Even if they found he was beaten to death by a wolflike humanoid, they'd deny it or cover it up, because the government knows that nobody believes theories about DeGrasse gnoll anyway.
"I have yet to hear a serious argument for why the world will be injured by behaving as if there is an ozone or climate problem (if there is not), and so I just don't understand why anyone ever makes this argument."
Then you're not listening. Your own argument makes the point - most people in real life choose loss minimization rather than gain maximization. The case about global warming, er, climate change, er ANTHROPOGENIC climate change is that it's frankly incredible to normal people that human output of CO2 is the cause, when it's about 1% of natural output (which is itself only a microscopic 0.04% of the atmosphere) can have such a dramatic effect...PARTICULARLY when the earth's climate has been FAR far warmer historically and in fact the current cooling period is actually abnormal.
The fact that it's all the SAME yogurt & sprout-eating freaks that have claimed Chicken Little-wise that we're going to run out of oil again and again, clean water again and again, space for people, food, and all die from DDT (which has been proven safe, in little-discussed fact) doesn't help their credibility, FWIW.
Sure, because we all know that the English language is sterile, drab, and monolithic. I'll be sure to let Shakespeare, Chomsky, and all the other writers/thinkers know who subscribe to that inexpressably dull tongue.
I speak three languages (English, German, and Russian) and I well understand how language reflects the wonderfully varied thought systems of the various cultures. However, I don't automatically believe that (in my value system) all languages are therefore worth saving - there are a number of misogynistic, hierarchical cultures that I'm frankly not all that concerned with preserving.
Further, what's the alternative? It's not the languages that are dying - it's the cultures, and preserving the language without the culture is nearly pointless. Sure, let's say you develop some sort of super-linguistics-computer that can build any statement syntactically as well as a 'native' speaker. Unless you trap some of the people in some sort of 'cultural zoo', you're never going to preserve the way of life that underpins the language of a group of hunter/gatherers or primitive fisherpeople. Without context, that language becomes merely an interesting intellectual exercise in expressing things differently, not a language. A language known only to an anthropologist is no more authentic than a native who works in the city, drives a pickup, works as a programmer, and lives in the suburbs but a couple of times a summer goes out to dance in a powwow. That's nostalgia, not preservation.
Humans are opportunistic, adaptable creatures. You can't stop them from adapting, and can't morally compel them to stop advancing...it's not a coincidence that it's the primitive, isolated cultures that are disappearing. Even larger languages are at risk, as some national governments persevere in their futile efforts to legislate language.
Face it, once humans developed literacy it was the beginning of the long death of dialects and ultimately peripheral languages. Once the first dictionary was written, it was the death of phonetic spelling, preserved today in English only as anachronisms like the two acceptable spellings of (plow, plough).
I'm sure I won't be around, but I'd be very interested to see the winner between Chinese and English - one has sheer numbers on its side, but the other also has significant numbers (albeit mostly as a second language) as well as being substantially more flexible.
Well, that and the fact that PC gamers would either utterly OWN console players, or they'd have to add in such an aggressive and compensatory aim-assist in the consoles that the PC players would refuse to play.
Of course, the tinfoil hatter in me speculates that the console MAKERS wouldn't have much incentive to support/encourage a product that would illustrate to their players how really crippled they are by the control systems....but that's just nuts, right?
No, no, I'm SURE it's just about them supporting their loyal fanbase and not wanting to wait for console-certification. Sure it is.
"As Franklin observed, those who would trade their liberty for imagined security deserve neither."
Worthless tropes and 'sky-is-falling' Chickenlittle-isms for $1000, Chuck.
1) We constantly trade liberty for security - it's called the social contract. I don't have the liberty of doing whatever I want, so I don't have to worry about you doing whatever you want which might be harmful to me. Ever stop at a stop sign when nobody was around? Or a stoplight? WHY? There is no sensible reason, except that you are willfully trading your basic human reason for habits of willful obedience to that stop sign/light. Why? Because you hope that everyone ELSE on the road habitually observes them, making the road a safer place.
2) If you're consumed with guilt, then I DO feel sorry for your kid. Because he's going to grow up with this excruciating, pessimistic, cynical environment that won't let him enjoy that we are safer, more comfortable, living longer than any humans IN HISTORY. Oh noes! Our "freedoms" are gone...really? What "freedoms" can't you exercise today that you could before? Flying on a plane anonymously? Making SIMULATED CHEMICAL WEAPONS as "art"? Jesus, I HOPE the government pays close attention. Strip us of the Bill of Rights? Hyperventilate much? Establish a government religion? I can't remember when God was being driven more strongly OUT of government than today. Abridge freedom of speech? No, I can't say "nigger" without being sued as a racist, is that what you meant? That's not the government, that's stupid political correctness spurred by what? WHITE GUILT. Abridge the freedom of the press? Capitalism and shallow greed have created the mainstream media, that's not the government's fault...hell, they subsidize the most incessantly anti-US station nationwide, NPR. Peacably assemble? That's a tough one. I don't like the "protest zones" that people are being shunted into, but I also don't believe there's a constitutional right for you to spoil MY event because you're a dick. Then again, abortion protestors have been legally banned from certain areas, so at least it's both sides, no?
That's the first amendment - please, list some that support your hysterical statements.
...but IMO before we get to the point that games are celebrated for their literary value, we'll have to reach FIRST the point where Science Fiction or Fantasy gets any literary cred outside of their genres....
Look, I understand that contradicting anything anti-MS is anathema on/., but frankly speaking "the dominance of Windows has 'slowed technical improvements and prevented new alternatives entering from the marketplace.'" is BS.
The dominance of Windows has, as much as the Linux crowd would reject it, allowed the ubiquitous penetration of computers into the lives of NONGEEKS. Yes, those of us who love gadgets would have been 'into' computers anyway, but while we make fun of MS, it's a fact that they have developed and refined the user interface to the point that grandma can run it, grandpa reads the news on the internet, and little Sally Ann can simply stick in her cd and play Dora the Explorer game.
Anyone remember what it was like BEFORE Windows? Where everyone had to dick with extended/expanded memory? Autoexec and config settings, with a dozen reboots until your settings were correct? Where it seemed that every other program seemed to approach soundcards differently?
I like Ubuntu myself, but the widespread presence of Windows on every single computer has made life EASIER for the 95% of the population that doesn't find mucking about with computers as fun as we do. It may have prevented alternatives, sure, but I'm not entirely sure that at least for the last 20-25 years, that that wasn't a good thing, on the whole. With computers being a mature tech now, I will say that I don't believe that it's necessary anymore. (On an aside, I simultaneously look askance at MS's disingenuous position on piracy - if Win95/98 hadn't been so INCREDIBLY easy to pirate that they ended up on every system whether the user could afford it or no, MS wouldn't be nearly as dominant and omnipresent as they are now.)
Absolutely idiotic reply. I'm sure you're a decent bloke, but that reply just staggers me.
There's a 40 year history that, even barring 9/11, one would have to be a staggering incompetent to not understand that anything that suggests "explosives" + "airport" is a bad idea.
The police are supposed to tell at a glance that it's fake? And let me ask, if they were wrong, treated it (and her) as simply a moronic college student and she DID blow up, killing herself, a few cops, and injuring dozens of bystanders - what would have been your response..."oops"?
This is NOT a paranoid fear of terrorism that prompted this police response - there are dozens of instances every day where THAT happens - but an attention-whore who should be dealt with severely for inducing and inviting this response with her calculated choices. Frankly, the only reason they DIDN'T shoot her was probably fear of a deadman switch.
Oh, and your "muslim men who were asked to leave the plane because they spoke arabic"? If you're talking about the Minneapolis flight, I was *on* that flight, and they were not merely 'speaking arabic'. My own observations: they were praying loudly and disturbingly in the waiting area before the plane (and yes, I would also have complained had it been a Christian evangelist shouting his "praises to the Lord"). Once on the plane they moved directly to the exit rows and sat in them, despite the fact that their tickets were NOT for those seats. They each demanded 2 extra seat belt straps, despite none of them being overweight at all. During the entire ordeal, the stewardii were exceedingly patient far longer than I would have been, until finally the (chief stewardess?) called the cockpit and they had security & police come take them off the plane. Again, in my opinion, a case of people deliberately provoking the system with all sorts of behaviors that they KNOW will set off alarms and frighten people.
1) From a pragmatic point of view: as a company, Gamestop should be free to sell to whomever they want. If the marketplace feels their decisions are arbitrary or unreasonable (for example if they were motivated by racism), the marketplace will tell Gamestop if this was a good idea or not - in a capitalist sense where good=profitable, not in a pure moral/ethical sense of "good".
2) From TFA this store manager made the choice himself, without even notifying Gamestop. Such is the life of a member of a franchise. If it was "Brandon Scott's Video Game Store" he could make these sorts of decisions and live with the consequences, but in this case he's a member of the 'Gamestop corporate identity' and thus beholden to them for decisions he makes which might impact the value of the brand name. Thus they have a right to make their OWN choice on whether they agree or not, whether they will support him or not, and whether he can continue, or not.
Then from a larger perspective: I entirely agree with his position. He's a manager, and if he's responsible for his sales numbers, then he's culpable for the market consequences of his decision. I know that if he was in my area, I would immediately make his store my 'vendor of choice' for game purchases because I agree strongly with his policy. Others may not. At the end of the day, the dollars will decide if it was a good decision or bad decision, financially. But we cannot complain publicly about companies being 'faceless' and 'immoral' if we criticize them for occasionally TAKING a (to me, justifiable) moral stand, in this case regarding kids and games. His point holds: if you're not getting good grades, there are other things you should be spending your time on than GTA4.
Is that your parent's decision? Yes, it is. And if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere, buy your kid GTA4 and then you can b1tch all you want about how horrible the schools are because your precious little one is failing. But we'll all know who's really to blame, won't we? (HINT: it isn't Mr. Scott.)
"The longer-term problem for publishers like the Times is that they must find ways to present content online rather than just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper."
Why?
For chrissakes, no matter what you think of the paper as a journalistic entity, nor what you think of its editorial decisions, nor what you think of its columnists, it really is the newspaper of record for the United States.
They have an extraordinary breadth of content. Why can't they just "copy stories and pictures from the newspaper"? If anyone in the media business would be able to generate bulk traffic (read: advertising $$) from sheer content without any particular bells and whistles, it would be the website that simply mirrors the staggering amount of content from the NYT.
Add to that a searchable archive of the NYT going back to the beginning, and I frankly can't think of a single media outlet in the world that could match it for comprehensive historical information on daily events pertinent to the United States.
Huge content, daily updates, impeccable credentials - yeah, who'd imagine THAT could draw significant pageviews?
From TFSummary: "The Northwest Passage, a normally ice-locked shortcut between Europe and Asia, is now passable for the first time in recorded history"
From TFA: "The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its lowest level this week since satellite measurements began nearly 30 years ago, opening up the Northwest Passage - a long-sought short cut between Europe and Asia that has been historically impassable." (boldface mine)
The first (recorded) attempt was by Cabot in 1497.
So while "all of recorded history" is a really impressively big number on the order of 5000+ years, in actuality they mean "since 1497" = 510 years, and the article really only refers to measurements of the last 30 years.
(shrug) It's hard for me to care much about a climactic change which is clearly cyclic over time. All the evidence points to a strong current warming trend, it could be that we're even accelerating it, but the trend itself is probably a simple cycle far older than the human species. But humans are the most successfully adaptable creatures that have ever lived on this planet, as far as we know.
Doesn't anyone find it funny that Cassini was *allegedly* hit by a cosmic ray event that tripped it into safe mode JUST as it was sliding around Iapetus?
I would love to be watching HDTV...I have a capable set, and planned to be an 'early adopter' since I like shiny new toys.
I've got the HD set (a nice Toshiba HD 36" tube I've had for 4 years now), even bought a giant HD-capable antenna (since I'm in a medium-crappy reception area, it was needed anyway).
However, the last part - a set-top HD decoder - is eluding me. None of the typical candidates (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) sell such a thing, and I'd really like to see the quality before I buy. As I said, I have mediocre reception anyway, and I infer that what results in static (in an analog signal) would essentially mean dropped signal entirely in a digital transmission - is this correct? How fault-tolerant IS it?
I'm unready to drop $300 on some unreturnable web-purchase, which may simply not work for me. Anyone have any experience with OTA HD signals? Particularly in marginal signal areas to start with? Anyone? (expects nothing but crickets....)
I dunno, it seems like a rather circular statement about the "emerging" field of games studies: "I don't think it is healthy for the field of games studies, which is still emerging, to be so fixated on a single game franchise -- no matter what the franchise. A few years ago, it might have been The Sims or GTA, now it's WoW"
Doesn't 'emerging' seem to suggest that there is going to be a rather narrow sample size, to begin with? And I don't really fault researchers focusing on WoW; I mean yes, they could grab whatever game is on the shelf, but you have no idea if it's going to be another WoW or if it's going to be Vangers (look it up). I would imagine that anyone in this 'emerging' field would want their results to be reasonably relevant, interesting, and applicable to as broad a field as possible. Right now, there's really only one game that hits that mark, and that's WoW.
For those researchers who are looking for other interesting fields of study in this area, I would make some other suggestions. Look at http://www.mmogchart.com/:
- The Matrix Online, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online all have very interesting player number curves. Why?
- WW2OL has fewer subscribers than most of the 'big name' games and quite a few of the middling ones, yet it seems to be surviving where others are shutting down. Why?
- Runescape - real MMOG or webgame? Is the distinction important?
- These various games have a host of pay/play models, what's working, what isn't?
- MMOGs are in a way the descendants of online mass flight sims - Warbirds, etc. How do flight sim pay/play models compare? User numbers and retention?
Slashdot Mirror
Even if they found he was beaten to death by a wolflike humanoid, they'd deny it or cover it up, because the government knows that nobody believes theories about DeGrasse gnoll anyway.
Wasn't there one of these designed on earth, that didn't work for crap and ultimately is a giant white elephant that nobody wants?
What in THESE plans will make them more successful than that mess?
IIRC the author (or at least editor) of the majority of copies out there for download is/was the CIA.
For precisely the reason you state.
which script set you need to enable to see this, from the dozen-plus that hit your NOSCRIPT, it's gawker.
People, please quit with the 8 million scripts running on your site.
"I have yet to hear a serious argument for why the world will be injured by behaving as if there is an ozone or climate problem (if there is not), and so I just don't understand why anyone ever makes this argument."
Then you're not listening.
Your own argument makes the point - most people in real life choose loss minimization rather than gain maximization. The case about global warming, er, climate change, er ANTHROPOGENIC climate change is that it's frankly incredible to normal people that human output of CO2 is the cause, when it's about 1% of natural output (which is itself only a microscopic 0.04% of the atmosphere) can have such a dramatic effect...PARTICULARLY when the earth's climate has been FAR far warmer historically and in fact the current cooling period is actually abnormal.
The fact that it's all the SAME yogurt & sprout-eating freaks that have claimed Chicken Little-wise that we're going to run out of oil again and again, clean water again and again, space for people, food, and all die from DDT (which has been proven safe, in little-discussed fact) doesn't help their credibility, FWIW.
Sure, because we all know that the English language is sterile, drab, and monolithic. I'll be sure to let Shakespeare, Chomsky, and all the other writers/thinkers know who subscribe to that inexpressably dull tongue.
I speak three languages (English, German, and Russian) and I well understand how language reflects the wonderfully varied thought systems of the various cultures. However, I don't automatically believe that (in my value system) all languages are therefore worth saving - there are a number of misogynistic, hierarchical cultures that I'm frankly not all that concerned with preserving.
Further, what's the alternative? It's not the languages that are dying - it's the cultures, and preserving the language without the culture is nearly pointless. Sure, let's say you develop some sort of super-linguistics-computer that can build any statement syntactically as well as a 'native' speaker. Unless you trap some of the people in some sort of 'cultural zoo', you're never going to preserve the way of life that underpins the language of a group of hunter/gatherers or primitive fisherpeople. Without context, that language becomes merely an interesting intellectual exercise in expressing things differently, not a language. A language known only to an anthropologist is no more authentic than a native who works in the city, drives a pickup, works as a programmer, and lives in the suburbs but a couple of times a summer goes out to dance in a powwow. That's nostalgia, not preservation.
Humans are opportunistic, adaptable creatures. You can't stop them from adapting, and can't morally compel them to stop advancing...it's not a coincidence that it's the primitive, isolated cultures that are disappearing. Even larger languages are at risk, as some national governments persevere in their futile efforts to legislate language.
Face it, once humans developed literacy it was the beginning of the long death of dialects and ultimately peripheral languages. Once the first dictionary was written, it was the death of phonetic spelling, preserved today in English only as anachronisms like the two acceptable spellings of (plow, plough).
I'm sure I won't be around, but I'd be very interested to see the winner between Chinese and English - one has sheer numbers on its side, but the other also has significant numbers (albeit mostly as a second language) as well as being substantially more flexible.
Well, that and the fact that PC gamers would either utterly OWN console players, or they'd have to add in such an aggressive and compensatory aim-assist in the consoles that the PC players would refuse to play.
Of course, the tinfoil hatter in me speculates that the console MAKERS wouldn't have much incentive to support/encourage a product that would illustrate to their players how really crippled they are by the control systems....but that's just nuts, right?
No, no, I'm SURE it's just about them supporting their loyal fanbase and not wanting to wait for console-certification. Sure it is.
"As Franklin observed, those who would trade their liberty for imagined security deserve neither."
Worthless tropes and 'sky-is-falling' Chickenlittle-isms for $1000, Chuck.
1) We constantly trade liberty for security - it's called the social contract. I don't have the liberty of doing whatever I want, so I don't have to worry about you doing whatever you want which might be harmful to me. Ever stop at a stop sign when nobody was around? Or a stoplight? WHY? There is no sensible reason, except that you are willfully trading your basic human reason for habits of willful obedience to that stop sign/light. Why? Because you hope that everyone ELSE on the road habitually observes them, making the road a safer place.
2) If you're consumed with guilt, then I DO feel sorry for your kid. Because he's going to grow up with this excruciating, pessimistic, cynical environment that won't let him enjoy that we are safer, more comfortable, living longer than any humans IN HISTORY. Oh noes! Our "freedoms" are gone...really? What "freedoms" can't you exercise today that you could before? Flying on a plane anonymously? Making SIMULATED CHEMICAL WEAPONS as "art"? Jesus, I HOPE the government pays close attention.
Strip us of the Bill of Rights? Hyperventilate much?
Establish a government religion? I can't remember when God was being driven more strongly OUT of government than today.
Abridge freedom of speech? No, I can't say "nigger" without being sued as a racist, is that what you meant? That's not the government, that's stupid political correctness spurred by what? WHITE GUILT.
Abridge the freedom of the press? Capitalism and shallow greed have created the mainstream media, that's not the government's fault...hell, they subsidize the most incessantly anti-US station nationwide, NPR.
Peacably assemble? That's a tough one. I don't like the "protest zones" that people are being shunted into, but I also don't believe there's a constitutional right for you to spoil MY event because you're a dick. Then again, abortion protestors have been legally banned from certain areas, so at least it's both sides, no?
That's the first amendment - please, list some that support your hysterical statements.
...but IMO before we get to the point that games are celebrated for their literary value, we'll have to reach FIRST the point where Science Fiction or Fantasy gets any literary cred outside of their genres....
SS378008
hahahahaha.....ok, it was funny in the 70's.
Look, I understand that contradicting anything anti-MS is anathema on /., but frankly speaking "the dominance of Windows has 'slowed technical improvements and prevented new alternatives entering from the marketplace.'" is BS.
The dominance of Windows has, as much as the Linux crowd would reject it, allowed the ubiquitous penetration of computers into the lives of NONGEEKS. Yes, those of us who love gadgets would have been 'into' computers anyway, but while we make fun of MS, it's a fact that they have developed and refined the user interface to the point that grandma can run it, grandpa reads the news on the internet, and little Sally Ann can simply stick in her cd and play Dora the Explorer game.
Anyone remember what it was like BEFORE Windows? Where everyone had to dick with extended/expanded memory? Autoexec and config settings, with a dozen reboots until your settings were correct? Where it seemed that every other program seemed to approach soundcards differently?
I like Ubuntu myself, but the widespread presence of Windows on every single computer has made life EASIER for the 95% of the population that doesn't find mucking about with computers as fun as we do. It may have prevented alternatives, sure, but I'm not entirely sure that at least for the last 20-25 years, that that wasn't a good thing, on the whole. With computers being a mature tech now, I will say that I don't believe that it's necessary anymore. (On an aside, I simultaneously look askance at MS's disingenuous position on piracy - if Win95/98 hadn't been so INCREDIBLY easy to pirate that they ended up on every system whether the user could afford it or no, MS wouldn't be nearly as dominant and omnipresent as they are now.)
Absolutely idiotic reply. I'm sure you're a decent bloke, but that reply just staggers me.
There's a 40 year history that, even barring 9/11, one would have to be a staggering incompetent to not understand that anything that suggests "explosives" + "airport" is a bad idea.
The police are supposed to tell at a glance that it's fake? And let me ask, if they were wrong, treated it (and her) as simply a moronic college student and she DID blow up, killing herself, a few cops, and injuring dozens of bystanders - what would have been your response..."oops"?
This is NOT a paranoid fear of terrorism that prompted this police response - there are dozens of instances every day where THAT happens - but an attention-whore who should be dealt with severely for inducing and inviting this response with her calculated choices. Frankly, the only reason they DIDN'T shoot her was probably fear of a deadman switch.
Oh, and your "muslim men who were asked to leave the plane because they spoke arabic"? If you're talking about the Minneapolis flight, I was *on* that flight, and they were not merely 'speaking arabic'. My own observations: they were praying loudly and disturbingly in the waiting area before the plane (and yes, I would also have complained had it been a Christian evangelist shouting his "praises to the Lord"). Once on the plane they moved directly to the exit rows and sat in them, despite the fact that their tickets were NOT for those seats. They each demanded 2 extra seat belt straps, despite none of them being overweight at all. During the entire ordeal, the stewardii were exceedingly patient far longer than I would have been, until finally the (chief stewardess?) called the cockpit and they had security & police come take them off the plane.
Again, in my opinion, a case of people deliberately provoking the system with all sorts of behaviors that they KNOW will set off alarms and frighten people.
Last time I read an interview with LL, they said something about 11,000 servers running 2nd life.
Huh?
That would explain the atrocious lag, at least.
Sorry, I'd rather have someone else designing something a bit more...streamlined... if we're going to talking about a web-wide standard.
First, 2 points tactically:
1) From a pragmatic point of view: as a company, Gamestop should be free to sell to whomever they want. If the marketplace feels their decisions are arbitrary or unreasonable (for example if they were motivated by racism), the marketplace will tell Gamestop if this was a good idea or not - in a capitalist sense where good=profitable, not in a pure moral/ethical sense of "good".
2) From TFA this store manager made the choice himself, without even notifying Gamestop. Such is the life of a member of a franchise. If it was "Brandon Scott's Video Game Store" he could make these sorts of decisions and live with the consequences, but in this case he's a member of the 'Gamestop corporate identity' and thus beholden to them for decisions he makes which might impact the value of the brand name. Thus they have a right to make their OWN choice on whether they agree or not, whether they will support him or not, and whether he can continue, or not.
Then from a larger perspective:
I entirely agree with his position. He's a manager, and if he's responsible for his sales numbers, then he's culpable for the market consequences of his decision. I know that if he was in my area, I would immediately make his store my 'vendor of choice' for game purchases because I agree strongly with his policy. Others may not. At the end of the day, the dollars will decide if it was a good decision or bad decision, financially. But we cannot complain publicly about companies being 'faceless' and 'immoral' if we criticize them for occasionally TAKING a (to me, justifiable) moral stand, in this case regarding kids and games. His point holds: if you're not getting good grades, there are other things you should be spending your time on than GTA4.
Is that your parent's decision? Yes, it is. And if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere, buy your kid GTA4 and then you can b1tch all you want about how horrible the schools are because your precious little one is failing. But we'll all know who's really to blame, won't we?
(HINT: it isn't Mr. Scott.)
"The longer-term problem for publishers like the Times is that they must find ways to present content online rather than just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper."
Why?
For chrissakes, no matter what you think of the paper as a journalistic entity, nor what you think of its editorial decisions, nor what you think of its columnists, it really is the newspaper of record for the United States.
They have an extraordinary breadth of content. Why can't they just "copy stories and pictures from the newspaper"? If anyone in the media business would be able to generate bulk traffic (read: advertising $$) from sheer content without any particular bells and whistles, it would be the website that simply mirrors the staggering amount of content from the NYT.
Add to that a searchable archive of the NYT going back to the beginning, and I frankly can't think of a single media outlet in the world that could match it for comprehensive historical information on daily events pertinent to the United States.
Huge content, daily updates, impeccable credentials - yeah, who'd imagine THAT could draw significant pageviews?
Frankly, it's a lot easier to sit on the toilet with a book than to sit there with a laptop.
I mean, we're talking about long-term power studying, no?
From TFSummary: "The Northwest Passage, a normally ice-locked shortcut between Europe and Asia, is now passable for the first time in recorded history"
From TFA: "The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its lowest level this week since satellite measurements began nearly 30 years ago, opening up the Northwest Passage - a long-sought short cut between Europe and Asia that has been historically impassable." (boldface mine)
The first (recorded) attempt was by Cabot in 1497.
So while "all of recorded history" is a really impressively big number on the order of 5000+ years, in actuality they mean "since 1497" = 510 years, and the article really only refers to measurements of the last 30 years.
(shrug)
It's hard for me to care much about a climactic change which is clearly cyclic over time. All the evidence points to a strong current warming trend, it could be that we're even accelerating it, but the trend itself is probably a simple cycle far older than the human species. But humans are the most successfully adaptable creatures that have ever lived on this planet, as far as we know.
""Customers." They keep using that word. I do not think that word means what most of us think it means."
.... then you're pretty much spot-on.
I think you're being too narrow minded. If you're male, gay, and a big fan of 'receiving'
Doesn't anyone find it funny that Cassini was *allegedly* hit by a cosmic ray event that tripped it into safe mode JUST as it was sliding around Iapetus?
/tinfoil hat
The last time this happened was 4 years ago.
Coincidence? Ask Beagle!
I would love to be watching HDTV...I have a capable set, and planned to be an 'early adopter' since I like shiny new toys.
I've got the HD set (a nice Toshiba HD 36" tube I've had for 4 years now), even bought a giant HD-capable antenna (since I'm in a medium-crappy reception area, it was needed anyway).
However, the last part - a set-top HD decoder - is eluding me. None of the typical candidates (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) sell such a thing, and I'd really like to see the quality before I buy.
As I said, I have mediocre reception anyway, and I infer that what results in static (in an analog signal) would essentially mean dropped signal entirely in a digital transmission - is this correct?
How fault-tolerant IS it?
I'm unready to drop $300 on some unreturnable web-purchase, which may simply not work for me. Anyone have any experience with OTA HD signals? Particularly in marginal signal areas to start with? Anyone? (expects nothing but crickets....)
Of course, one might also mention that Russia is struggling to keep all 16 Tu160s flying, and to (they hope) add 5 more to the fleet per year.
The B1B fleet of 93 aircraft has already seen 33 of them retired (due to lack of use, more than anything), and 7 'block' upgrades.
Personally, I'd rather have the extra 3km of altitude that a B1 can achieve, but that's never been a big priority with Russian strategic bombers.
I dunno, it seems like a rather circular statement about the "emerging" field of games studies: "I don't think it is healthy for the field of games studies, which is still emerging, to be so fixated on a single game franchise -- no matter what the franchise. A few years ago, it might have been The Sims or GTA, now it's WoW"
Doesn't 'emerging' seem to suggest that there is going to be a rather narrow sample size, to begin with? And I don't really fault researchers focusing on WoW; I mean yes, they could grab whatever game is on the shelf, but you have no idea if it's going to be another WoW or if it's going to be Vangers (look it up). I would imagine that anyone in this 'emerging' field would want their results to be reasonably relevant, interesting, and applicable to as broad a field as possible.
Right now, there's really only one game that hits that mark, and that's WoW.
For those researchers who are looking for other interesting fields of study in this area, I would make some other suggestions.
Look at http://www.mmogchart.com/:
- The Matrix Online, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online all have very interesting player number curves. Why?
- WW2OL has fewer subscribers than most of the 'big name' games and quite a few of the middling ones, yet it seems to be surviving where others are shutting down. Why?
- Runescape - real MMOG or webgame? Is the distinction important?
- These various games have a host of pay/play models, what's working, what isn't?
- MMOGs are in a way the descendants of online mass flight sims - Warbirds, etc. How do flight sim pay/play models compare? User numbers and retention?
Probably means "It's NOT hard to understand why. "
http://www.cio.com/article/print/135700
For those who also hate paging through an article at the speed of advertising.
"I know that Comcast can check their network for infected hosts and shut them off."
They seem to have the resources to monitor and cutoff accounts that exceed their 'mysterious' bandwidth limit, but not to deal with this?
Amazing priorities, Comcast.