I did leave myself open to those obvious counter-points. The real problem is that I've heard them all before and agree with them. I also stand by my earlier comments. I think that's the greatest failing in the system; that it's likely impossible to find a system that actually solves the problems of one without introducing a whole host of problems that are equally shatty...
Then try to explain to a die-hard science type that religion/God can account for a lot of the things that science can't currently account for. You'll soon be hated by both sides.
Don't try and paint scientists with the same brush as the religious "zealotry"... Scientists all over the world spend their lives being open minded and accepting* of competing theories it's what they get fucking paid to do.
* - I use the term loosely... every group has their borderline-psychotics... I've seen scientists nearly get in fist fights over theories... Die-hards are die-hards, but it seems that there are more die-hard religious zealots than die-hard anti-religous scientists. After all, "at least 4 out of 10" is no small number, especially in a group that's being pegged as being anti-religious by definition.
I'll preface my comments by saying that I'm Canadian, so I couldn't really care less about R vs. D horse-shite.
However, the choice of political candidates has always seemed, to me at least, something that should be about political ideas and ideals. I've seen it happen where people (especially in Northern Ontario, where I'm originally from) would vote for the Conservative member (right wingers... leftists compared to US right wingers, but I digress) when all of their beliefs were espoused by the platforms of the Liberal party (our leftists... probably close to some sort of mix between pot-heads and communists compared to your right wingers)... the reason for this obvious clash?
The conservative member was from the community and the Liberal member was some fuckstick from Toronto who wasn't even sure where his constituency was....
It's garbage like that that makes me want to take a closer look at a system where voters vote for the party and not the individual
God knows there's probably huge issues involved in those systems as well though.... just goes to show you, as a voter, you're fucked.... BOHICA indeed....
Excellent! I can almost guarantee that when this happens, that when DRM gets to be such a pain in the ass that regular people are bitching about it, a simple phrase uttered in earshot will move mountains:
"You know... Linux doesn't have any of this DRM shit infecting it"
... could be a whole new lease on life for that OS
The decision is purely one of economics. In general, Lawyers make more than AI researchers.
There's also the fairly commonly held belief that the most surefire way to destroy your interest in a subject is to attempt to make a living off of it.
Though in part you may very well be correct. My track-record in academia hasn't been all that stellar because I cannot memorize worth a damn... and many undergrad courses rely heavily on your ability to remember 40 formulas and then use them. I was always quite good at the latter, but horrible at the former. I've sat through exams in first and second year, deriving formulas that I couldn't remember....
I have friends who did very well in most classes because they were smart enough to be able to make slight adaptations to what they remembered, but were able to remember large quantities of information from a course. I, on the other hand, could not memorize very well, but generally have a very strong insight into how things work. I find that I'm much better at deconstructing a system than my peers... mostly because if I don't, I'm fucked. Whereas most of them only need to partially understand how a system works, because they've memorized the rest.
I've really only just started my M.Sc. (I've finished a year part-time and am starting to home in on my thesis topic) but I understand where the authors of the papers I'm reading are coming up with their formulas from... as opposed to simply being able to understand what the formula is doing. I'm not sure if that makes me more suited to academia, or less suited.
I guess to make the example a little more concrete, I find that with some of the papers that I'm reading, I don't really understand the math at first (or even second) glance. But if I follow the authors' reasoning, and attempt to solve the problem myself, I end up coming up with similar formulas.... and then it suddenly makes much more sense. So my theoretical background works differently than most theoreticians'.... better or worse? who knows? But when I'm in a groove, I can think in C, so we'll see how it all works out.
Think of any technological advancement as being analagous to peeling through the layers of an onion. The really useful/ubiquitous advancement doesn't occur until after you've gotten through all the layers. Piercing one of the layers, however, is worthy of being called a breakthrough. I would posit that the term shouldn't be used if someone else has already determined how to pierce the layer in question. After all, Quantum Mechanics was not invented and refined with the explicit goal of creating lasers and semiconductor-based computers... but here we are...
Another example would be Galois Fields. They were a breakthrough in their time (over a hundred years ago), but never really had any use until recently. (Not that AES is the only use for GFs, but you get the tech reference....)
Basically, what laymen consider a "breakthrough" is a result of tens, hundreds or thousands of smaller highly-localized "breakthroughs" combined. To say that the creation of Quantum Mechanics or Galois Fields were not breakthroughs, but that the physical consumer products created as a result of those innovations are, is basically an insult to the scientists who perform those innovations.
Not that the term isn't overused and that many of the people using it aren't basically peddling snake oil though...
You see, a transparent government is the key to a successful democracy. Someone realized that they need to do everything in their power to make the government at least appear to be transparent or they wouldn't be able to keep the proles down.
After re-reading this comment, I have to say that it was intended to be a joke... but it appears to go beyond the "funny cuz it's true" realm and into the "yer not funny anymore" realm.../sigh
Like another slashdotter wrote a few weeks ago: "I'm in it for the money, if you want loyalty, hire a dog"
If I didn't have to make money in order to survive or own nice things (such as a car... even a shitty one) then I would happily stay in academia the rest of my life... but even then I'd only be here about 10% of the time. The rest of the time I'd be out snowboarding, camping, or swimming.
Why do you work? Some sense of loyalty to the company? I'm sure the gold watch that some Enron retirees got gives them comfort in knowing that they're not whores (by your definition)... too bad their 401(k)s are fucked away by corporate greed....
Ah... the short squeeze might make sense then; too many people upset that the stock isn't crashing hard enough, fast enough, so they get out and it looks like people are buying.... ?
it was a "lol theory" and I tried to make that clear; along with the fact that I'm not a stock market expert (or even a neophyte... I'm somewhere below that)
That being said: Why haven't you been able to short SCOX for years? And I thought that if you were shorting the stock, you weren't actually trying to sell your stock, so if everyone who could tried to short the stock, the market shouldn't react as if they all were trying to sell. But shorting a stock is a bit arcane to me, so I don't think that absolutely everyone could short a stock if they wanted to, but I'm not sure where that upper bound lies, or how the market reacts (if at all) when you approach that upper bound.
It is possible that I simply misinterpreted "painted-up"...
Actually, there's an incredibly strong correlation between murder and ice cream sales.... that must mean that murderers buy ice cream in bulk right? Like you pointed out, the GP obviously doesn't understand that correlation does not equal causation... just because two occurrences are strongly positively correlated doesn't mean they actually have anything at all to do with each other. In the case of the example given, the link is hot weather.
lol... "predictably painted up"... the share prices are getting "painted up" from having everyone and their dog trying to short this fucker. I wonder, can someone who knows more than I tell me how the stock market would react when the majority of the "stockholders" of a particular stock are all trying to short it?
Amen brotha... why do you think I'm finishing my Comp Sci Masters and then going straight into law school? Here's a hint... it's not cuz I don't like AI research....
Move your mouse; the thing you control follows your mouse cursor (as long as it's in the flash window that is). The left button makes it go faster. You just move it around and eat stuff. The red guys (shown by a red circle 'ping' when they're off the map) make you go down a level, the blue guys make you go up a level.
That'll teach me to not put a disclaimer in there, since I wasn't defending WoW... just saying that you can't really draw an accurate comparison between the two...
I won't try to convince you that you'd need even a fifth of that for server maintenance and salaries... but it'd at least be a few million (a conservative guess for, say, 20 people at 50k/year = 1 mil, and they've probably got ten times that in the "division" or w/e the hell their cell is for WoW, most of whom probably make more than 50k/year)... compared to the $0 in upkeep GT HD will cost
Now, if this was about additional content then the micropayments would be fine... except it's not. As some other posters have mentioned (and it was even mentioned in TFA) this is for what would otherwise be standard content. That's where it suddenly becomes a load of horse shit.
I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd really like to see some sources on that
I mean, Sony took a LOT of Flak from that root kit bullshit. Had they provided the rootkit unwittingly (as you claim), I would like to think that the screw-up would have received as much coverage as the rootkit itself. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this was, indeed, known to be the case, and just wasn't widely reported (which is why I'm not calling you a liar)... but I'd really like to see sources.
Calm down people, it's just a stupid (console) game.
... I didn't know you worked for Sony Mobby?
Not trying to dig at you too hard dude, but another poster hit the nail on the head: The attitude you showed in your first sentence appears to be absolutely rampant at Sony atm.
An MMORPG should not be expected to use the same economic model as a stand-alone console game. The $150/year is paying salaries and maintenance costs. Once Sony kicks GT HD out the door, they're done... unless they decide to throw a team together for more content. But they certainly aren't trying to maintain servers supporting 7 million clients.
Slashdot Mirror
I did leave myself open to those obvious counter-points. The real problem is that I've heard them all before and agree with them. I also stand by my earlier comments. I think that's the greatest failing in the system; that it's likely impossible to find a system that actually solves the problems of one without introducing a whole host of problems that are equally shatty...
A mathematical proof demonstrating that all analogies are flawed is probably more useful... and more likely to happen ;-)
... fucking extremists... we should kill 'em all ;-)
Evolution has no explanation for the arising of life out of nonliving matter.
What in the name of sweet baby Jesus are you on about son?
yes, especially when those goals have time limitations imposed on them... like "3rd quarter" or some such nonsense.
bzzzt!! Thanks for coming out though.
Don't try and paint scientists with the same brush as the religious "zealotry" ... Scientists all over the world spend their lives being open minded and accepting* of competing theories it's what they get fucking paid to do.
* - I use the term loosely... every group has their borderline-psychotics... I've seen scientists nearly get in fist fights over theories... Die-hards are die-hards, but it seems that there are more die-hard religious zealots than die-hard anti-religous scientists. After all, "at least 4 out of 10" is no small number, especially in a group that's being pegged as being anti-religious by definition.
I'll preface my comments by saying that I'm Canadian, so I couldn't really care less about R vs. D horse-shite.
However, the choice of political candidates has always seemed, to me at least, something that should be about political ideas and ideals. I've seen it happen where people (especially in Northern Ontario, where I'm originally from) would vote for the Conservative member (right wingers... leftists compared to US right wingers, but I digress) when all of their beliefs were espoused by the platforms of the Liberal party (our leftists... probably close to some sort of mix between pot-heads and communists compared to your right wingers) ... the reason for this obvious clash?
The conservative member was from the community and the Liberal member was some fuckstick from Toronto who wasn't even sure where his constituency was....
It's garbage like that that makes me want to take a closer look at a system where voters vote for the party and not the individual
God knows there's probably huge issues involved in those systems as well though.... just goes to show you, as a voter, you're fucked.... BOHICA indeed....
This is not far off - 2-3 years at most.
Excellent! I can almost guarantee that when this happens, that when DRM gets to be such a pain in the ass that regular people are bitching about it, a simple phrase uttered in earshot will move mountains:
"You know... Linux doesn't have any of this DRM shit infecting it"
... could be a whole new lease on life for that OS
lol, not exactly.
The decision is purely one of economics. In general, Lawyers make more than AI researchers.
There's also the fairly commonly held belief that the most surefire way to destroy your interest in a subject is to attempt to make a living off of it.
Though in part you may very well be correct. My track-record in academia hasn't been all that stellar because I cannot memorize worth a damn... and many undergrad courses rely heavily on your ability to remember 40 formulas and then use them. I was always quite good at the latter, but horrible at the former. I've sat through exams in first and second year, deriving formulas that I couldn't remember....
I have friends who did very well in most classes because they were smart enough to be able to make slight adaptations to what they remembered, but were able to remember large quantities of information from a course. I, on the other hand, could not memorize very well, but generally have a very strong insight into how things work. I find that I'm much better at deconstructing a system than my peers... mostly because if I don't, I'm fucked. Whereas most of them only need to partially understand how a system works, because they've memorized the rest.
I've really only just started my M.Sc. (I've finished a year part-time and am starting to home in on my thesis topic) but I understand where the authors of the papers I'm reading are coming up with their formulas from... as opposed to simply being able to understand what the formula is doing. I'm not sure if that makes me more suited to academia, or less suited.
I guess to make the example a little more concrete, I find that with some of the papers that I'm reading, I don't really understand the math at first (or even second) glance. But if I follow the authors' reasoning, and attempt to solve the problem myself, I end up coming up with similar formulas.... and then it suddenly makes much more sense. So my theoretical background works differently than most theoreticians'.... better or worse? who knows? But when I'm in a groove, I can think in C, so we'll see how it all works out.
Think of any technological advancement as being analagous to peeling through the layers of an onion. The really useful/ubiquitous advancement doesn't occur until after you've gotten through all the layers. Piercing one of the layers, however, is worthy of being called a breakthrough. I would posit that the term shouldn't be used if someone else has already determined how to pierce the layer in question. After all, Quantum Mechanics was not invented and refined with the explicit goal of creating lasers and semiconductor-based computers... but here we are...
Another example would be Galois Fields. They were a breakthrough in their time (over a hundred years ago), but never really had any use until recently. (Not that AES is the only use for GFs, but you get the tech reference....)
Basically, what laymen consider a "breakthrough" is a result of tens, hundreds or thousands of smaller highly-localized "breakthroughs" combined. To say that the creation of Quantum Mechanics or Galois Fields were not breakthroughs, but that the physical consumer products created as a result of those innovations are, is basically an insult to the scientists who perform those innovations.
Not that the term isn't overused and that many of the people using it aren't basically peddling snake oil though...
no, just government information.
You see, a transparent government is the key to a successful democracy. Someone realized that they need to do everything in their power to make the government at least appear to be transparent or they wouldn't be able to keep the proles down.
After re-reading this comment, I have to say that it was intended to be a joke... but it appears to go beyond the "funny cuz it's true" realm and into the "yer not funny anymore" realm... /sigh
ZOMG!!!111oneoneone THEY'VE ALREADY LOST 6000!!!111oneoneone
sorry... I had to :-)
You sir, are a perfect example of why I wish I could post & mod in the same story. You'd get the insightful mod from me. Thank you.
Like another slashdotter wrote a few weeks ago: "I'm in it for the money, if you want loyalty, hire a dog"
If I didn't have to make money in order to survive or own nice things (such as a car... even a shitty one) then I would happily stay in academia the rest of my life... but even then I'd only be here about 10% of the time. The rest of the time I'd be out snowboarding, camping, or swimming.
Why do you work? Some sense of loyalty to the company? I'm sure the gold watch that some Enron retirees got gives them comfort in knowing that they're not whores (by your definition)... too bad their 401(k)s are fucked away by corporate greed....
Ah... the short squeeze might make sense then; too many people upset that the stock isn't crashing hard enough, fast enough, so they get out and it looks like people are buying.... ?
it was a "lol theory" and I tried to make that clear; along with the fact that I'm not a stock market expert (or even a neophyte... I'm somewhere below that)
That being said: Why haven't you been able to short SCOX for years? And I thought that if you were shorting the stock, you weren't actually trying to sell your stock, so if everyone who could tried to short the stock, the market shouldn't react as if they all were trying to sell. But shorting a stock is a bit arcane to me, so I don't think that absolutely everyone could short a stock if they wanted to, but I'm not sure where that upper bound lies, or how the market reacts (if at all) when you approach that upper bound.
It is possible that I simply misinterpreted "painted-up" ...
Actually, there's an incredibly strong correlation between murder and ice cream sales.... that must mean that murderers buy ice cream in bulk right? Like you pointed out, the GP obviously doesn't understand that correlation does not equal causation... just because two occurrences are strongly positively correlated doesn't mean they actually have anything at all to do with each other. In the case of the example given, the link is hot weather.
lol... "predictably painted up" ... the share prices are getting "painted up" from having everyone and their dog trying to short this fucker. I wonder, can someone who knows more than I tell me how the stock market would react when the majority of the "stockholders" of a particular stock are all trying to short it?
Amen brotha... why do you think I'm finishing my Comp Sci Masters and then going straight into law school? Here's a hint... it's not cuz I don't like AI research....
Move your mouse; the thing you control follows your mouse cursor (as long as it's in the flash window that is). The left button makes it go faster. You just move it around and eat stuff. The red guys (shown by a red circle 'ping' when they're off the map) make you go down a level, the blue guys make you go up a level.
That'll teach me to not put a disclaimer in there, since I wasn't defending WoW... just saying that you can't really draw an accurate comparison between the two...
I won't try to convince you that you'd need even a fifth of that for server maintenance and salaries... but it'd at least be a few million (a conservative guess for, say, 20 people at 50k/year = 1 mil, and they've probably got ten times that in the "division" or w/e the hell their cell is for WoW, most of whom probably make more than 50k/year)... compared to the $0 in upkeep GT HD will cost
Now, if this was about additional content then the micropayments would be fine... except it's not. As some other posters have mentioned (and it was even mentioned in TFA) this is for what would otherwise be standard content. That's where it suddenly becomes a load of horse shit.
I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd really like to see some sources on that
I mean, Sony took a LOT of Flak from that root kit bullshit. Had they provided the rootkit unwittingly (as you claim), I would like to think that the screw-up would have received as much coverage as the rootkit itself. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this was, indeed, known to be the case, and just wasn't widely reported (which is why I'm not calling you a liar)... but I'd really like to see sources.
Calm down people, it's just a stupid (console) game.
... I didn't know you worked for Sony Mobby?
Not trying to dig at you too hard dude, but another poster hit the nail on the head: The attitude you showed in your first sentence appears to be absolutely rampant at Sony atm.
Shame too... I used to like their stuff
An MMORPG should not be expected to use the same economic model as a stand-alone console game. The $150/year is paying salaries and maintenance costs. Once Sony kicks GT HD out the door, they're done... unless they decide to throw a team together for more content. But they certainly aren't trying to maintain servers supporting 7 million clients.
SONY: You're a big stupid idiot.
The DRM rootkit wasn't proof enough for you?