a database, is not anything I'd write home about.
What annoys me is that after all this time, most stores STILL don't bother to shrink-wrap PC game boxes. Last year my brother bought me Half-Life 2 for Christmas and I had to take it back to my local GameStop because someone had already stolen the CD key and carefully replaced the plastic tape on the box flap. Now I have to inspect the tape very carefully before making any PC game purchases to ensure that it hasn't been tampered with.
No, I honestly don't think games are significantly worse than movies, but I think it's understandable that some people might think that way?
Well sure, but that doesn't mean that those people should be able to pass laws to restrict the choice of people like you and me. In fact, I think letting them do that would be pretty much in direct opposition to what the USA was supposed to stand for...
Can you please make Politics the primary category for this article so that people will actually see it and comment on it?
I know a lot of people say comments are unnecessary if you have nice self-documenting code. But personally I find nothing beats a short comment at the top of chunks of code to give a quick idea what it's doing (or supposed to do).
My thoughts exactly. I can't recall how many times I've looked at sparsely-commented code and ran away in terror (or at least scratching my head). In my opinion it's essential to comment your code at some level. Finding that level is the hard part: you have to step back from what you're doing and think about the thought process of someone looking at your code who is unfamiliar with it. This usually means a comment of appropriate length at the beginning of most chunks of code, with a few more specific comments along the way if you feel you're doing something obscure.
I feel fortunate to have a programming job in which a good portion of my code is peer-reviewed (and - perhaps more importantly - in which I also review others' code), as I feel that I've gained some valuable insight into how to better write and comment code.
I find it likely that the majority of those who believe that well-written code is always self-documenting probably haven't worked on a large project in which people bend a code framework around to do all sorts of crazy things, nor have they had to do a significant amount of review of others' code in such an environment.
What he meant is the HTTP server isn't configured to send torrents with application/x-bittorrent as the Content-Type. Instead, it sends them as a generic application/octet-stream or worse text/plain which Firefox doesn't know what to do with.
That's a poor excuse, since it can figure it out enough to show me Azureus as the suggested option in the Open With dropdown when it asks me every single time...
For some reason I thought of Red Dwarf instead of Star Wars when I saw this article...
"Hand, pick up the ball!"
To Sid Meier:
When you make Sid Meier's Civilization V, you should make it more realistic by allowing America to convert to a Police State over the course of a few years without suffering a period of anarchy.
For those who don't play Civ IV: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/civics/