I don't know what the solution is to discipline problems in school, but expelling people is clearly not it--it's not even a punishment, it's giving up the opportunity to reform these people. And we're reforming them not for their benefit but for the benefit of the rest of society.
I don't have a problem with this. If the stundent is violent or very disruptive kick him/her out. That way the teachers aren't wasting all their time dealing with a handful of trouble makers. Instead they can actually teach the student who are willing to learn. If the trouble maker can straighten out, then let them back in.
Having said this, I honestly don't think it would work. The reason being exactly what this story is about. Instead of kicking out a small number of really bad kids, they will end up kicking out a large number of kids who aren't really bad but have just hit a rough spot. Your point may be that it is impossible to tell the difference, and I guess I'd agree with that. Still, I have no sympathy for a student who willfully starts violence against other students or teachers. If there was a way to kick only those students out, I'd be all for it.
Seaside Heights, New Jersey, 10 years old or so...
Damn, I grew up there (Toms River), too. I probably was more like 12 at the time. Did you buy the greasy pizza from the Sawmill or 3 Brothers from Italy?
Although what you say about atmosphere is true, I think the magic had more to do with being 10. The atmosphere you remember is just another part of those great memories of youth. As far as the games go, they were exciting because we were young and the games were new (and fun).
Having people, especially future artists unable to go see a concert because it costs $250 a ticket is a shame, I doubt a young Madonna would have been able to experience many of her influences at such a price
I wasn't trying to make any judgements about right or wrong or fairness; I was just making an observation. However you do bring up a good point: Are this prices fair, and should the prices be lower?
Well, getting back to what I said, if the prices are set below market value, scalpers will jump in to take as much of that extra money as they can. For all practical purposes the price will escalate to the market value for those people not lucky enough to beat the scalpers to the tickets. To prevent this from happening you end up having to play all sorts of games (wrist-bands, limit ticket sales, laws against scalping) to get the cheap tickets into the fan's hands and out of the scalper's. What you'll probably end up with is some sort of lottery and the winning fans will get cheap tickets. I don't know if that's better or worse than the rich fans getting expensive tickets.
The FP post aside, where do you live that concerts cost significantly more than $40?
Sorry, I was refering to the prices in the article. I actually have no idea how much tickets cost today since I haven't been to such a concert in years. (Actually, now that I think about, I did go to one concert a couple years ago and the price was about $40). The $40 concert I went to 15 years ago was a special event. Most tickets at the time were around $20.
If you really can't afford that, check out your smaller local clubs...
Funny you should say that. About 15 years ago I starting going to local clubs and pubs, and found it much more fun. (Which is one of the reasons I've only gone to one major concert in 15 years). However, now that I have children, I don't a chance to do that as much anymore either.
Actually no, (and maybe yes). Back when I used to go to concerts (15 years ago) all the big concerts sold out easily, often within the first minutes of going on sale. The tickets prices, if you could buy one at face value, were quite reasonable: maybe $40 tops. Even adjusted for inflation, that's nowhere near the face value of tickets today. However, unless you were one of the lucky few (or a crazy fan who camped out), it was challenging to get a ticket to a hot concert. (And as I said even the moderately hot concerts sold out fairly rapidly).
The rapid selling out of concerts is evidence that the tickets were actually priced far below what the market would bear. In further evidence of this, scalpers generally could sell tickets for costs 2x or greater the face value. Hence, why I said "maybe yes". The scalpers were actually the ones selling the tickets at whatever the market would bear.
As the article points out, the goal of touring used to be as much (or perhaps more) about promotion as money making. You needed to tour to support an album. I can remember many concert t-shirts with a "sold-out" logo accross them. I think it used to be important to the promoters that a concert sold-out, even if it meant a loss of ticket revenue.
I think that the concert promoters have since realized that they are better served by raising ticket prices to whatever the market will bear. Essentially they are grabbing for themselves that extra money that used to go to scalpers.
the gamepad revolutionized games (all of those games we had on the original NES and since then aren't practical to play on paddles)
I'm going to disagree. Pretty much all NES games play quite similarly with a joystick, which was the standard controller before the gamepad. Where the gamepad outperforms a joystick is in cost, convenience (size), and the ability to put a lot of controllers/buttons in your hand. Until the game makers started putting a large (and in my opinion, excessive) number of controllers/buttons together in a gamepad, the effect on gameplay from the gamepad was close to nill.
Would selling uranium to Iran, Syria, North Korea or $other_evil_axis_country constitute a proliferation risk?
You seem to be missing the central point about selling/giving uranium to a country vs. lettting the coutry develop the capablity to process it. Weapons grade uranium is much more "pure" (much more of the active isotope) than uranium for reactors. If you give a country reactor grade uranium it can only be used for reactors or maybe a dirty bomb - you can't make an atomic bomb out of it without further processing. If a country develops the capability of processing uranium, they can process it to either reactor or bomb strength.
By giving reactor uranium to a country, the country can have capability of running nuclear reactors without the capability of making bombs. There is no reason for a country to need to make it's own uranium when it can buy it except: (a) to be independent and (b) to make bombs. Countries, such as N. Korea and Iran will claim they need to make there own uranium because of (a), but everyone knows that's BS and they are really after (b).
The reality is, it's going to get increasing tough to avoid any country developing the capability of doing something we did 60 years ago. MAD should keep the countries in check. It's the OBLs of the world, who don't have a country to worry about, that frighten me.
One possibility is that there are many people who might be interested in switching to Apple, but won't, because they have a few pieces of software they aren't willing to give up in order to make the switch. This allows those users to switch, but still have access to those pieces of software. (I personally feel that virtuallization is a better route for this, since who wants to have to have to reboot? Still, this at least gives the user an option).
How this actually plays out is anyone's guess. Clearly, Apple doesn't want to become just another Windows hardware vendor. They therefore must position this as a value added to their OS, not the other way around.
I'd root for something that picked up twenty years after Ep VI
Yes, and I know exactly how it should go. Now that the evil dictator is overthrown, the different races/species all fight each other for power. The new leaders (the former rebels) can't keep the peace, but the various races can't fight their new leaders directly. Chaos ensues as fanatics resort to setting off thermal detanators in crowded places, blowing up themselves and whoever is aroud at various markets and cantinas. (I really want to know is how this is going to turn out...)
(I am aware of the books you are talking about, but I thought my take on it would be more, uhm, current).
The device in the article is a photon counting device. That means that each individual photon causes an event that can be measured. (Actually, the 57% efficiency means that 57% of the photons cause as event, the other 43% are missed for one reason or another). There are other types of photon counting devices such as avalanche photodiodes, proportional counters (for xrays), and maybe photomultiplier tubes under the right conditions. The problem with avalanche photodiodes is that they take some time to reset after an event, which limits their speed for communications. This is being improved, but this new type of device may offer an intrinsically faster reset time, as well as high efficiency.
How this new device works is that a thin (9 nm?) superconductor wire (100 nm wide) is patterned into a serpentine path. A current, just below the critical current is driven though the superconduncting wire. (The critical current is the current at which the superconductor is no longer superconducting). Any photon that is aborbed by the wire causes local heating, and the wire can no longer be a superconductor with the amount of current going through it. This causes a sudden increase in resistance which can be measured.
I think the consol you are looking for is known as a "computer". Yes, I believe "computer" is the correct answer.
True, but there are important differences between a hackable console and a computer. You get more bang for your buck in a console (at least when it comes to graphics) because the hardware is subsidized by the games. In addition, because the console is a fix platform, the game writers can squeeze more performance.
The fixed platform is also valuable because it makes every thing much simpler for the consumer. The consumer doesn't have to worry about whether any given game will run on their system, or how well it will perform. Everyone's going to get the same experience.
I think what the original poster wants is less like a modern PC, and more like an 8-bit era home computer (Commodore 64 or Atari 800). You can use it like a computer if you want (you can program it, or write term papers), although you don't have the freedom to change hardware like in a PC. In exchange for this inflexibility, you know any game or software you buy will work just fine.
Whenever there's a suburban vs. urban lifestyle debate, I need to ask the question: Do you have kids? As the GP said, the reason many people don't want to live in the city is because of the environment they want for their kids. So, I question whether you and the company you keep have kids, and possibly whether this skews your perception of whether the pendulum's swung back.
City's aren't as bad as the use to be, but they still only offer an attractive lifestyle for the rich (who can afford private schools and very expensive property), the childless (who don't need as much property or care about schools), and a select few who have non-mainstream priorities.
There's a reason almost every sitcom that doesn't involve kids takes place in the city, and almost every sitcom that has kids takes place in the suburbs.
and there's some hope that different sources would be better.
If I recall correctly, those better sources are the biodiesel ones you refer to. (and the numbers above are for methanol not biodiesel). Sorry, I got things messed up - my bad. Still I hope my explanation for the numbers makes sense.
Besides that, I don't put much faith in that since in the same report they said that gasoline itself only gives back 0.74 units of energy for every 1 put in. Obvioulsy that's a bunch of B.S.
I was puzzled when I first read that, too, but I think it's right. You just need to interpret it differently from the first obvious way that comes to mind...
The input units are the amount of energy (dug out of the ground, or grown). The output is the amount of use you eventually get out of it.
for oil: 1 unit out of the ground = 0.74 units in your car. Refining, etc. waste energy so you don't actually get to use all of the energy.
for biodiesel: 1 unit out of the ground (or from your last biodiesel crop) = 1.34 units in your car. You are right that you'd really want better efficiency, and there's some hope that different sources would be better. At least you are gaining, not loosing.
We simply don't have enough farm land to both feed ourselves and fuel our cars, not to mention the water requirements. I think the majority of the people here disagree with you. There certainly is no shortage of food in this country (and probably globally, too, if everyone's economy worked properly). The fuel requirements we have are, of course, huge, so you are likely correct that we can't replace all our oil use. Still, putting a big dent in our oil use isn't a bad idea. The water issue is a valid concern.
As a producer of digital media I would love to protect my investment.
I don't know what sort of work you do, although you gave the impression from your original post that you are more of a struggling artist than a big time one. I do think P2P networks do hurt the little guy, but not in the way most people think.
Without P2P you can only obtain so much music from the big artists (if you're not rich). Once your money runs out, you'll need to start looking to other sources for your music fix. A small time artist has the option of putting their music out there for free or very cheap, in hopes of at least getting exposure. Broke students (or other people with more time than money), might discover your music once they got bored with the music than can afford to purchase.
However, with P2P networks, the broke student never runs out of money to obtain the music from the big artists. Sure, he/she might still get bored and discover the small time artists, but there's now less incentive to do so. The big time artists can outcompete the small time artist on almost every level, particularly production values and marketing. The only hope the small time artist had was the ability to compete on cost (and hopefully talent). Now the ability to compete on cost is removed.
Will someone please mod the GP back up. Although you might not agree with him/her, I thought it was a reasonable question from the point of view of an artist whose music is being copied on P2P networks. What is the point of a discussion around here if you can't listen to both sides?
I can only speak for myself, but my problem is with the entire idea of DRM. DRM in any implementation is going to limit what I can do with my music. If it didn't set any limits, then it wouldn't be DRM. (To be fair, Apple's implementation isn't too bad, since it allows the creation of a lossless, non-DRM encombered version by burning to CD. Still this step seems like a waste of time, plus you do loose the compactness of the original file).
Now, this doesn't mean I should be allowed to upload my music or share it with 100's of my not-so-closest friends over the internet. However, trying to find technical solutions to this problem is the wrong way of going about it. By putting DRM on a item I can purchase, it makes the file I can "steal" (without DRM) more valuable. Why the heck would I want to buy something when I can get something better for free? All this DRM stuff does is limit what law abiding people can do with their music.
DRM is also unecessary to shut down all the P2P networks that exist for sort of copying you speak of. There are already laws on the books that make this illegal. The process is slow, but one by one the P2P networks that exist primarily for doing this sort of thing are dissappearing.
The reality is the P2P networks are a convenient smokescreen to justify DRM. Ask yourself this question (or actually finish this sentence):
If P2P networks never existed I'd be able to buy most songs over the internet...
1) with no DRM. 2) with DRM. 3) not at all.
#2 is probably the most likely outcome, but that just proves that P2P networks are not reason for DRM. #3 is actually a pretty likely possibility, because without P2P it is not clear if the music industry would of gotten off their collective butts and allowed selling music over the internet. I think we both know what the likelihood of #1 actually of happening is.
I'm glad that the RIAA has made these statements. Before when their arguement for stronger copywrite protection was "Look at what Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, etc. are doing", they had an arguement that the politicians/judges could be sympathetic to. Now if their arguement is "Fair use; people don't need no stinking fair use," I don't think the politicians and judges are going to be as sympathetic. It doesn't necessarily mean they won't still get their way, but at least it's a lot easier to argue against them.
Unfortunately, unlike you (if you are actually going to do what you claim) I don't think too many people care enough to do anything about it.
Some of us refused to go along with the fanboi "Apple is the holy goodness" type attitude, because we could see further than our noses. The *only* acceptable solution is one with absolutely no DRM.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but you are never, ever, going to see a major label approved way of downloading music without DRM. It's just never going to happen, (unless the laws change in a way that forces them to do it).
I'm sort of OK with this, since ITMS allows me to create a non-DRM version of anything I download (by burning to CD), and unencumbered CDs are available. I am concerned that the record companies are trying to find ways to make CDs encumbered, and who knows about the future of ITMS. (I also wish ITMS would use a higher bitrate)
IBM made the exact same claims with the SOI (silicon on insulator) technology they introduced before.
From the blurb...
Instead of just making transistors smaller, IBM came up with a process to alter how silicon behaves by placing a layer of insulator underneath a layer of silicon less than 500 atoms thick...
Insulator under silicon - This sounds like SOI to me. Fully depleted SOI (because the layer is thin), but SOI none-the-less.
I think you are confusing maturity with forgetting how to enjoy life. Children seem to naturally know how to have a good time so we equate having fun with youth. Maybe it's just a question of semantics, but I disagree with your definition.
For me, Maturity = responsibility. If you think about it, what is the one thing that defines being an adult versus a child. It's responsibility. As an adult, you are responsible for taking care of yourself (and possiblly your family) and you are responsible for your actions (at least in the eyes of the law). As a child, your family supports you financially, and you can get away with more transgressions.
Having said that, I don't disagree with the idea behind what you are saying. Getting older and accepting responsibilities doesn't mean you have to be a stick in the mud. You do have to be careful, though, because sometimes having fun and being responsible are in conflict. (I'd love to skip work today and go see a movie, but if I do that and loose my job, I won't be able to pay my bills...). So, yes, being mature does mean you can't always have as much fun as you'd like. But being mature shouldn't mean never being silly and having a good time. (Of course, it really is a matter of semantics. When our parents yelled at us to act mature, they were, in fact, telling us to stop being silly, and stop having a good time).
As far as the executive with the expensive car goes, I read an interesting article recently: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gilbert03/gilbert_ index.html. It's about how we are lousy at predicting what will make us happy. Money doesn't really make us happy (once you have enough to meet your basic needs), but friends and family do.
Wico! They made arcade joysticks, and just happened to put out a few good ones for the Atari 2600. I've never seen one IRL, but I hear they're quite good.:-)
Yes, I remember the Wico, but that wasn't it. However, the one I liked is on that page- it's the "Starfighter". Thanks for the link! (I think $12 is also what I paid for mine, originally). The Wico bat joysticks were popular, but I thought they had tool large of a dead zone. Other than that, they were very nice.
It's possible too that it's your memories of the games. Galaga, for example, is best played on a proper standup machine where you can *SLAM* that controller back and forth. Not so good for the machine, but a lot of fun.:-)
No doubt, that's the best way to play those games. But if I play those games at home now with a joystick (home build from arcade parts), or even a keyboard (for most games), I'm pretty happy. It's only when I try to play with a gamepad, I get frustrated. Why do I even try, then? Because I have a PVR computer hooked up to a TV, and nothing beats the gamepad when it comes to convenience.
I really like joystick controllers better. It is much easier to control something precisely when you are moving your whole hand, instead of a thumb.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. All the joysticks except the 5200 were digital, thus giving them no real advantage over a thumbpad
You are right that all the controllers we're talking about are digital. I just find it a lot easier to move a whole limb a certain direction (and rapidly), then a single digit. It's like the difference between a mouse and a laptop pointing device. It's a lot easier to control big motions than little ones.
It's a personal preference thing, and I seem to be in the minority around here. However, every time I fire up one of the classics (Pac Man, Berzerk, heck even Donkey Kong) and try to control it with a gamepad, I quit in frustration after a couple minutes. Some of it is surely do to my experience with a joystick vs. gamepad. However, when I first played emulated games, I used a keyboard and I found that worked pretty well, despite not using a keyboard to control games before. However, the gamepad never worked for me. (I will admit that I do have a PS2 with the standard controller, and that works pretty well for me for the games designed for it. However these games don't require the fast twitching of the classics).
Putting that aside, the biggest problem with the joysticks was that you were fighting yourself. With one hand you'd be moving the joystick (and consequently, trying to remove it from your own hand) while with the other hand you'd be trying to brace the device as best as you can.
In your earlier post you mentioned this, too, and I didn't understand what you meant. Thanks for the better explanation. I can see what you mean, but it never bothered me back in the day. There were a lot of different aftermarket joysticks available for the Atari, and although I thought Atari's were OK they weren't my favorite. The Atari ones did require some force, and I could see how that might tire someone. I don't think that's an inherent problem with a joystick, it's just something that Atari didn't get quite right.
My favorite joystick was one that required a very short throw and not too much force, but was stiff enough to bounce back quickly. I forget who made it, but it was a pretty cool and simple piece of engineering. Instead of microswitches, leaf switches, or those lousy blister switches that Atari used, there were no switches at all in this joystick. Instead, the joystick handle connected directly to a rod with a metal ball. As you moved the joystick, the rod would pivot, pushing the ball into contact with one (or two for diaganol motion) of four metal plates. That thing never broke no matter how much abuse it took, and it was cheap, too. The only downside was that after long time the ball and plates needed to be cleaned to improve contact.
I already posted a comment below, but I'll respond here, too. I really like joystick controllers better. It is much easier to control something precisely when you are moving your whole hand, instead of a thumb. However, you do bring up some good points. It is difficult to make a non-fixed joystick contoller, unless you limit yourself to a few buttons. The 2600 contollers are an example of a non-fixed joystick that worked pretty well, but they only had one button. Also, they didn't last - It is certainly more expensive to make a joystick that will last, but there's no reason it can't be done. And, yes, a joystick is bigger and shaped funny, which makes them harder to store. (And also makes them impracticle for a portable device). Still, as far as actual game experience goes, I think the joystick is superior.
As far as the 5200 controllers go, the fact that joystick was non-centering was pretty bone-headed.
I can't say much about the article, do to a slashdotting. I will take this opportunity to spot off on how much I really think thumbpads are a step backwards from the joystick. I pretty much stop playing console games once the Nintendo became king, because I found the gamepad so frustratingly hard to control. You might think is was lack of experience. However, once computer games came along, I picked up controlling with a keyboard (or the keyboard mouse combination) just fine.
Of course this is just one person's view, and commercial success has proved me wrong. I'm sure many people like the thumbpad controllers better, but I'm not one of them (and I'm not sure I understand why). I will point out that thumbpad controllers do have some pratical advantages. They are certainly cheaper and more compact.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what the solution is to discipline problems in school, but expelling people is clearly not it--it's not even a punishment, it's giving up the opportunity to reform these people. And we're reforming them not for their benefit but for the benefit of the rest of society.
I don't have a problem with this. If the stundent is violent or very disruptive kick him/her out. That way the teachers aren't wasting all their time dealing with a handful of trouble makers. Instead they can actually teach the student who are willing to learn. If the trouble maker can straighten out, then let them back in.
Having said this, I honestly don't think it would work. The reason being exactly what this story is about. Instead of kicking out a small number of really bad kids, they will end up kicking out a large number of kids who aren't really bad but have just hit a rough spot. Your point may be that it is impossible to tell the difference, and I guess I'd agree with that. Still, I have no sympathy for a student who willfully starts violence against other students or teachers. If there was a way to kick only those students out, I'd be all for it.
Seaside Heights, New Jersey, 10 years old or so...
Damn, I grew up there (Toms River), too. I probably was more like 12 at the time. Did you buy the greasy pizza from the Sawmill or 3 Brothers from Italy?
Although what you say about atmosphere is true, I think the magic had more to do with being 10. The atmosphere you remember is just another part of those great memories of youth. As far as the games go, they were exciting because we were young and the games were new (and fun).
Having people, especially future artists unable to go see a concert because it costs $250 a ticket is a shame, I doubt a young Madonna would have been able to experience many of her influences at such a price
I wasn't trying to make any judgements about right or wrong or fairness; I was just making an observation. However you do bring up a good point: Are this prices fair, and should the prices be lower?
Well, getting back to what I said, if the prices are set below market value, scalpers will jump in to take as much of that extra money as they can. For all practical purposes the price will escalate to the market value for those people not lucky enough to beat the scalpers to the tickets. To prevent this from happening you end up having to play all sorts of games (wrist-bands, limit ticket sales, laws against scalping) to get the cheap tickets into the fan's hands and out of the scalper's. What you'll probably end up with is some sort of lottery and the winning fans will get cheap tickets. I don't know if that's better or worse than the rich fans getting expensive tickets.
The FP post aside, where do you live that concerts cost significantly more than $40?
Sorry, I was refering to the prices in the article. I actually have no idea how much tickets cost today since I haven't been to such a concert in years. (Actually, now that I think about, I did go to one concert a couple years ago and the price was about $40). The $40 concert I went to 15 years ago was a special event. Most tickets at the time were around $20.
If you really can't afford that, check out your smaller local clubs...
Funny you should say that. About 15 years ago I starting going to local clubs and pubs, and found it much more fun. (Which is one of the reasons I've only gone to one major concert in 15 years). However, now that I have children, I don't a chance to do that as much anymore either.
Actually no, (and maybe yes). Back when I used to go to concerts (15 years ago) all the big concerts sold out easily, often within the first minutes of going on sale. The tickets prices, if you could buy one at face value, were quite reasonable: maybe $40 tops. Even adjusted for inflation, that's nowhere near the face value of tickets today. However, unless you were one of the lucky few (or a crazy fan who camped out), it was challenging to get a ticket to a hot concert. (And as I said even the moderately hot concerts sold out fairly rapidly).
The rapid selling out of concerts is evidence that the tickets were actually priced far below what the market would bear. In further evidence of this, scalpers generally could sell tickets for costs 2x or greater the face value. Hence, why I said "maybe yes". The scalpers were actually the ones selling the tickets at whatever the market would bear.
As the article points out, the goal of touring used to be as much (or perhaps more) about promotion as money making. You needed to tour to support an album. I can remember many concert t-shirts with a "sold-out" logo accross them. I think it used to be important to the promoters that a concert sold-out, even if it meant a loss of ticket revenue.
I think that the concert promoters have since realized that they are better served by raising ticket prices to whatever the market will bear. Essentially they are grabbing for themselves that extra money that used to go to scalpers.
the gamepad revolutionized games (all of those games we had on the original NES and since then aren't practical to play on paddles)
I'm going to disagree. Pretty much all NES games play quite similarly with a joystick, which was the standard controller before the gamepad. Where the gamepad outperforms a joystick is in cost, convenience (size), and the ability to put a lot of controllers/buttons in your hand. Until the game makers started putting a large (and in my opinion, excessive) number of controllers/buttons together in a gamepad, the effect on gameplay from the gamepad was close to nill.
Would selling uranium to Iran, Syria, North Korea or $other_evil_axis_country constitute a proliferation risk?
You seem to be missing the central point about selling/giving uranium to a country vs. lettting the coutry develop the capablity to process it. Weapons grade uranium is much more "pure" (much more of the active isotope) than uranium for reactors. If you give a country reactor grade uranium it can only be used for reactors or maybe a dirty bomb - you can't make an atomic bomb out of it without further processing. If a country develops the capability of processing uranium, they can process it to either reactor or bomb strength.
By giving reactor uranium to a country, the country can have capability of running nuclear reactors without the capability of making bombs. There is no reason for a country to need to make it's own uranium when it can buy it except: (a) to be independent and (b) to make bombs. Countries, such as N. Korea and Iran will claim they need to make there own uranium because of (a), but everyone knows that's BS and they are really after (b).
The reality is, it's going to get increasing tough to avoid any country developing the capability of doing something we did 60 years ago. MAD should keep the countries in check. It's the OBLs of the world, who don't have a country to worry about, that frighten me.
What I don't get is WHY apple would do this.
One possibility is that there are many people who might be interested in switching to Apple, but won't, because they have a few pieces of software they aren't willing to give up in order to make the switch. This allows those users to switch, but still have access to those pieces of software. (I personally feel that virtuallization is a better route for this, since who wants to have to have to reboot? Still, this at least gives the user an option).
How this actually plays out is anyone's guess. Clearly, Apple doesn't want to become just another Windows hardware vendor. They therefore must position this as a value added to their OS, not the other way around.
I'd root for something that picked up twenty years after Ep VI
Yes, and I know exactly how it should go. Now that the evil dictator is overthrown, the different races/species all fight each other for power. The new leaders (the former rebels) can't keep the peace, but the various races can't fight their new leaders directly. Chaos ensues as fanatics resort to setting off thermal detanators in crowded places, blowing up themselves and whoever is aroud at various markets and cantinas. (I really want to know is how this is going to turn out...)
(I am aware of the books you are talking about, but I thought my take on it would be more, uhm, current).
The device in the article is a photon counting device. That means that each individual photon causes an event that can be measured. (Actually, the 57% efficiency means that 57% of the photons cause as event, the other 43% are missed for one reason or another). There are other types of photon counting devices such as avalanche photodiodes, proportional counters (for xrays), and maybe photomultiplier tubes under the right conditions. The problem with avalanche photodiodes is that they take some time to reset after an event, which limits their speed for communications. This is being improved, but this new type of device may offer an intrinsically faster reset time, as well as high efficiency.
How this new device works is that a thin (9 nm?) superconductor wire (100 nm wide) is patterned into a serpentine path. A current, just below the critical current is driven though the superconduncting wire. (The critical current is the current at which the superconductor is no longer superconducting). Any photon that is aborbed by the wire causes local heating, and the wire can no longer be a superconductor with the amount of current going through it. This causes a sudden increase in resistance which can be measured.
I think the consol you are looking for is known as a "computer". Yes, I believe "computer" is the correct answer.
True, but there are important differences between a hackable console and a computer. You get more bang for your buck in a console (at least when it comes to graphics) because the hardware is subsidized by the games. In addition, because the console is a fix platform, the game writers can squeeze more performance.
The fixed platform is also valuable because it makes every thing much simpler for the consumer. The consumer doesn't have to worry about whether any given game will run on their system, or how well it will perform. Everyone's going to get the same experience.
I think what the original poster wants is less like a modern PC, and more like an 8-bit era home computer (Commodore 64 or Atari 800). You can use it like a computer if you want (you can program it, or write term papers), although you don't have the freedom to change hardware like in a PC. In exchange for this inflexibility, you know any game or software you buy will work just fine.
Whenever there's a suburban vs. urban lifestyle debate, I need to ask the question: Do you have kids? As the GP said, the reason many people don't want to live in the city is because of the environment they want for their kids. So, I question whether you and the company you keep have kids, and possibly whether this skews your perception of whether the pendulum's swung back.
City's aren't as bad as the use to be, but they still only offer an attractive lifestyle for the rich (who can afford private schools and very expensive property), the childless (who don't need as much property or care about schools), and a select few who have non-mainstream priorities.
There's a reason almost every sitcom that doesn't involve kids takes place in the city, and almost every sitcom that has kids takes place in the suburbs.
and there's some hope that different sources would be better.
If I recall correctly, those better sources are the biodiesel ones you refer to. (and the numbers above are for methanol not biodiesel). Sorry, I got things messed up - my bad. Still I hope my explanation for the numbers makes sense.
Besides that, I don't put much faith in that since in the same report they said that gasoline itself only gives back 0.74 units of energy for every 1 put in. Obvioulsy that's a bunch of B.S.
I was puzzled when I first read that, too, but I think it's right. You just need to interpret it differently from the first obvious way that comes to mind...
The input units are the amount of energy (dug out of the ground, or grown). The output is the amount of use you eventually get out of it.
for oil:
1 unit out of the ground = 0.74 units in your car. Refining, etc. waste energy so you don't actually get to use all of the energy.
for biodiesel:
1 unit out of the ground (or from your last biodiesel crop) = 1.34 units in your car. You are right that you'd really want better efficiency, and there's some hope that different sources would be better. At least you are gaining, not loosing.
We simply don't have enough farm land to both feed ourselves and fuel our cars, not to mention the water requirements.
I think the majority of the people here disagree with you. There certainly is no shortage of food in this country (and probably globally, too, if everyone's economy worked properly). The fuel requirements we have are, of course, huge, so you are likely correct that we can't replace all our oil use. Still, putting a big dent in our oil use isn't a bad idea. The water issue is a valid concern.
As a producer of digital media I would love to protect my investment.
I don't know what sort of work you do, although you gave the impression from your original post that you are more of a struggling artist than a big time one. I do think P2P networks do hurt the little guy, but not in the way most people think.
Without P2P you can only obtain so much music from the big artists (if you're not rich). Once your money runs out, you'll need to start looking to other sources for your music fix. A small time artist has the option of putting their music out there for free or very cheap, in hopes of at least getting exposure. Broke students (or other people with more time than money), might discover your music once they got bored with the music than can afford to purchase.
However, with P2P networks, the broke student never runs out of money to obtain the music from the big artists. Sure, he/she might still get bored and discover the small time artists, but there's now less incentive to do so. The big time artists can outcompete the small time artist on almost every level, particularly production values and marketing. The only hope the small time artist had was the ability to compete on cost (and hopefully talent). Now the ability to compete on cost is removed.
Will someone please mod the GP back up. Although you might not agree with him/her, I thought it was a reasonable question from the point of view of an artist whose music is being copied on P2P networks. What is the point of a discussion around here if you can't listen to both sides?
I can only speak for myself, but my problem is with the entire idea of DRM. DRM in any implementation is going to limit what I can do with my music. If it didn't set any limits, then it wouldn't be DRM. (To be fair, Apple's implementation isn't too bad, since it allows the creation of a lossless, non-DRM encombered version by burning to CD. Still this step seems like a waste of time, plus you do loose the compactness of the original file).
Now, this doesn't mean I should be allowed to upload my music or share it with 100's of my not-so-closest friends over the internet. However, trying to find technical solutions to this problem is the wrong way of going about it. By putting DRM on a item I can purchase, it makes the file I can "steal" (without DRM) more valuable. Why the heck would I want to buy something when I can get something better for free? All this DRM stuff does is limit what law abiding people can do with their music.
DRM is also unecessary to shut down all the P2P networks that exist for sort of copying you speak of. There are already laws on the books that make this illegal. The process is slow, but one by one the P2P networks that exist primarily for doing this sort of thing are dissappearing.
The reality is the P2P networks are a convenient smokescreen to justify DRM. Ask yourself this question (or actually finish this sentence):
If P2P networks never existed I'd be able to buy most songs over the internet...
1) with no DRM.
2) with DRM.
3) not at all.
#2 is probably the most likely outcome, but that just proves that P2P networks are not reason for DRM. #3 is actually a pretty likely possibility, because without P2P it is not clear if the music industry would of gotten off their collective butts and allowed selling music over the internet. I think we both know what the likelihood of #1 actually of happening is.
I'm glad that the RIAA has made these statements. Before when their arguement for stronger copywrite protection was "Look at what Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, etc. are doing", they had an arguement that the politicians/judges could be sympathetic to. Now if their arguement is "Fair use; people don't need no stinking fair use," I don't think the politicians and judges are going to be as sympathetic. It doesn't necessarily mean they won't still get their way, but at least it's a lot easier to argue against them.
Unfortunately, unlike you (if you are actually going to do what you claim) I don't think too many people care enough to do anything about it.
Some of us refused to go along with the fanboi "Apple is the holy goodness" type attitude, because we could see further than our noses. The *only* acceptable solution is one with absolutely no DRM.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but you are never, ever, going to see a major label approved way of downloading music without DRM. It's just never going to happen, (unless the laws change in a way that forces them to do it).
I'm sort of OK with this, since ITMS allows me to create a non-DRM version of anything I download (by burning to CD), and unencumbered CDs are available. I am concerned that the record companies are trying to find ways to make CDs encumbered, and who knows about the future of ITMS. (I also wish ITMS would use a higher bitrate)
IBM made the exact same claims with the SOI (silicon on insulator) technology they introduced before.
...
From the blurb...
Instead of just making transistors smaller, IBM came up with a process to alter how silicon behaves by placing a layer of insulator underneath a layer of silicon less than 500 atoms thick
Insulator under silicon - This sounds like SOI to me. Fully depleted SOI (because the layer is thin), but SOI none-the-less.
I think you are confusing maturity with forgetting how to enjoy life. Children seem to naturally know how to have a good time so we equate having fun with youth. Maybe it's just a question of semantics, but I disagree with your definition.
_ index.html. It's about how we are lousy at predicting what will make us happy. Money doesn't really make us happy (once you have enough to meet your basic needs), but friends and family do.
For me, Maturity = responsibility. If you think about it, what is the one thing that defines being an adult versus a child. It's responsibility. As an adult, you are responsible for taking care of yourself (and possiblly your family) and you are responsible for your actions (at least in the eyes of the law). As a child, your family supports you financially, and you can get away with more transgressions.
Having said that, I don't disagree with the idea behind what you are saying. Getting older and accepting responsibilities doesn't mean you have to be a stick in the mud. You do have to be careful, though, because sometimes having fun and being responsible are in conflict. (I'd love to skip work today and go see a movie, but if I do that and loose my job, I won't be able to pay my bills...). So, yes, being mature does mean you can't always have as much fun as you'd like. But being mature shouldn't mean never being silly and having a good time. (Of course, it really is a matter of semantics. When our parents yelled at us to act mature, they were, in fact, telling us to stop being silly, and stop having a good time).
As far as the executive with the expensive car goes, I read an interesting article recently: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gilbert03/gilbert
Wico! They made arcade joysticks, and just happened to put out a few good ones for the Atari 2600. I've never seen one IRL, but I hear they're quite good. :-)
:-)
Yes, I remember the Wico, but that wasn't it. However, the one I liked is on that page- it's the "Starfighter". Thanks for the link! (I think $12 is also what I paid for mine, originally). The Wico bat joysticks were popular, but I thought they had tool large of a dead zone. Other than that, they were very nice.
It's possible too that it's your memories of the games. Galaga, for example, is best played on a proper standup machine where you can *SLAM* that controller back and forth. Not so good for the machine, but a lot of fun.
No doubt, that's the best way to play those games. But if I play those games at home now with a joystick (home build from arcade parts), or even a keyboard (for most games), I'm pretty happy. It's only when I try to play with a gamepad, I get frustrated. Why do I even try, then? Because I have a PVR computer hooked up to a TV, and nothing beats the gamepad when it comes to convenience.
I really like joystick controllers better. It is much easier to control something precisely when you are moving your whole hand, instead of a thumb.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. All the joysticks except the 5200 were digital, thus giving them no real advantage over a thumbpad
You are right that all the controllers we're talking about are digital. I just find it a lot easier to move a whole limb a certain direction (and rapidly), then a single digit. It's like the difference between a mouse and a laptop pointing device. It's a lot easier to control big motions than little ones.
It's a personal preference thing, and I seem to be in the minority around here. However, every time I fire up one of the classics (Pac Man, Berzerk, heck even Donkey Kong) and try to control it with a gamepad, I quit in frustration after a couple minutes. Some of it is surely do to my experience with a joystick vs. gamepad. However, when I first played emulated games, I used a keyboard and I found that worked pretty well, despite not using a keyboard to control games before. However, the gamepad never worked for me. (I will admit that I do have a PS2 with the standard controller, and that works pretty well for me for the games designed for it. However these games don't require the fast twitching of the classics).
Putting that aside, the biggest problem with the joysticks was that you were fighting yourself. With one hand you'd be moving the joystick (and consequently, trying to remove it from your own hand) while with the other hand you'd be trying to brace the device as best as you can.
In your earlier post you mentioned this, too, and I didn't understand what you meant. Thanks for the better explanation. I can see what you mean, but it never bothered me back in the day. There were a lot of different aftermarket joysticks available for the Atari, and although I thought Atari's were OK they weren't my favorite. The Atari ones did require some force, and I could see how that might tire someone. I don't think that's an inherent problem with a joystick, it's just something that Atari didn't get quite right.
My favorite joystick was one that required a very short throw and not too much force, but was stiff enough to bounce back quickly. I forget who made it, but it was a pretty cool and simple piece of engineering. Instead of microswitches, leaf switches, or those lousy blister switches that Atari used, there were no switches at all in this joystick. Instead, the joystick handle connected directly to a rod with a metal ball. As you moved the joystick, the rod would pivot, pushing the ball into contact with one (or two for diaganol motion) of four metal plates. That thing never broke no matter how much abuse it took, and it was cheap, too. The only downside was that after long time the ball and plates needed to be cleaned to improve contact.
I already posted a comment below, but I'll respond here, too. I really like joystick controllers better. It is much easier to control something precisely when you are moving your whole hand, instead of a thumb. However, you do bring up some good points. It is difficult to make a non-fixed joystick contoller, unless you limit yourself to a few buttons. The 2600 contollers are an example of a non-fixed joystick that worked pretty well, but they only had one button. Also, they didn't last - It is certainly more expensive to make a joystick that will last, but there's no reason it can't be done. And, yes, a joystick is bigger and shaped funny, which makes them harder to store. (And also makes them impracticle for a portable device). Still, as far as actual game experience goes, I think the joystick is superior.
As far as the 5200 controllers go, the fact that joystick was non-centering was pretty bone-headed.
I can't say much about the article, do to a slashdotting. I will take this opportunity to spot off on how much I really think thumbpads are a step backwards from the joystick. I pretty much stop playing console games once the Nintendo became king, because I found the gamepad so frustratingly hard to control. You might think is was lack of experience. However, once computer games came along, I picked up controlling with a keyboard (or the keyboard mouse combination) just fine.
Of course this is just one person's view, and commercial success has proved me wrong. I'm sure many people like the thumbpad controllers better, but I'm not one of them (and I'm not sure I understand why). I will point out that thumbpad controllers do have some pratical advantages. They are certainly cheaper and more compact.