Well, there seems to be as many researchers saying "don't know," as there are saying, "shutter the factories." The whole global warming "debate" seems to be hysterical, and I do not trust the motives of many of the players in it.
Look into it. Professional environmental scientists are pretty much unanimous on global warming.
Using R44 And A PowerBook To Bust Illegal Seawalls | Preferences | Top | 357 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold: -1: 357 comments 0: 269 comments 1: 251 comments 2: 147 comments 3: 47 comments 4: 25 comments 5: 14 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save: The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Re:What (Score:2) by nomadic (nomadicworld&hotmail,com) on Thursday October 31, @05:41PM (#4575675) (User #141991 Info | http://nomadic.simspace.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 23, @05:53AM) I'm not sure what you're alluding to in terms of "the global warming or DDT debate."
"Human industry is causing global warming." "You can't prove that." "Here's a bunch of scientific evidence." "But it doesn't prove it 100%." "Look at all these scientists saying that human industry is causing global warming." "They're biased." "Look at all the strange weather patterns lately." "Coincidence." "The arctic ice cap is almost completely melted away." "Coincidence."
And so on. -- "We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."--Oscar Wilde [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:What by nomadic (Score:2)
Re:What (Score:3) by 1010011010 on Thursday October 31, @06:10PM (#4575825) (User #53039 Info | http://www.xsltfilter.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 17, @05:27PM)
Well, there seems to be as many researchers saying "don't know," as there are saying, "shutter the factories." The whole global warming "debate" seems to be hysterical, and I do not trust the motives of many of the players in it.
I personally think that we should get away from burning oil (making plastics from it is fine), and use non-oil sources of energy. Coal, solar, others. Why coal and not oil? I think that oil will turn out to be a natural by-product of planet formation. There has never been any DNA found in oil, and wells seem to replinish themselves. Coal, however, is definitely carbon taken from the atmosphere by plants -- coal comes with DNA and fossilized (incompletly carbonized) plants in it. By burning coal, we're not adding _new_ CO2 to the air. By burning oil, I suspect that we are adding new carbon. I think it's okay to do things with oil other than burn it, such as making plastics from it, because it's not adding carbon to the atmosphere.
Oil wells/coal deposits don't "replenish themselves". The can and do run out. Look at Texas. Coal and oil are very similar chemically, it's difficult to belive that one is organic and the other isn't. While there are a few dissenters, it is widely believed that most of Earth's coal and oil was formed from thick layers of vegetation produced during the Jurrasic period, etc. The Earth was different back then, the atmosphere was more oxygen-rich and consequently the was much more plant life and it was much denser (Think about it, what did all those huge plant-eating dinosaurs eat?).
It also takes many millions of years to form coal and oil for plant matter. Any we exreact is EFFECTIVELY gone forever because it would take us millions of years, and massive environmental change, to produce more.
Right now, I best bet for energy is nuclear. There is a lot more uranium ore than there is oil resources, and more importantly, refined uranion is a much more concentrated form of energy so we need less of it to begin with. Yes, there is a "waste problem" but it's easily managed through fuel rod recycling and breeder reactors. Trivia: Coal fired plants actually produce more radiation than nuclear power plants.
There's some evidence that global warming, regardless of causes, will actually trigger the next ice age, and we'll need _even more_ CO2 in the air to come back out of it. The Earth is currently somewhat low on CO2, historically speaking.
Do you have any sources on this? Again, environmental scientis are pretty much in lockstep on global warming.
I'm not a "the hypothesis that human actions are causing global warming, and that's bad, cannot possibly be right" kind of guy. But I'm not convinced with the research to date, and I deeply distruct the motives of a lot of the "global warming activists." I'm not just a yahoo reading "Discover," either -- I hold degrees in Biochemistry and Chemistry. I know the scientific method when I see it.
If you're not a professional in the field, then you're not qualified. A lot NON-specialists like chemists, statisticians, economists, etc. have critized global warming. But for the most part, they haven't done the work and don't know what they're talking about.
And even if you're NOT a big fan of global warming there are plenty of OTHER reasons to follow the environmental scientists reccomendations. Coal and oil cause smog and other pollution which have serious health risks to humans. Why not switch to a combination of nuclear for power plants, and perhaps grain alcohol for vehicles? Or possibly fuel cells. Dependence on foreign oil has caused the US political and security problems, like 9/11.
It will cost a bit of money, but frankly it wouldn't be too expensive and there really isn't a good reason NOT to do it except the greed of American oil companies and auto manufactures who don't want ot rock the boat. Fuck them. We don't have any responsibility to protect them and their profits.
a road a railroad bed, a divided highway, a natural gas pipeline, and a seawall.
That's because the seawall is protecting the railroad, the highway, and the natural gas piplie which are all public resources used by millions of people. I drive on that scenic highway all the time (I THINK I know where this is).
It's not some rich fuck who is destroying the enviroment just so he can put his $10,000,000 house 50ft. closer to the beach.
That reminds me of the reason they blocked building a bypass route near my area. An environmental group said a bunch of frogs would be killed because of it.
Well, that's just great. Instead we have 20 minute idle times and the city's smog is so bad it kills many asthmatics per year.
And you're blaming the environmental groups? The traffic is caused by a lack of public transportation, or more precisely, a lack of people like you using it. Do you commute by car? If so, you're part of the fucking problem. And talk to Toyota, GM, etc. about the smog. They are the ones deliberately exploiting a loophole in CAFE emission standards so the can sell gas-guzzling, and smog-producing, SUVs and trucks. And I'm sure that the oil companies will be responsive to your complaints. However, you CAN buy a hybtid or electric car now. Do you own and use one? If not, you're part of the fucking problem.
Hippies, _especially_ stupid hippies piss me off so much. I hope they get what's coming to them. If they like frogs and wildlife so freakin' much, go live in the forest! Go away and live there forever! We'll make forest reserves _just for you_ if you'll go away forever.
I wish I could, but people like you are ruining the forests too.
I agree, environmental protection is -- or should be -- a property-rights issue. In your example, the damaged party would be able to seek remedy before the law against the person who caused the destruction of his property.
But often, the damage is not to another property owner but to the environmen itself. What, are the seagulls going to sue for not being able to nest?
I'm as Libertarian as the next guy, but I realize that the environment is fundamentally a public resource. And as the government is the instrument of the public it's entirely appropriate that the enivronment is managed by the government.
I *DO* get telemarketers on my cellphone, and consequently I answer the phone by saying "Who the fuck are you?". Anyone saying, "This is Bob calling from MCI" gets an immeadate disconnect.
I recieve about 2 junk faxes every single day, ON MY CELLPHONE from which I have never sent a fax. Why? Because Fax.com found it by wardialing me. The junk fax laws haven't stopped people from sending junk faxes.
They know people will still buy the CD's even if they can't be copied. Take for example DVD's when they were first released, how many slashdotters bought DVD players and discs before they could copy them? My bet would be a good portion of us, and we are the ones that go looking for ways to copy them. Do you think the average consumer even knows it's possible to copy a DVD disc?
Because the DVD format is vastly technically superior to the formats it was replacing, VHS/LaserDisc. Do you think that there is any consumer that considers MacroVision a "feature"? It had to be crammed down the manufacturer's throats.
DVD-Audio, other new formats, and CD copy-protection offer little or nothing in the way of new features for the consumer. Consumers have been totally ignoring DVD-Audio, it's already dead.
With perhaps the exception of a few slashdotters we all still buy CD's, although we bitch and moan about it. Have a significant amount of us actually stopped buying CD's outright?
I have at least. I can get all the music I want for free off the internet at an acceptable quality. I care little for the extra "features" (art, liner notes, inability to copy) that CDs offer, especially at their exorbinant prices.
Would I pay for a service that offered extremely large libraries (10,000+ songs) of high-quality checked (say, 256 encoded MP3s) downloadable files with little or no DRM, at about $0.50 per song? Without a doubt. Will this happen? Absolutely not, because the Big 5 record labels know that with such a model they'd probably end up making significant LESS money than they do now. They would definitely still turn a profit though.
The XBox is certainly, technically, the superior platform over the PS2 and Gamecube. It has the most powerful CPU and graphics as well as the extra features of a hard disk and broadband standard. Certainly there is great potential there. But what we've seen in the past is that it's marketing and game selection that drives console sales, not technology.
There have been complaints about the size and the oversized controller. But frankly, the XBox still is smaller than most home A/V components and there are plenty of third-party controllers for the XBox. I hated the standard Dreamcast controller but I found several third-party controllers that I liked.
The big problem the XBox has is games. The PS2 has enough of a lead, as well as Sony's great marketing and strong relationships with developers (particularly Japanese developers) has insured that the PS2 will ALWAYS have more games than the XBox and more games means more GOOD games. This allows the PS2 to appeal to a funamentally wider audience. And I'm not even including the huge back-library od PS1 titles.
The Gamecube is rapidly evolving into a niche console for kids and people that worship Mario and Zelda. This suits Nintendo just fine, they've been making money off the Gamecube from day 1 and the Gamecube is really secondary to the real cash cow, the GameBoy.
It's Microsoft that has trouble. They're competing directly against PS2 for the teen/young adult market. XBox is doing okay in the US, but they've basically conceded the Japanese market and the XBox isn't looking goog in Europe.
As I've said before, unless broadband gaming (where Microsoft has a clear advantage) takes off in a BIG way, XBox will be a commercial failure. I think it's alrealy lost the marketshare "battle", but if Microsoft can manage to be marginally successful with the XBox, Microsft has enough cash to make the XBox2 a success.
I just don't see a huge ammount of brand loyalty in the beige box business. I see loyalty for servers, I see people get worked up into a slather over operating systems, but very rarely do you see Dell and Gateway fans having it out.
Brand loyalty matters in the corporate IT world, where the real money in desktops is. Most shops, even small shops, tend to standardize on one brand of PC. Increasingly, that brand is Dell. Personally, I prefer IBM, the laptops are the best on the market and the desktops are outstanding, though slightly overpriced.
By the way, what makes you say Gateway is slowly dying? I think things like their Profile [gateway.com] line offer them more than bundling a PDA. They seem fairly unique. (To the non-apple world.)
Gateway has bee hemmoraging cash, they're closing a buch of the "Gateway Country" stores, and they've always tried to compete in the comsumer space where the real mone ISN'T. Gateway has a lousy rep among corporate IT departments. And the Profile is hardly unique, IBM, Compaq, and Dell have all offered similar products (I think IBM still is), but sales have been lackluster due to low demand. Most consumers aren't willing to spen more on a "stylish" PC, particularly those all-important corporate IT departments.
Lets see. Here's a list of upcoming Xbox exclusives. Exactly the same count as PS2. Which also has 38. Again, these are EXCLUSIVES.
Crazy Taxi 3
Will be released for both XBox and PS2, not sure about Gamecube.
Robotech
Robotech: Battlecry is not an XBox exclusive, it will be released for all three platforms. I think the XBox version was released first.
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Same story as Robotech, XBox gets it first but PS2 and GC versions are in the works.
There are probably other innacuracies in your list, but the point is that XBox and GC have relatively short lists of exclusives which is to be expected as they have a combined marketshare of about 20%.
If their business model is so dependent on you buying certified Xbox games then why don't they just make a contract that you have to sign when purchasing it? It could be for say a duration of 12 months during which time you can't modify the hardware, then after that time you can do what you want with it.
Much more likely would be that the contract would NEVER allow you to modify the hardware and if you did they could sue you for every dime you had. In the USA this is called "explicit consent" under contract law, and many Americans are vaguely aware of this. For that reason I suspect few Americans would be willing to sign something called "Microsoft Software Liablity Contract" since they are used to people trying to get them to sign stuff which fucks them over.
There is also the logistics of it. The resellers would have to collect the signed contracts and send them back to Microsoft (presumably they would be paid for this) whereupon Microsoft would have to file and store them in case of a legal challenge. And even then, if it wasn't notarized the "signee" could easily claim that it's faked. All of this would cost Microsoft lots of money.
That's why software vendors use generic EULAs and are busy trying to give them the same legal weigh as REAL contracts. EULAs have never really been seriously challenged in court (by design) because it's very likely they wouldn't hold up (in the US).
I'm not sure how it works down under, but I suspect end users would be equally reluctant to sign such contracts.
Though it is somewhat ironic that you have to lie to the boss for ethical reasons. However this is DEFINITELY the best advice I've seen so far.
If a boss asks you to do something unethical, claim that it's technically impossible of very difficult. If push comes to shove, you can claim ignorance ("Well, I've never really hacked the mail spool before so I wasn't comfortable doing it.")
Typically, I only bring in beer. The exactly one time I've been hassled for this:
Usher: "You can't have that in here." Me : "Do you sell beer at the concession stand?" Usher: "No." Me : "Then I'm not costing you any money, am I?" Usher: "No." Me : "Well, there you go."
And he left me alone. This will probably only work on stupid ushers.
At some point you know someone somewhere is going to get killed for poor movie etiquette. You've got to wonder how tempted the lawyer might be to go for jury nullification.,/i>
This has already happened in Germany, where a mand was beaten to death for talking on his cellphone during a movie. In Europe it's common enough that it even has a name "cellphone rage". many Euro countries are talking about installing cellular jammers in theatres, hospitals, etc.
Have you ever been a parent? It's incrediby difficult to unteach a kid what the schools, peer groups and other adults are teaching them. The problem is not that parents have suddenly become irresponsible, it's that society at large has ceased to accept the presence of children. Two generations ago, a child who misbehaved in public would be snapped back into line by any competent adult who witnessed the scene. Today, children do not get this feedback - so their parents seem totally out-of-step with the rest of their experience. Partly this is due to fear of legal action, partly it's because we don't know our neighbors any more, and partly it's because social courtesy has been declining in perceived importance since the end of the nineteenth century. Parents may share some of the blame, but they have been set up with a nearly impossible task.
This is a bunch of crap. For the most part, adults now fear talking to children in ANY public situation in the USA for fear of invoking the wrath of the parents in terms of lawsuits. Discipline is pretty much limited to store owners politely telling kids to stop stealing and the police, who are exempt from liability. People have been sued for telling kids to get off their lawn or to stop destroying their property. God forbid you actually TOUCH someone else's child.
And for the most part, the parents are just as rude and inconsiderate as their children (How many of these people talking on cellphones are ADULTS?) and don't bother to teach their kids any basic courtesy.
Notice the "well regulated" part? Also, notice that "Arms" is a proper noun? That means that WE can decide what regulations to place upon gun ownership and militias and WE can decide what the definition of "Arms" is. Do fully-automatic machine guns and rocket-launchers count as "Arms?" They most certainly are, but them being prohibited doesn't counter the 2nd Am. because "Arms" is defined by the individual States and by Congress itself.
Read the commentary by the founders and the congressional congress around the 2nd Ammendment. The clear intent was that all individual citizens should have access to military firearms. They explicitly approved cannon on private ships as protecion against pirates (and for privateering agaisnt the British, etc. ) So yes, restrictions against machine guns, rocket launchers, etc. are clearly prohibited by the 2nd Ammendment. However, the choice of wording has gone doin in history as being very poor. "Well regulated" did not mean LEGAL regulation back then, it meant "orderly" and "Milita" meant "the armed citizenry". So a 21st century version of the ammendment would read:
An orderly, armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
My take on this statement is of a cynic. Ashcroft, the divinely inspired AG of US of A, reeks of hypocisy here. If he were that concerned about the preservation of our *freedoms*, why is then that he is suggesting citizen spying schemes such as TIPS? why is that Patriot Act was rushed through the house and the senate? Why is it that he's hell bent on protecting the 2nd amendment, right to carry/own a machine gun so to protect your house, but yet has all begun chipping away the protections of the 4th?
Much as I hate to apologize for Ashcroft, from his perspective (that of a law enforcement officer), this isn't hypocracy. 4th Ammendment protections, Miranda, etc. are based on the idea that the police are inherently untrustworthty and will abuse a "free hand" if they are given it. Understandably, Ashcroft doesn't see himself as untrustworthy or abusive. That's why the executive branch (all cops are part of the executive branch) doesn't make the laws.
The recent trend in legislation in Congress and elsewhere is to give more power to the executive branch. For example, mandatory minimums, 3-strike laws, etc. transfer sentencing (moreso) from the hands of judges to the hands of prosecutors. The prosecutor decides what penalty the defendant will receive by choosing what to charge him with.
It's really only the ACLU, a few other special interest groups, and a few activist judges that are fighting the trend.
But by and large, the mod chip likely uses pirated code from an existing chip off the Xbox board. I would be truly amazed, if the developers reverse engineered the needed chip, using completely legitimate means, completely "black box/clean room" etc
What about fair use? Isn't changing the code slightly to remove some limitations in the XBox an example of fair use? It seems to me it is.
What is the ACTUAL revenue loss here? You still need to buy an XBox to use the chip, it's not like they're selling a pirate version of the whole console.
What modchips do is allow you to use the product in ways the manufacturer does not want you to, like playing backups of games, installing Linux, or playing import games, or yes, playing pirated games. Should a manufacturer have the inviolate right to dictate HOW your use the product? This is completely unprecedented with every other consumer product. For example, you can freely modify your car however you want as long as it meets safety/smog requirements.
I don't think that manufacturers should have this right.
The thing that seperates me from the majority of/. users is the fact that I don't attempt to justify it to myself using shallow logic. It is NOT your decision which laws you are going to obey(and please don't bring up people like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr., you're stealing movies, not fighting for the rights of a race of people).
Actually, what you're doing is ridiculing the concept of natural justice, as another poster pointed out.
Simple question: Is it wrong to hurt evil people?
A real life example: When I was a punk rocker me and my other punk friends made a point that whenever we saw a Nazi skinhead (called boneheads) alone on the street, and we thought we could get away with it, we would beat the shit out of him. Why? Because he was a Nazi, he was giving the rest of us a bad name and, frankly, he deserved it. Vigilantism? Definitely. MORALLY WRONG? Absolutely not.
I consider the major media conglomerates who control about 90% of media in the USA to be evil. Perhaps not as evil as the Nazis, but still evil. Therefore I see nothing wrong with stealing from them. Or beating up their senior executives on the street for that matter.
What's the worse case piracy scenario? Piracy becomes so rampant that eventually they are forced out of business. In my mind this is a GOOD thing.
You're right. The hardcore gamer these days doesn't mess with PC video cards, but owns a PS2, Xbox, and/or Game Cube. If you don't, then you're missing out on lots and lots of really great games. Compare the number of incredible console games released in the last two years with the number of PC games that actually make good use out of high-end video card features like vertex and pixel shaders. It's almost as if the PC 3D card market exists entirely to support first person shooters.
As other posters have pointed out:
1. Computer games aren't necessarily similar to console games. FPS, real-time strategy, complex strategy games in general, fight simulators, and "computer"-style RPGs are widely regarded as being far superior on the PC platform or simply non-existant on the console platform (complex sims don't exist on the console).
2. As several people have pointed out, many of the games made for consoles are cross-platform "generic" games with "generic" graphics and sound that don't really push the capabilties of the machine. It's only the best of the "exclusives" that do this and you'll find that such games really aren't that much more common for the console as they are for the PC.
3. It terms of yearly game releases IN GENERAL, PC is probably the second most popular platform, right after the PS2. If one considers all the shareware games and and the vast "back library" of the PC that platform has many more good games (even considering the PS1 back library of the PS2).
3D game market on the PC, to a great, great extent, has become an marginally profitable niche.
Tell it to Electronic arts, or to id who are both making millions in this "niche" market.
One think that many people forget about is platform penetration. While the PS2 has a lot of penetration, nothing comes close to the PC. Virtually 100% of the "video game buying" population owns a PC, therefore you have many more potental customers than you do with even the PS2, and certainly far more than the GameCube and the XBox.
Video games are very profitable, thats why vendors can still make money in extreme niche markets like hardcore flight sims and turn-based wargames.
Value adds are the features inherant to the system as designed. It just so happens that the xbox is a very "value added" system inherantly.
Being able to play pirated games, import games. or even just backups of your own purchased game so your original doesn't get all scratched up, is certainly "of value" to the END USER. Therefore, a mod-chip is a "value add" TO THE END USER. Microsoft might not like it, but that doesn't change the facts.
The devaluation is at the software and game level. Is Developer X going to spend 5 million making a game that can be pirated with ease because someone can goto lik-sang.com and get a modchip? NOooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The most "moddable" of the current generation of home consoles, by far, is the Playstation 2. Modchips were available even before the US launch. Yet despite this, the PS2 is the most popular console in all markets, and it has the most games by the largest group of developers.
The Playstation was also easily modded and was insanely popular. The NES was the most popular console of it's era despire rampant piracy all over the world. It made Nintendo a fortune. Game Boy (and Color and Advance) is still selling well despite massive piracy of the carts. Microsoft is one of the richest companies in the world despite the fact that Windows and Office are probably the most pirated software packages in the world, etc.
Piracy isn't an excuse for failure.
What is the value of hacking a system to use it for purposes of which it isn't intended or designed for and why can't microsoft legally fight to protect its intended and protected interests?
See above. Playing import games. or even just backups of your own purchased game so your original doesn't get all scratched up, is certainly a "legitimate" use of modchips.
Even though i modded my dreamcast and could play pirated games, i didn't consider this a value add. For one, i couldn't read the japanese games and often times it wasn't worth the effort and for pirated games they were ripped, chunked, slow and missing features.
Now I know you're an idiot. The Dreamcast didn't require a modchip to play pirated games. Many import games either are in English or have (like fighting games) very little text and dialog. Also there ARE people who can read Japanese in the US. I also can't think of ANY pirate game for the Dreamcast that isn't feature-complete or is seriously mangled. The only one I can think of is Skies of Arcadia which is split into 2 discs.
it was the "value add" of the modchips and ripped DC games that ended the life of that console. (and the ps2.. but sega cited the loss of software sales because of rampant piracy and loss of developers because of rampant piracy to be a big factor)
I have no doubt that Sega tried that whiney excuse. The Dreamcast failed mainly because Sega was hemmoraging money and couldn't compete with Sony's marketing muscle. They also had political problems with third-party developers.
At the exact same time there was EVEN MORE rampant piracy on Sony's consoles. "Plugin" mods were available everywere and copying a disc involved 10 minutes of effort and a CD burner.
Copying and modding dreamcast games involved specialized knowledge and equipment, though no actual modchips were required.
I suspect the main reason Aol is doing this is to distance themselves from being a possible competitor to Microsoft.
Except as other posters have pointed out, AOL *IS* positioning itself this way. I suspect that they are quietly working on their OWN OS initative, probably having something to do with Linux, and Lindows would be a direct competitor to THEIR upcoming OS.
The article I was linked to gave a figure in the range of $4 something an hour. It also stated that at the time of the article being written, it was minimum wage.
Check out the link below, particular the "Prison Labor Factsheet".
http://www.prisonactivist.org/prison-labor/
While prisoners technically recieve minimum wage, 80%+ of that money is deducted from their paycheck (again, before taxes) for various "programs". Admittedly, prisoners make so little money that they rarely have to pay state or federal income taxes. However, the still have to pay sales taxes on anything they purchase within the prison.
It's worth noting that this varies from state to state, the cited figures are from CA but Federal prisons are roughly similar (they play less and deduct slightly more, so federal prisoners make a little less).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there seems to be as many researchers saying "don't know," as there are saying, "shutter the factories." The whole global warming "debate" seems to be hysterical, and I do not trust the motives of many of the players in it.
Look into it. Professional environmental scientists are pretty much unanimous on global warming.
Using R44 And A PowerBook To Bust Illegal Seawalls | Preferences | Top | 357 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold: -1: 357 comments 0: 269 comments 1: 251 comments 2: 147 comments 3: 47 comments 4: 25 comments 5: 14 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:What (Score:2)
by nomadic (nomadicworld&hotmail,com) on Thursday October 31, @05:41PM (#4575675)
(User #141991 Info | http://nomadic.simspace.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 23, @05:53AM)
I'm not sure what you're alluding to in terms of "the global warming or DDT debate."
"Human industry is causing global warming."
"You can't prove that."
"Here's a bunch of scientific evidence."
"But it doesn't prove it 100%."
"Look at all these scientists saying that human industry is causing global warming."
"They're biased."
"Look at all the strange weather patterns lately."
"Coincidence."
"The arctic ice cap is almost completely melted away."
"Coincidence."
And so on.
--
"We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."--Oscar Wilde
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:What by nomadic (Score:2)
Re:What (Score:3)
by 1010011010 on Thursday October 31, @06:10PM (#4575825)
(User #53039 Info | http://www.xsltfilter.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 17, @05:27PM)
Well, there seems to be as many researchers saying "don't know," as there are saying, "shutter the factories." The whole global warming "debate" seems to be hysterical, and I do not trust the motives of many of the players in it.
I personally think that we should get away from burning oil (making plastics from it is fine), and use non-oil sources of energy. Coal, solar, others. Why coal and not oil? I think that oil will turn out to be a natural by-product of planet formation. There has never been any DNA found in oil, and wells seem to replinish themselves. Coal, however, is definitely carbon taken from the atmosphere by plants -- coal comes with DNA and fossilized (incompletly carbonized) plants in it. By burning coal, we're not adding _new_ CO2 to the air. By burning oil, I suspect that we are adding new carbon. I think it's okay to do things with oil other than burn it, such as making plastics from it, because it's not adding carbon to the atmosphere.
Oil wells/coal deposits don't "replenish themselves". The can and do run out. Look at Texas. Coal and oil are very similar chemically, it's difficult to belive that one is organic and the other isn't. While there are a few dissenters, it is widely believed that most of Earth's coal and oil was formed from thick layers of vegetation produced during the Jurrasic period, etc. The Earth was different back then, the atmosphere was more oxygen-rich and consequently the was much more plant life and it was much denser (Think about it, what did all those huge plant-eating dinosaurs eat?).
It also takes many millions of years to form coal and oil for plant matter. Any we exreact is EFFECTIVELY gone forever because it would take us millions of years, and massive environmental change, to produce more.
Right now, I best bet for energy is nuclear. There is a lot more uranium ore than there is oil resources, and more importantly, refined uranion is a much more concentrated form of energy so we need less of it to begin with. Yes, there is a "waste problem" but it's easily managed through fuel rod recycling and breeder reactors. Trivia: Coal fired plants actually produce more radiation than nuclear power plants.
There's some evidence that global warming, regardless of causes, will actually trigger the next ice age, and we'll need _even more_ CO2 in the air to come back out of it. The Earth is currently somewhat low on CO2, historically speaking.
Do you have any sources on this? Again, environmental scientis are pretty much in lockstep on global warming.
I'm not a "the hypothesis that human actions are causing global warming, and that's bad, cannot possibly be right" kind of guy. But I'm not convinced with the research to date, and I deeply distruct the motives of a lot of the "global warming activists." I'm not just a yahoo reading "Discover," either -- I hold degrees in Biochemistry and Chemistry. I know the scientific method when I see it.
If you're not a professional in the field, then you're not qualified. A lot NON-specialists like chemists, statisticians, economists, etc. have critized global warming. But for the most part, they haven't done the work and don't know what they're talking about.
And even if you're NOT a big fan of global warming there are plenty of OTHER reasons to follow the environmental scientists reccomendations. Coal and oil cause smog and other pollution which have serious health risks to humans. Why not switch to a combination of nuclear for power plants, and perhaps grain alcohol for vehicles? Or possibly fuel cells. Dependence on foreign oil has caused the US political and security problems, like 9/11.
It will cost a bit of money, but frankly it wouldn't be too expensive and there really isn't a good reason NOT to do it except the greed of American oil companies and auto manufactures who don't want ot rock the boat. Fuck them. We don't have any responsibility to protect them and their profits.
a road
a railroad bed,
a divided highway,
a natural gas pipeline, and
a seawall.
That's because the seawall is protecting the railroad, the highway, and the natural gas piplie which are all public resources used by millions of people. I drive on that scenic highway all the time (I THINK I know where this is).
It's not some rich fuck who is destroying the enviroment just so he can put his $10,000,000 house 50ft. closer to the beach.
That reminds me of the reason they blocked building a bypass route near my area. An environmental group said a bunch of frogs would be killed because of it.
Well, that's just great. Instead we have 20 minute idle times and the city's smog is so bad it kills many asthmatics per year.
And you're blaming the environmental groups? The traffic is caused by a lack of public transportation, or more precisely, a lack of people like you using it. Do you commute by car? If so, you're part of the fucking problem. And talk to Toyota, GM, etc. about the smog. They are the ones deliberately exploiting a loophole in CAFE emission standards so the can sell gas-guzzling, and smog-producing, SUVs and trucks. And I'm sure that the oil companies will be responsive to your complaints. However, you CAN buy a hybtid or electric car now. Do you own and use one? If not, you're part of the fucking problem.
Hippies, _especially_ stupid hippies piss me off so much. I hope they get what's coming to them. If they like frogs and wildlife so freakin' much, go live in the forest! Go away and live there forever! We'll make forest reserves _just for you_ if you'll go away forever.
I wish I could, but people like you are ruining the forests too.
I agree, environmental protection is -- or should be -- a property-rights issue. In your example, the damaged party would be able to seek remedy before the law against the person who caused the destruction of his property.
But often, the damage is not to another property owner but to the environmen itself. What, are the seagulls going to sue for not being able to nest?
I'm as Libertarian as the next guy, but I realize that the environment is fundamentally a public resource. And as the government is the instrument of the public it's entirely appropriate that the enivronment is managed by the government.
I *DO* get telemarketers on my cellphone, and consequently I answer the phone by saying "Who the fuck are you?". Anyone saying, "This is Bob calling from MCI" gets an immeadate disconnect.
I recieve about 2 junk faxes every single day, ON MY CELLPHONE from which I have never sent a fax. Why? Because Fax.com found it by wardialing me. The junk fax laws haven't stopped people from sending junk faxes.
They know people will still buy the CD's even if they can't be copied. Take for example DVD's when they were first released, how many slashdotters bought DVD players and discs before they could copy them? My bet would be a good portion of us, and we are the ones that go looking for ways to copy them. Do you think the average consumer even knows it's possible to copy a DVD disc?
Because the DVD format is vastly technically superior to the formats it was replacing, VHS/LaserDisc. Do you think that there is any consumer that considers MacroVision a "feature"? It had to be crammed down the manufacturer's throats.
DVD-Audio, other new formats, and CD copy-protection offer little or nothing in the way of new features for the consumer. Consumers have been totally ignoring DVD-Audio, it's already dead.
With perhaps the exception of a few slashdotters we all still buy CD's, although we bitch and moan about it. Have a significant amount of us actually stopped buying CD's outright?
I have at least. I can get all the music I want for free off the internet at an acceptable quality. I care little for the extra "features" (art, liner notes, inability to copy) that CDs offer, especially at their exorbinant prices.
Would I pay for a service that offered extremely large libraries (10,000+ songs) of high-quality checked (say, 256 encoded MP3s) downloadable files with little or no DRM, at about $0.50 per song? Without a doubt. Will this happen? Absolutely not, because the Big 5 record labels know that with such a model they'd probably end up making significant LESS money than they do now. They would definitely still turn a profit though.
So why should I pay for their greed?
The game you're talking about is probably Resistance Record's Ethnic Cleansing, a first person shooter.
I've played it (I don't own it). It sucks. The gameplay is abount on the level of Doom.
The XBox is certainly, technically, the superior platform over the PS2 and Gamecube. It has the most powerful CPU and graphics as well as the extra features of a hard disk and broadband standard. Certainly there is great potential there. But what we've seen in the past is that it's marketing and game selection that drives console sales, not technology.
There have been complaints about the size and the oversized controller. But frankly, the XBox still is smaller than most home A/V components and there are plenty of third-party controllers for the XBox. I hated the standard Dreamcast controller but I found several third-party controllers that I liked.
The big problem the XBox has is games. The PS2 has enough of a lead, as well as Sony's great marketing and strong relationships with developers (particularly Japanese developers) has insured that the PS2 will ALWAYS have more games than the XBox and more games means more GOOD games. This allows the PS2 to appeal to a funamentally wider audience. And I'm not even including the huge back-library od PS1 titles.
The Gamecube is rapidly evolving into a niche console for kids and people that worship Mario and Zelda. This suits Nintendo just fine, they've been making money off the Gamecube from day 1 and the Gamecube is really secondary to the real cash cow, the GameBoy.
It's Microsoft that has trouble. They're competing directly against PS2 for the teen/young adult market. XBox is doing okay in the US, but they've basically conceded the Japanese market and the XBox isn't looking goog in Europe.
As I've said before, unless broadband gaming (where Microsoft has a clear advantage) takes off in a BIG way, XBox will be a commercial failure. I think it's alrealy lost the marketshare "battle", but if Microsoft can manage to be marginally successful with the XBox, Microsft has enough cash to make the XBox2 a success.
I just don't see a huge ammount of brand loyalty in the beige box business. I see loyalty for servers, I see people get worked up into a slather over operating systems, but very rarely do you see Dell and Gateway fans having it out.
Brand loyalty matters in the corporate IT world, where the real money in desktops is. Most shops, even small shops, tend to standardize on one brand of PC. Increasingly, that brand is Dell. Personally, I prefer IBM, the laptops are the best on the market and the desktops are outstanding, though slightly overpriced.
By the way, what makes you say Gateway is slowly dying? I think things like their Profile [gateway.com] line offer them more than bundling a PDA. They seem fairly unique. (To the non-apple world.)
Gateway has bee hemmoraging cash, they're closing a buch of the "Gateway Country" stores, and they've always tried to compete in the comsumer space where the real mone ISN'T. Gateway has a lousy rep among corporate IT departments. And the Profile is hardly unique, IBM, Compaq, and Dell have all offered similar products (I think IBM still is), but sales have been lackluster due to low demand. Most consumers aren't willing to spen more on a "stylish" PC, particularly those all-important corporate IT departments.
Lets see. Here's a list of upcoming Xbox exclusives. Exactly the same count as PS2. Which also has 38. Again, these are EXCLUSIVES.
Crazy Taxi 3
Will be released for both XBox and PS2, not sure about Gamecube.
Robotech
Robotech: Battlecry is not an XBox exclusive, it will be released for all three platforms. I think the XBox version was released first.
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Same story as Robotech, XBox gets it first but PS2 and GC versions are in the works.
There are probably other innacuracies in your list, but the point is that XBox and GC have relatively short lists of exclusives which is to be expected as they have a combined marketshare of about 20%.
If their business model is so dependent on you buying certified Xbox games then why don't they just make a contract that you have to sign when purchasing it? It could be for say a duration of 12 months during which time you can't modify the hardware, then after that time you can do what you want with it.
Much more likely would be that the contract would NEVER allow you to modify the hardware and if you did they could sue you for every dime you had. In the USA this is called "explicit consent" under contract law, and many Americans are vaguely aware of this. For that reason I suspect few Americans would be willing to sign something called "Microsoft Software Liablity Contract" since they are used to people trying to get them to sign stuff which fucks them over.
There is also the logistics of it. The resellers would have to collect the signed contracts and send them back to Microsoft (presumably they would be paid for this) whereupon Microsoft would have to file and store them in case of a legal challenge. And even then, if it wasn't notarized the "signee" could easily claim that it's faked. All of this would cost Microsoft lots of money.
That's why software vendors use generic EULAs and are busy trying to give them the same legal weigh as REAL contracts. EULAs have never really been seriously challenged in court (by design) because it's very likely they wouldn't hold up (in the US).
I'm not sure how it works down under, but I suspect end users would be equally reluctant to sign such contracts.
Though it is somewhat ironic that you have to lie to the boss for ethical reasons. However this is DEFINITELY the best advice I've seen so far.
If a boss asks you to do something unethical, claim that it's technically impossible of very difficult. If push comes to shove, you can claim ignorance ("Well, I've never really hacked the mail spool before so I wasn't comfortable doing it.")
Since they say you can't bring in your own stuff
Typically, I only bring in beer. The exactly one time I've been hassled for this:
Usher: "You can't have that in here."
Me : "Do you sell beer at the concession stand?"
Usher: "No."
Me : "Then I'm not costing you any money, am I?"
Usher: "No."
Me : "Well, there you go."
And he left me alone. This will probably only work on stupid ushers.
At some point you know someone somewhere is going to get killed for poor movie etiquette. You've got to wonder how tempted the lawyer might be to go for jury nullification.,/i>
This has already happened in Germany, where a mand was beaten to death for talking on his cellphone during a movie. In Europe it's common enough that it even has a name "cellphone rage". many Euro countries are talking about installing cellular jammers in theatres, hospitals, etc.
Have you ever been a parent? It's incrediby difficult to unteach a kid what the schools, peer groups and other adults are teaching them. The problem is not that parents have suddenly become irresponsible, it's that society at large has ceased to accept the presence of children. Two generations ago, a child who misbehaved in public would be snapped back into line by any competent adult who witnessed the scene. Today, children do not get this feedback - so their parents seem totally out-of-step with the rest of their experience. Partly this is due to fear of legal action, partly it's because we don't know our neighbors any more, and partly it's because social courtesy has been declining in perceived importance since the end of the nineteenth century. Parents may share some of the blame, but they have been set up with a nearly impossible task.
This is a bunch of crap. For the most part, adults now fear talking to children in ANY public situation in the USA for fear of invoking the wrath of the parents in terms of lawsuits. Discipline is pretty much limited to store owners politely telling kids to stop stealing and the police, who are exempt from liability. People have been sued for telling kids to get off their lawn or to stop destroying their property. God forbid you actually TOUCH someone else's child.
And for the most part, the parents are just as rude and inconsiderate as their children (How many of these people talking on cellphones are ADULTS?) and don't bother to teach their kids any basic courtesy.
Notice the "well regulated" part? Also, notice that "Arms" is a proper noun? That means that WE can decide what regulations to place upon gun ownership and militias and WE can decide what the definition of "Arms" is. Do fully-automatic machine guns and rocket-launchers count as "Arms?" They most certainly are, but them being prohibited doesn't counter the 2nd Am. because "Arms" is defined by the individual States and by Congress itself.
Read the commentary by the founders and the congressional congress around the 2nd Ammendment. The clear intent was that all individual citizens should have access to military firearms. They explicitly approved cannon on private ships as protecion against pirates (and for privateering agaisnt the British, etc. ) So yes, restrictions against machine guns, rocket launchers, etc. are clearly prohibited by the 2nd Ammendment. However, the choice of wording has gone doin in history as being very poor. "Well regulated" did not mean LEGAL regulation back then, it meant "orderly" and "Milita" meant "the armed citizenry". So a 21st century version of the ammendment would read:
An orderly, armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Notice how it becomes clearer?
Much as I hate to apologize for Ashcroft, from his perspective (that of a law enforcement officer), this isn't hypocracy. 4th Ammendment protections, Miranda, etc. are based on the idea that the police are inherently untrustworthty and will abuse a "free hand" if they are given it. Understandably, Ashcroft doesn't see himself as untrustworthy or abusive. That's why the executive branch (all cops are part of the executive branch) doesn't make the laws.
The recent trend in legislation in Congress and elsewhere is to give more power to the executive branch. For example, mandatory minimums, 3-strike laws, etc. transfer sentencing (moreso) from the hands of judges to the hands of prosecutors. The prosecutor decides what penalty the defendant will receive by choosing what to charge him with.
It's really only the ACLU, a few other special interest groups, and a few activist judges that are fighting the trend.
But by and large, the mod chip likely uses pirated code from an existing chip off the Xbox board. I would be truly amazed, if the developers reverse engineered the needed chip, using completely legitimate means, completely "black box/clean room" etc
What about fair use? Isn't changing the code slightly to remove some limitations in the XBox an example of fair use? It seems to me it is.
What is the ACTUAL revenue loss here? You still need to buy an XBox to use the chip, it's not like they're selling a pirate version of the whole console.
What modchips do is allow you to use the product in ways the manufacturer does not want you to, like playing backups of games, installing Linux, or playing import games, or yes, playing pirated games. Should a manufacturer have the inviolate right to dictate HOW your use the product? This is completely unprecedented with every other consumer product. For example, you can freely modify your car however you want as long as it meets safety/smog requirements.
I don't think that manufacturers should have this right.
The thing that seperates me from the majority of /. users is the fact that I don't attempt to justify it to myself using shallow logic. It is NOT your decision which laws you are going to obey(and please don't bring up people like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr., you're stealing movies, not fighting for the rights of a race of people).
Actually, what you're doing is ridiculing the concept of natural justice, as another poster pointed out.
Simple question: Is it wrong to hurt evil people?
A real life example: When I was a punk rocker me and my other punk friends made a point that whenever we saw a Nazi skinhead (called boneheads) alone on the street, and we thought we could get away with it, we would beat the shit out of him. Why? Because he was a Nazi, he was giving the rest of us a bad name and, frankly, he deserved it. Vigilantism? Definitely. MORALLY WRONG? Absolutely not.
I consider the major media conglomerates who control about 90% of media in the USA to be evil. Perhaps not as evil as the Nazis, but still evil. Therefore I see nothing wrong with stealing from them. Or beating up their senior executives on the street for that matter.
What's the worse case piracy scenario? Piracy becomes so rampant that eventually they are forced out of business. In my mind this is a GOOD thing.
It's important to note that for me one of the big draws of the iPod is it's relatively small size and weight. Here's the info on these players:
iPod 20GB
Height: 4.0 in
Width: 2.4 in
Depth: 0.84 in
Weight: 7.2 oz (204 g)
Archos Jukebox Studio 20
Height: 4.5 in
Width: 3.2 in
Depth: 1.3 in
Weight: 12 oz (290 g)
Nomad Jukebox Zen
Height: 4.5 in
Width: 3.04 in
Depth: 0.98 in
Weight: 9.5 oz (268g)
The iPod is significantly smaller and lighter. This is despite Creative's claim that the Zen is the "World's Smallest Hard Drive MP3 Player".
However the Zen is smaller and lighter than the Archos, so for someone looking for a "cheaper" iPod it's a lot better deal.
You're right. The hardcore gamer these days doesn't mess with PC video cards, but owns a PS2, Xbox, and/or Game Cube. If you don't, then you're missing out on lots and lots of really great games. Compare the number of incredible console games released in the last two years with the number of PC games that actually make good use out of high-end video card features like vertex and pixel shaders. It's almost as if the PC 3D card market exists entirely to support first person shooters.
As other posters have pointed out:
1. Computer games aren't necessarily similar to console games. FPS, real-time strategy, complex strategy games in general, fight simulators, and "computer"-style RPGs are widely regarded as being far superior on the PC platform or simply non-existant on the console platform (complex sims don't exist on the console).
2. As several people have pointed out, many of the games made for consoles are cross-platform "generic" games with "generic" graphics and sound that don't really push the capabilties of the machine. It's only the best of the "exclusives" that do this and you'll find that such games really aren't that much more common for the console as they are for the PC.
3. It terms of yearly game releases IN GENERAL, PC is probably the second most popular platform, right after the PS2. If one considers all the shareware games and and the vast "back library" of the PC that platform has many more good games (even considering the PS1 back library of the PS2).
3D game market on the PC, to a great, great extent, has become an marginally profitable niche.
Tell it to Electronic arts, or to id who are both making millions in this "niche" market.
One think that many people forget about is platform penetration. While the PS2 has a lot of penetration, nothing comes close to the PC. Virtually 100% of the "video game buying" population owns a PC, therefore you have many more potental customers than you do with even the PS2, and certainly far more than the GameCube and the XBox.
Video games are very profitable, thats why vendors can still make money in extreme niche markets like hardcore flight sims and turn-based wargames.
Mod chips are not "Value adds".
Value adds are the features inherant to the system as designed. It just so happens that the xbox is a very "value added" system inherantly.
Being able to play pirated games, import games. or even just backups of your own purchased game so your original doesn't get all scratched up, is certainly "of value" to the END USER. Therefore, a mod-chip is a "value add" TO THE END USER. Microsoft might not like it, but that doesn't change the facts.
The devaluation is at the software and game level. Is Developer X going to spend 5 million making a game that can be pirated with ease because someone can goto lik-sang.com and get a modchip? NOooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The most "moddable" of the current generation of home consoles, by far, is the Playstation 2. Modchips were available even before the US launch. Yet despite this, the PS2 is the most popular console in all markets, and it has the most games by the largest group of developers.
The Playstation was also easily modded and was insanely popular. The NES was the most popular console of it's era despire rampant piracy all over the world. It made Nintendo a fortune. Game Boy (and Color and Advance) is still selling well despite massive piracy of the carts. Microsoft is one of the richest companies in the world despite the fact that Windows and Office are probably the most pirated software packages in the world, etc.
Piracy isn't an excuse for failure.
What is the value of hacking a system to use it for purposes of which it isn't intended or designed for and why can't microsoft legally fight to protect its intended and protected interests?
See above. Playing import games. or even just backups of your own purchased game so your original doesn't get all scratched up, is certainly a "legitimate" use of modchips.
Even though i modded my dreamcast and could play pirated games, i didn't consider this a value add. For one, i couldn't read the japanese games and often times it wasn't worth the effort and for pirated games they were ripped, chunked, slow and missing features.
Now I know you're an idiot. The Dreamcast didn't require a modchip to play pirated games. Many import games either are in English or have (like fighting games) very little text and dialog. Also there ARE people who can read Japanese in the US. I also can't think of ANY pirate game for the Dreamcast that isn't feature-complete or is seriously mangled. The only one I can think of is Skies of Arcadia which is split into 2 discs.
it was the "value add" of the modchips and ripped DC games that ended the life of that console. (and the ps2.. but sega cited the loss of software sales because of rampant piracy and loss of developers because of rampant piracy to be a big factor)
I have no doubt that Sega tried that whiney excuse. The Dreamcast failed mainly because Sega was hemmoraging money and couldn't compete with Sony's marketing muscle. They also had political problems with third-party developers.
At the exact same time there was EVEN MORE rampant piracy on Sony's consoles. "Plugin" mods were available everywere and copying a disc involved 10 minutes of effort and a CD burner.
Copying and modding dreamcast games involved specialized knowledge and equipment, though no actual modchips were required.
I suspect the main reason Aol is doing this is to distance themselves from being a possible competitor to Microsoft.
Except as other posters have pointed out, AOL *IS* positioning itself this way. I suspect that they are quietly working on their OWN OS initative, probably having something to do with Linux, and Lindows would be a direct competitor to THEIR upcoming OS.
The article I was linked to gave a figure in the range of $4 something an hour. It also stated that at the time of the article being written, it was minimum wage.
Check out the link below, particular the "Prison Labor Factsheet".
http://www.prisonactivist.org/prison-labor/
While prisoners technically recieve minimum wage, 80%+ of that money is deducted from their paycheck (again, before taxes) for various "programs". Admittedly, prisoners make so little money that they rarely have to pay state or federal income taxes. However, the still have to pay sales taxes on anything they purchase within the prison.
It's worth noting that this varies from state to state, the cited figures are from CA but Federal prisons are roughly similar (they play less and deduct slightly more, so federal prisoners make a little less).