That said, I assume the original poster could not have made such a misattribution mistake undeliberately, particularly when penning a post about how a minor misattribution mistake caused a financial disaster.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Can you provide a reference for the timescale on the strangelet disaster scenario.. the last thing I read about it indicated it would propogate at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, but maybe that source was wrong?
I'm afraid that a billion LHCs would be close to if not larger than the size of the earth itself. Somewhat beyond our current engineering capabilities.
Which is not to mention that a probe of meaningful size would be substantially more than billions of times as large as the atom packs they accelerate in this thing.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Past performance is not a guarantee of future success, as they like to say in the financial world.
The real problem here is that scientists seem to think the chance of destroying the world is quite small. Not zero. Would it really kill us to spend a little more time doing astronomic observations to verify that quark stars don't exist, for example?
Re:Regular status updates can be found here:
on
LHC Flips On Tomorrow
·
· Score: 2, Funny
You missed the comment <!-- oh shit bears --> Go look up how that is to be rendered in the html4 spec in the event of the earth's destruction.
The conspiracy theory part comes in because the review was glowing and pretty much everybody who is not a reviewer and has played it has said 'meh... it's not very fun'.
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
The securerom one. They bypass system services to lock out dvd copying software, and give remote access to your system to check for pirated software (and who knows what else they might do with the access, obviously)
If it's not a moral issue for somebody, that's clearly fine (at least to them). I'm just saying that they weren't forced into it. If they cared, they could make a stand against this stuff. That it was wrong was pretty much in the premise of the conversation. Is it as wrong as torture? Clearly not. It's pretty much at the level of theft, really, since you're selling a product you know will become dysfunctional at some future point. So you're taking someone's money, and not really warning them about how the product you're giving them in exchange for that money will stop working.
Doesn't have to be their day job. That's like saying it's ok to sign on as a professional torturer when other jobs are available. "It's my day job" does not excuse your immoral choices in life.
They could self publish it online, a lot of games get published that way. They are free in every sense of the word to make a choice not to make a deal with the devil for money.
Sure. Nothing in the law prevents you from volunteering to create works for corporations for free. Choosing to volunteer your efforts for EA is your choice.
Did you not read the parent post you replied to? He specifically mentioned that the developer was free to agree or not to agree with a publisher's requirement to use securerom.
It's a review at one of the top 3 media outlets. It's the only one they have. This is the person they pay to review. And it is completely filled with inaccuracies, almost echoing the publicity materials for the game. It meets my definition of shill. Maybe it doesn't for you.
Sadly it's just terrible. Horribly boring. Evolutions is largely meaningless. There's basically no point in playing more than once, even going down a completely opposite tree was an identical experience. Just painfully dull.
I think it either has to be public or have a lot of support infrastructure around it... ie, if I have a personal blacklist, it's valuable to have all of my 'friends' be able to evaluate that, and consider adding to their own blacklists.
I guess really the key is to have a lot of meta-information about the moderation system available to the user, and to allow users to share that meta-information. This would work much more effectively to control moderation than the current metamod system.
Sure, same as you can do now, except in my system everyone who thinks those accounts are abusive can delist them from their private view of moderation.
A completely public mod system. If you downmod someone, and I don't approve of your moderation, then I can filter your moderations in the future. Also allow controls for recently created accounts to prevent advertisers from spamming new accounts, and you're done. Better moderation system achieved.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an easy way to get free karma.
That said, I assume the original poster could not have made such a misattribution mistake undeliberately, particularly when penning a post about how a minor misattribution mistake caused a financial disaster.
WHOOSH!
Can you provide a reference for the timescale on the strangelet disaster scenario .. the last thing I read about it indicated it would propogate at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, but maybe that source was wrong?
I'm afraid that a billion LHCs would be close to if not larger than the size of the earth itself. Somewhat beyond our current engineering capabilities.
Which is not to mention that a probe of meaningful size would be substantially more than billions of times as large as the atom packs they accelerate in this thing.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future success, as they like to say in the financial world.
The real problem here is that scientists seem to think the chance of destroying the world is quite small. Not zero. Would it really kill us to spend a little more time doing astronomic observations to verify that quark stars don't exist, for example?
You missed the comment
<!-- oh shit bears -->
Go look up how that is to be rendered in the html4 spec in the event of the earth's destruction.
The conspiracy theory part comes in because the review was glowing and pretty much everybody who is not a reviewer and has played it has said 'meh ... it's not very fun'.
The securerom one. They bypass system services to lock out dvd copying software, and give remote access to your system to check for pirated software (and who knows what else they might do with the access, obviously)
If it's not a moral issue for somebody, that's clearly fine (at least to them). I'm just saying that they weren't forced into it. If they cared, they could make a stand against this stuff. That it was wrong was pretty much in the premise of the conversation. Is it as wrong as torture? Clearly not. It's pretty much at the level of theft, really, since you're selling a product you know will become dysfunctional at some future point. So you're taking someone's money, and not really warning them about how the product you're giving them in exchange for that money will stop working.
Doesn't have to be their day job. That's like saying it's ok to sign on as a professional torturer when other jobs are available. "It's my day job" does not excuse your immoral choices in life.
They could self publish it online, a lot of games get published that way. They are free in every sense of the word to make a choice not to make a deal with the devil for money.
Right, they made a (possibly excellent financially, but morally bankrupt) choice to negotiate a contract that included DRM with a publisher.
Who the heck moderated this 'offtopic'? Will Wright?
Sure. Nothing in the law prevents you from volunteering to create works for corporations for free. Choosing to volunteer your efforts for EA is your choice.
Did you not read the parent post you replied to? He specifically mentioned that the developer was free to agree or not to agree with a publisher's requirement to use securerom.
It's a review at one of the top 3 media outlets. It's the only one they have. This is the person they pay to review. And it is completely filled with inaccuracies, almost echoing the publicity materials for the game. It meets my definition of shill. Maybe it doesn't for you.
What a completely shill review by the way.
http://discuss.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/08/1841134-spore-is-a-game-for-all-gamers?threadId=352205&cmt=2818650#c2818650
Sadly it's just terrible. Horribly boring. Evolutions is largely meaningless. There's basically no point in playing more than once, even going down a completely opposite tree was an identical experience. Just painfully dull.
I believe the british version is 'bukkake' not 'bunkre'.
There's a guy a few posts up with some hunter spiders that will take care of that grue for you.
I think it either has to be public or have a lot of support infrastructure around it ... ie, if I have a personal blacklist, it's valuable to have all of my 'friends' be able to evaluate that, and consider adding to their own blacklists.
I guess really the key is to have a lot of meta-information about the moderation system available to the user, and to allow users to share that meta-information. This would work much more effectively to control moderation than the current metamod system.
Sure, same as you can do now, except in my system everyone who thinks those accounts are abusive can delist them from their private view of moderation.
Let me know how you're feeling about that retro style when you discover what a foot crack is.
I think he would love it. George Carlin faked his own fucking death you know.
A completely public mod system. If you downmod someone, and I don't approve of your moderation, then I can filter your moderations in the future. Also allow controls for recently created accounts to prevent advertisers from spamming new accounts, and you're done. Better moderation system achieved.