Only because the owners of these media items refuse to. We keep hearing about how cheap and easy it is for people to put "pirated" material online, yet you never seem to hear from those same folks about how cheap and easy it would be for them to do the same, and still make a good profit. They'll whine and cry about Apple not caving in to their demands for a 50 cent increase for IPod downloads, how it's hurting artists and killing the industry, yet they don't offer their own downloads for 99 cents, and bypass Apple altogether.
It's just a shame there aren't laws that require you to make a reasonable attempt to benefit from a "new technology" before you can sue to restrict the use of same by others.
True to a point, but it's worth bearing (um, the pun just kind of appeared, sorry) in mind that the lifestyle of a single wild hybrid really wouldn't do much more than offer an idea of what kind of life such hybrids might live. You'd need a substantial population of such animals to gain any truly scientific insights. Studying one "Polar Grizzly" would more likely carry the danger of misleading scientists, on a statistical basis alone. Could you observe one random person and determine the habits of the entire species?
That said, I didn't see anything mentioned about the bear's age. Anyone know? Perhaps our PG managed to carry on his kind, more or less. My guess, based on heavy Slashdot-based research, is that there are thousands of these bears, they just burrow into the ice when people are around. After everyone leaves, they surface and throw some of the wildest parties this side of the equator.:)
Ah, but what would happen if you put all those hunters on an island, and offered anti-hunting(?) folks licenses to hunt the hunters? Would they? If so, would you then get to hunt the anti-hunters? And on and on...:)
Yes, but it may appear to be deceivingly harmless at first. I mean, picture a bear with the squeaky yip of a poodle. You might even be tempted to laugh at it...until it breaks every bone in your torso with a swipe of it's paw.
Oh, horsehockey. If you want to do it, do it right. First thing, go out and lease the most office space you can afford. Second, make sure the office is set up "properly", or you'll never attract the kinds of investors you need. Third, use the incoming investment money to lease the most powerful servers and workstations money can buy. Fourth, hire fresh-out-of-college kids for as much as you can afford to pay them. You want the best, don't you? Money==skill is a rule to live by. Sixth, with everything in place, spend godawful amounts of money on press releases, ads, and so on, until everyone knows your company's name, whether they want to or not.
Lastly, set up meetings with analysts to decide what kind of game might do well in the current market, and set up meetings with your development team to begin the planning stages...:)
Didn't you know? The AC guide to game quality firmly states, "Any game that runs on lesser hardware than that produced within the last six weeks officially sucks." The games mentioned didn't stand a chance...
Ah, that makes more sense. I must have taken the announcement the wrong way. I couldn't figure out why Rockstar would be so willing to cut off PS players, as that's where they got their start. Thanks for the correction.:)
Maybe this is the group that would have focused on the PS3 port, now that GTA is XBox only? Sure, they ported to the original XBox, but perhaps they focused on that because they were the group of programmers that understood PS3 best, and now that there will be no PS3 version of the game, these folks are expendable? Of course, granting exclusivity to a game that appeals to both PS3 and XBox users seems dumb to me, and maybe this is just another way the company is using short-sightedness to eventually cut it's own wrists. When the game's available for both platforms, Rockstar might not get some of the advantages MS might offer them, but it sure seems a safer long-term bet than tying one of it's most popular games to only one system, particularly by a company that's notorious for abandoning markets after a couple years of losing money.
Yep, slashdot's flaky tonight, the normal reply links don't work. If this posts correctly, you have to post using the reply link on the page after you click the main page reply link. Nice job folks...:-(
Funny as hell, and kind of painful considering that I just posted a couple comments that all landed in a row. Apparently clicked the wrong "reply" part, or maybe slashdot's flaky tonight. Urgh!!!:)
MS Office, several hundred dollars, the defacto standard for documents.
OpenOffice, free or up to $100, pretty much the same thing, and fairly capable of converting MS Office documents in both directions.
How about the people that DON'T want to afford MS Office? You know, the ones that would rather have a second, cheap computer for the kids for the price of MS Office Pro? The ones that would rather have a better video card for their favorite game, or a couple gig more memory? The ones that would rather pay the rent on their apartment, or a month on their college tuition.
The list goes on, but if I were MS, this would be the group I would be most worried about.
No doubt. On the other hand, the more important question is, once you got used to it, was it worth the time you spent? For some people, the answer would be no. For many others, however, even a considerably longer amount of time is worth the ability to run a pile of applications that most people simply couldn't afford if they had to buy windows equivalents (even if those are "better" in some ways). For another group of people, not living under the shadow of spyware, adware, virii, etc., even if the extreme severity is imagined, makes the time worth the investment. Especially those who use their home systems for work-related items, yet have to share the system with their kids. It's unlikely they're going to inadvertantly destroy large parts of the system by accident, leaving you explaining to your boss why you were too damn cheap to buy an extra one for them.
The list goes on, but I'd bet most people, at least those who rely on their computers for one reason or another (even if it's just because they have an internet, email, or chat addiction) would be more than happy to have a less vulnerable system that offers a ton of great software, even if it took them months to find their comfort zone.
Of course, the key thing to remember is that comfort != usability. You can use your Linux system even if you're not terribly proficient at it. It's just different, and sometimes it might take a minute to figure out where an item is in a menu, or learn that a function has a different name than it's MS equivalent.
If MS is damned, that's only because they've damned themselves. As other folks have pointed out, MS's sales pitch for years has been, "Don't even waste your time looking at alternatives, you'll end up spending more retraining users, and will lose productivity".
Now, in twin attempts to lock in users, as well as catch up with the innovations in F/OSS, MS is revamping it's whole software stack. The problem for MS is simply that they've told the same lies for so long, that people accepted them, and now MS can't simply stand still and hope F/OSS goes away, it has to either provide the features F/OSS offers users, or find a way to dissuade users from making the move to alternative software. After years of relative stagnation in their product line, MS now has to implement a ton of changes to both the interface and the underlying software in a fairly short amount of time.
So, what you are actually hearing, are users of F/OSS laughing about how far behind MS is in adding REAL functionality to their software, and the complaints of the MS guppies regarding how confused they are now that MS has changed the few things they have gotten around to doing.
Of course, all this is meaningless, because Vista hasn't been released yet. The way things are going, Vista's list of improvements will read (to F/OSS users) something like: "Um, MS changed the window hue a percentage point, added a new folder to the directory structure, and made sure it's a pain in the butt to search google. They make how much in profits a year?"
To "normal" windows users, Vista will be like: "Oh my god, so much has changed! I mean, a new folder, colors, and I have to use a new search engine??! My god, sign me up for those courses, before I lose my job because I haven't learned how to master so many new things! Why would MS do this to me? Why, god, why?!!"
But that's just my speculation, based on, well, the last decade...:)
Pretty much agree with your comment, but not sure the 100 meter dash would benefit. Heavy Gs would stress the cardiovascular system, and might be of benefit to long distance runners, but dashes are largely about harnessing the power of gravity, as running is pretty much controlled falling. Heavy Gs might benefit a weight lifter, as they could get used to the forces, and when they returned to normal Gs, they would retain that power for a small amount of time. Just living in that environment might increase their ability to lift, as they would be strengthening their bodies without thinking about it.
As for runners, not only would it make them clumsy, but if anything, it would probably slow them down, simply because they would spend more time learning how not to fall on their faces. Running at higher Gs would force them to lean less, or end up on the floor. However, perhaps running in slightly less gravity on occasion might make it easier for them to lean forward and move their legs quicker, because they wouldn't have to expend as much effort maintaining their balance. This would have to be done carefully though, so they didn't become too adapted to smaller g forces, and end up feeling like somebody was riding on their shoulders. As an occasional experience though, it should allow them to experiment with moving their center of gravity forward, moving their legs faster, all without having to risk serious injuries in the process.
Well, aside from the fact that we're safe due more to the earth's magnetic field (and to lesser extents, the moon and sun's effect on cosmic radiation), we can't REALLY know the effects on the human body until we send somebody outside the relative safety of the earth-moon system. Not to pander to the tinfoil folks, but maybe there's something in our genetic history (panspermia) that provides a defensive reaction to cosmic radiation. I mean, theoretically, the folks that landed on the moon absorbed a lot of this stuff, and are still kicking. Maybe it's good for you, or has a chemotherapy-like effect.:)
Besides, we can barely get to the moon, worrying about how much radiation we can absorb is like being stranded on a deserted island and worrying about the effects of high tension power lines on the human body.
Well, not to nitpick, but the fastest way to get to alpha centauri (not counting a few out-there theoretical means of travel) would be to accelerate the whole way, and slam into the star...:)
Next thing you know, those mutated animals will be major producers of electronic equipment. As ADC asked, "What was in those bombs, fscking fertilizer?!"
Slashdot Mirror
>>The laws need to take that into account.
Only because the owners of these media items refuse to. We keep hearing about how cheap and easy it is for people to put "pirated" material online, yet you never seem to hear from those same folks about how cheap and easy it would be for them to do the same, and still make a good profit. They'll whine and cry about Apple not caving in to their demands for a 50 cent increase for IPod downloads, how it's hurting artists and killing the industry, yet they don't offer their own downloads for 99 cents, and bypass Apple altogether.
It's just a shame there aren't laws that require you to make a reasonable attempt to benefit from a "new technology" before you can sue to restrict the use of same by others.
True to a point, but it's worth bearing (um, the pun just kind of appeared, sorry) in mind that the lifestyle of a single wild hybrid really wouldn't do much more than offer an idea of what kind of life such hybrids might live. You'd need a substantial population of such animals to gain any truly scientific insights. Studying one "Polar Grizzly" would more likely carry the danger of misleading scientists, on a statistical basis alone. Could you observe one random person and determine the habits of the entire species?
:)
That said, I didn't see anything mentioned about the bear's age. Anyone know? Perhaps our PG managed to carry on his kind, more or less. My guess, based on heavy Slashdot-based research, is that there are thousands of these bears, they just burrow into the ice when people are around. After everyone leaves, they surface and throw some of the wildest parties this side of the equator.
Ah, but what would happen if you put all those hunters on an island, and offered anti-hunting(?) folks licenses to hunt the hunters? Would they? If so, would you then get to hunt the anti-hunters? And on and on... :)
Yes, but it may appear to be deceivingly harmless at first. I mean, picture a bear with the squeaky yip of a poodle. You might even be tempted to laugh at it...until it breaks every bone in your torso with a swipe of it's paw.
>>Now we'll never know what kind of mystical skills and powers it had.
We know one thing for sure, it can play dead like nobody's business.
I'm still trying to figure out where they're gonna hide on the ice, how sneak up on the bear on that same crunchy ice, etc...
Oh, horsehockey. If you want to do it, do it right. First thing, go out and lease the most office space you can afford. Second, make sure the office is set up "properly", or you'll never attract the kinds of investors you need. Third, use the incoming investment money to lease the most powerful servers and workstations money can buy. Fourth, hire fresh-out-of-college kids for as much as you can afford to pay them. You want the best, don't you? Money==skill is a rule to live by. Sixth, with everything in place, spend godawful amounts of money on press releases, ads, and so on, until everyone knows your company's name, whether they want to or not.
:)
Lastly, set up meetings with analysts to decide what kind of game might do well in the current market, and set up meetings with your development team to begin the planning stages...
Didn't you know? The AC guide to game quality firmly states, "Any game that runs on lesser hardware than that produced within the last six weeks officially sucks." The games mentioned didn't stand a chance...
I can see the pleasure in killing programmers (model the GTA folks, and you might even attract those folks that hate the GTA series), but rape ?
:)
Have you ever seen the average programmer?!!
Ah, that makes more sense. I must have taken the announcement the wrong way. I couldn't figure out why Rockstar would be so willing to cut off PS players, as that's where they got their start. Thanks for the correction. :)
Maybe this is the group that would have focused on the PS3 port, now that GTA is XBox only? Sure, they ported to the original XBox, but perhaps they focused on that because they were the group of programmers that understood PS3 best, and now that there will be no PS3 version of the game, these folks are expendable? Of course, granting exclusivity to a game that appeals to both PS3 and XBox users seems dumb to me, and maybe this is just another way the company is using short-sightedness to eventually cut it's own wrists. When the game's available for both platforms, Rockstar might not get some of the advantages MS might offer them, but it sure seems a safer long-term bet than tying one of it's most popular games to only one system, particularly by a company that's notorious for abandoning markets after a couple years of losing money.
Just my thoughts, though...
Yep, slashdot's flaky tonight, the normal reply links don't work. If this posts correctly, you have to post using the reply link on the page after you click the main page reply link. Nice job folks... :-(
Funny as hell, and kind of painful considering that I just posted a couple comments that all landed in a row. Apparently clicked the wrong "reply" part, or maybe slashdot's flaky tonight. Urgh!!! :)
You forgot one group. Consider the following:
MS Office, several hundred dollars, the defacto standard for documents.
OpenOffice, free or up to $100, pretty much the same thing, and fairly capable of converting MS Office documents in both directions.
How about the people that DON'T want to afford MS Office? You know, the ones that would rather have a second, cheap computer for the kids for the price of MS Office Pro? The ones that would rather have a better video card for their favorite game, or a couple gig more memory? The ones that would rather pay the rent on their apartment, or a month on their college tuition.
The list goes on, but if I were MS, this would be the group I would be most worried about.
No doubt. On the other hand, the more important question is, once you got used to it, was it worth the time you spent? For some people, the answer would be no. For many others, however, even a considerably longer amount of time is worth the ability to run a pile of applications that most people simply couldn't afford if they had to buy windows equivalents (even if those are "better" in some ways). For another group of people, not living under the shadow of spyware, adware, virii, etc., even if the extreme severity is imagined, makes the time worth the investment. Especially those who use their home systems for work-related items, yet have to share the system with their kids. It's unlikely they're going to inadvertantly destroy large parts of the system by accident, leaving you explaining to your boss why you were too damn cheap to buy an extra one for them.
The list goes on, but I'd bet most people, at least those who rely on their computers for one reason or another (even if it's just because they have an internet, email, or chat addiction) would be more than happy to have a less vulnerable system that offers a ton of great software, even if it took them months to find their comfort zone.
Of course, the key thing to remember is that comfort != usability. You can use your Linux system even if you're not terribly proficient at it. It's just different, and sometimes it might take a minute to figure out where an item is in a menu, or learn that a function has a different name than it's MS equivalent.
If MS is damned, that's only because they've damned themselves. As other folks have pointed out, MS's sales pitch for years has been, "Don't even waste your time looking at alternatives, you'll end up spending more retraining users, and will lose productivity".
:)
Now, in twin attempts to lock in users, as well as catch up with the innovations in F/OSS, MS is revamping it's whole software stack. The problem for MS is simply that they've told the same lies for so long, that people accepted them, and now MS can't simply stand still and hope F/OSS goes away, it has to either provide the features F/OSS offers users, or find a way to dissuade users from making the move to alternative software. After years of relative stagnation in their product line, MS now has to implement a ton of changes to both the interface and the underlying software in a fairly short amount of time.
So, what you are actually hearing, are users of F/OSS laughing about how far behind MS is in adding REAL functionality to their software, and the complaints of the MS guppies regarding how confused they are now that MS has changed the few things they have gotten around to doing.
Of course, all this is meaningless, because Vista hasn't been released yet. The way things are going, Vista's list of improvements will read (to F/OSS users) something like: "Um, MS changed the window hue a percentage point, added a new folder to the directory structure, and made sure it's a pain in the butt to search google. They make how much in profits a year?"
To "normal" windows users, Vista will be like: "Oh my god, so much has changed! I mean, a new folder, colors, and I have to use a new search engine??! My god, sign me up for those courses, before I lose my job because I haven't learned how to master so many new things! Why would MS do this to me? Why, god, why?!!"
But that's just my speculation, based on, well, the last decade...
>>Really the best way now to improve the adverse health effects of space travel is to glue their foam on tighter.
:(
We tried that, but they kept suffocating.
>>Not all of them at once. Sheesh!
:)
Of course not. You put them in a few at a time, then spin them at 20g for a bit.
Then you can fit more in.
Pretty much agree with your comment, but not sure the 100 meter dash would benefit. Heavy Gs would stress the cardiovascular system, and might be of benefit to long distance runners, but dashes are largely about harnessing the power of gravity, as running is pretty much controlled falling. Heavy Gs might benefit a weight lifter, as they could get used to the forces, and when they returned to normal Gs, they would retain that power for a small amount of time. Just living in that environment might increase their ability to lift, as they would be strengthening their bodies without thinking about it.
As for runners, not only would it make them clumsy, but if anything, it would probably slow them down, simply because they would spend more time learning how not to fall on their faces. Running at higher Gs would force them to lean less, or end up on the floor. However, perhaps running in slightly less gravity on occasion might make it easier for them to lean forward and move their legs quicker, because they wouldn't have to expend as much effort maintaining their balance. This would have to be done carefully though, so they didn't become too adapted to smaller g forces, and end up feeling like somebody was riding on their shoulders. As an occasional experience though, it should allow them to experiment with moving their center of gravity forward, moving their legs faster, all without having to risk serious injuries in the process.
Well, aside from the fact that we're safe due more to the earth's magnetic field (and to lesser extents, the moon and sun's effect on cosmic radiation), we can't REALLY know the effects on the human body until we send somebody outside the relative safety of the earth-moon system. Not to pander to the tinfoil folks, but maybe there's something in our genetic history (panspermia) that provides a defensive reaction to cosmic radiation. I mean, theoretically, the folks that landed on the moon absorbed a lot of this stuff, and are still kicking. Maybe it's good for you, or has a chemotherapy-like effect. :)
Besides, we can barely get to the moon, worrying about how much radiation we can absorb is like being stranded on a deserted island and worrying about the effects of high tension power lines on the human body.
Yes, I realize that A/C is a 3 star system...
Well, not to nitpick, but the fastest way to get to alpha centauri (not counting a few out-there theoretical means of travel) would be to accelerate the whole way, and slam into the star... :)
Ah, such an innocent assumption. Perhaps your mailman's second job was at the local movie rental shop? :)
Especially when you're the fish...
Next thing you know, those mutated animals will be major producers of electronic equipment. As ADC asked, "What was in those bombs, fscking fertilizer?!"