What we need is some CERN-scale collaboration on this so that we can possibly help to alleviate the energy strains on the global populace.
In all seriousness, when the world government start putting big money into fusion, it'll happen. Until then, we'll have to keep fighting over the dwindling fossil reserves.
Of course, I'm making the mistake of Reading The Fine Article, and trying to make evidence-based comments, rather than commenting on what I imagine the law will be like. I'm clearly The Man's bitch.
Yes, I know that you meant to be funny, yet, somebody will be thinking of the same thing.
And I'm pretty sure that I covered that in the [bracketed section]. But thanks for beating the point to death with your remorseless logic. How's the weather on Vulcan this time of year?
Yes, three times the energy density of gasoline by mass but only one third the energy density by volume (and that's for liquid hydrogen).
Yes, fuel cells can be three times as efficient as burning gasoline, but it takes 2.5 times as much energy to make a hydrogen fuel cell than you'll ever get out of it over its lifetime. Where's that energy coming from? Milking invisible pink unicorns?
Ford has dropped development of hydrogen cars in favour of going straight to all electric.
Hydrogen is over before it even begun. It's less efficient than electric by any measure, and if you're betting on a big breakthrough (this isn't it) then the smart money is on capacitors (powered by wind, wave, solar, geothermal), not some magic leap forward in hydrogen production or fuel cell construction. At this point, it really is an academic proposition.
FOSS MMO happens as soon as someone figures out how to run the server P2P - a very hard problem, as it requires dealing with the inevitable variety of versions and cheating - and not a second before.
What you just said is both fundamentally correct, and utterly non-sensical. Really, if you're even pondering simulating a single persistent game world over multiple transient peers, then I'd suggest investing your time in something more productive, like mastering the yo-yo, or Advanced Whittling.
Fair enough; I didn't specify 3D, so a 1980's sprite based graphical MUD does qualify.
As many of you have noticed, this weekend the server started having problems. It turned out to be an issue with the harddrive. Currently the server is up again with a temporary harddrive that Platyna borrowed from a friend. Unfortunately, the last backup was from 30th of October, some of you will have lost some progress. We're sincerely sorry for this, and we will try to make sure we're better prepared for these problems in the future.
On a happier note, we've now got enough donations to pay for a brand new hard drive!
Of course, that ignores whether or not authors should have such rights to begin with. Copyrights only ought to be granted if, and to the extent that, they provide a public benefit, ideally the greatest possible public benefit. The creation and publication of works is beneficial, as is having those works as unrestricted as possible, as rapidly as possible. In the US, we traditionally haven't granted moral rights, and we barely do now (most authors don't get them, as it happens). Yet we manage to have incentivized plenty of authors anyway. If a restriction (which is inherently bad) isn't mitigated by anything (as is the case here, with these restrictions having no material incentivizing effect upon authors), it is unjustifiable.
Plus, of course, it's absurd to compare waiving copyright with waving human rights. There is a good reason to not permit people to sell themselves into slavery. There's not a good reason to prohibit selling (or in this case waiving to the public) rights over a mere creative work. Sure, sometimes authors will happen to make a bad deal with a publisher. So what. That can happen to everyone. Should a person who sells land be allowed to take it back many years down the road, when huge oil deposits are discovered there? Authors are not children, and it is insulting and improper for the law to treat them paternalistically.
You must be new here. If Slashdot posted an article saying "Court finds that Windows causes cancer of the scrotum", the first fifty posts would be "STUPAD JUDGIS! NE fool nowz it also cozes cancur ufthe ewturus!!!!!"
So, either they are galactically incompetent, or they are primarily interested in self promotion rather than effectively doing what they purport to do.
Hang on: that's not an exclusive or situation, is it?
Costs, you can cover by scamming trustafarian hippies. Good luck to them.
What matters is energy. We need to see the break-even time when the energy delivered to the ground exceeds the energy used in putting the thing up there - and yes, we're including the energy costs of the raw materials, production, and the ground based maintenance and monitoring, as well as the boom-juice to get the mass up there.
Want to bet that the break-even is longer than the realistic lifetime of the satellites?
Yeah, typical kdawson headline: so misleading that you have to read the article to figure out what they're talking about, and 90% of the discussion is focused on either annoyance about or misapprehension of the false kdawson headline.
There's a kdawson story below that has a kdawson headline about the odds of finding an Earth-like planet within a few dozen lightyears of Earth, but I'm pretty sure the actual kdawson story is about a new way to bake pastry. With a kdawson headline, why would anyone assume otherwise?
Blaming your paying customers for using a feature that you provided (through choice or ineptitude) is hubris, plain and simple. Smart developers do not have an adversarial attitude towards the people that pay their salaries.
Why not just quietly fix it, smile, and move on? Ego. They're pouring massive resources into breaking the 4th wall and retconning their entire game universe for no better reason than to prove that their dicks are bigger.
Idiot savants, at best. Silly brittle man-children at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
Noob. I remember when $16,000 bought you a circuit diagram.
A liberal coating of snake oil.
In all seriousness, when the world government start putting big money into fusion, it'll happen. Until then, we'll have to keep fighting over the dwindling fossil reserves.
Yeah, about that... try turning on the screen lock manually on a stock 8.04, and then unlocking it.
First, write this down: CTRL + ALT + F1. You'll be needing it.
I'm telling you, the Take a Shot Every Time kdawson Posts Bullshit Drinking Game is the #1 contributor to cirrhosis of the liver.
And the language in the article the implies that is...?
Mmm hmm. "users should be able to flag to an independent adjudicator anything they regard as mistaken evidence"
Of course, I'm making the mistake of Reading The Fine Article, and trying to make evidence-based comments, rather than commenting on what I imagine the law will be like. I'm clearly The Man's bitch.
No, I'm pretty sure that would spoil the joke.
And I'm pretty sure that I covered that in the [bracketed section]. But thanks for beating the point to death with your remorseless logic. How's the weather on Vulcan this time of year?
Yes, three times the energy density of gasoline by mass but only one third the energy density by volume (and that's for liquid hydrogen).
Yes, fuel cells can be three times as efficient as burning gasoline, but it takes 2.5 times as much energy to make a hydrogen fuel cell than you'll ever get out of it over its lifetime. Where's that energy coming from? Milking invisible pink unicorns?
Ford has dropped development of hydrogen cars in favour of going straight to all electric.
Hydrogen is over before it even begun. It's less efficient than electric by any measure, and if you're betting on a big breakthrough (this isn't it) then the smart money is on capacitors (powered by wind, wave, solar, geothermal), not some magic leap forward in hydrogen production or fuel cell construction. At this point, it really is an academic proposition.
Not so. We'll just ship it to China, and they'll do it for a quarter of the energy that an American worker would charge.
[Suggested moderation: It's Funny Because Someone Will IPO a Company Based on This Premise and kdawson Will Run The Story For Them]
What you just said is both fundamentally correct, and utterly non-sensical. Really, if you're even pondering simulating a single persistent game world over multiple transient peers, then I'd suggest investing your time in something more productive, like mastering the yo-yo, or Advanced Whittling.
Cinq... quatre... trois... deux...
Fair enough; I didn't specify 3D, so a 1980's sprite based graphical MUD does qualify.
Be still my giddy heart!
Well, you bit, so I guess I'm smart enough to troll atheists. Funny: I thought you guys were smarter than cultists.
There are dozens of open source graphical MMO projects out there already. Name one that has reliable servers and an active, sustainable playerbase.
It's OK, we'll wait while you do the research. Take your time.
I agree. In fact, I'd put it this way:
Of course, that ignores whether or not authors should have such rights to begin with. Copyrights only ought to be granted if, and to the extent that, they provide a public benefit, ideally the greatest possible public benefit. The creation and publication of works is beneficial, as is having those works as unrestricted as possible, as rapidly as possible. In the US, we traditionally haven't granted moral rights, and we barely do now (most authors don't get them, as it happens). Yet we manage to have incentivized plenty of authors anyway. If a restriction (which is inherently bad) isn't mitigated by anything (as is the case here, with these restrictions having no material incentivizing effect upon authors), it is unjustifiable.
Plus, of course, it's absurd to compare waiving copyright with waving human rights. There is a good reason to not permit people to sell themselves into slavery. There's not a good reason to prohibit selling (or in this case waiving to the public) rights over a mere creative work. Sure, sometimes authors will happen to make a bad deal with a publisher. So what. That can happen to everyone. Should a person who sells land be allowed to take it back many years down the road, when huge oil deposits are discovered there? Authors are not children, and it is insulting and improper for the law to treat them paternalistically.
Tru dat. The NSPCC's primary business is now funding the NSPCC, by any means necessary. They can suck my (adult in all jurisdictions) hairy balls.
Wow. I'd been wondering if religious types were borderline insane, but you've really cleared up which side of that line you're on.
You must be new here. If Slashdot posted an article saying "Court finds that Windows causes cancer of the scrotum", the first fifty posts would be "STUPAD JUDGIS! NE fool nowz it also cozes cancur ufthe ewturus!!!!!"
So, either they are galactically incompetent, or they are primarily interested in self promotion rather than effectively doing what they purport to do.
Hang on: that's not an exclusive or situation, is it?
Costs, you can cover by scamming trustafarian hippies. Good luck to them.
What matters is energy. We need to see the break-even time when the energy delivered to the ground exceeds the energy used in putting the thing up there - and yes, we're including the energy costs of the raw materials, production, and the ground based maintenance and monitoring, as well as the boom-juice to get the mass up there.
Want to bet that the break-even is longer than the realistic lifetime of the satellites?
There, fixed that for you.
You must be from the Remedial Comprehension class. That's exactly what I'm saying. It. Is. A. Game.
Unlike what happened here?
Is "adversarial" too long a word for you?
Blaming your paying customers for using a feature that you provided (through choice or ineptitude) is hubris, plain and simple. Smart developers do not have an adversarial attitude towards the people that pay their salaries.
Why not just quietly fix it, smile, and move on? Ego. They're pouring massive resources into breaking the 4th wall and retconning their entire game universe for no better reason than to prove that their dicks are bigger.
Idiot savants, at best. Silly brittle man-children at worst.
Difference between them and us?