Have joking but, it would be great if the indexing was done at a particular time every month like the old system, but the moment of indexing was public. Then, at that time, all facebook users could go and untag and delete anything that may have been wholesome enough to not warrant immediate removal but yet still be considered something that shouldn't be indexed for all eternity.
If you don't want it indexed for all eternity, don't post it on the web.
Even if you knew when Google was coming and you took it down, you have no influence over anyone else out there who may have saved that incriminating evidence. Anyone out there can take a screenshot and post it themselves.
Your last sentence hits the nail on the head, you should get a smart phone.
Except that isn't equivalent to buying a radio.
I'd have to purchase a smartphone for a couple hundred dollars. I'd have to sign up with a provider. I'd either be signing a multi-year contract or paying more for the phone. I'd have to pay monthly bills.
By contrast, you can buy a radio for less than $20 and tune in to whatever is available. No monthly bills (aside from whatever it takes to power the thing). No subscriptions. Nothing.
Though I agree with your sentiments, I have to point out, nothing is being lost. It is being redirected. As the Demento audience declines internet useage increases. Your strange, silly, and plain funny are now online. Radio is going the way of the newspaper. There is a new medium in town.
I agree in general... There's plenty of strange, silly, and funny available online. Assorted videos on YouTube... Streaming stuff from Pandora... Assorted podcasts and blogs and Internet radio stations and whatnot...
But none of that is really as accessible as radio is.
Sure, if I'm sitting in the office or at home I can listen/watch as much as I want. But when I'm driving around in my car, or out on a bike, or walking, or whatever - it isn't nearly as accessible. Maybe if I've dumped a podcast to an MP3 player... But that's about it. You can't get anything live from the web like you can with radio.
Or, rather, I can't. I guess if you've got a smartphone with data or something like that you could...
We've conditioned ourselves to stop doing almost everything in order to answer a phonecall. Even if we have no idea who's calling, we are prepared to interrupt most activities and (unforgivably) most people in order to speak to a little voice who almost certainly only called because they want something.
I say, let them wait. If it's important they can leave a message - although there's nothing that a normal person can tell us that can't bear being delayed for an hour or two. If they are prepared to do some work themselves, they can TEXT you, instead.
Exactly.
The problem isn't the technology itself, it is our reaction to it.
We've built some kind of always-on, instant gratification communication system. Folks expect to be able to instantly communicate with basically anyone about basically anything at basically any time.
I get bombarded all day long with phone calls, instant messages, emails, whatever. Many of these are just useless status updates or questions that they could have answered themselves with about 30 seconds of thought... But the impulse is to reach out and touch someone.
And my impulse is to stop whatever I'm doing and respond to the phone call/text message/IM/email/whatever.
It is horribly distracting, but I can't really blame anyone but myself.
Make it easier for the middle class is just as valuable as making it easier for the very poorest.
Not really...
I mean, yes, 1 million people is 1 million people, regardless of their income level...
But if you spend $X on an app that only reaches folks that own smartphones, you have to compare that to spending $X on a mass-mailing that would reach anybody with a mailbox. Or a radio campaign. Or Posters. Or billboard ads. Or whatever.
Folks who can afford smartphones generally have fairly good access to information and resources. They generally have a halfway decent income and education. They usually have some kind of transportation. They frequently have a job where you can take personal time off, or at the very least aren't working nearly 24/7. They're usually able to pull up information on a web page, or make a phone call, or walk down to the office, or whatever. They don't, generally, need a whole lot of help to make information/resources/whatever more accessible.
Folks with a lower income are generally hourly employees that probably can't afford to take time off from work. They may be working multiple jobs. They may not be able to afford to have someone else watch their kid. They may not have transportation, or Internet access, or even a working telephone/radio/TV. They're going to have a much harder time, in general, accessing information/resources/whatever.
So there's a very real question... You've got $10 million to spend to help make government more accessible... Do you spend it on a smartphone app that will only reach folks who already have plenty of ways of accessing government? Or do you spend it on something that'll reach all the folks who have a hard time accessing government right now?
Your comparing psychology, a field known to have an exceptionally high confirmation bias to proper medical fields where diagnosis can be proven by more than "he's acting funny".
Isn't that kind of the point of this test? Pee in a cup and we don't have to spend months documenting everything you do to determine if you're acting funny enough to be called autistic.
Your ignorant if you think that people treat each other equally after being labeled as a loon.
Yes, people are assholes, but it isn't limited to mental illness. All kinds of labels will get you treated differently...
"I'm gay"
"I'm a republican"
"I have aids"
Yes, some mental illness has a stigma attached to it. I am very well aware of that. But we aren't talking about hanging a sign around someone's neck. We're talking about their doctors performing a test to diagnose their condition, and then treating them appropriately.
Neurological conditions do not all result from diseases.
Disease is basically just a malfunction of the body. It does not have to come from a virus or microbe. Is heart disease not a disease? What about diabetes? What about asthma?
Neurological conditions that impair your ability to function as a human being are diseases pretty much by definition.
A disease or medical condition is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs. It may be caused by external factors, such as infectious disease, or it may be caused by internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases.
I can't see this being of any benefit in the long term. The problem is, even if they -have- autism or other defects, labeling them will do nothing to have them overcome it and will lead the majority of them to make excuses to why they aren't productive members of society.
I really don't understand the western mentality of labeling everyone to try to "help". Which is going to make people want to get ahead in life? Being told "hey you have -insert mental disability here-" or "hey, your not doing to great in -insert school subject here-". One has people making excuses and the other just has them either not focus on that and focus on what they are good at or try harder.
Autism is a physical, biological disorder. It is a disease, not a mood. It isn't like you'll suddenly stop being autistic because you forgot you had it.
Early diagnosis gives you more time for treatment, which will actually help people become more functional individuals.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't perform mammograms or colonoscopy because you don't actually have any ill effects from the cancer until after you've been labelled?
By that logic, we should just stop running tests all-together, because we'd all be far healthier if we didn't have any labels.
Let's just be clear here, what are you saying, that when you lease allowance to use their servers, they have permission to do whatever they want to your local machine and define what software you can and can't run on it? because that's the issue here.
WoW is a MMOG. The whole point of playing WoW is to share the world with thousands of other people. This shared environment requires everyone play by the same rules. If one player has an unfair advantage in the form of some automated play bot, it will unbalance the entire game environment. Eventually ruining the experience for other players.
I will readily agree that Blizzards actions are a little extreme... I'd object to such invasive measures for a single-player game... But it's a little different with a MMOG environment.
I am, against my better judgment, going to drag out a car analogy.
If you want to drive your car on a public road, you are subject to various laws. You need to register your vehicle, you need license plates, you need to get it inspected periodically, you need a driver's license, you need insurance. The specifications of your vehicle are governed by a number of different groups... And you agree to let various people crawl around inside your car to make sure it operates correctly... And if it doesn't meet their specifications, you are not allowed to drive it on public roads. If you try to, you can be arrested and/or fined.
None of this applies if it is a private road. If you build your own, closed track to drive around on... Nobody cares. You can build any kind of monstrosity and putter around your closed track with no license, insurance, or anything else.
Similarly, if you operate your software in a single-player environment, nobody cares. But if you're operating it in a shared environment with thousands of other users, people care.
You know, I didn't think I was being that clever. I thought my intent was rather obvious... But, judging from all the folks who misunderstood me, I must be doing something wrong.
The OP stated:
Some societies promote knowledge and mental discipline as keys to success. Others have come to prefer art, sports
I even quoted that in my own comment, to make things clearer.
The problem with that statement is that it suggests that cultures have to choose between the two things - knowledge and mental discipline, or art and sports. And if you're choosing between them, they must be separate and distinct things. It suggests that art and sports do not require knowledge or mental discipline.
I disagree with that.
I believe that sports are art require quite a bit of knowledge and mental discipline.
Sure, any idiot can throw a football around or splatter some paint on a canvas... But that doesn't mean they're any good at it. And if we're talking about being successful (again, the OP's words) you're going to need to work at it a bit. Even if you've got innate talent, you'll still have to work at it to become truly successful.
Even if you're self-taught, you're putting time and effort into getting better.
For enjoyment reading I think I'll stick with a paper copy...
It really depends on the book.
Lovecraftian stuff, to me, demands paper. So much of the background revolves around ancient tomes that it seems wrong to read it electronically.
Stories that really play on the book theme, like Mister B. Gone it again makes sense to have it in paper.
For a lot of my books, it really doesn't matter so much either way. A paperback is plenty portable, as long as you're only carrying one or two around. When I'm away from home for a while though, it gets awkward to carry a pile of books, which makes the electronic format much nicer.
Electronic is also nice for bulky books... The electronic form of The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror is much more portable than the paper version. Easier to read, too - don't have to support that bulky book while reading.
And readability is an issue for me. My eyes aren't as good as they used to be... I can just crank up the font size on my ereader, instead of having to use industrial-strength reading glasses.
When I first read the title my mind thought about a really kick butt cache drive that allowed you to throw in a DVD/Blu-Ray disc, read in its entire contents in one pass - saving power, increasing performance, and that annoying buzzing sound. Shame what they've created here is nothing remotely that interesting or creative.
What they've created here is a piece of hardware. Exactly how it gets used will largely be determined by software. There is absolutely no reason it could not be used in the way you envision. Maybe Hitachi doesn't plan to implement anything like this... But that wouldn't stop some other manufacturer from developing what you suggest. Or you could write your own software to do it.
In fact I'd even go as far as to say the Optical / SSD combo drive is a useless concept on the face of it.
Space is generally at a premium in laptops. If you can cram an SSD and an optical drive into the same space, you no longer need room for that 2.5"/3.5" laptop HDD/SSD. You can use that space for additional storage... Or you could fit in a bit of bulkier hardware on the motherboard... Or bigger speakers... Or a larger battery... Or better cooling...
As if USB slots are hard to come by or laptops lack SSD/MMC card slots?
Both of which are poor replacements for your internal/primary storage device.
That's very true... And also true for most literature, and movies, and television, and plays, and board games... But that doesn't keep people from trying to convey useful messages or morals through those mediums. And it shouldn't keep people from trying to convey useful messages or morals through the medium of gaming either.
games with a *message* often push the message at the expense of the primary purpose of enjoyment.
Again, true. But also true of all the other mediums used to push a message.
Honestly, a situation like this is probably the *worst* to try and get across in a game. It's aimed at people in their mid-teens, it says. Okay, so those people should be old enough to have a talk with and explain the dangers of abusive relationships and such. And if you can't have a talk with them, how the bloody hell do you expect a game to work?
Folks don't generally respond well to being talked at. They don't typically see the message as applying to their current situation. They tend to get defensive, or assume that it can't happen to them, or that things really aren't that bad.
There's a reason why we tend to disregard what our parents tell us, and then go and make the same dumb mistakes they did. We learn best from first-hand experience.
A good book, or movie, or game can be involving enough to get past the usual defenses you erect when being talked-at. Can make you feel involved in the storyline and invested in the characters. Can actually get the message through to you when a speech might not.
Granted, you have to actually pick up the game/book/movie/whatever in the first place... And you're unlikely to be receptive if some concerned individual hands it to you and tells you to pay close attention to the message... But if you've got meaningful/useful content like this scattered through random, entertaining games - it might be helpful.
Aesop's Fables are a good example - they're full of morals and lessons... When they're used at the appropriate age, the kid just thinks they're fun stories about animals and whatnot. If you try to sit some brat of a kid down and teach them about morals by reading them a story at a later age, however, they aren't going to get much from your efforts.
To a certain degree we're already doing this (or at least attempting to) with other mediums.
We've got sitcoms and cartoons that try to present good rolemodels. Characters we wouldn't mind our children emulating. We try to throw good messages into the movies aimed at our children.
Why not try to do something similar with video games?
Don't tell me that people buy stolen creds and log into them just to take all their e-loot (worth thousands of e-dollars)?
This is typically what happens.
In WoW, for example, they'll sell off all your nifty loot for gold. Then they'll transfer the gold to some other character and leave you sitting naked and penniless in the auction house.
They will then sell those huge piles of ill-gotten gold for real-world dollars.
People will actually pay real cash for in-game cash.
I'm somewhat surprised this is allowed. Making a mistake is one thing, but purposely falsifying information that someone is paying you for (perhaps even specifically for the accuracy!) is another.
Is this one of those things that is actually allowed by law or just unenforceable because they can claim it was a mistake?
I assume you're referring to the maps thing...
This is generally done with street maps, where the information should be pretty much identical from one manufacturer to the next. If you can steal your competition's map, you save yourself all the time and effort of actually going out and looking up all the information. And everyone is going to show the same streets in the same places, so how do you prove that they stole your map data?
The answer is that you put in some crappy little 1-block dead-end streets here and there.
Nobody lives on those streets, because they don't exist, so you don't have to worry about incorrect address information showing up. You don't have to worry about giving people bad directions because they're dead-end streets, so nobody will route down them. Nobody is going to be hurt by these little streets in any way.
But if you suspect that your competition stole some map information from you, you just check to see if there's a Fake Street in Chicago. If the street is there, in the same place as on your maps, you know they stole the map data from you.
I have seen some of Vincenzo Natali's previous movies; Cube (very original), Cypher (cool SF thriller) and Nothing (funny and absurd fantasy). He is definitely an interesting director. But I have never heard of Splice. Is it worth tracking down a DVD of Splice?
Splice is a relatively new movie that I've seen floating around the interwebs lately. It looks very interesting. Haven't been able to get my hands on a copy of it yet though.
You also don't have a choice when it comes to overhearing someone's conversation.
Nor do you have a choice when it comes to overhearing someone's wifi traffic. Normally, when you're intentionally trying to talk to someone else, that's considered noise. It's other traffic cluttering up the spectrum, getting in the way of what you're trying to do. It's always there. If you're listening to wifi traffic, you'll hear it.
It's a little different if you go through the effort of sniffing traffic from someone's open WiFi.
No it isn't.
There's no effort involved, they're simply capturing packets of traffic, not h4x0r1ng teh interwebs.
If I'm conducting an interview with someone in a public place, recording the conversation, and somebody behind me shouts something, it will be recorded. I'm not going to any special effort to listen in on their conversation... It's just background noise... But it is being recorded anyway. And they probably don't know I'm recording it. If it was something embarrassing, and it wound up as public knowledge, they might be upset. But if they shouted it out in a public place it isn't really my fault it got recorded, is it?
Is it right to eavesdrop on someone's network traffic, particularly if there is a good chance that they don't even know it's possible?
Again, nobody is going to any special effort to eavesdrop on anything. They're just capturing traffic as it flies by.
As far as people not knowing it is possible... Why is their ignorance Google's problem?
You aren't forced to install a wireless router in your house. You have to go out and buy one. Isn't it your responsibility to make sure the device is being operated correctly/safely?
I'm really looking forward to the comments. When BP lets the oil spill continue day after day, the/. crowd goes asking why we let them handle it at all, after all they're the ones responsible for the mess.
The whole BP thing is simply a giant WTF.
I have a genuinely hard time wrapping my head around the fact that they're drilling in water this deep with absolutely no ability to deal with problems like this. They aren't just scrambling to deploy a fix, they're scrambling to come up with a fix.
It doesn't seem like BP should be willing to do something that risky without a disaster plan.
It doesn't seem like the Government should give them the go-ahead to do something that risky without a disaster plan.
It doesn't seem like stockholders should allow them to do something that risky without a disaster plan.
And yet, here we are.
Now Google has a mess, and is doing an internal audit. I'm curious if we will apply the same reasoning, or a different standard. And what justifications we'll see for it.
Google's mess isn't going to kill any wildlife or pollute any waterways. It's very unlikely to result in anybody losing their livelihood. They're also conducting the audit before going ahead, rather than after something has gone horribly wrong (at least with the HD thing in Australia).
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds great until somebody learns to game the game. Then what practical use is it to the real world?
Practical? Maybe not...
But folks these days game the game all the time. It's just called "office politics".
Have joking but, it would be great if the indexing was done at a particular time every month like the old system, but the moment of indexing was public. Then, at that time, all facebook users could go and untag and delete anything that may have been wholesome enough to not warrant immediate removal but yet still be considered something that shouldn't be indexed for all eternity.
If you don't want it indexed for all eternity, don't post it on the web.
Even if you knew when Google was coming and you took it down, you have no influence over anyone else out there who may have saved that incriminating evidence. Anyone out there can take a screenshot and post it themselves.
Your last sentence hits the nail on the head, you should get a smart phone.
Except that isn't equivalent to buying a radio.
I'd have to purchase a smartphone for a couple hundred dollars. I'd have to sign up with a provider. I'd either be signing a multi-year contract or paying more for the phone. I'd have to pay monthly bills.
By contrast, you can buy a radio for less than $20 and tune in to whatever is available. No monthly bills (aside from whatever it takes to power the thing). No subscriptions. Nothing.
Though I agree with your sentiments, I have to point out, nothing is being lost. It is being redirected. As the Demento audience declines internet useage increases. Your strange, silly, and plain funny are now online. Radio is going the way of the newspaper. There is a new medium in town.
I agree in general... There's plenty of strange, silly, and funny available online. Assorted videos on YouTube... Streaming stuff from Pandora... Assorted podcasts and blogs and Internet radio stations and whatnot...
But none of that is really as accessible as radio is.
Sure, if I'm sitting in the office or at home I can listen/watch as much as I want. But when I'm driving around in my car, or out on a bike, or walking, or whatever - it isn't nearly as accessible. Maybe if I've dumped a podcast to an MP3 player... But that's about it. You can't get anything live from the web like you can with radio.
Or, rather, I can't. I guess if you've got a smartphone with data or something like that you could...
We've conditioned ourselves to stop doing almost everything in order to answer a phonecall. Even if we have no idea who's calling, we are prepared to interrupt most activities and (unforgivably) most people in order to speak to a little voice who almost certainly only called because they want something.
I say, let them wait. If it's important they can leave a message - although there's nothing that a normal person can tell us that can't bear being delayed for an hour or two. If they are prepared to do some work themselves, they can TEXT you, instead.
Exactly.
The problem isn't the technology itself, it is our reaction to it.
We've built some kind of always-on, instant gratification communication system. Folks expect to be able to instantly communicate with basically anyone about basically anything at basically any time.
I get bombarded all day long with phone calls, instant messages, emails, whatever. Many of these are just useless status updates or questions that they could have answered themselves with about 30 seconds of thought... But the impulse is to reach out and touch someone.
And my impulse is to stop whatever I'm doing and respond to the phone call/text message/IM/email/whatever.
It is horribly distracting, but I can't really blame anyone but myself.
Make it easier for the middle class is just as valuable as making it easier for the very poorest.
Not really...
I mean, yes, 1 million people is 1 million people, regardless of their income level...
But if you spend $X on an app that only reaches folks that own smartphones, you have to compare that to spending $X on a mass-mailing that would reach anybody with a mailbox. Or a radio campaign. Or Posters. Or billboard ads. Or whatever.
Folks who can afford smartphones generally have fairly good access to information and resources. They generally have a halfway decent income and education. They usually have some kind of transportation. They frequently have a job where you can take personal time off, or at the very least aren't working nearly 24/7. They're usually able to pull up information on a web page, or make a phone call, or walk down to the office, or whatever. They don't, generally, need a whole lot of help to make information/resources/whatever more accessible.
Folks with a lower income are generally hourly employees that probably can't afford to take time off from work. They may be working multiple jobs. They may not be able to afford to have someone else watch their kid. They may not have transportation, or Internet access, or even a working telephone/radio/TV. They're going to have a much harder time, in general, accessing information/resources/whatever.
So there's a very real question... You've got $10 million to spend to help make government more accessible... Do you spend it on a smartphone app that will only reach folks who already have plenty of ways of accessing government? Or do you spend it on something that'll reach all the folks who have a hard time accessing government right now?
Your comparing psychology, a field known to have an exceptionally high confirmation bias to proper medical fields where diagnosis can be proven by more than "he's acting funny".
Isn't that kind of the point of this test? Pee in a cup and we don't have to spend months documenting everything you do to determine if you're acting funny enough to be called autistic.
Your ignorant if you think that people treat each other equally after being labeled as a loon.
Yes, people are assholes, but it isn't limited to mental illness. All kinds of labels will get you treated differently...
"I'm gay"
"I'm a republican"
"I have aids"
Yes, some mental illness has a stigma attached to it. I am very well aware of that. But we aren't talking about hanging a sign around someone's neck. We're talking about their doctors performing a test to diagnose their condition, and then treating them appropriately.
Neurological conditions do not all result from diseases.
Disease is basically just a malfunction of the body. It does not have to come from a virus or microbe. Is heart disease not a disease? What about diabetes? What about asthma?
Neurological conditions that impair your ability to function as a human being are diseases pretty much by definition.
A disease or medical condition is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs. It may be caused by external factors, such as infectious disease, or it may be caused by internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases.
I can't see this being of any benefit in the long term. The problem is, even if they -have- autism or other defects, labeling them will do nothing to have them overcome it and will lead the majority of them to make excuses to why they aren't productive members of society.
I really don't understand the western mentality of labeling everyone to try to "help". Which is going to make people want to get ahead in life? Being told "hey you have -insert mental disability here-" or "hey, your not doing to great in -insert school subject here-". One has people making excuses and the other just has them either not focus on that and focus on what they are good at or try harder.
Autism is a physical, biological disorder. It is a disease, not a mood. It isn't like you'll suddenly stop being autistic because you forgot you had it.
Early diagnosis gives you more time for treatment, which will actually help people become more functional individuals.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't perform mammograms or colonoscopy because you don't actually have any ill effects from the cancer until after you've been labelled?
By that logic, we should just stop running tests all-together, because we'd all be far healthier if we didn't have any labels.
Let's just be clear here, what are you saying, that when you lease allowance to use their servers, they have permission to do whatever they want to your local machine and define what software you can and can't run on it? because that's the issue here.
WoW is a MMOG. The whole point of playing WoW is to share the world with thousands of other people. This shared environment requires everyone play by the same rules. If one player has an unfair advantage in the form of some automated play bot, it will unbalance the entire game environment. Eventually ruining the experience for other players.
I will readily agree that Blizzards actions are a little extreme... I'd object to such invasive measures for a single-player game... But it's a little different with a MMOG environment.
I am, against my better judgment, going to drag out a car analogy.
If you want to drive your car on a public road, you are subject to various laws. You need to register your vehicle, you need license plates, you need to get it inspected periodically, you need a driver's license, you need insurance. The specifications of your vehicle are governed by a number of different groups... And you agree to let various people crawl around inside your car to make sure it operates correctly... And if it doesn't meet their specifications, you are not allowed to drive it on public roads. If you try to, you can be arrested and/or fined.
None of this applies if it is a private road. If you build your own, closed track to drive around on... Nobody cares. You can build any kind of monstrosity and putter around your closed track with no license, insurance, or anything else.
Similarly, if you operate your software in a single-player environment, nobody cares. But if you're operating it in a shared environment with thousands of other users, people care.
You know, I didn't think I was being that clever. I thought my intent was rather obvious... But, judging from all the folks who misunderstood me, I must be doing something wrong.
The OP stated:
Some societies promote knowledge and mental discipline as keys to success. Others have come to prefer art, sports
I even quoted that in my own comment, to make things clearer.
The problem with that statement is that it suggests that cultures have to choose between the two things - knowledge and mental discipline, or art and sports. And if you're choosing between them, they must be separate and distinct things. It suggests that art and sports do not require knowledge or mental discipline.
I disagree with that.
I believe that sports are art require quite a bit of knowledge and mental discipline.
Sure, any idiot can throw a football around or splatter some paint on a canvas... But that doesn't mean they're any good at it. And if we're talking about being successful (again, the OP's words) you're going to need to work at it a bit. Even if you've got innate talent, you'll still have to work at it to become truly successful.
Even if you're self-taught, you're putting time and effort into getting better.
Some societies promote knowledge and mental discipline as keys to success. Others have come to prefer art, sports
And neither art nor sports require knowledge or mental discipline to be successful.
pursuit of whatever makes you feel good at the time.
Because academic excellence doesn't feel good.
For enjoyment reading I think I'll stick with a paper copy...
It really depends on the book.
Lovecraftian stuff, to me, demands paper. So much of the background revolves around ancient tomes that it seems wrong to read it electronically.
Stories that really play on the book theme, like Mister B. Gone it again makes sense to have it in paper.
For a lot of my books, it really doesn't matter so much either way. A paperback is plenty portable, as long as you're only carrying one or two around. When I'm away from home for a while though, it gets awkward to carry a pile of books, which makes the electronic format much nicer.
Electronic is also nice for bulky books... The electronic form of The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror is much more portable than the paper version. Easier to read, too - don't have to support that bulky book while reading.
And readability is an issue for me. My eyes aren't as good as they used to be... I can just crank up the font size on my ereader, instead of having to use industrial-strength reading glasses.
I've been thinking for a while that it would be terrific if printed books came with a free digital copy...
Some kind wax scratch-off on the cover to reveal a unique serial number. Or maybe something generated at the register and printed on your receipt.
I much prefer the digital copy for portability and general reading... But if it's a genuinely good book I'll wind up wanting a physical copy as well.
When I first read the title my mind thought about a really kick butt cache drive that allowed you to throw in a DVD/Blu-Ray disc, read in its entire contents in one pass - saving power, increasing performance, and that annoying buzzing sound. Shame what they've created here is nothing remotely that interesting or creative.
What they've created here is a piece of hardware. Exactly how it gets used will largely be determined by software. There is absolutely no reason it could not be used in the way you envision. Maybe Hitachi doesn't plan to implement anything like this... But that wouldn't stop some other manufacturer from developing what you suggest. Or you could write your own software to do it.
In fact I'd even go as far as to say the Optical / SSD combo drive is a useless concept on the face of it.
Space is generally at a premium in laptops. If you can cram an SSD and an optical drive into the same space, you no longer need room for that 2.5"/3.5" laptop HDD/SSD. You can use that space for additional storage... Or you could fit in a bit of bulkier hardware on the motherboard... Or bigger speakers... Or a larger battery... Or better cooling...
As if USB slots are hard to come by or laptops lack SSD/MMC card slots?
Both of which are poor replacements for your internal/primary storage device.
Games already have a purpose. To be fun.
That's very true... And also true for most literature, and movies, and television, and plays, and board games... But that doesn't keep people from trying to convey useful messages or morals through those mediums. And it shouldn't keep people from trying to convey useful messages or morals through the medium of gaming either.
games with a *message* often push the message at the expense of the primary purpose of enjoyment.
Again, true. But also true of all the other mediums used to push a message.
Honestly, a situation like this is probably the *worst* to try and get across in a game. It's aimed at people in their mid-teens, it says. Okay, so those people should be old enough to have a talk with and explain the dangers of abusive relationships and such. And if you can't have a talk with them, how the bloody hell do you expect a game to work?
Folks don't generally respond well to being talked at. They don't typically see the message as applying to their current situation. They tend to get defensive, or assume that it can't happen to them, or that things really aren't that bad.
There's a reason why we tend to disregard what our parents tell us, and then go and make the same dumb mistakes they did. We learn best from first-hand experience.
A good book, or movie, or game can be involving enough to get past the usual defenses you erect when being talked-at. Can make you feel involved in the storyline and invested in the characters. Can actually get the message through to you when a speech might not.
Granted, you have to actually pick up the game/book/movie/whatever in the first place... And you're unlikely to be receptive if some concerned individual hands it to you and tells you to pay close attention to the message... But if you've got meaningful/useful content like this scattered through random, entertaining games - it might be helpful.
Aesop's Fables are a good example - they're full of morals and lessons... When they're used at the appropriate age, the kid just thinks they're fun stories about animals and whatnot. If you try to sit some brat of a kid down and teach them about morals by reading them a story at a later age, however, they aren't going to get much from your efforts.
To a certain degree we're already doing this (or at least attempting to) with other mediums.
We've got sitcoms and cartoons that try to present good rolemodels. Characters we wouldn't mind our children emulating. We try to throw good messages into the movies aimed at our children.
Why not try to do something similar with video games?
Don't tell me that people buy stolen creds and log into them just to take all their e-loot (worth thousands of e-dollars)?
This is typically what happens.
In WoW, for example, they'll sell off all your nifty loot for gold. Then they'll transfer the gold to some other character and leave you sitting naked and penniless in the auction house.
They will then sell those huge piles of ill-gotten gold for real-world dollars.
People will actually pay real cash for in-game cash.
I'm somewhat surprised this is allowed. Making a mistake is one thing, but purposely falsifying information that someone is paying you for (perhaps even specifically for the accuracy!) is another.
Is this one of those things that is actually allowed by law or just unenforceable because they can claim it was a mistake?
I assume you're referring to the maps thing...
This is generally done with street maps, where the information should be pretty much identical from one manufacturer to the next. If you can steal your competition's map, you save yourself all the time and effort of actually going out and looking up all the information. And everyone is going to show the same streets in the same places, so how do you prove that they stole your map data?
The answer is that you put in some crappy little 1-block dead-end streets here and there.
Nobody lives on those streets, because they don't exist, so you don't have to worry about incorrect address information showing up. You don't have to worry about giving people bad directions because they're dead-end streets, so nobody will route down them. Nobody is going to be hurt by these little streets in any way.
But if you suspect that your competition stole some map information from you, you just check to see if there's a Fake Street in Chicago. If the street is there, in the same place as on your maps, you know they stole the map data from you.
And Johnny Mnemonic really wasn't all that bad.
Doesn't match the source material all that well, but that's hardly Keanu's fault.
I have seen some of Vincenzo Natali's previous movies; Cube (very original), Cypher (cool SF thriller) and Nothing (funny and absurd fantasy). He is definitely an interesting director. But I have never heard of Splice. Is it worth tracking down a DVD of Splice?
Splice is a relatively new movie that I've seen floating around the interwebs lately. It looks very interesting. Haven't been able to get my hands on a copy of it yet though.
I don't believe the personal page is encrypted yet.
I just tried to load up https://www.google.com/ig and it re-directed me to http://www.gooogle.com/ig
You also don't have a choice when it comes to overhearing someone's conversation.
Nor do you have a choice when it comes to overhearing someone's wifi traffic. Normally, when you're intentionally trying to talk to someone else, that's considered noise. It's other traffic cluttering up the spectrum, getting in the way of what you're trying to do. It's always there. If you're listening to wifi traffic, you'll hear it.
It's a little different if you go through the effort of sniffing traffic from someone's open WiFi.
No it isn't.
There's no effort involved, they're simply capturing packets of traffic, not h4x0r1ng teh interwebs.
If I'm conducting an interview with someone in a public place, recording the conversation, and somebody behind me shouts something, it will be recorded. I'm not going to any special effort to listen in on their conversation... It's just background noise... But it is being recorded anyway. And they probably don't know I'm recording it. If it was something embarrassing, and it wound up as public knowledge, they might be upset. But if they shouted it out in a public place it isn't really my fault it got recorded, is it?
Is it right to eavesdrop on someone's network traffic, particularly if there is a good chance that they don't even know it's possible?
Again, nobody is going to any special effort to eavesdrop on anything. They're just capturing traffic as it flies by.
As far as people not knowing it is possible... Why is their ignorance Google's problem?
You aren't forced to install a wireless router in your house. You have to go out and buy one. Isn't it your responsibility to make sure the device is being operated correctly/safely?
The people shouting *know* that other people can hear them.
And people communicating on a CB know that other people can hear them.
And people communicating with an unencrypted wireless device should know that other people can hear them.
The fact that they're ignorant doesn't really make it my fault that I overheard their conversation.
Yes, people should definitely secure their communications.
That said, just because someone leaves their door open, doesn't mean Google should waltz right in.
Nobody waltzed right in... Google drove by on the street and collected what it could see from the road.
If you leave your front door open and stand in the hallway naked, you can't complain too much about Google snapping a picture of you.
I'm really looking forward to the comments. When BP lets the oil spill continue day after day, the /. crowd goes asking why we let them handle it at all, after all they're the ones responsible for the mess.
The whole BP thing is simply a giant WTF.
I have a genuinely hard time wrapping my head around the fact that they're drilling in water this deep with absolutely no ability to deal with problems like this. They aren't just scrambling to deploy a fix, they're scrambling to come up with a fix.
It doesn't seem like BP should be willing to do something that risky without a disaster plan.
It doesn't seem like the Government should give them the go-ahead to do something that risky without a disaster plan.
It doesn't seem like stockholders should allow them to do something that risky without a disaster plan.
And yet, here we are.
Now Google has a mess, and is doing an internal audit. I'm curious if we will apply the same reasoning, or a different standard. And what justifications we'll see for it.
Google's mess isn't going to kill any wildlife or pollute any waterways. It's very unlikely to result in anybody losing their livelihood. They're also conducting the audit before going ahead, rather than after something has gone horribly wrong (at least with the HD thing in Australia).