When a kid is obviously that smart that he could be accepted to a university at 8 years old, there is practically no chance that going through the regular school system will in any way help his growth. It will only stifle him and force him into mediocrity. I'm sure he'd have great conversations with his 8 year old peers in first grade when he could explain the Shroedinger equation while they're learning how to spell simple words. Kids not even half as bright as him already have a boring time in school, because they're already smarter than the lowest common denominator that school systems cater to.
it relates because people are willing to pay 20 bucks for a cd because they know they'll get more replayability from it than a DVD. A person who won't use their car very often might be very willing to buy a $15,000 car instead of buying a $20,000 one.
in the last 6 articles today, every other article is about google. Google is doing too much stuff, they need to spread their projects around a bit so I could get news about others companies and technological innovations as well.
Yeah, but we have our own problems. It's useless comparing quality of living standards because people don't have a frame of reference for what it's like outside of their own environment, and as such get accustomed to the quality of living in that environment. The only measure of "quality of life" I believe is happiness, and psychologists have said that the happiness level of a person is consistent throughout their life. There are ups and downs as life changes and you might win the lottery one day or have a death in the family the next, but it flattens out to your normal level eventually. I'm sure if you take a scammer from Nigeria and bring them over here and have him walk in the original poster's shoes, he'll be thrilled for a few months. At the end of the few months, though, he'll look for other people to scam because he'll be complaining that he isn't rich enough.
You could put yourself in any situation and someone will always be better off than you, and someone will always be worse off. An unhappy person will be unhappy because he could only see that person who's better off and envy him.
There's an episode of the Simpsons when they go to the Middle East, and find that the cab drivers are New Yorkers on some sort of cabbie exchange program. Maybe that will be how they handle the Kwik-E-Mart.
Oh man, I havent thought of Shlonglors site in years. Man, that was the definitive resource for War2 back in the day. Thanks for the ride down memory lane.
I wonder if China is going to be at these engineer's doorsteps as soon as they get laid off to snatch em up for their own space program. This could be a big loss for an already low US engineering market.
I think anecdotal evidence for something like the purchase of video games is more accurate than the ESA statistics. I work with a group of 30-40 year olds who've spent the last 10 years making games and not one of them is a gamer, keeps up with games, or even talks too much about games anymore. However, when I go into the nearest Electronics Boutique, all I see are 16 year olds, some with parents, some not, purchasing and being interested in gaming. I also was a big gamer from 8 - 18 but haven't had the time or interest to keep up the past few years. That's not to say that all college kids don't play games, lots and lots of them do... but I think it ends there when life takes over.
What are you babbling about? I had absolutely no safeguards on my computer when I was a kid because my parents knew less about the computer than I did. Sure, there wasn't any internet, but I shared 16 color EGA pornography among my computer literate friends as well... same as my father and father's father did when they were kids with magazines. Guess what? I came out fine. Your argument has to pass the laugh test as well, and trying to keep anyone from seeing pornography, when pornography in this country is a multi billion dollar industry, is laughable. You could walk down the streets in Las Vegas and parts of ANY large city and pick up strip club advertisements bearing fully nude women. I think the internet is hardly the main cause for concern. When was the last time you went to assdriver or bang bus? Last time I checked it didn't allow you past the entrance without handing over a credit card number for authentification. That's a safeguard ain't it? Bang Bus is out for one purpose - money... not to ruin your children. If a kid is specifically looking for it, sure, he'll be able to find something, but I'm really not worried about an 8 year old accidentally stumbling onto something while searching for Big Bird on google images.
It seems like every censorship law these days is being made "for the children." I wonder where this idea comes from, since we've started lapping it up like ice cream. Is there any historical precedence in the US or other countries where the government is so obsessed with "the children" being exposed to anything that might be considered harmful or innapropriate? I'm just wondering. I was a child of the late 80s and early 90s and wasn't so politically involved then, but don't really remember it being such a craze to shelter all the kids.
The submitter's comment sounded like he was trying to legitimize and downplay his own internet addiction by saying "Oh, well at least it's better than drugs and alcohol." I spend a large amount of time on my computer for both work and play, but I still make time to socialize in real life. Drugs and alcohol are used by addicts as an escape from their everyday lives. How is spending 16 hours a day on the internet any different than that? It's just a new medium of escape and should be taken seriously.
There have been numerous cases of people dying due to internet/gaming addiction. When something becomes detrimental to your survival, then it is an addiction and should be treated.
Maya, as far as I see being in the animation industry, is used a lot more widely than Max. If they get rid of Maya, I can see companies jumping onto XSI, but not onto Max, so it doesn't seem like a great move to kill it off.
Funny comment... but it does have a webbrowser. eyeNav. It's pretty crazy. I haven't tried running eyeOS within the browser in eyeOS. I think the universe would collapse
if my parents deemed an R rated movie or M rated game ok for me, regardless of my age, they let me view/play it. if they deemed a PG-13 move or T rated game NOT ok, they didn't.
So how is this law preventing parents from letting their kids play M rated games? All it does, as far as I know, is prevent stores from selling your kids the games without your permission and imposes a fine on stores that do. This allows parents to parent their children instead of kids parenting themselves. For those of you that will say "But why are parents sending kids to the stores alone" well, you can't watch your kids 24 hours a day and if you did, they'll probably end up more messed up than if they were allowed to play GTA3 all day. Just like the cigarette and alcohol laws, maybe this law will finally wake parents up to the fact that games aren't for kids anymore and if they want their kids playing those games, they should go buy it for them.
There is NOTHING that says that if you want high budget, you have to show and explain everything... there's NOTHING that would automatically make hi-budget movies suck and make low-budget movies kick ass.
Nope, there isn't. But that seems to be the approach directors take when they have the budget to do so. It's hard for directors to restrain themselves when they have the capability to throw everything into a film. Also, there is the matter of getting the money back. When a studio wants to make their money back on a mega high-budget film, they usually try to homogenize the product until it tries to appeal to everyone. There are a lot more risks taken when a movie is low-budget and those are the risks that let the craft progress. Reservoir Dogs influenced American film-making a lot more than SpiderMan did... and Reservoir Dogs was even heavily influenced by a lower budget Hong Kong film - City on Fire. Low budget films propel the industry because they have to survive on the creativity of their cretors. Studios without them would completely die as they struggle to spend billions of dollars creating films that completely miss the ball, which is what I think is happening right now.
Yes, there is something magical in low-budget that makes the movies better. It's called not being able to show every little thing in super fine hyper real imagery. Lot's of stuff is better left to the audience's imagination but with a higher budget, film-makers often get sucked in to the ability to show everything. In the original Alien, the limitations of the effects in those days forced the director to perhaps not show as much of the alien making it that much scarier, as opposed to shoving everything in your face in the later films. When a film-maker has an infinite budget and little studio intervention, the film-maker loses touch with reality. You could see this in practically all of the current big budget blockbusters.
When you're forced to cut corners, you really have to take into account where you should be cutting them, whereas in a larger film, everything stays not because it's good but because it's possible. Take for instance George Lucas' insistance on making all of the clone troopers in Episode 3 CG with live action faces tracked onto the models. Why not just spend a fraction of the money to build a few clone trooper outfits and make the clone troopers actually not look like crap? Did it benefit at all for every single interior in Coruscant to have a huge floor to ceiling window showing thousands of speeders passing by? No, it kinda detracted from the story because the image was too heavy to look at.
For Lord of the Rings, that's one of the few examples that works, primarily because Peter Jackson is a classes low-budget film director. He still incorporated lots of low-budget techniques instead of letting the effects take over. The original Star Wars trilogy isn't worth mentioning because Lucas still had to contend a low-budget as well as limits in the effects he could do. The Matrix is a great example of a film gone wrong when the film-makers have too much control and completely destroy the franchise. 2 and 3 were awful because the first one did extremely well and the studios eased up the reigns for the next 2. Raiders of the Lost Arc - another old film where special effects were still limiting the director so I won't mention it.
Will a movie with a $200 budget automatically kick ass? Of course not... but the low-budget movies I've seen recently have a lot more heart and soul put into them, because they can't put in the effects.
Slashdot Mirror
When a kid is obviously that smart that he could be accepted to a university at 8 years old, there is practically no chance that going through the regular school system will in any way help his growth. It will only stifle him and force him into mediocrity. I'm sure he'd have great conversations with his 8 year old peers in first grade when he could explain the Shroedinger equation while they're learning how to spell simple words. Kids not even half as bright as him already have a boring time in school, because they're already smarter than the lowest common denominator that school systems cater to.
I also talked about flying cars and defying gravity when I was 8. What else is new?
become a banker so you start out with more provisions? That worked for me!
it relates because people are willing to pay 20 bucks for a cd because they know they'll get more replayability from it than a DVD. A person who won't use their car very often might be very willing to buy a $15,000 car instead of buying a $20,000 one.
in the last 6 articles today, every other article is about google. Google is doing too much stuff, they need to spread their projects around a bit so I could get news about others companies and technological innovations as well.
Yeah, but we have our own problems. It's useless comparing quality of living standards because people don't have a frame of reference for what it's like outside of their own environment, and as such get accustomed to the quality of living in that environment. The only measure of "quality of life" I believe is happiness, and psychologists have said that the happiness level of a person is consistent throughout their life. There are ups and downs as life changes and you might win the lottery one day or have a death in the family the next, but it flattens out to your normal level eventually. I'm sure if you take a scammer from Nigeria and bring them over here and have him walk in the original poster's shoes, he'll be thrilled for a few months. At the end of the few months, though, he'll look for other people to scam because he'll be complaining that he isn't rich enough.
You could put yourself in any situation and someone will always be better off than you, and someone will always be worse off. An unhappy person will be unhappy because he could only see that person who's better off and envy him.
Finally an elegant solution to rising gas prices. Now it will once again only cost me 20 bucks to fill up the tank.
There's an episode of the Simpsons when they go to the Middle East, and find that the cab drivers are New Yorkers on some sort of cabbie exchange program. Maybe that will be how they handle the Kwik-E-Mart.
Oh man, I havent thought of Shlonglors site in years. Man, that was the definitive resource for War2 back in the day. Thanks for the ride down memory lane.
I wonder if China is going to be at these engineer's doorsteps as soon as they get laid off to snatch em up for their own space program. This could be a big loss for an already low US engineering market.
Do you submit to Fark?
I think anecdotal evidence for something like the purchase of video games is more accurate than the ESA statistics. I work with a group of 30-40 year olds who've spent the last 10 years making games and not one of them is a gamer, keeps up with games, or even talks too much about games anymore. However, when I go into the nearest Electronics Boutique, all I see are 16 year olds, some with parents, some not, purchasing and being interested in gaming. I also was a big gamer from 8 - 18 but haven't had the time or interest to keep up the past few years. That's not to say that all college kids don't play games, lots and lots of them do... but I think it ends there when life takes over.
What are you babbling about? I had absolutely no safeguards on my computer when I was a kid because my parents knew less about the computer than I did. Sure, there wasn't any internet, but I shared 16 color EGA pornography among my computer literate friends as well... same as my father and father's father did when they were kids with magazines. Guess what? I came out fine. Your argument has to pass the laugh test as well, and trying to keep anyone from seeing pornography, when pornography in this country is a multi billion dollar industry, is laughable. You could walk down the streets in Las Vegas and parts of ANY large city and pick up strip club advertisements bearing fully nude women. I think the internet is hardly the main cause for concern. When was the last time you went to assdriver or bang bus? Last time I checked it didn't allow you past the entrance without handing over a credit card number for authentification. That's a safeguard ain't it? Bang Bus is out for one purpose - money... not to ruin your children. If a kid is specifically looking for it, sure, he'll be able to find something, but I'm really not worried about an 8 year old accidentally stumbling onto something while searching for Big Bird on google images.
It seems like every censorship law these days is being made "for the children." I wonder where this idea comes from, since we've started lapping it up like ice cream. Is there any historical precedence in the US or other countries where the government is so obsessed with "the children" being exposed to anything that might be considered harmful or innapropriate? I'm just wondering. I was a child of the late 80s and early 90s and wasn't so politically involved then, but don't really remember it being such a craze to shelter all the kids.
The submitter's comment sounded like he was trying to legitimize and downplay his own internet addiction by saying "Oh, well at least it's better than drugs and alcohol." I spend a large amount of time on my computer for both work and play, but I still make time to socialize in real life. Drugs and alcohol are used by addicts as an escape from their everyday lives. How is spending 16 hours a day on the internet any different than that? It's just a new medium of escape and should be taken seriously.
There have been numerous cases of people dying due to internet/gaming addiction. When something becomes detrimental to your survival, then it is an addiction and should be treated.
Maya, as far as I see being in the animation industry, is used a lot more widely than Max. If they get rid of Maya, I can see companies jumping onto XSI, but not onto Max, so it doesn't seem like a great move to kill it off.
I'm surprised the article doesn't explore Religion and it's affect on people's happiness.
it's true... religion truly depresses me.
Funny comment... but it does have a webbrowser. eyeNav. It's pretty crazy. I haven't tried running eyeOS within the browser in eyeOS. I think the universe would collapse
if my parents deemed an R rated movie or M rated game ok for me, regardless of my age, they let me view/play it. if they deemed a PG-13 move or T rated game NOT ok, they didn't.
So how is this law preventing parents from letting their kids play M rated games? All it does, as far as I know, is prevent stores from selling your kids the games without your permission and imposes a fine on stores that do. This allows parents to parent their children instead of kids parenting themselves. For those of you that will say "But why are parents sending kids to the stores alone" well, you can't watch your kids 24 hours a day and if you did, they'll probably end up more messed up than if they were allowed to play GTA3 all day. Just like the cigarette and alcohol laws, maybe this law will finally wake parents up to the fact that games aren't for kids anymore and if they want their kids playing those games, they should go buy it for them.
I thought it was "Fool us once... can't get fooled again."
I think it is changes in audience preferences. Audiences don't want bad movies anymore. The Hollywood formula is starting to wear off on people.
yeah, the article seemed to be a fluff piece just to promote some documentary. Absolutely no information in there.
There is NOTHING that says that if you want high budget, you have to show and explain everything... there's NOTHING that would automatically make hi-budget movies suck and make low-budget movies kick ass.
Nope, there isn't. But that seems to be the approach directors take when they have the budget to do so. It's hard for directors to restrain themselves when they have the capability to throw everything into a film. Also, there is the matter of getting the money back. When a studio wants to make their money back on a mega high-budget film, they usually try to homogenize the product until it tries to appeal to everyone. There are a lot more risks taken when a movie is low-budget and those are the risks that let the craft progress. Reservoir Dogs influenced American film-making a lot more than SpiderMan did... and Reservoir Dogs was even heavily influenced by a lower budget Hong Kong film - City on Fire. Low budget films propel the industry because they have to survive on the creativity of their cretors. Studios without them would completely die as they struggle to spend billions of dollars creating films that completely miss the ball, which is what I think is happening right now.
Yes, there is something magical in low-budget that makes the movies better. It's called not being able to show every little thing in super fine hyper real imagery. Lot's of stuff is better left to the audience's imagination but with a higher budget, film-makers often get sucked in to the ability to show everything. In the original Alien, the limitations of the effects in those days forced the director to perhaps not show as much of the alien making it that much scarier, as opposed to shoving everything in your face in the later films. When a film-maker has an infinite budget and little studio intervention, the film-maker loses touch with reality. You could see this in practically all of the current big budget blockbusters.
When you're forced to cut corners, you really have to take into account where you should be cutting them, whereas in a larger film, everything stays not because it's good but because it's possible. Take for instance George Lucas' insistance on making all of the clone troopers in Episode 3 CG with live action faces tracked onto the models. Why not just spend a fraction of the money to build a few clone trooper outfits and make the clone troopers actually not look like crap? Did it benefit at all for every single interior in Coruscant to have a huge floor to ceiling window showing thousands of speeders passing by? No, it kinda detracted from the story because the image was too heavy to look at.
For Lord of the Rings, that's one of the few examples that works, primarily because Peter Jackson is a classes low-budget film director. He still incorporated lots of low-budget techniques instead of letting the effects take over. The original Star Wars trilogy isn't worth mentioning because Lucas still had to contend a low-budget as well as limits in the effects he could do. The Matrix is a great example of a film gone wrong when the film-makers have too much control and completely destroy the franchise. 2 and 3 were awful because the first one did extremely well and the studios eased up the reigns for the next 2. Raiders of the Lost Arc - another old film where special effects were still limiting the director so I won't mention it.
Will a movie with a $200 budget automatically kick ass? Of course not... but the low-budget movies I've seen recently have a lot more heart and soul put into them, because they can't put in the effects.
I guess I grossly overpaid on my dual core AMD64 3800+ relic which I built just today.
Nah, relics are usually more expensive. You probably got a steal on it.