I used to play on one back in the day that went through the cries for more realism phase, so the next rev had more realism, and the next rev well and truly sucked, and was rapidly fixed to make it actually fun again.
We don't play games because they're like real life. We play games because they're NOT like real life.
Of course they don't exist to provide me with anything. If it's your calling in life to recline on pillows and paint butterflies, I'm cool with that up to the point you decide it's my job to supply you with pillows, paint, butterflies, food, shelter, medical care, etc. If others will give you what you need in exchange for pictures of butterflies, that's fine by me. But the guy with his hand out who offers nothing in return? No. The serial criminal who does nothing but take from others? Again, no.
There's a line between compassion and just being a sucker. Sometimes we fail to be compassionate enough. Sometimes we're suckers.
No, when you can make $12-20 per hour begging on a street corner, that's a disincentive to go get a job paying $7-10/hour. When you can go out on "disability", like my old neighbor who hurt his back and couldn't work, but could lug a cooler full of beer to his camper to go camping every weekend with no apparent difficulty. When you can choose to work 40+ per week, or pretend to get hurt and work 0 per week, but still collect most of your paycheck, some people will pretend to get hurt. These people are parasites on the rest of us.
Yes, society also "allows" unproductive individuals. In some cases, I'm perfectly fine with that, such as individuals who simply are not capable of sustaining themselves. People who -really are hurt- on the job fall in this category, too. But people who can take care of themselves but live off others because we're compassionate enough to let them get away with it, yeah...I think that's wrong. I don't feel obligated to support people who can support themselves, but choose not to.
The wolves attacked the oafish outsider but left the Na'vi alone.
When a Na'vi leapt into the fray, she was attacked with just as much vigor as was the oafish outsider. They broke off the attack because they were no longer fighting a single prey, they were fighting two, and losing. Can't say I've been attacked by a pack of wolves lately, but I rather expect if one is, and kills half a dozen or so, the rest may seek an easier meal somewhere else.
It's not anti-American at all. It's a story. You might call it anti-colonial, but lots of cultures have had periods where they went out into the world to tame the "savages" and discover "new" lands and take the riches therein. America did it. Iraq did it (Kuwait). Britain did it most extensively in recent memory (India?). Spain did it, sponsoring Columbus "discovery" of America, to the collective surprise of the people living there. The Vikings did it a thousand years ago. Rome did it a thousand years before them.
If this movie is trying to sell an idea, and I don't think that's really its primary goal, it's that we tend to find ways to justify the strong taking from the weak, and while it usually works, it's morally wrong. I don't think it's a bad thing at all to remember that the weak are still people, and lives lived differently from ours are no less worth living to the ones living them.
There should come a time in our development as a civilization where we go beyond beating people up for their lunch money.
Packs of wolves and bears don't leave you alone there, either, as Jake found out. They leave you alone if they don't know you're there, you're smart enough to stay out of their areas, not piss them off, etc.
The Na'vi aren't peaceful people. They're warriors. Living in harmony with nature, in the real world, means that sometimes you eat a bit of nature, and sometimes it eats you. The movie did not portray a Disney-esqe vision. We know things in their own environment think they're tasty, and we know this is not the first "time of great sorrow", and the last wasn't that long ago. IMO, it's an amazingly beautiful vision of a world, but hardly an Eden.
I don't know anything about PKD, but from the movie it's fair to assume people who aren't healthy don't become full members of the tribe. I found it an interesting concept. Which is better, a society that requires everyone to be productive, or a society (like ours) that encourages people to be unproductive (living on welfare, begging on the streets, living in their parents' basements until they're 35...). Neither is perfect. Our society has a tremendous surplus, so we can accommodate a lot of unproductive people. Societies that can't, don't. I didn't get the impression the Na'vi don't have enough to go around, and they simply didn't address your point at all. I suppose when they need "modern" medicine, they do the same thing we do when we need 22nd century medicine.
True, that's the theory. The fact seems to be that open source software is simple price competition. Most users don't care that they *can* modify the code, they just care that they can have it without paying anything.
Or better yet, just buy the app that does what you want.
Really, people. This is rather ridiculous. ZOMG, someone wrote a proprietary app that runs on a F/OSS platform!!!!11 You mean, just like Linux? The problem is what exactly?
And newsflash: If someone is selling an app for a couple bucks and it does something useful, just buy the damn thing. Spending a few $k in your time to do it for "free" is rather stupid.
Possibly not that many, considering they consented to what they thought was a medical exam. It doesn't HAVE to be a life altering event, and I think the media (including those of us who post about such things) do harm by telling people they should be forever scarred by things they can get over. They learned the really hard way that there are bad people in the world who will take advantage of you for their own gain or gratification.
Which, incidentally, is reason enough to put this guy away forever. If he will do this to his own foster children, he doesn't belong in society with the rest of us. We should really get rid of this idea of justice balancing the scales in some way. Putting someone in jail doesn't undo the harm they've done. It gets them out of circulation so they can't do more.
Murder gets you extremely heavy time. Attempted murder doesn't get you as much.
Which is really unfortunate. I suspect people who attempt to kill someone else and fail are just as dangerous going forward as those who attempt and succeed. We're saying that the crime of trying to deprive another person of their life is mitigated by their incompetence.
Uh, no. Either should have you removed from society permanently.
I mean, if you enjoy doing something illegal like smoking weed, don't do it in public. You shouldn't be doing it in public in the first place. Do it in the privacy of your own home. If you go to a cafe or place of business and smoke weed, the owner and workers at that cafe might be obligated to call the authorities. Similarly if you're buying weed, don't use the Google search engine to do it.
This is an excellent example. If you're buying weed, don't use Google to do it. However, if you're Googling how to buy weed, that doesn't imply that you have, or will, and that's where things like this worry me. I might Google how to buy weed because I want to know how my kids might try to do it, so I can prevent it. I'm reminded of those high profile murder cases (Caylee Anthony springs to mind) where the suspect's computer is searched and they find they searched for something suggestive of the crime. We hear about that. We don't hear that 5,000,000 other people performed that same web search during that period of time, and given that 5,000,000 people didn't turn up dead soon after, we can assume they didn't go off and kill someone.
The problem with invasions of privacy like this isn't so much the release of fact. Ok, so you googled BDSM, to borrow someone else's example. Googling BDSM is relatively innocuous. Oh, but now we're going to assume you are interested in BDSM, or maybe that you participate in it, and that you're a bad person. Dangerous. Not to be trusted around kids and small animals. Shouldn't have a job that exposes you to anyone you might abuse, and in fact, since you have such a job, you should be fired. The problem is the inappropriate leaps from fact to wild, mostly baseless speculation. We can't keep people from making those leaps. We can keep them out of what should be our private affairs.
It's an obvious fallacy. The old "You have nothing to worry about if you're doing nothing wrong" argument rests on a belief in perfect justice. You'll only be punished for things which you shouldn't be doing. However, history is riddled with examples of people doing and being things for which they should not be punished, but are. Like black, gay, catholic and/or protestant in Northern Ireland, Jewish, a journalist anywhere the state doesn't want its secrets told, etc. It assumes punishments fit the crimes, which in many cases they obviously don't, like becoming a registered sex offender for peeing on a tree in a world where you can kill someone without becoming a registered murderer. You have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything anyone in the world considers wrong.
News flash: You -are- doing something someone in the world considers wrong.
It actually does use more power running the CPU full throttle vs idle. The rule of thumb I learned was a buck a watt per year. By which $200 sounds nuts. School PCs do not have 200W worth of CPU in them.
But..oh, over 10 years. That's $20/year/system. Very plausible.
This guy learned the following lesson the hard way: Systems you manage are not yours. They are your employers. The potentially mitigating factor here from TFA, is that he claims he had permission. If so, whoever granted permission should be fired. $1m is real money, especially if you're a school district.
On the contrary, the systems would have been examined, wiped and then put back into service, and that's 100 different systems. Doing this, especially on federal systems where there are lots of rules about how to do it, is expensive. That it averaged $7000 per system really doesn't surprise me.
I have no sympathy for this guy. You don't get to damage someone else's property then whine that it turned out to be expensive to fix.
If there is free will, then choosing to believe in it is correct. If there isn't, whether we choose to believe in it or not, we can rest assured we didn't really make the choice anyway.
Or for the patients children. I can see being in my later years and really not caring, since I'll presumably be on the federal dole (Medicare/Medicaid/Whatever) by then, but this data is also predictive of the patients children and grandchildren. Much as I can see the value in the research, this is a monstrous can of worms. Patient consent should be required at a minimum, and prohibitions on genetic discrimination are going to be required as well.
The state doesn't have anything to give. In the US, the crowds you imagine that oppose this sort of thing are saying "Don't take stuff from us, waste part of it on needless bureaucracy, then give the remainder back!"
Where exactly do you think all your "free stuff" comes from, anyway?
Name's flexlm. I see you're new around here, and determined to reinvent everything that was done on *nix 30 years ago.
But seriously--what here is new? Time based licensing has been around forever. Get the feeling they're just flailing around trying to find some revenue model that'll continue to extract money out of their customers? Microsoft's fundamental problem is that they've already sold many people what they need. XP works fine for me. I don't need Vista. Or 7. Office is fine. I don't care about the next round of bells and whistles. Most of what most of us do doesn't require them.
I don't really begrudge them some kind of revenue, but the more they demand, the better alternatives (OpenOffice, Google Docs, or hell, just buying a mac and being done with it) look.
The funny thing here, is that you can take your pulse perfectly well with your finger and a nearby clock. That worked just fine for me in high school, and my crazy distance runner high school gym teacher with his resting heart rate of 38.
Creativity is good. In developing the next something, there should be a massive burst of creativity with ideas flowing all over the place. Then there's this point where you start winnowing. This one's a cool idea, but nobody wants it. That one's a great idea and people want it, but it will cost us more to make than anyone will pay. Etc.
It's a hard lesson, but perhaps the value which should come from bashing unsuccessful products is the warning to the next inventor. It's not enough that you think it's cool. It has to fill a need in the marketplace. If it doesn't, it won't be commercially successful.
People didn't buy the segway because it was as expensive as a motorcycle with a limited range and went slower than most people could pedal a bike.
How is this better? Didn't learn from the Segway, did you? This costs more, has less range, and goes about the same speed.
Sorry to rant, but I'm just incredulous. I rode a $500 bike 75 miles in 5 hours. I can't imagine why I would want a $5000 "bike" that goes 6 miles in 30 minutes, then dies.
Here's the thing about progress. Later inventions are supposed to be better. Not cooler. I'll grant the Segway is kinda cool, and so is this, it's just a poorer solution to the getting from a to b problem than existing products.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to play on one back in the day that went through the cries for more realism phase, so the next rev had more realism, and the next rev well and truly sucked, and was rapidly fixed to make it actually fun again.
We don't play games because they're like real life. We play games because they're NOT like real life.
Of course they don't exist to provide me with anything. If it's your calling in life to recline on pillows and paint butterflies, I'm cool with that up to the point you decide it's my job to supply you with pillows, paint, butterflies, food, shelter, medical care, etc. If others will give you what you need in exchange for pictures of butterflies, that's fine by me. But the guy with his hand out who offers nothing in return? No. The serial criminal who does nothing but take from others? Again, no.
There's a line between compassion and just being a sucker. Sometimes we fail to be compassionate enough. Sometimes we're suckers.
No, when you can make $12-20 per hour begging on a street corner, that's a disincentive to go get a job paying $7-10/hour. When you can go out on "disability", like my old neighbor who hurt his back and couldn't work, but could lug a cooler full of beer to his camper to go camping every weekend with no apparent difficulty. When you can choose to work 40+ per week, or pretend to get hurt and work 0 per week, but still collect most of your paycheck, some people will pretend to get hurt. These people are parasites on the rest of us.
Yes, society also "allows" unproductive individuals. In some cases, I'm perfectly fine with that, such as individuals who simply are not capable of sustaining themselves. People who -really are hurt- on the job fall in this category, too. But people who can take care of themselves but live off others because we're compassionate enough to let them get away with it, yeah...I think that's wrong. I don't feel obligated to support people who can support themselves, but choose not to.
Funny. Just yesterday I said this movie is the reason I will finally buy a blu-ray player and the biggest HDTV I can get.
When a Na'vi leapt into the fray, she was attacked with just as much vigor as was the oafish outsider. They broke off the attack because they were no longer fighting a single prey, they were fighting two, and losing. Can't say I've been attacked by a pack of wolves lately, but I rather expect if one is, and kills half a dozen or so, the rest may seek an easier meal somewhere else.
It's not anti-American at all. It's a story. You might call it anti-colonial, but lots of cultures have had periods where they went out into the world to tame the "savages" and discover "new" lands and take the riches therein. America did it. Iraq did it (Kuwait). Britain did it most extensively in recent memory (India?). Spain did it, sponsoring Columbus "discovery" of America, to the collective surprise of the people living there. The Vikings did it a thousand years ago. Rome did it a thousand years before them.
If this movie is trying to sell an idea, and I don't think that's really its primary goal, it's that we tend to find ways to justify the strong taking from the weak, and while it usually works, it's morally wrong. I don't think it's a bad thing at all to remember that the weak are still people, and lives lived differently from ours are no less worth living to the ones living them.
There should come a time in our development as a civilization where we go beyond beating people up for their lunch money.
Packs of wolves and bears don't leave you alone there, either, as Jake found out. They leave you alone if they don't know you're there, you're smart enough to stay out of their areas, not piss them off, etc.
The Na'vi aren't peaceful people. They're warriors. Living in harmony with nature, in the real world, means that sometimes you eat a bit of nature, and sometimes it eats you. The movie did not portray a Disney-esqe vision. We know things in their own environment think they're tasty, and we know this is not the first "time of great sorrow", and the last wasn't that long ago. IMO, it's an amazingly beautiful vision of a world, but hardly an Eden.
I don't know anything about PKD, but from the movie it's fair to assume people who aren't healthy don't become full members of the tribe. I found it an interesting concept. Which is better, a society that requires everyone to be productive, or a society (like ours) that encourages people to be unproductive (living on welfare, begging on the streets, living in their parents' basements until they're 35...). Neither is perfect. Our society has a tremendous surplus, so we can accommodate a lot of unproductive people. Societies that can't, don't. I didn't get the impression the Na'vi don't have enough to go around, and they simply didn't address your point at all. I suppose when they need "modern" medicine, they do the same thing we do when we need 22nd century medicine.
Isn't Australia the country where you need you're nanny state to figure out which parts of the scawy interwebs you're allowed to see?
Stupidity knows no borders.
Quite. I'm a lot more upset about farming for money. I mean, I can choose not to use a computer. MS doesn't have me over a barrel. Farmers do!
True, that's the theory. The fact seems to be that open source software is simple price competition. Most users don't care that they *can* modify the code, they just care that they can have it without paying anything.
Or better yet, just buy the app that does what you want.
Really, people. This is rather ridiculous. ZOMG, someone wrote a proprietary app that runs on a F/OSS platform!!!!11 You mean, just like Linux? The problem is what exactly?
And newsflash: If someone is selling an app for a couple bucks and it does something useful, just buy the damn thing. Spending a few $k in your time to do it for "free" is rather stupid.
Possibly not that many, considering they consented to what they thought was a medical exam. It doesn't HAVE to be a life altering event, and I think the media (including those of us who post about such things) do harm by telling people they should be forever scarred by things they can get over. They learned the really hard way that there are bad people in the world who will take advantage of you for their own gain or gratification.
Which, incidentally, is reason enough to put this guy away forever. If he will do this to his own foster children, he doesn't belong in society with the rest of us. We should really get rid of this idea of justice balancing the scales in some way. Putting someone in jail doesn't undo the harm they've done. It gets them out of circulation so they can't do more.
Which is really unfortunate. I suspect people who attempt to kill someone else and fail are just as dangerous going forward as those who attempt and succeed. We're saying that the crime of trying to deprive another person of their life is mitigated by their incompetence.
Uh, no. Either should have you removed from society permanently.
This is an excellent example. If you're buying weed, don't use Google to do it. However, if you're Googling how to buy weed, that doesn't imply that you have, or will, and that's where things like this worry me. I might Google how to buy weed because I want to know how my kids might try to do it, so I can prevent it. I'm reminded of those high profile murder cases (Caylee Anthony springs to mind) where the suspect's computer is searched and they find they searched for something suggestive of the crime. We hear about that. We don't hear that 5,000,000 other people performed that same web search during that period of time, and given that 5,000,000 people didn't turn up dead soon after, we can assume they didn't go off and kill someone.
The problem with invasions of privacy like this isn't so much the release of fact. Ok, so you googled BDSM, to borrow someone else's example. Googling BDSM is relatively innocuous. Oh, but now we're going to assume you are interested in BDSM, or maybe that you participate in it, and that you're a bad person. Dangerous. Not to be trusted around kids and small animals. Shouldn't have a job that exposes you to anyone you might abuse, and in fact, since you have such a job, you should be fired. The problem is the inappropriate leaps from fact to wild, mostly baseless speculation. We can't keep people from making those leaps. We can keep them out of what should be our private affairs.
It's an obvious fallacy. The old "You have nothing to worry about if you're doing nothing wrong" argument rests on a belief in perfect justice. You'll only be punished for things which you shouldn't be doing. However, history is riddled with examples of people doing and being things for which they should not be punished, but are. Like black, gay, catholic and/or protestant in Northern Ireland, Jewish, a journalist anywhere the state doesn't want its secrets told, etc. It assumes punishments fit the crimes, which in many cases they obviously don't, like becoming a registered sex offender for peeing on a tree in a world where you can kill someone without becoming a registered murderer. You have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything anyone in the world considers wrong.
News flash: You -are- doing something someone in the world considers wrong.
It actually does use more power running the CPU full throttle vs idle. The rule of thumb I learned was a buck a watt per year. By which $200 sounds nuts. School PCs do not have 200W worth of CPU in them.
But..oh, over 10 years. That's $20/year/system. Very plausible.
This guy learned the following lesson the hard way: Systems you manage are not yours. They are your employers. The potentially mitigating factor here from TFA, is that he claims he had permission. If so, whoever granted permission should be fired. $1m is real money, especially if you're a school district.
On the contrary, the systems would have been examined, wiped and then put back into service, and that's 100 different systems. Doing this, especially on federal systems where there are lots of rules about how to do it, is expensive. That it averaged $7000 per system really doesn't surprise me.
I have no sympathy for this guy. You don't get to damage someone else's property then whine that it turned out to be expensive to fix.
Ah, and the wonderful thing is:
If there is free will, then choosing to believe in it is correct.
If there isn't, whether we choose to believe in it or not, we can rest assured we didn't really make the choice anyway.
Or for the patients children. I can see being in my later years and really not caring, since I'll presumably be on the federal dole (Medicare/Medicaid/Whatever) by then, but this data is also predictive of the patients children and grandchildren. Much as I can see the value in the research, this is a monstrous can of worms. Patient consent should be required at a minimum, and prohibitions on genetic discrimination are going to be required as well.
Oh, bullshit.
The state doesn't have anything to give. In the US, the crowds you imagine that oppose this sort of thing are saying "Don't take stuff from us, waste part of it on needless bureaucracy, then give the remainder back!"
Where exactly do you think all your "free stuff" comes from, anyway?
Name's flexlm. I see you're new around here, and determined to reinvent everything that was done on *nix 30 years ago.
But seriously--what here is new? Time based licensing has been around forever. Get the feeling they're just flailing around trying to find some revenue model that'll continue to extract money out of their customers? Microsoft's fundamental problem is that they've already sold many people what they need. XP works fine for me. I don't need Vista. Or 7. Office is fine. I don't care about the next round of bells and whistles. Most of what most of us do doesn't require them.
I don't really begrudge them some kind of revenue, but the more they demand, the better alternatives (OpenOffice, Google Docs, or hell, just buying a mac and being done with it) look.
That's hilarious. Unless he's operating his farm at absolute zero, the molecules are shaking like mad all the time already.
The funny thing here, is that you can take your pulse perfectly well with your finger and a nearby clock. That worked just fine for me in high school, and my crazy distance runner high school gym teacher with his resting heart rate of 38.
You misunderstand.
Creativity is good. In developing the next something, there should be a massive burst of creativity with ideas flowing all over the place. Then there's this point where you start winnowing. This one's a cool idea, but nobody wants it. That one's a great idea and people want it, but it will cost us more to make than anyone will pay. Etc.
It's a hard lesson, but perhaps the value which should come from bashing unsuccessful products is the warning to the next inventor. It's not enough that you think it's cool. It has to fill a need in the marketplace. If it doesn't, it won't be commercially successful.
People didn't buy the segway because it was as expensive as a motorcycle with a limited range and went slower than most people could pedal a bike.
How is this better? Didn't learn from the Segway, did you? This costs more, has less range, and goes about the same speed.
Sorry to rant, but I'm just incredulous. I rode a $500 bike 75 miles in 5 hours. I can't imagine why I would want a $5000 "bike" that goes 6 miles in 30 minutes, then dies.
Here's the thing about progress. Later inventions are supposed to be better. Not cooler. I'll grant the Segway is kinda cool, and so is this, it's just a poorer solution to the getting from a to b problem than existing products.