I'm sorry, but I don't think your analogy is apt. You cannot reason with a dog. You can stop the Fish and Wildlife Service from behaving unethically. If that's another version of moving away from the dog, then I don't see how the analogy is good for anything, as any solution would count as the same thing.
If I look at your statement as if it says "Humans do bad things, get used to it," I'm tempted to respond with "So what, that doesn't excuse anyone, and it's a good thing we found out about this particular instance anyway or else it couldn't be remedied, so I don't see what you're getting at."
As far as concerns with dealing with the reality of human nature... I don't know. I don't know if I have less or more of an insight into human nature than you do. I also don't know if what is popularly represented as "human nature" isn't just what our culture brings forth in us, giving people mixed signals as to what is proper behavior, and also offering us spectacularly unbalanced reward systems depending on who we are, how much money we have, who our parents are, what job we have, whether there's a war on, and whether we happen to be good looking or not.
In brief, maybe if we all dealt with the reality of human nature we'd be better off in the long run, but I doubt that the human race would.
Survey participants have to be willing. Sometimes, the opposite side does not even want to take the survey.
I'm aware that surveys are easy to twist one way or another. But I wasn't aware that this survey was doing so. Also, note that the federal organization was forbidding their employees from participating, an act that, itself, would bias the results, and probably against them.
In any case, the furor here isn't over the survey but the Fish and Wildlife Service's attempt to prevent employees from participating, and their demands that these employees change findings to suit a pre-determined line. Even discarding the great ethical problems inherent in this action, it's bad science.
Until recently, few of them were partisan in a direction with which you disagreed.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to justify that statement. You aren't going to prove it to me just by saying it and expecting me to roll over. You have not added information to dialogue that would challenge any previous notions I had.
I'm not aware of there being reports from the Clinton administration of this many (or any, but hey) scientists coming forward to complain of top-down meddling in their reports. I'm certainly not aware that they told employed researchers not to participate in a survey designed to detect such tampering, even on their own time.
This administration has been unprecidented in the amount with which they monkey around with the actions of governmental agencies, especially over environmental concerns.
This is not new! When given the power, people abuse it, not once, or once in a while, but a LOT.
But by saying "people," you absolve blame for the current administration.
"Everyone does it! What Bush and company are doing is not new. Why, Clinton probably did it a half-dozen times before lunch! There is nothing unprecidented about this. Nothing to see here, back to your homes.
Reports regarding the hideous bug invaders have been greatly exaggerated and their laying of eggs in soldiers' brains is in no way to be perceived as a setback in the war against terror. Our resolve is so strong!"
(Link from the always brilliant, not always-political Fafblog. Gibletsia uber alles!)
And when a scientist has the choice between getting his career ruined because of bad results / wrong hypothesis or lie in order to get a second chance, some do chose the second option.
But on the plus side, 200 researchers came forward rather than buckle. That's actually amazing.
However, 69% [~300 of the 420 people who responded] said they had never been given such a directive[to alter results].
This is irrelevant -- if it happens even once, it's horrendous, among other h-words. Probably they only threatened those people who were doing science that could conflict with the agenda anyway.
You guys want to stop this? Good. But first realize this is not just a Bush/Republican problem... This is a SYSTEM WIDE problem.
Consider: one quote versus 200 researchers... the quote doesn't explictly say that she had challenges throughout her employment there... her language her resignation came in 2002 (during Bush's reign)... and the fact that the Bush Administration has a history of doing this kind of thing in other areas.
In the news today, scientists working on politically sensitive issues are pressured by politicans.
Slashdot readers are shocked and amazed.
What?
I honestly can't believe you're saying this! 200 researchers are saying that the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is not a private organization, has told them change findings to match an agenda that lies outside of science. Don't you think that's hideous?
Even if it's human nature to expect it, that doesn't excuse it, especially when it's our government doing it. By your logic, we cannot ever be angry out government does anything except what they want to do.
There ARE egregious examples of corporations overrunning the natural habitat of endangered wildlife to squeeze a quick buck out of the land. This is NOT one of those stories.
But it IS a story of the Fish and Wildlife Service cooking science in favor of non-objective interests. That is damning, regardless of whether those interests are business or personal.
Note, that it's Electronig Arts that's sponsoring a major in game design. Oy.
I'm thinking, these days, that the modern game development system is antithetical to new game designs, and not just because of management meddling with developers (note that in the CNNmoney article EA's management guy is actually TOUTED as having a hand in almost every game they release).
I think, however, that the thing most designers need to do these days is experiment.
That's right, experiment. Miyamoto is well-known for having run experiments with 3D development and movement systems before starting work on Mario 64. Will Wright used the stuff happening on the ground in Raid on Bungling Bay as something of a trial run for SimCity.
By experiment, I mean writing a small, unsaleable program to try out new ideas. But current tight development schedules make such undirected play unlikely.
Which leads me to believe that if Google ever got into game development, they would utterly rule.
Sure, a game company does need a frightening number of graphics drones lately, but someone with experience in, say, Shakespeare, advanced music theory, German literature, dance, fencing, or biochemistry might be a more worthwhile hire.
This English-grad-student geek blesses you, my son!
That said, I also have to say I think I'm something of a special case. It's a fact that software development requires some specialized knowledge, and while I don't think it's as difficult to pick up as many think, learning to program is a bit more time-consuming and immediately necessary to be squeezed into on-the-job training. And I've met some absolutely computer-clueless English professors. (Though it should be said, also, that one here has an old Unix server in his office, and a Tux poster on his door. He is my hero.)
Still, if you know anyone who IS looking for a programmer English major, give me a call. Look me up in the phone book under "Weird academic histories."
Should universities be designed for vocational training?
No.
But.....
No.
(Disclaimer: While I've done some game development, and am looking into the GBA homebrew scene at the moment, I actually have an English degree. So take my comments with a grain of whatever flavor salt you think appropriate.)
I differ here. I have a lynx and have played a PSP. The PSP is 1/4 the size volumetrically as the lynx.
Volume matters here less, I'd say, than the size of its "face." Is it like holding a small, square dinner plate in front of you? A flatter Etch-a-Sketch? I'll admit I'm not up on its relative size.
Don't take my word for it, hold one. Make sure you have some cash in your pocket because you will want it, it really is that simple.
I'll decide what I want for myself, thanks.
(This is one of the secret rules of advertising in this age: don't tell someone they *will* want something because, just like if you tell someone a joke is funny before telling it they're less likely to laugh, it compels some people to say "Oh, yeah?")
Well I opened myself up to that one, heh. Still, PS2 Linux isn't really a development tool, you can't expect a huge audience for your PS2 Linux software unless you distribute source-only -- and then, well, you're not really developing for the PS2, you're developing for Linux.
When talking about Flash, I was careful to say "relatively." I'm not fond of its pricing either, and I only have a copy because I'm a student. Still, console development kits are much more pricy.
Doubtful. Many early Japanese PS2 buyers bought it more for it being a cheap DVD player than a game system.
That's early buyers. This is not a portable DVD player... plus, we're talking about the U.S. market. And again, it's called a Playstation. It's definitely positioned (much as I hate to use that word) to compete against Nintendo's portable systems than portable media players, even if it can be used as such.
Think how often your PS2 (if you have one) has been the DVD player to use when friends come over. Mine got quite a workout.
I don't have a PS2, though I've been thinking about getting one lately. But I'm thinking about buying it for certain games, not its DVD playback. As far as DVD players go, a PS2 is rather lackluster, and new players are going for as little as fifty bucks these days.
Not only will it pack more power than the Playstation 2 (consolidated 128-bit blit)
I'm not sure about this... most reviewers have said the graphics look "almost as good as a PS2's." Regardless of blit speed, this seems to be the objective measure of the system's ability.
I did a little looking into the specs of the PS2 though, and it turns out that the PSP actually has a slightly faster clock speed than the PS2 -- 333mhz as opposed to the PS2's 300.
Of course, clock speed is not necessarily a good indication of how powerful a system is.
Granted, the big limitation for awhile will be storage (memory sticks don't hold much), but you shouldn't be comparing it to Nintendo's machine.
But with that Playstation brand name, people are going to be thinking of it as a video game system above all else, which, like it or not, positions it squarely against both the GBA and DS in the marketplace.
Personally, I'd compare it to any of the various video players out right now. For a screen like that, it's a steal.
People are more likely to get a DVD player (that can play, you know, actual DVDs) than this. The screen quality is irrelevant if you can't watch what you want on it.
That brings us to video playback off of memory stick. Maybe you might be able to get video onto a memory stick, but I'm still not sure Sony hasn't put some kind of restriction, in that regard, into the console. Does anyone have information on their stick video playback function besides "[Video}: "Memory Stick": MPEG-4 SP,AAC"?
Why are people willing to pay $400+ for an iPod, but for a powerful gaming system, video player and an audio player, all in one $250 is too much?
The iPod can hold a bunch more songs, is integrated with iTunes, and is damn tiny.
But most importantly, the iPod is hip, so people who'd never be caught dead with a video game system will get one. Not even GBAs have ever been hip. It may be impossible for a handheld game system to be that, in an adult sense.
I agree. Further, I tend to discount people's opinions when they say things like "the thing is sexy." That kind of thinking sets back geek culture at least a decade!
For the record, I own an Atari Lynx. Some of the games for it seriously give Gameboy titles from the same era a run for their money -- things like KLAX, Rampart and Todd's Adventures in Slime World. Really nifty things. It really wasn't like the Jaguar at all, there were some really nice games for it.
But I can't help but think that it was the form factor that did it in. When the system gets beyond a certain size, you start having to rest it on things to play. Of course the Lynx was heavier than the PSP is, but I'm not sure if it's much bigger.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, are you saying I'm part of some alien civilzation?
(Looking at your "Cthulhu not drawn to scale" sig)
Um... yes?
I'm sorry, but I don't think your analogy is apt. You cannot reason with a dog. You can stop the Fish and Wildlife Service from behaving unethically. If that's another version of moving away from the dog, then I don't see how the analogy is good for anything, as any solution would count as the same thing.
If I look at your statement as if it says "Humans do bad things, get used to it," I'm tempted to respond with "So what, that doesn't excuse anyone, and it's a good thing we found out about this particular instance anyway or else it couldn't be remedied, so I don't see what you're getting at."
As far as concerns with dealing with the reality of human nature... I don't know. I don't know if I have less or more of an insight into human nature than you do. I also don't know if what is popularly represented as "human nature" isn't just what our culture brings forth in us, giving people mixed signals as to what is proper behavior, and also offering us spectacularly unbalanced reward systems depending on who we are, how much money we have, who our parents are, what job we have, whether there's a war on, and whether we happen to be good looking or not.
In brief, maybe if we all dealt with the reality of human nature we'd be better off in the long run, but I doubt that the human race would.
Survey participants have to be willing. Sometimes, the opposite side does not even want to take the survey.
I'm aware that surveys are easy to twist one way or another. But I wasn't aware that this survey was doing so. Also, note that the federal organization was forbidding their employees from participating, an act that, itself, would bias the results, and probably against them.
In any case, the furor here isn't over the survey but the Fish and Wildlife Service's attempt to prevent employees from participating, and their demands that these employees change findings to suit a pre-determined line. Even discarding the great ethical problems inherent in this action, it's bad science.
Until recently, few of them were partisan in a direction with which you disagreed.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to justify that statement. You aren't going to prove it to me just by saying it and expecting me to roll over. You have not added information to dialogue that would challenge any previous notions I had.
I'm not aware of there being reports from the Clinton administration of this many (or any, but hey) scientists coming forward to complain of top-down meddling in their reports. I'm certainly not aware that they told employed researchers not to participate in a survey designed to detect such tampering, even on their own time.
This administration has been unprecidented in the amount with which they monkey around with the actions of governmental agencies, especially over environmental concerns.
Can you find evidence to the contrary?
This is not new! When given the power, people abuse it, not once, or once in a while, but a LOT.
But by saying "people," you absolve blame for the current administration.
"Everyone does it! What Bush and company are doing is not new. Why, Clinton probably did it a half-dozen times before lunch! There is nothing unprecidented about this. Nothing to see here, back to your homes.
Reports regarding the hideous bug invaders have been greatly exaggerated and their laying of eggs in soldiers' brains is in no way to be perceived as a setback in the war against terror. Our resolve is so strong!"
(Link from the always brilliant, not always-political Fafblog. Gibletsia uber alles!)
And when a scientist has the choice between getting his career ruined because of bad results / wrong hypothesis or lie in order to get a second chance, some do chose the second option.
But on the plus side, 200 researchers came forward rather than buckle. That's actually amazing.
However, 69% [~300 of the 420 people who responded] said they had never been given such a directive[to alter results].
This is irrelevant -- if it happens even once, it's horrendous, among other h-words. Probably they only threatened those people who were doing science that could conflict with the agenda anyway.
You guys want to stop this? Good. But first realize this is not just a Bush/Republican problem... This is a SYSTEM WIDE problem.
Consider: one quote versus 200 researchers... the quote doesn't explictly say that she had challenges throughout her employment there... her language her resignation came in 2002 (during Bush's reign)... and the fact that the Bush Administration has a history of doing this kind of thing in other areas.
In the news today, scientists working on politically sensitive issues are pressured by politicans.
Slashdot readers are shocked and amazed.
What?
I honestly can't believe you're saying this! 200 researchers are saying that the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is not a private organization, has told them change findings to match an agenda that lies outside of science. Don't you think that's hideous?
Even if it's human nature to expect it, that doesn't excuse it, especially when it's our government doing it. By your logic, we cannot ever be angry out government does anything except what they want to do.
News flash: government agencies are political.
Political, yes. But until recently, few of them were partisan. And fewer made falsifying science into public policy.
There ARE egregious examples of corporations overrunning the natural habitat of endangered wildlife to squeeze a quick buck out of the land. This is NOT one of those stories.
But it IS a story of the Fish and Wildlife Service cooking science in favor of non-objective interests. That is damning, regardless of whether those interests are business or personal.
I'm a moderate liberal, but this knee-jerk republican bashing over anything and everything is getting ridiculous.
I think the poster had good points, and didn't seem to bash unnecessarily. At least, I didn't spot his knee jerking....
Note, that it's Electronig Arts that's sponsoring a major in game design. Oy.
I'm thinking, these days, that the modern game development system is antithetical to new game designs, and not just because of management meddling with developers (note that in the CNNmoney article EA's management guy is actually TOUTED as having a hand in almost every game they release).
I think, however, that the thing most designers need to do these days is experiment.
That's right, experiment. Miyamoto is well-known for having run experiments with 3D development and movement systems before starting work on Mario 64. Will Wright used the stuff happening on the ground in Raid on Bungling Bay as something of a trial run for SimCity.
By experiment, I mean writing a small, unsaleable program to try out new ideas. But current tight development schedules make such undirected play unlikely.
Which leads me to believe that if Google ever got into game development, they would utterly rule.
Sure, a game company does need a frightening number of graphics drones lately, but someone with experience in, say, Shakespeare, advanced music theory, German literature, dance, fencing, or biochemistry might be a more worthwhile hire.
This English-grad-student geek blesses you, my son!
That said, I also have to say I think I'm something of a special case. It's a fact that software development requires some specialized knowledge, and while I don't think it's as difficult to pick up as many think, learning to program is a bit more time-consuming and immediately necessary to be squeezed into on-the-job training. And I've met some absolutely computer-clueless English professors. (Though it should be said, also, that one here has an old Unix server in his office, and a Tux poster on his door. He is my hero.)
Still, if you know anyone who IS looking for a programmer English major, give me a call. Look me up in the phone book under "Weird academic histories."
Academic integrity @ USC => zero.
So, USC's academic integrity is either equal to, or greater than, zero?
Okay, I choose a million!
Should universities be designed for vocational training?
No.
But.....
No.
(Disclaimer: While I've done some game development, and am looking into the GBA homebrew scene at the moment, I actually have an English degree. So take my comments with a grain of whatever flavor salt you think appropriate.)
(Mmmm... cherry salt....)
But if you link it to your post, then anyone reading it will be able to find it, saving them a step. Which was the point... eh, never mind.
Er, I meant, a link to devkitARM. Sorry about that.
A link, man! Supply a link! I must have a link!!
I differ here. I have a lynx and have played a PSP. The PSP is 1/4 the size volumetrically as the lynx.
Volume matters here less, I'd say, than the size of its "face." Is it like holding a small, square dinner plate in front of you? A flatter Etch-a-Sketch? I'll admit I'm not up on its relative size.
Don't take my word for it, hold one. Make sure you have some cash in your pocket because you will want it, it really is that simple.
I'll decide what I want for myself, thanks.
(This is one of the secret rules of advertising in this age: don't tell someone they *will* want something because, just like if you tell someone a joke is funny before telling it they're less likely to laugh, it compels some people to say "Oh, yeah?")
Well I opened myself up to that one, heh. Still, PS2 Linux isn't really a development tool, you can't expect a huge audience for your PS2 Linux software unless you distribute source-only -- and then, well, you're not really developing for the PS2, you're developing for Linux.
When talking about Flash, I was careful to say "relatively." I'm not fond of its pricing either, and I only have a copy because I'm a student. Still, console development kits are much more pricy.
Doubtful. Many early Japanese PS2 buyers bought it more for it being a cheap DVD player than a game system.
That's early buyers. This is not a portable DVD player... plus, we're talking about the U.S. market. And again, it's called a Playstation. It's definitely positioned (much as I hate to use that word) to compete against Nintendo's portable systems than portable media players, even if it can be used as such.
Think how often your PS2 (if you have one) has been the DVD player to use when friends come over. Mine got quite a workout.
I don't have a PS2, though I've been thinking about getting one lately. But I'm thinking about buying it for certain games, not its DVD playback. As far as DVD players go, a PS2 is rather lackluster, and new players are going for as little as fifty bucks these days.
Not only will it pack more power than the Playstation 2 (consolidated 128-bit blit)
I'm not sure about this... most reviewers have said the graphics look "almost as good as a PS2's." Regardless of blit speed, this seems to be the objective measure of the system's ability.
I did a little looking into the specs of the PS2 though, and it turns out that the PSP actually has a slightly faster clock speed than the PS2 -- 333mhz as opposed to the PS2's 300.
Of course, clock speed is not necessarily a good indication of how powerful a system is.
Granted, the big limitation for awhile will be storage (memory sticks don't hold much), but you shouldn't be comparing it to Nintendo's machine.
But with that Playstation brand name, people are going to be thinking of it as a video game system above all else, which, like it or not, positions it squarely against both the GBA and DS in the marketplace.
Personally, I'd compare it to any of the various video players out right now. For a screen like that, it's a steal.
People are more likely to get a DVD player (that can play, you know, actual DVDs) than this. The screen quality is irrelevant if you can't watch what you want on it.
That brings us to video playback off of memory stick. Maybe you might be able to get video onto a memory stick, but I'm still not sure Sony hasn't put some kind of restriction, in that regard, into the console. Does anyone have information on their stick video playback function besides "[Video}: "Memory Stick": MPEG-4 SP,AAC"?
Why are people willing to pay $400+ for an iPod, but for a powerful gaming system, video player and an audio player, all in one $250 is too much?
The iPod can hold a bunch more songs, is integrated with iTunes, and is damn tiny.
But most importantly, the iPod is hip, so people who'd never be caught dead with a video game system will get one. Not even GBAs have ever been hip. It may be impossible for a handheld game system to be that, in an adult sense.
I agree. Further, I tend to discount people's opinions when they say things like "the thing is sexy." That kind of thinking sets back geek culture at least a decade!
For the record, I own an Atari Lynx. Some of the games for it seriously give Gameboy titles from the same era a run for their money -- things like KLAX, Rampart and Todd's Adventures in Slime World. Really nifty things. It really wasn't like the Jaguar at all, there were some really nice games for it.
But I can't help but think that it was the form factor that did it in. When the system gets beyond a certain size, you start having to rest it on things to play. Of course the Lynx was heavier than the PSP is, but I'm not sure if it's much bigger.
Anyway, two cents.