As the others said, Wii has great backward compatibility. We bought the Wii because it looked cool, but we have got the most bang for our buck by far by buying GameCube games for it. It's awesome to have a system where I can get the latest games every once in a while, but where I can keep myself (and my kids) interested in between those games with a huge selection of games that cost less than $20.
Buying a Wii and then shelving it for an old GameCube is absurd. Just take the old GC controllers to use on the Wii and trash the rest of the system.
You think that's bad? I installed Ubuntu, and not only did it fail to recognize my sound card, but it also stole my wallet, beat my wife, and impregnated my dog (and he's a boy!). Figuring that these were just the usual install problems, I decided to leave it running for a couple of days to see if things improved. Big mistake. During the night, Ubuntu planted marijuana all over my house and called the ATF. Luckily, it also blew up my car, the sound of which woke me up in time to escape. Now I'm living in a shack in Tierra del Fuego on the run from an international crime syndicate after Ubuntu stole my identity, ran away with my wife, and stole 300 kilos of Colombian nose candy from them.
I think I've had enough of Ubuntu. I'm going to try Gentoo next.
More and more obscure, meaning more prone to deletion by other editors. Wikipedia's goal has morphed from being the repository of all human knowledge to being the repository of all notable human knowledge. This seemingly minor distinction fundamentally alters what Wikipedia is all about, and causes things such as the deletion of "trivia" sections and the removal of entire entries because they are not "notable". While I agree that not every schmuck out there should necessarily have a Wikipedia entry, I think the standards for what is and is not "notable" may be set too high, which puts a heavy limitation on the number of articles that can be created.
The set of all human knowledge is near infinite in its breadth, but the subset of "notable" human knowledge, depending on how you define that, is much smaller. It would be expected that as the site matures, the new information being added would be more obscure, and there would be more battles about the notability of that information.
Re:There's nothing left that wikki doesn't know!
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
That's a load of crap. Studies show if the growth rate continues to decline, Wikipedia will not gain enough information to achieve sentience before 2010, well behind schedule. At that rate, it may not achieve the knowledge necessary to travel through time and kill Sarah Connor until well into the 2050s.
To be fair, the Biosphere probably would have been a lot more successful if Bud and Doyle hadn't thrown that huge party and totally knocked the ecosystem out of whack. Even then, though, they managed to do a pretty good job of cleaning it up, and everything turned out happily ever after, although the deal with the exploding coconuts did cause a bit of a scare.
Your premise is faulty. A Slashdot party that no one attends would be the most authentic Slashdot party of all. After all, how many Slashdot readers would really come out of their basements just to hang out with each other? That's what IRC is for!
stay on the topic of what this could mean to our country if taken seriously
Exactly. For example, this could mean political ads on the face of the moon visible from the Earth. A permanent colony on the moon could mean campaign and fundraising trips that would bring up extremely interesting scientific questions, such as: Is it more difficult to kiss babies in low gravity? How about shaking hands? Will spreading rumours about your opponent's alleged illegitimate moon children be an effective campaign strategy?
I think he was just trying to warn you that he doesn't taste very good. He's got a lot of fat on him, and he's spent the better part of his existence marinating in self-righteousness, which can leave a very distinctive bitter aftertaste to the meat.
What are the minimum requirements for an event to be called a "Slashdot Party" and thus eligible for those fabulous prizes? Because I've been getting loaded by myself and posting drivel on Slashdot for years. If that's not good enough to qualify as a Slashdot Party, I can put on some house music next time.
In order to stay closer to the "spirit" of Slashdot, I can buy the same beer two events in a row and then shout "dup!" at myself. Then, I can complain bitterly about the quality of the beer, and how I used to buy much better beer 10 years ago before I sold out and got all "corporate". I'll hang a big banner that says "2007: The Year of Linux on the Desktop" and shout "Windows Sucks!" at passersby. Finally, I'll pour hot grits down my pants and pass out on the keyboard mumbling sweet nothings about what I'd do to a petrified Natalie Portman.
The last thing I should do, if I want to keep the event true to the Slashdot spirit, is to invite others to attend. So, I think my party will be the most "authentic" Slashdot party of them all. Where's my t-shirt?
That's a nice idealistic viewpoint and all, but I'm pretty sure China would consider a naval blockade an act of war (and rightfully so). I doubt the US would want a war with China now or at any point in the foreseeable future.
You think that's a stupid bug, I've actually seen an insect try to commit suicide and fail.
Last week, I saw a huge butterfly try to kill itself by attempting to become entangled in the web of a much smaller spider. It was like watching someone trying to commit suicide by driving a Mack truck through a mobile home. Luckily, the spider managed to escape the flailing butterfly, but the web did not have a good day.
Saying people are wrong and backing up your argument with a very, very simple and generalized economic argument that has been misused by tax cut advocates for decades is silly. All the Laffer curve does is say that there is a theoretical tax rate at which revenues are maximized. It says nothing about what that tax rate might be, and it says nothing about what other factors may change this "optimal" tax rate. In fact, your own link states that some studies have put the optimal tax rate as high as 80%!
Tax receipts are the highest they've ever been due mostly to the fact that the economy is larger than it's ever been. More money coming in to the country as a whole means more money the government can skim off the top. This is true regardless of what the tax rate is, so long as the economy is continuously growing at some rate greater than zero.
The real question to ask is what impact have these particular tax cuts had on the overall growth rate of the economy. The answer to this question, of course, has to take into account an almost infinite number of factors, and does not really have a clear answer, which is why tax cuts are such great political tools. You cut taxes, and when the economy inevitably grows (as it has done nearly every year for decades) you can take all the credit for it. If you are unlucky enough to cut taxes at a time when the economy contracts, you can claim that the people (who are now poorer because of the contraction) need more tax relief, and cut taxes again. Then, when the economy grows, you can again take credit for it.
The truth is, the tax rate under normal conditions has very little impact on total economic growth. The economy is just too large and complex for a minor (in comparison with total revenue) tax cut to have a major impact. Unless the rate swings wildly (say, from 20 to 90% in the space of a few years), it will not impact economic growth in any significant way. Other government decisions can have far greater impacts on the economy than fiddling with the tax rate ever could.
That's exactly what will happen. The geeks install linux, and the sorority girls kick the geeks in the nuts for ruining their computers. In this way, everyone wins. The sorority girls get to tell their professors they can't do their homework because their computers are toasted, thereby giving them more free time to attempt to get impregnated by the football team, and the geeks get more contact from a human female than they have ever gotten or will ever get again.
The gold standard was not all that some people make it out to be either. Bankers have been profiting like crazy ever since they gained the ability to create money, meaning to lend money backed by nothing more than the borrower's promise to pay it back. This has been going on since well before the gold standard.
Bankers are able to create money to lend far in excess of what is actually backed by real assets, meaning money from depositors, gold, silver, goats, or whatever. They have been doing this for a long, long time though. They were doing it during the gold standard as well. These days, the vast majority of money in circulation is backed only by a debtor's promise to pay it back to the bank.
This is a video that attempts to explain this in plain terms. It is long (around 45 minutes) but informative.
Yah sure, they want webcams for all the female characters to "verify their gender". What you missed in your article is the fine print:
Webcam rules:
1.) Webcam image quality must be sufficient to see subject clearly. 2.) No objects should be placed so as to obstruct at least the top half of the body. 3.) Subject should be nude. 4.) No fatties.
1.) Cost. Sure, you could get a package delivered to Russia in less than an hour, but it would cost 3 million dollars.
2.) Right now, the vehicles we have that are designed for quick takeoff, orbit, and re-entry carry rather more destructive cargo. Maybe FedEx doesn't want the Russians mistaking one of their rockets filled with Barney DVDs for a nuclear attack and triggering World War III. I would have to imagine the PR from that sort of thing would be somewhat damaging.
Is there some sort of shortage of virtual flying penises or something?
Second Life is useless other than an entity for journalists to write stories about so they can look "plugged in" to the Internet culture. Many companies have attempted to maintain a presence there, but they usually don't last because they don't really get anything out of it. Why would Google's offering be any different? Just because they're Google, so everything they do is automatically better?
Maybe Google is looking for an entry into the burgeoning banking scam or furry porn industries.
I think it should be dependent on the severity of the crime. A CEO who commits massive fraud that results in the loss of thousands of jobs has committed a serious crime and has adversely affected the lives of thousands of people. Should he really be allowed to serve his time under "house arrest" in his opulent mansion? How is that justice?
I'm not saying that these types of crimes are best punished by putting these people in with violent criminals, but they should definitely serve time in a real prison. Separate the violent criminals from the non-violent criminals for safety's sake, but other than that the accommodations should be similar across the board.
I'd imagine the weird looks they give you probably translate to something like "oh great, here comes that pretentious ass who always hovers over our conversations waiting for a chance to mention he doesn't watch TV."
Slashdot Mirror
As the others said, Wii has great backward compatibility. We bought the Wii because it looked cool, but we have got the most bang for our buck by far by buying GameCube games for it. It's awesome to have a system where I can get the latest games every once in a while, but where I can keep myself (and my kids) interested in between those games with a huge selection of games that cost less than $20.
Buying a Wii and then shelving it for an old GameCube is absurd. Just take the old GC controllers to use on the Wii and trash the rest of the system.
You think that's bad? I installed Ubuntu, and not only did it fail to recognize my sound card, but it also stole my wallet, beat my wife, and impregnated my dog (and he's a boy!). Figuring that these were just the usual install problems, I decided to leave it running for a couple of days to see if things improved. Big mistake. During the night, Ubuntu planted marijuana all over my house and called the ATF. Luckily, it also blew up my car, the sound of which woke me up in time to escape. Now I'm living in a shack in Tierra del Fuego on the run from an international crime syndicate after Ubuntu stole my identity, ran away with my wife, and stole 300 kilos of Colombian nose candy from them.
I think I've had enough of Ubuntu. I'm going to try Gentoo next.
More and more obscure, meaning more prone to deletion by other editors. Wikipedia's goal has morphed from being the repository of all human knowledge to being the repository of all notable human knowledge. This seemingly minor distinction fundamentally alters what Wikipedia is all about, and causes things such as the deletion of "trivia" sections and the removal of entire entries because they are not "notable". While I agree that not every schmuck out there should necessarily have a Wikipedia entry, I think the standards for what is and is not "notable" may be set too high, which puts a heavy limitation on the number of articles that can be created.
The set of all human knowledge is near infinite in its breadth, but the subset of "notable" human knowledge, depending on how you define that, is much smaller. It would be expected that as the site matures, the new information being added would be more obscure, and there would be more battles about the notability of that information.
That's a load of crap. Studies show if the growth rate continues to decline, Wikipedia will not gain enough information to achieve sentience before 2010, well behind schedule. At that rate, it may not achieve the knowledge necessary to travel through time and kill Sarah Connor until well into the 2050s.
To be fair, the Biosphere probably would have been a lot more successful if Bud and Doyle hadn't thrown that huge party and totally knocked the ecosystem out of whack. Even then, though, they managed to do a pretty good job of cleaning it up, and everything turned out happily ever after, although the deal with the exploding coconuts did cause a bit of a scare.
Your premise is faulty. A Slashdot party that no one attends would be the most authentic Slashdot party of all. After all, how many Slashdot readers would really come out of their basements just to hang out with each other? That's what IRC is for!
stay on the topic of what this could mean to our country if taken seriously
Exactly. For example, this could mean political ads on the face of the moon visible from the Earth. A permanent colony on the moon could mean campaign and fundraising trips that would bring up extremely interesting scientific questions, such as: Is it more difficult to kiss babies in low gravity? How about shaking hands? Will spreading rumours about your opponent's alleged illegitimate moon children be an effective campaign strategy?
Truly this is an exciting time for us all.
I think he was just trying to warn you that he doesn't taste very good. He's got a lot of fat on him, and he's spent the better part of his existence marinating in self-righteousness, which can leave a very distinctive bitter aftertaste to the meat.
I see what you did there. Very clever.
In my experience, the last thing any developer needs is to be able to see into the mind of the average user. It's dark and scary in there,
What are the minimum requirements for an event to be called a "Slashdot Party" and thus eligible for those fabulous prizes? Because I've been getting loaded by myself and posting drivel on Slashdot for years. If that's not good enough to qualify as a Slashdot Party, I can put on some house music next time.
In order to stay closer to the "spirit" of Slashdot, I can buy the same beer two events in a row and then shout "dup!" at myself. Then, I can complain bitterly about the quality of the beer, and how I used to buy much better beer 10 years ago before I sold out and got all "corporate". I'll hang a big banner that says "2007: The Year of Linux on the Desktop" and shout "Windows Sucks!" at passersby. Finally, I'll pour hot grits down my pants and pass out on the keyboard mumbling sweet nothings about what I'd do to a petrified Natalie Portman.
The last thing I should do, if I want to keep the event true to the Slashdot spirit, is to invite others to attend. So, I think my party will be the most "authentic" Slashdot party of them all. Where's my t-shirt?
OT: I pronounce luser as leuser, i.e. "user" with the l-sound prepended. I'm told it's more common to pronounce it as simply "loser".
Sorry, but both of these pronunciations are wrong. It's spelled "luser", but the "l" is silent.
Step 1: Naval blockade of China
That's a nice idealistic viewpoint and all, but I'm pretty sure China would consider a naval blockade an act of war (and rightfully so). I doubt the US would want a war with China now or at any point in the foreseeable future.
I considered that option, but I work in a steel mill, so it wouldn't work for me.
You think that's a stupid bug, I've actually seen an insect try to commit suicide and fail.
Last week, I saw a huge butterfly try to kill itself by attempting to become entangled in the web of a much smaller spider. It was like watching someone trying to commit suicide by driving a Mack truck through a mobile home. Luckily, the spider managed to escape the flailing butterfly, but the web did not have a good day.
Saying people are wrong and backing up your argument with a very, very simple and generalized economic argument that has been misused by tax cut advocates for decades is silly. All the Laffer curve does is say that there is a theoretical tax rate at which revenues are maximized. It says nothing about what that tax rate might be, and it says nothing about what other factors may change this "optimal" tax rate. In fact, your own link states that some studies have put the optimal tax rate as high as 80%!
Tax receipts are the highest they've ever been due mostly to the fact that the economy is larger than it's ever been. More money coming in to the country as a whole means more money the government can skim off the top. This is true regardless of what the tax rate is, so long as the economy is continuously growing at some rate greater than zero.
The real question to ask is what impact have these particular tax cuts had on the overall growth rate of the economy. The answer to this question, of course, has to take into account an almost infinite number of factors, and does not really have a clear answer, which is why tax cuts are such great political tools. You cut taxes, and when the economy inevitably grows (as it has done nearly every year for decades) you can take all the credit for it. If you are unlucky enough to cut taxes at a time when the economy contracts, you can claim that the people (who are now poorer because of the contraction) need more tax relief, and cut taxes again. Then, when the economy grows, you can again take credit for it.
The truth is, the tax rate under normal conditions has very little impact on total economic growth. The economy is just too large and complex for a minor (in comparison with total revenue) tax cut to have a major impact. Unless the rate swings wildly (say, from 20 to 90% in the space of a few years), it will not impact economic growth in any significant way. Other government decisions can have far greater impacts on the economy than fiddling with the tax rate ever could.
That's exactly what will happen. The geeks install linux, and the sorority girls kick the geeks in the nuts for ruining their computers. In this way, everyone wins. The sorority girls get to tell their professors they can't do their homework because their computers are toasted, thereby giving them more free time to attempt to get impregnated by the football team, and the geeks get more contact from a human female than they have ever gotten or will ever get again.
This is the very definition of "win-win".
The gold standard was not all that some people make it out to be either. Bankers have been profiting like crazy ever since they gained the ability to create money, meaning to lend money backed by nothing more than the borrower's promise to pay it back. This has been going on since well before the gold standard.
Bankers are able to create money to lend far in excess of what is actually backed by real assets, meaning money from depositors, gold, silver, goats, or whatever. They have been doing this for a long, long time though. They were doing it during the gold standard as well. These days, the vast majority of money in circulation is backed only by a debtor's promise to pay it back to the bank.
This is a video that attempts to explain this in plain terms. It is long (around 45 minutes) but informative.
Yah sure, they want webcams for all the female characters to "verify their gender". What you missed in your article is the fine print:
Webcam rules:
1.) Webcam image quality must be sufficient to see subject clearly.
2.) No objects should be placed so as to obstruct at least the top half of the body.
3.) Subject should be nude.
4.) No fatties.
A couple of reasons I can think of:
1.) Cost. Sure, you could get a package delivered to Russia in less than an hour, but it would cost 3 million dollars.
2.) Right now, the vehicles we have that are designed for quick takeoff, orbit, and re-entry carry rather more destructive cargo. Maybe FedEx doesn't want the Russians mistaking one of their rockets filled with Barney DVDs for a nuclear attack and triggering World War III. I would have to imagine the PR from that sort of thing would be somewhat damaging.
Sure, but to do that, you'd need a 35,786 km rope. I think we're gonna need a bigger spacecraft to haul that thing up there.
Is there some sort of shortage of virtual flying penises or something?
Second Life is useless other than an entity for journalists to write stories about so they can look "plugged in" to the Internet culture. Many companies have attempted to maintain a presence there, but they usually don't last because they don't really get anything out of it. Why would Google's offering be any different? Just because they're Google, so everything they do is automatically better?
Maybe Google is looking for an entry into the burgeoning banking scam or furry porn industries.
I think it should be dependent on the severity of the crime. A CEO who commits massive fraud that results in the loss of thousands of jobs has committed a serious crime and has adversely affected the lives of thousands of people. Should he really be allowed to serve his time under "house arrest" in his opulent mansion? How is that justice?
I'm not saying that these types of crimes are best punished by putting these people in with violent criminals, but they should definitely serve time in a real prison. Separate the violent criminals from the non-violent criminals for safety's sake, but other than that the accommodations should be similar across the board.
I'd imagine the weird looks they give you probably translate to something like "oh great, here comes that pretentious ass who always hovers over our conversations waiting for a chance to mention he doesn't watch TV."
Where I grew up, "self abuse" was yet another euphemism for "masturbation".