Battery life estimates are always complete fabrications. I don't care if they do claim this is the result of actual tests rather than wishful thinking. I've never owned any battery powered device that met the manufacturer's battery life estimates.
Dividing the estimate by two is usually pretty close to the actual battery life, but it can be worse than that.
I doubt that the DS will live up to its battery life estimate either. We'll have to see how both of them perform when they come out.
The Republican Party sucks. The Democratic Party sucks. The Green Party sucks. The Libertarian Party sucks. The Reform Party sucks. The Socialist Party sucks. The Constitution Party sucks.
If there was a leak of liquid sodium or potassium I wouldn't be worried about the floor. I'd be worried about the horrible burns I'd get if any of it hit me.
I'm remember being told in high school chemistry that some kid tried to sneak a piece of sodium out of the lab in his pocket and soon came to regret it. Of course this sounds like an urban legend, but hey, chances are that someone out there has been dumb enough to try this.
For years now, many people and companies have chosen Linux simply because it is more popular than the BSDs. No, it's not really fair, but that's the way it is. Of course, this is also one of the biggest problems Linux has faced in competing against Windows.
While popularity shouldn't be the primary factor in choosing what software to use, it isn't irrelevent. For companies its easier to hire people familiar with popular software. Home users will have an easier time finding someone to help them with Windows than they will with Linux or any of the BSDs.
It's intended for people who either can't afford or don't want to go through the hassle of getting a merchant account with Visa, Mastercard, or American Express. For example if I just want to sell a single item on eBay it would be really stupid to try to get a merchant account for just one transaction. The only other options are money orders and checks, both of which are less desirable than PayPal, even after considering all of its faults.
I think that on average I lost those things within 4 hours of getting a new game. Owning a disc wallet is going to be pretty much mandatory for this thing.
I agree and that's how I pluralize it. But I can't help but join in on these discussions where people are speculating on what the Latin plural would be if it had one.
If you're expecting this to result from the development of human level AI I wouldn't bet on it. In order to solve problems not predicted by its creators it will have to make some leaps of intuition the way humans do when they solve problems. The ability to propose original solutions also introduces the possibility of error. An AI will also have to rely on inductive reasoning in some situations and there is no reason to believe that a computer can avoid making any false inductions. I suspect that human level AIs will be able to do a lot of things better than us, but they will have at least some of the same flaws we do.
I've never seen any solid evidence to support the idea that it's a fourth declension noun. It's possible but not certain. From what I've seen it's an irregular neuter second declension noun declined as
Regardless, it is neuter and one of the most consistent rules in Latin (and most of Latin's rules are very consistent) is that the plural nominative, vocative, and accusative forms of neuter nouns all end in -a. If it were a fourth declension neuter noun it would be pluralized as virua. I believe that all fourth declension neuter nouns have a singular nominative ending in -u anyway (e.g. cornu). Of course, it could be an irregular fourth declension noun, but the only irregular fourth declension noun I know of is domus. This is in contrast with the second declension which has a number of nouns with gender confusion.
First let me prefix all of this by saying that I do agree with parts of the Libertarian platform I do not think that it is a good solution as a whole.
First of all, we have to pay off our national debt before we can lower taxes to the level that you propose. I do not believe we should lower taxes at all until we have severely reduced our debt. This is because, once we are paying less in interest, we can afford to reduce taxes even lower.
Second of all, I'm not convinced that government spending can be reduced to the level that you propose. According to Table 3.2 on this site the cost of legislative functions alone was 2.8 billion in 2003. Even assuming that most of that cost is due to horrific extravagance, your goal is extremely ambitious.
There are also some functions of the government that I do not believe can be privatized. In my view, the goal of the government is to accomodate any problems that the market cannot solve on its own and I think this set of problems is larger than you think. The most important thing that needs to be done in order to insure that the market serves its participants is to do what we can to make sure that people know what they are buying. That is to say, we need things like the FDA and other such agencies. Perhaps the spending of these agencies can be reduced, but I would not want to live in a country where they do not exist.
The Libertarian solution of creating competing private regulatory bodies isn't feasible. If that were implimented, I would not only have to research every product I use, but also every regulatory company for that industry. Companies could also set up regulatory companies just for the sake of approving their products (perhaps using names remarkably similar to more trustworthy ones) and if the ruse were publically exposed, they can just create a new one. The public has a short memory for this sort of thing and in the worst cases the company can just change its name for a (somewhat) fresh start in the court of public opinion. What do you do if a trustworthy regulatory company comes under new management that is less scrupulous? How long will it take for people to find out that they can no longer be trusted?
Government spending should be reduced and I think this can be done by having the government only focus on simpler goals. We need to keep the government on a much shorter leash, but we should recognize that it has its uses beyond maintaining basic order.
I don't have enough time to reply to all of the replies to my post so I'll just say I forfeit the argument for all of the rest if that will make everyone happy. But this one I can answer quickly.
No I do not take it on faith that the government always serves the public's interest. In fact quite the opposite. However, both the government and the market are beasts that we have created. I do not see any reason why they will ever be completely benign to us. But we have to try to make them work for us in whatever ways are possible rather than simply sit around pretending that either one is a benevolent master.
Bureaucracies can be just as bad as any monopoly or any other suboptimal market. However, you hit on part of the solution: failure should never be rewarded. If portion of the government fails in some way, the jobs of everyone on the project or whatever should be at risk. Only a fool persists in error and so in some cases it may be cheaper to fire everyone and try something different rather than continuing to fund a failure.
There are no easy answers. In fact, I'm not sure there are any answers. It may very well be that every single possible course of action our society can take is severely flawed. But we always have to do the best we can.
You have got to be joking me. The government prevents me from murdering whomever I please, thus by the law of unintended consequences society would benefit if they just let me go ahead with it.
Anyway, no man is an island and it's okay to seek help from your fellow man once in a while. The fact is that no one has the time to research every product they use (even if a consumer magazine does sum it up for them).
Furthermore I've never seen any evidence that an unregulated market will always serve the interests of consumers. The market has all of the same problems that genetic algorithms do. If initial conditions and constraints aren't properly set, it ends up "cheating" and not giving you what you really want. I cannot take it on faith that the market will always serve the public's interest. This is effectively a matter of religion. I've never seen this assertion backed by anything more than some feeble anecdotes that fail to address the broader issues that might be at play.
Fuck, that site is even uglier than Slashdot. Of course I guess I could blame Microsoft for choosing that hideous color scheme for the Xbox. I understand that different people have different tastes, but this is some sort of twisted horror that should transcend taste and be universally reviled.
Re:You know how films rarely live up to a book?
on
The Long Tail
·
· Score: 1
That's because taking a work in one medium and adapting it to another medium is a task that very few people are capable of doing well. It's a lot like translation; you have to find things that parallel the techniques used in the original and exact parallels may not exist. There are a lot of things that literature can do that film cannot even begin to approximate and vice versa. The impact of describing a scene in detail is completely different from the impact of seeing all of those details presented to you at once. Both methods are equally powerful, but they achieve their effects in vastly different ways.
In general, any attempt to exactly reproduce a work in another medium is doomed to failure. You're best off at choosing what you think are the core themes of the original work and making something new that preserves those themes while making use of the strengths of your medium.
You can summarize the first type of country as "God bless America and my family" and the second type of country as "Let's get drunk and have unprotected sex in a barn."
Remember that the Challenger exploded because the conditions that caused one part to fail also caused the backup part to fail.
Barring a massive improvement in machine vision, a self-driving car would be heavily dependent on receiving signals from external beacons. What do you do if someone either jams the signal or transmits false information?
Planes have a lot less traffic to deal with and when they do have to deal with.
Bah, I changed the direction I wanted to go with that and didn't bother to proofread my modifications. I guess I meant to say "Planes have a lot less traffic to deal with."
Slashdot Mirror
Battery life estimates are always complete fabrications. I don't care if they do claim this is the result of actual tests rather than wishful thinking. I've never owned any battery powered device that met the manufacturer's battery life estimates.
Dividing the estimate by two is usually pretty close to the actual battery life, but it can be worse than that.
I doubt that the DS will live up to its battery life estimate either. We'll have to see how both of them perform when they come out.
The Republican Party sucks. The Democratic Party sucks. The Green Party sucks. The Libertarian Party sucks. The Reform Party sucks. The Socialist Party sucks. The Constitution Party sucks.
If there was a leak of liquid sodium or potassium I wouldn't be worried about the floor. I'd be worried about the horrible burns I'd get if any of it hit me.
I'm remember being told in high school chemistry that some kid tried to sneak a piece of sodium out of the lab in his pocket and soon came to regret it. Of course this sounds like an urban legend, but hey, chances are that someone out there has been dumb enough to try this.
For years now, many people and companies have chosen Linux simply because it is more popular than the BSDs. No, it's not really fair, but that's the way it is. Of course, this is also one of the biggest problems Linux has faced in competing against Windows.
While popularity shouldn't be the primary factor in choosing what software to use, it isn't irrelevent. For companies its easier to hire people familiar with popular software. Home users will have an easier time finding someone to help them with Windows than they will with Linux or any of the BSDs.
It's intended for people who either can't afford or don't want to go through the hassle of getting a merchant account with Visa, Mastercard, or American Express. For example if I just want to sell a single item on eBay it would be really stupid to try to get a merchant account for just one transaction. The only other options are money orders and checks, both of which are less desirable than PayPal, even after considering all of its faults.
I was thinking some variation on Samus Aran for the login. My only guess for the password was Metroid.
I think that on average I lost those things within 4 hours of getting a new game. Owning a disc wallet is going to be pretty much mandatory for this thing.
I agree and that's how I pluralize it. But I can't help but join in on these discussions where people are speculating on what the Latin plural would be if it had one.
The big question is how much did Pikmin 2 cost to develop compared to Fable?
If you're expecting this to result from the development of human level AI I wouldn't bet on it. In order to solve problems not predicted by its creators it will have to make some leaps of intuition the way humans do when they solve problems. The ability to propose original solutions also introduces the possibility of error. An AI will also have to rely on inductive reasoning in some situations and there is no reason to believe that a computer can avoid making any false inductions. I suspect that human level AIs will be able to do a lot of things better than us, but they will have at least some of the same flaws we do.
I'll take that as a compliment.
It's only the beginning. I'm stuck on Flat Maze on the space station level.
I've never seen any solid evidence to support the idea that it's a fourth declension noun. It's possible but not certain. From what I've seen it's an irregular neuter second declension noun declined as
Nom: virus
Voc: virus
Acc: virus
Gen: viri
Dat: viro
Abl: viro
Regardless, it is neuter and one of the most consistent rules in Latin (and most of Latin's rules are very consistent) is that the plural nominative, vocative, and accusative forms of neuter nouns all end in -a. If it were a fourth declension neuter noun it would be pluralized as virua. I believe that all fourth declension neuter nouns have a singular nominative ending in -u anyway (e.g. cornu). Of course, it could be an irregular fourth declension noun, but the only irregular fourth declension noun I know of is domus. This is in contrast with the second declension which has a number of nouns with gender confusion.
First let me prefix all of this by saying that I do agree with parts of the Libertarian platform I do not think that it is a good solution as a whole.
First of all, we have to pay off our national debt before we can lower taxes to the level that you propose. I do not believe we should lower taxes at all until we have severely reduced our debt. This is because, once we are paying less in interest, we can afford to reduce taxes even lower.
Second of all, I'm not convinced that government spending can be reduced to the level that you propose. According to Table 3.2 on this site the cost of legislative functions alone was 2.8 billion in 2003. Even assuming that most of that cost is due to horrific extravagance, your goal is extremely ambitious.
There are also some functions of the government that I do not believe can be privatized. In my view, the goal of the government is to accomodate any problems that the market cannot solve on its own and I think this set of problems is larger than you think. The most important thing that needs to be done in order to insure that the market serves its participants is to do what we can to make sure that people know what they are buying. That is to say, we need things like the FDA and other such agencies. Perhaps the spending of these agencies can be reduced, but I would not want to live in a country where they do not exist.
The Libertarian solution of creating competing private regulatory bodies isn't feasible. If that were implimented, I would not only have to research every product I use, but also every regulatory company for that industry. Companies could also set up regulatory companies just for the sake of approving their products (perhaps using names remarkably similar to more trustworthy ones) and if the ruse were publically exposed, they can just create a new one. The public has a short memory for this sort of thing and in the worst cases the company can just change its name for a (somewhat) fresh start in the court of public opinion. What do you do if a trustworthy regulatory company comes under new management that is less scrupulous? How long will it take for people to find out that they can no longer be trusted?
Government spending should be reduced and I think this can be done by having the government only focus on simpler goals. We need to keep the government on a much shorter leash, but we should recognize that it has its uses beyond maintaining basic order.
I don't have enough time to reply to all of the replies to my post so I'll just say I forfeit the argument for all of the rest if that will make everyone happy. But this one I can answer quickly.
No I do not take it on faith that the government always serves the public's interest. In fact quite the opposite. However, both the government and the market are beasts that we have created. I do not see any reason why they will ever be completely benign to us. But we have to try to make them work for us in whatever ways are possible rather than simply sit around pretending that either one is a benevolent master.
Bureaucracies can be just as bad as any monopoly or any other suboptimal market. However, you hit on part of the solution: failure should never be rewarded. If portion of the government fails in some way, the jobs of everyone on the project or whatever should be at risk. Only a fool persists in error and so in some cases it may be cheaper to fire everyone and try something different rather than continuing to fund a failure.
There are no easy answers. In fact, I'm not sure there are any answers. It may very well be that every single possible course of action our society can take is severely flawed. But we always have to do the best we can.
You have got to be joking me. The government prevents me from murdering whomever I please, thus by the law of unintended consequences society would benefit if they just let me go ahead with it.
Anyway, no man is an island and it's okay to seek help from your fellow man once in a while. The fact is that no one has the time to research every product they use (even if a consumer magazine does sum it up for them).
Furthermore I've never seen any evidence that an unregulated market will always serve the interests of consumers. The market has all of the same problems that genetic algorithms do. If initial conditions and constraints aren't properly set, it ends up "cheating" and not giving you what you really want. I cannot take it on faith that the market will always serve the public's interest. This is effectively a matter of religion. I've never seen this assertion backed by anything more than some feeble anecdotes that fail to address the broader issues that might be at play.
Why should there be any PSP fans when the thing hasn't even come out yet?
I wonder if they need any instructions.
Fuck, that site is even uglier than Slashdot. Of course I guess I could blame Microsoft for choosing that hideous color scheme for the Xbox. I understand that different people have different tastes, but this is some sort of twisted horror that should transcend taste and be universally reviled.
That's because taking a work in one medium and adapting it to another medium is a task that very few people are capable of doing well. It's a lot like translation; you have to find things that parallel the techniques used in the original and exact parallels may not exist. There are a lot of things that literature can do that film cannot even begin to approximate and vice versa. The impact of describing a scene in detail is completely different from the impact of seeing all of those details presented to you at once. Both methods are equally powerful, but they achieve their effects in vastly different ways.
In general, any attempt to exactly reproduce a work in another medium is doomed to failure. You're best off at choosing what you think are the core themes of the original work and making something new that preserves those themes while making use of the strengths of your medium.
Yeah, but the X prize doesn't have the potential to change the world that the DS does.
You can summarize the first type of country as "God bless America and my family" and the second type of country as "Let's get drunk and have unprotected sex in a barn."
Remember that the Challenger exploded because the conditions that caused one part to fail also caused the backup part to fail.
Barring a massive improvement in machine vision, a self-driving car would be heavily dependent on receiving signals from external beacons. What do you do if someone either jams the signal or transmits false information?
That's why it's also the most entertaining choice.
Bah, I changed the direction I wanted to go with that and didn't bother to proofread my modifications. I guess I meant to say "Planes have a lot less traffic to deal with."