Looks like they are. Seems like they're actually just doing the Steam two-step, where they stand there bobbing their head along to the money, until something starts making noise about being restricted in some market. At which point, they shuffle things around, until that noise stops, then resume doing as little as they can.
Which is fine as far as I'm concerned - but don't count on them for whatever standards you might hold for quality content - as long as it doesn't throw glaring error messages during an official play session loop, it's OK for the store, plus whatever the content ratings groups decide to do on their side for each regional jurisdiction.
You know how companies declare their profit in their investor meetings? That's a public declaration.
Tax based on that. Or whatever they fill in their tax forms - whichever is greater. No having your cake and eating it too - no more Hollywood accounting and still claiming record income.
This is an issue of scope, profit margin, and market evaluations.
You know why Steam doesn't hand-pick games to be on their marketplace? Scope of the task. They clean up the biggest disasters, but basically filter feed on whatever pops out of that ecosystem.
Same thing for the Microsoft store, the android marketplace, and large parts of the Apple marketplace.
And those are marketplaces where the profit margins are relatively large.
Well, relatively large, compared to Youtube.
In setting any standards involving an expectation of paid human oversight - including just managing a bunch of volunteers - even at some absurdly low 1 to 1 million ratio, they risk the value they hold in the primary underlying motivation of their bosses: The market value of their platform.
That's the real issue - business stuff like staff responding to DMCA complaints is also expensive, but the market isn't going to lower their stock for that. But having to hire and maintain staff to stand in as referees in effectively political contests... that's going to generate blowback they can't shuffle under some easy cost line in a report.
That's kind of the problem with being a public traded company. The pressures aren't just financial - they are also largely the political fashion sense of the market pushing everyone to play a game of taking the most they can from contracts (customer and employee alike), and then providing that value back as maximal perceived market value.
The irony is that we call it being 'publicly traded' - where it functions mostly to funnel wealth into fewer and fewer private hands in the end.
In the end, our shared retirement accounts get regularly raided and scammed, and the entire market is expected to crash, as if it was a force of nature - because minimal oversight is seen as more expensive and odious than frequent disaster.
That's the shape of the system we make for ourselves.
Not because it is hard, but because we think it sounds easy. And will look good.
Because the real service we offer, is to allow the crueler half of a large generation empty remembrances of what they used to like the idea of, as we strip of it of meaning.
I've been to science/media conventions where folks in upper-level NASA positions (often conservatives) speak frankly on these subjects, along with a lot of engineer coworkers that spent time on the - none of this lines up at all with anything they'd want.
This is actually a decent form of shared demos - in the sense that you get access to the full experience, but sort of a artifact-and-lag-laden version of the game that your friends don't have to pay for.
Not so great for strategy games and turn-based RPGs - but a decent additional option.
Kind of inherently precludes any multiplayer as-is though, since you'd still logically need multiple copies, and I don't think they'll let you map multiple controllers to exist on multiple PCs simultaneously - likely won't even let a single copy of any game run at the same time on two systems.
If it works like Steam Link though - you'll automatically see what the outside player is doing - since it's your video card they're rendering with to show the game. Add in automatic voice chat, and you can even guide the guest friend on parts of the game.
Could actually lead to some interesting interactive press-style demos too and the like, depending on what controls they allow.
Let's say you grab the end of a cable tied down at the other end, and you give it a thwap - send a pulse down that chord, that bounces as it hits the end, reducing much like a sound wave. No sound, but a propagating wave in a physical medium that can also make sound if you plucked it instead of whipping it.
Does that add mass?
If so, is there anything special about sound in this? Or would any chain reaction propagation of kinetic energy do the same?
The actual article seems to emphasize that the wave is more 'carrying' mass, rather than establishing any that wouldn't exist anyway - so really, this seems more a matter of measurement and classification of where mass is at any moment, rather than new atoms springing into existence or something.
There's no special detectable radiation from sound in our environment - just, you know, the kinetic wave we're used to.
Ha! Nope - I think there's like at least 12 of us, believe it or not. Fenton isn't that common - but Ryan has become common, so it can be amusing seeing where the name ends up. As casual 'proof', I think I've been on Slashdot longer than that guy would have been able to type.
One-size-fits-all rules like this are basically bullshit statistical naval gazing. True that you can find a pattern if you glom together enough folks from enough jobs - but false that you can make a rule that will map back on to even a large portion of them.
The rule shouldn't be that enforced breaks will let you squeeze that last drop of productivity out of a beleagered employee drone - but rather, employees that figure out of their own limits and are given leeway to take whatever breaks allow themselves to be optimal can end up becoming more efficient.
Moreover, the goal shouldn't even be some mythical optimal output level - that itself is largely bullshit outside pure robotic-style activity. Sure - efficiency per dollar is important part of an overall evaluation - but the real issue is morale from employees in roles they have no full stake in other than punishment and fear of loss.
The whole employer-employee balance goes around in cycles - but that cycle is itself falling prey to the shifting waves of HR manipulation and political manipulation. Raises are increasingly something that never beat inflation except in extreme cases.
The political system is squeezing the legal system into cutting off all avenues for labor organization or preventing contracts from becoming absolutely insane. The whole idea of employment is shifting to more manipulative realms in more and more places.
So yeah - folks have to play motivational games with themselves to step out of the manipulation and unstable framework of their jobs, in order to perform better at their often perceptibly worthless tasks assigned to them. They often have almost no say at making their tasks themselves better.
The 'fix' in most cases isn't playing more of those motivational games - it's making the role itself less stagnant, in terms of outcome for the employee, and let them make the role more efficient as they go.
But that's not really the fashion of the day - so, go ahead with your enforced company synchronized dancing or whatever comes next.
If the nation is a body, conservative movements like this are like sleep - closing off from the outside world, consuming internal resources, remembering the past, and quite often living virtual nightmares.
Only in this case, every time the nation as went to sleep for extended periods like this, it lost enormous portions of its body against its will.
That makes nations like this closer to bacteria in dynamic intelligence than people.
Last I checked, you don't really have to live somewhere to own something. It would be a petty move to push that 'logic' now. Well, not as petty as Brexit itself, but almost as pointless and self-destructive for the sake of making a statement that means almost nothing.
There's something really odd about the human psychology - where the common welfare throughout history has always been cheaper to maintain than paying for the consequences of it breaking down - but folks seem to viscerally dislike any status improvement of their neighbors.
England specifically is rife with examples of this - the very fall of their empire is basically the story of a folks with a romantic love of Malthusian-like economic ideas inflicting abject cruelty in the name of the nobility of self-gain, and literally losing nation after nation after nation.
1) The company running the scheme is a profit-seeking entity. 2) The company is publicly traded. 3) The company has a board of directors that benefits from decisions that draw profit....this won't be a real fix. Any of those things will rapidly cause any good will towards the welfare of human beings in the system to break down - as the need to draw profit shapes every decision little bits at a time.
Soon, all the lip service will be there ("At [company name], we strive to ensure the best possible health outcome for you and your family!") - but it will rapidly become strained, then hollow in meaning.
All groups face limitations - but a public healthcare system actually works to ensure a minimal health standard that is generally stable over time. Market solutions always shift in motivation towards the more stark forms of greed - since there's no counter-force of meaningful competition in almost all cases.
Whatever the market will bear means something rather horrible when it comes to a person told they are on the verge of death. And the market will fairly see a motivated buyer - and will act accordingly. And that viewpoint will always win with no regulation.
I looked at the actual article, and the article it references - and they're all short tabloid blabs without any link to the full article.
Nothing obvious showing up on Georgia Institute of Technology's websites.
Like with most reports on early reporting on scientific studies, it helps to see what the actual text says - reporters have a tendency to, well, sensationalize findings to meet their own needs.
>>If you are going to discuss linguistics relating to what is the Internet, then you should capitalize it properly ("Internet").
Nah - I think it's been a while since almost all standards bodies and style guides stopped suggesting that.
Capitalizing is kind of a system of giving credit - and the internet is past the point where there's anything to give credit to that would help anything. In that sense, it's bigger than English or any single language, in the sense that there's nothing trying to tally how widespread its use is - it's the exchange system that needs no special name.
That's why I compare it with the universe or concepts like science or math. The universe needs no special capitalization either.
If you connect your network to the internet, it is part of the internet. That's what the internet is. It's the network between networks.
What he wants is not an internet, but a national intranet - well, unless he never connects it in any way to the rest of the world - then and only then would it be its own internet.
It's sort of like the definition of observable universe. If you can observe something, it is part of the universe. That's the whole 'Uni' part of universe - just one bucket to put things. So, if there's a gateway to some new place you can walk to/from - then you didn't open a gateway to another universe, you made the universe larger by opening that door. Connecting to our universe inherently joins the two spaces into once cross-observable space, even if you put protections and limitations in place.
Yeah - having a Windows 10 system in sleep mode is annoying, because it'll actually WAKE UP the system in order to tell me I need to apply an update. Super annoying when I'm trying to sleep and I hear that "computer waking up" fan noise.
There's something to be said for priorities - computers are arguably supposed to serve the interests of folks that own the computers. Taking all that away just to serve the public relations/"security" interests of Microsoft in fixing their security issues seems an intense, giant waste of human annoyance and time, along with other rational ownership issues..
A better game theory strategy would be for Microsoft to have to email us with cash offers to update our systems within a timeframe, and we just don't get the $2 or whatever if we are busy and don't want to update.
These increasing waves of punishment for not wanting to be bothered about increasingly draconian update cycles won't end well - and if anything, will result in companies increasing in this pattern of carelessness in design and testing.
If folks really find this 'treatment' beneficial, find someone with hemochromatosis, and offer them a low payment for regular donation.
For those that don't know, it's a condition where a persons gut is sort of out-of-control in terms of how much iron it absorbs, leading to a slight excess of iron. This slight extra iron can build up to unsafe levels if not removed for several decades- and the most convenient option for removal is simple: Draining about a blood donation worth of blood twice a week, until the levels are 'normal', then less frequently to maintain.
The body replaces the blood just fine, and the blood is perfectly find for almost every use, since a slightly elevated iron level is rarely an issue for 99% of cases.
Unfortunately, lots of blood organizations refuse to draw blood from folks with this condition for free - and want to charge for the regular blood donation as 'treatment' - and will even pour the blood out rather than use it to help anyone, with no clear reason other than unmentioned greed as motivations.
So, if this 'treatment' becomes fashion, then I hope it leads to a less crazy situation for folks with that condition - though it is still crazy to use blood this way too. Perhaps in this case, two crazy situations make a sane result?
Listen - I understand all the ideals of cryptocurrencies - from distributed power, to limited supply, to anonymity.
They're a worthwhile idea to explore - but every virtue they hold has a vice - and for the same reason I find biofuels competing with food crops to be a bad tradeoff - I find expending fuel into the environment to be a similar bad tradeoff.
That's hardly the only concern - but it's enough for me to consider it an idea that really needs to go back to the drawing board as a currency.
That said, it's still a resource that will be speculated on - so good luck to those that care about that aspect, I suppose.
How do you provide crucial public services in a marketplace that works largely by the relative absence of exactly those services that used to be considered crucial? In this case, basic rigor in critical thinking about events of the day.
You can harp on fundraising - like Wikipedia does, and NPR does on the regular - but then your role shifts over time to being an injured bird that sings for crumbs - an injured bird that is supposed to represent an entire set of crucial viewpoints against a market that now thinks that everything else is 'the other side' of a rather stupid division of argument.
But how do you change that equation? Even if you did, how would you change that equation that doesn't just dissolve into the same intentionally muddied negative values that politics is mired in?
These questions are often part of most skeptical minded communities over time - whether 'liberal' or 'conservative' minded - how to you fight that ghettoization of thought that comes with reducing the insanity of a system.
My preference would be to have it just be considered part of basic public education - then Snopes and the like can just be a normal source of continuing general education, which is really the proper role, regardless of your political preferences.
It already exists from public spaces - like with satellites or various police/traffic cameras. No warrant needed, therefore warrantless surveillance.
In cases where a warrant would be needed - like flying to places that the FAA wouldn't permit anyway - then no, I'm not OK with that.
I'm sure there's also some loopholes I wouldn't be OK with - but as far as what the article mentions about using them for fire fighting or similar unarmed public interest uses, seems a good use of our shared resources as long as we're already deciding on spending hundreds of billions on unnecessary military expenses.
What I'd prefer is we spend closer to what most nations spend on military expenses - still a lot, but nowhere near the hyper-industry we make it now.
Unarmed drones are just sky cameras - fairly cheap, and basically a slightly different shade of the other sky cameras we have in the form of satellites.
As long as they're coordinating with the FAA, and validly serving the public interests rather than doing it for income or favors to third parties, I'm generally cool with it. It's actually a relatively cheap way to keep those folks busy and maintaining a large-scale force of pilots and software that would likely be useful in future intelligence-focused hot zones.
Armed drones on the other hand have WAAAY too many forms of major liability - from theft, to crashes, to irresponsible use, to accidents even with responsible use. I say don't even have them installed with hard points to install weapons, and make converting them to armed drones require several forms of permission and emergency confirmation at the least - and even then, that's more the job of the police during emergencies.
If you want to train with armed drones, do it in simulations, or rarely in the desert in existing ordinance testing zones. Don't risk the liability of using them anywhere near populated areas or in any kind of unrestrained use - that's way outside the military's realm of responsibility.
As long as it's less like 'Other M', and more like any of the Prime games eventually - then great.
It's somewhat odd - but when the original creator went back to the series, taking over after the prime series, he really made a mess out of the character and her motivations.
It's nice to see that they seem to be learning that lesson, and putting it more in the hands of ILM, and less in the hands of 'Lucas' himself in this case.
The whole point of Samus was she showed how little gender in a trained warrior should matter, kicking butt in power armor says all you need. Flashbacks to childhood and freezing before a critter you already killed like 5 times is NOT adding to that character, and not anywhere worth taking away gameplay control. And that's just like 1% of the things wrong that debacle.
There's like hundreds of videos on youtube at least on variants of this technique, all around that same 100-ish times faster than additive printing range of minutes versus hours of print time.
It's cool - but this is like one of those 'revolutionary' battery marketing releases where they ignore the drawbacks and don't mention the dozen times this idea has been pushed before.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see:
https://store.playstation.com/...
Looks like they are. Seems like they're actually just doing the Steam two-step, where they stand there bobbing their head along to the money, until something starts making noise about being restricted in some market. At which point, they shuffle things around, until that noise stops, then resume doing as little as they can.
Which is fine as far as I'm concerned - but don't count on them for whatever standards you might hold for quality content - as long as it doesn't throw glaring error messages during an official play session loop, it's OK for the store, plus whatever the content ratings groups decide to do on their side for each regional jurisdiction.
Ryan Fenton
You know how companies declare their profit in their investor meetings? That's a public declaration.
Tax based on that. Or whatever they fill in their tax forms - whichever is greater. No having your cake and eating it too - no more Hollywood accounting and still claiming record income.
Ryan Fenton
This is an issue of scope, profit margin, and market evaluations.
You know why Steam doesn't hand-pick games to be on their marketplace? Scope of the task. They clean up the biggest disasters, but basically filter feed on whatever pops out of that ecosystem.
Same thing for the Microsoft store, the android marketplace, and large parts of the Apple marketplace.
And those are marketplaces where the profit margins are relatively large.
Well, relatively large, compared to Youtube.
In setting any standards involving an expectation of paid human oversight - including just managing a bunch of volunteers - even at some absurdly low 1 to 1 million ratio, they risk the value they hold in the primary underlying motivation of their bosses: The market value of their platform.
That's the real issue - business stuff like staff responding to DMCA complaints is also expensive, but the market isn't going to lower their stock for that. But having to hire and maintain staff to stand in as referees in effectively political contests... that's going to generate blowback they can't shuffle under some easy cost line in a report.
That's kind of the problem with being a public traded company. The pressures aren't just financial - they are also largely the political fashion sense of the market pushing everyone to play a game of taking the most they can from contracts (customer and employee alike), and then providing that value back as maximal perceived market value.
The irony is that we call it being 'publicly traded' - where it functions mostly to funnel wealth into fewer and fewer private hands in the end.
In the end, our shared retirement accounts get regularly raided and scammed, and the entire market is expected to crash, as if it was a force of nature - because minimal oversight is seen as more expensive and odious than frequent disaster.
That's the shape of the system we make for ourselves.
Ryan Fenton
Not because it is hard, but because we think it sounds easy. And will look good.
Because the real service we offer, is to allow the crueler half of a large generation empty remembrances of what they used to like the idea of, as we strip of it of meaning.
I've been to science/media conventions where folks in upper-level NASA positions (often conservatives) speak frankly on these subjects, along with a lot of engineer coworkers that spent time on the - none of this lines up at all with anything they'd want.
Ryan Fenton
This is actually a decent form of shared demos - in the sense that you get access to the full experience, but sort of a artifact-and-lag-laden version of the game that your friends don't have to pay for.
Not so great for strategy games and turn-based RPGs - but a decent additional option.
Kind of inherently precludes any multiplayer as-is though, since you'd still logically need multiple copies, and I don't think they'll let you map multiple controllers to exist on multiple PCs simultaneously - likely won't even let a single copy of any game run at the same time on two systems.
If it works like Steam Link though - you'll automatically see what the outside player is doing - since it's your video card they're rendering with to show the game. Add in automatic voice chat, and you can even guide the guest friend on parts of the game.
Could actually lead to some interesting interactive press-style demos too and the like, depending on what controls they allow.
Ryan Fenton
Let's say you grab the end of a cable tied down at the other end, and you give it a thwap - send a pulse down that chord, that bounces as it hits the end, reducing much like a sound wave. No sound, but a propagating wave in a physical medium that can also make sound if you plucked it instead of whipping it.
Does that add mass?
If so, is there anything special about sound in this? Or would any chain reaction propagation of kinetic energy do the same?
The actual article seems to emphasize that the wave is more 'carrying' mass, rather than establishing any that wouldn't exist anyway - so really, this seems more a matter of measurement and classification of where mass is at any moment, rather than new atoms springing into existence or something.
There's no special detectable radiation from sound in our environment - just, you know, the kinetic wave we're used to.
Ryan Fenton
Ha! Nope - I think there's like at least 12 of us, believe it or not. Fenton isn't that common - but Ryan has become common, so it can be amusing seeing where the name ends up. As casual 'proof', I think I've been on Slashdot longer than that guy would have been able to type.
Ryan Fenton
One-size-fits-all rules like this are basically bullshit statistical naval gazing. True that you can find a pattern if you glom together enough folks from enough jobs - but false that you can make a rule that will map back on to even a large portion of them.
The rule shouldn't be that enforced breaks will let you squeeze that last drop of productivity out of a beleagered employee drone - but rather, employees that figure out of their own limits and are given leeway to take whatever breaks allow themselves to be optimal can end up becoming more efficient.
Moreover, the goal shouldn't even be some mythical optimal output level - that itself is largely bullshit outside pure robotic-style activity. Sure - efficiency per dollar is important part of an overall evaluation - but the real issue is morale from employees in roles they have no full stake in other than punishment and fear of loss.
The whole employer-employee balance goes around in cycles - but that cycle is itself falling prey to the shifting waves of HR manipulation and political manipulation. Raises are increasingly something that never beat inflation except in extreme cases.
The political system is squeezing the legal system into cutting off all avenues for labor organization or preventing contracts from becoming absolutely insane. The whole idea of employment is shifting to more manipulative realms in more and more places.
So yeah - folks have to play motivational games with themselves to step out of the manipulation and unstable framework of their jobs, in order to perform better at their often perceptibly worthless tasks assigned to them. They often have almost no say at making their tasks themselves better.
The 'fix' in most cases isn't playing more of those motivational games - it's making the role itself less stagnant, in terms of outcome for the employee, and let them make the role more efficient as they go.
But that's not really the fashion of the day - so, go ahead with your enforced company synchronized dancing or whatever comes next.
Ryan Fenton
That's kind of what conservative movements are.
If the nation is a body, conservative movements like this are like sleep - closing off from the outside world, consuming internal resources, remembering the past, and quite often living virtual nightmares.
Only in this case, every time the nation as went to sleep for extended periods like this, it lost enormous portions of its body against its will.
That makes nations like this closer to bacteria in dynamic intelligence than people.
Ryan Fenton
Last I checked, you don't really have to live somewhere to own something. It would be a petty move to push that 'logic' now. Well, not as petty as Brexit itself, but almost as pointless and self-destructive for the sake of making a statement that means almost nothing.
There's something really odd about the human psychology - where the common welfare throughout history has always been cheaper to maintain than paying for the consequences of it breaking down - but folks seem to viscerally dislike any status improvement of their neighbors.
England specifically is rife with examples of this - the very fall of their empire is basically the story of a folks with a romantic love of Malthusian-like economic ideas inflicting abject cruelty in the name of the nobility of self-gain, and literally losing nation after nation after nation.
Ryan Fenton
Yeah, as long any of the following holds, true:
1) The company running the scheme is a profit-seeking entity. ...this won't be a real fix. Any of those things will rapidly cause any good will towards the welfare of human beings in the system to break down - as the need to draw profit shapes every decision little bits at a time.
2) The company is publicly traded.
3) The company has a board of directors that benefits from decisions that draw profit.
Soon, all the lip service will be there ("At [company name], we strive to ensure the best possible health outcome for you and your family!") - but it will rapidly become strained, then hollow in meaning.
All groups face limitations - but a public healthcare system actually works to ensure a minimal health standard that is generally stable over time. Market solutions always shift in motivation towards the more stark forms of greed - since there's no counter-force of meaningful competition in almost all cases.
Whatever the market will bear means something rather horrible when it comes to a person told they are on the verge of death. And the market will fairly see a motivated buyer - and will act accordingly. And that viewpoint will always win with no regulation.
Ryan Fenton
Nevermind:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.110...
Ryan Fenton
I looked at the actual article, and the article it references - and they're all short tabloid blabs without any link to the full article.
Nothing obvious showing up on Georgia Institute of Technology's websites.
Like with most reports on early reporting on scientific studies, it helps to see what the actual text says - reporters have a tendency to, well, sensationalize findings to meet their own needs.
Ryan Fenton
Cool - I'll check it out. Thanks!
Ryan Fenton
>>If you are going to discuss linguistics relating to what is the Internet, then you should capitalize it properly ("Internet").
Nah - I think it's been a while since almost all standards bodies and style guides stopped suggesting that.
Capitalizing is kind of a system of giving credit - and the internet is past the point where there's anything to give credit to that would help anything. In that sense, it's bigger than English or any single language, in the sense that there's nothing trying to tally how widespread its use is - it's the exchange system that needs no special name.
That's why I compare it with the universe or concepts like science or math. The universe needs no special capitalization either.
Ryan Fenton
Warning: Linguistics and philosophy.
If you connect your network to the internet, it is part of the internet. That's what the internet is. It's the network between networks.
What he wants is not an internet, but a national intranet - well, unless he never connects it in any way to the rest of the world - then and only then would it be its own internet.
It's sort of like the definition of observable universe. If you can observe something, it is part of the universe. That's the whole 'Uni' part of universe - just one bucket to put things. So, if there's a gateway to some new place you can walk to/from - then you didn't open a gateway to another universe, you made the universe larger by opening that door. Connecting to our universe inherently joins the two spaces into once cross-observable space, even if you put protections and limitations in place.
Ryan Fenton
Yeah - having a Windows 10 system in sleep mode is annoying, because it'll actually WAKE UP the system in order to tell me I need to apply an update. Super annoying when I'm trying to sleep and I hear that "computer waking up" fan noise.
There's something to be said for priorities - computers are arguably supposed to serve the interests of folks that own the computers. Taking all that away just to serve the public relations/"security" interests of Microsoft in fixing their security issues seems an intense, giant waste of human annoyance and time, along with other rational ownership issues..
A better game theory strategy would be for Microsoft to have to email us with cash offers to update our systems within a timeframe, and we just don't get the $2 or whatever if we are busy and don't want to update.
These increasing waves of punishment for not wanting to be bothered about increasingly draconian update cycles won't end well - and if anything, will result in companies increasing in this pattern of carelessness in design and testing.
Ryan Fenton
If folks really find this 'treatment' beneficial, find someone with hemochromatosis, and offer them a low payment for regular donation.
For those that don't know, it's a condition where a persons gut is sort of out-of-control in terms of how much iron it absorbs, leading to a slight excess of iron. This slight extra iron can build up to unsafe levels if not removed for several decades- and the most convenient option for removal is simple: Draining about a blood donation worth of blood twice a week, until the levels are 'normal', then less frequently to maintain.
The body replaces the blood just fine, and the blood is perfectly find for almost every use, since a slightly elevated iron level is rarely an issue for 99% of cases.
Unfortunately, lots of blood organizations refuse to draw blood from folks with this condition for free - and want to charge for the regular blood donation as 'treatment' - and will even pour the blood out rather than use it to help anyone, with no clear reason other than unmentioned greed as motivations.
So, if this 'treatment' becomes fashion, then I hope it leads to a less crazy situation for folks with that condition - though it is still crazy to use blood this way too. Perhaps in this case, two crazy situations make a sane result?
Ryan Fenton
Listen - I understand all the ideals of cryptocurrencies - from distributed power, to limited supply, to anonymity.
They're a worthwhile idea to explore - but every virtue they hold has a vice - and for the same reason I find biofuels competing with food crops to be a bad tradeoff - I find expending fuel into the environment to be a similar bad tradeoff.
That's hardly the only concern - but it's enough for me to consider it an idea that really needs to go back to the drawing board as a currency.
That said, it's still a resource that will be speculated on - so good luck to those that care about that aspect, I suppose.
Ryan Fenton
How do you provide crucial public services in a marketplace that works largely by the relative absence of exactly those services that used to be considered crucial? In this case, basic rigor in critical thinking about events of the day.
You can harp on fundraising - like Wikipedia does, and NPR does on the regular - but then your role shifts over time to being an injured bird that sings for crumbs - an injured bird that is supposed to represent an entire set of crucial viewpoints against a market that now thinks that everything else is 'the other side' of a rather stupid division of argument.
But how do you change that equation? Even if you did, how would you change that equation that doesn't just dissolve into the same intentionally muddied negative values that politics is mired in?
These questions are often part of most skeptical minded communities over time - whether 'liberal' or 'conservative' minded - how to you fight that ghettoization of thought that comes with reducing the insanity of a system.
My preference would be to have it just be considered part of basic public education - then Snopes and the like can just be a normal source of continuing general education, which is really the proper role, regardless of your political preferences.
Ryan Fenton
You know, restore plug-in compatibility, same with status bar, allow user interface customization, remove pocket, and go fully open source.
Basically take advantage of everything that made them better than Chrome, instead of throwing it away.
Just an idea.
Ryan Fenton
>>So you're OK with warrantless surveillance?
It already exists from public spaces - like with satellites or various police/traffic cameras. No warrant needed, therefore warrantless surveillance.
In cases where a warrant would be needed - like flying to places that the FAA wouldn't permit anyway - then no, I'm not OK with that.
I'm sure there's also some loopholes I wouldn't be OK with - but as far as what the article mentions about using them for fire fighting or similar unarmed public interest uses, seems a good use of our shared resources as long as we're already deciding on spending hundreds of billions on unnecessary military expenses.
What I'd prefer is we spend closer to what most nations spend on military expenses - still a lot, but nowhere near the hyper-industry we make it now.
Ryan Fenton
Unarmed drones are just sky cameras - fairly cheap, and basically a slightly different shade of the other sky cameras we have in the form of satellites.
As long as they're coordinating with the FAA, and validly serving the public interests rather than doing it for income or favors to third parties, I'm generally cool with it. It's actually a relatively cheap way to keep those folks busy and maintaining a large-scale force of pilots and software that would likely be useful in future intelligence-focused hot zones.
Armed drones on the other hand have WAAAY too many forms of major liability - from theft, to crashes, to irresponsible use, to accidents even with responsible use. I say don't even have them installed with hard points to install weapons, and make converting them to armed drones require several forms of permission and emergency confirmation at the least - and even then, that's more the job of the police during emergencies.
If you want to train with armed drones, do it in simulations, or rarely in the desert in existing ordinance testing zones. Don't risk the liability of using them anywhere near populated areas or in any kind of unrestrained use - that's way outside the military's realm of responsibility.
Ryan Fenton
As long as it's less like 'Other M', and more like any of the Prime games eventually - then great.
It's somewhat odd - but when the original creator went back to the series, taking over after the prime series, he really made a mess out of the character and her motivations.
It's nice to see that they seem to be learning that lesson, and putting it more in the hands of ILM, and less in the hands of 'Lucas' himself in this case.
The whole point of Samus was she showed how little gender in a trained warrior should matter, kicking butt in power armor says all you need. Flashbacks to childhood and freezing before a critter you already killed like 5 times is NOT adding to that character, and not anywhere worth taking away gameplay control. And that's just like 1% of the things wrong that debacle.
Ryan Fenton
This technique (UV rapid resin printing) has been around for years and years.
Here's one from a few years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's like hundreds of videos on youtube at least on variants of this technique, all around that same 100-ish times faster than additive printing range of minutes versus hours of print time.
It's cool - but this is like one of those 'revolutionary' battery marketing releases where they ignore the drawbacks and don't mention the dozen times this idea has been pushed before.
Ryan Fenton