Whoa! Are we now the first and best example of international terrorism? Is that what you're saying? Look up the history of the IRA, dude. A campaign that had successful attacks over decades, and a much higher cost in lives and property. Then tell me we haven't gone a little, a smidge, crazy.
Patriotic landmarkism bugs me too. We should still be talking about the firemen, not the Trade Center. The lives are what matters, not the property, nor the notoriety of that property.
And if there's no way to stop it, we can end the conversation and go back to burning more organics?;^)
It's funny, but in a way, the non-anthropogenic argument is a bit like someone saying "STFU." From a climate activist's viewpoint, it must seem almost nihilistic.
I'm neither a denier nor an activist. I believe a lot of people are upset with the fact that a minority group of scientists (relative to non-scientist humanity, not within the field) who are just laying groundwork in the study of global climate systems are proposing massive global solutions that will require suffering, perhaps wars, and possibly won't work.
People are frightened and they want to be very sure that it is as bad as the activists say it is, and those activists can't provide anything more than tree rings and ice cores to back up their claims beyond the past few hundred years of climate data collection from the modern scientific era.
The "hockey stick" is unconvincing, because while we're warming, there's no correlative temperature hockey stick proportional to the carbon. Never mind that the presumption is baloney, it's what people see.
The concern is emotional. It's is hard to get people to move in such drastic unity over a collection of data. They look around and say, "Nothing has changed. Why should I?"
Plus, there's a basic logical failure in a position of "activism," that precedes facts and cause. You have to be able to act, and that action has to be effective. If we (the Western world) stop burning fossils, is China going to? Will India? How about any country in Africa? If not, are we willing to invade and shut down any country that refuses to do so?
What are the tanks going to burn?;^)
We are a proto-global society, built on oil. We simply don't have the political apparatus to extract from that, regardless of the validity of the research. Activists who ask for global change on climate are politically clueless.
While a global climate exists, a global government does not.
We will be well beyond peak oil before we can pull it together. The oil will be burned, because if we don't, it makes it cheaper for someone else, and they will consume it. The developing world wants our lifestyle. It's all going to burn, at the same rate, no matter how we shoot ourselves in the foot.
That's not nihilism, it's a political analysis of the situation. The best way to slow the process is to invent technologies that get more work with less carbon production. Capping carbon will not help, because someone else in the developing world will gladly use the "bad technologies" that produce more carbon and fill in the gaps with the cheaper fuels. It destabilizes the oil market, and drives up consumption in developing countries.
My alternative: Invent and refine better engines and ramp up alternatives. Fast. Put the money into research. Don't try to draw it from carbon caps, though. That's destabilizing. Here in America? Give it to the NSF and industry spend it. It's a good idea whether we're a cause of warming or not. Plus, if we succeed, we get rich, we get new industries, and we all get to live in peace (hopefully).
"Relativism" is a poor tool to determine performance. You have to set a benchmark somewhere, circumspect of measurements and objective conditions of course, but there is no way to run a school when everyone can argue with a grade, or claim that the system is out to get them.
At least not in cases where that isn't true.
That's what got us into this mess.
Secondly, if 76% of a given curriculum is truly vital to every day use, it needs to be taught over a longer period of time to reduce the density of the coursework, with the only exception being an honors track.
You pack as many kids in a school as they do these days, and design a curriculum that requires that much effectiveness from the teacher and that level of retention from the students, and what you have is a fundamental failure in design.
And then there's the simple fact that schools also exist to provide opportunities and new horizons to their students. They are places of experimentation.
The second thing that has gotten us here is that we have utterly forgotten that, and turned many of our institutions into credential farms. We expect people who don't have the temperament for it to look only to passing the next test, so some NCLB review board doesn't shut it down.
But what if the student is going on to become a world famous violinist? What is vital to that person? What does a B+ in orchestra actually mean?
The study shows that the theft risk of black was disproportionate to its popularity (Silver/grey was most popular in recent years).
The study also shows that there are darned few pink cars on the road, period. Which means that the margin of error here is huge. You get one pink car stolen, and it becomes wildly disproportionate to the number of pink cars on the road.
So he's right. Someone's being a little cutesy. The fact is there probably aren't enough pink cars on the road to tell if that "zero" is reliable.
But it is fun to claim that car thieves are avoiding pink, and perhaps choosing black because it's easier to lose the cops in a black car.
The study is good statistics, TFA is a cutesy blog piece. Her argument is fail. Unpopular cars are not unsellable, because it's trivial to repaint them. Additionally, a lot of car theft goes to chop shops, where they don't give a crap about the panel colors.
Her only valid point is about the black cars being easier to drive away with, and it isn't actually supported by the study, only suggested as a theory that could be tested.
Imagine a bell curve. Imagine one standard deviation to the left and right.
I'm going to exaggerate that curve.
98% of the student population is "B", to the left and right of the mean.
1% is "troubled/near fail" and we call them "C" students.
1% is the honor roll, and we call them "A" students.
That's where they're going to end up. Pass/Fail, with a recommendation for extra help for the lower end, and pass with honors for the upper end.
In all likelihood, it will fall along statistical lines, which means "below average" students will have no way (down the curve) to tell that they are, in fact, now "in crisis" (no "D" warning) before they fall off and fail. The administration will respond by being even less likely to fail people (as even average students get caught off-guard), or instituting some kind of warning system, which will bring the "D" right back, under a different name.
The size of the groups will move more students into the "A" category, which will cheapen or obfuscate any distinctions of true excellence, and will either require the creation of an honor roll to emphasize truly talented students, or more likely, just have that fall even more into disuse as it lowers the self esteem of the huge "B" group and near-failing "C" group.
The Devil's in the details, but on its surface, that's an astoundingly bad idea.
A 93 - 100 Excellent Achievement B 85 - 92 Above Average Achievement C 77 - 84 Average Achievement D 69 - 76 Below Average Achievement, but passing
I hope they're not using those ranges for grading, because it would astound me that they could fail a student with a 76% average. I'm guessing they're using the usual 60/70/80/90% spread. Raising standards is always about empowering teachers to apply standards, and backstopping those efforts with actually supportive and coordinated administration, not rejiggering the nomenclature, which is like trying to solve the problem by pulling numbers out of a hat.
Narrowing the standard deviation, or in this case actually removing one, in my estimation, means teachers will have to rely more upon the numerical standards to justify harsher choices, and less upon judgment. It becomes about teachers having the power to grade on a curve taken from them, by wrecking it and probably turning "B-grade" into a huge mean group. All that happens, best case, is teachers start fudging grades to get away from an overly restrictive system. Then someone charges "racism," "sexism," or whatever and you've got a very serious problem.
Why whittle down the choices teachers have in giving feedback? Teachers need to be able to express their opinions about their students. The only credible reason is if the parents and teachers are being overwhelmed by the complexity of the system. 5 letters is not too complex. A person who cannot understand 5 letter grades is functionally a moron, and should not be in charge of any children at all.
It gets worse. Now, if you're a C student, you're nearly failing? How are the parents who grew up with and internalized the 10 point A/B/C/D system even going to be able to relate to that, or recognize that their mostly C's student has a very serious problem?
This is probably a political gimmick to look "tough" to the district. I suspect it will screw up everyone for a few years, make parents fail to act when they need to, and rob the teachers of yet another degree of freedom to express their frank evaluation of a student's ability and progress, which is the only actually valuable standard for grading students.
The cynic in me strongly suspects this trend of "fundamentally changing the rules around standards," for no apparent reason, is simply to keep what administrators see as over-zealous parents and teachers off-balance. In some cases they are over-zealous, but confusing the heck out of everyone doesn't help that. Clear communication does.
You're probably right, but I'm guessing that removing the threat of criminal copyright prosecution may put the legitimate hackers on a sounder footing.
Left the summary laughing (thinking it was a play on Jobs' "magical" comment), went to RTFA. OMG they're really calling the product "Magic?"
Seriously, this is taking the Arthur C. Clarke quote a bit too far. Are we now saying that any sufficiently devolved consumer can't distinguish technology from magic?
What the hell? Are they releasing a "Sorcerer's Apprentice" edition?
I know plenty of Apple customers. Most have a firm grip on reality. This just seems mad. I hope it's a "code name."
I disagree. I have kids. Mainstream kids. They bring the neighborhood kids around, and I let them into the candy shop every now and then.
You break out Sonic the Hedgehog or Bonk, and they drop Super Mario Galaxy or Viva Pinata or Little Big World like a rotting, cold potato battery. It's the instant and natural responsiveness of the game that does it, I think.
Especially around age 9.
When I pull out those games, I begin to see actual, instantaneous enthusiasm. Enjoyment. No furrowed brow and frustration with the controls like with any comparable modern game. It isn't just that this tack has ruined gaming for US. It's ruining it for everyone but a small segment of the market, and publishers are undercutting their future bottom line, to satisfy (but often just plain bilk) an increasingly picky, and attenuating, "hardcore" gamer segment, some of whom have turned to piracy in response (which is just more attenuation from a business perspective).
At this rate, the new generation of gamers, and by extension any future game writers/designers, finds something else to do. Gimmicks that get people to pay more money, for less value, don't last. In the long run, the hobby needs enthusiasts like US. It dies without new blood. Hollywood was darned smart to write "There's No Business Like Show Business." What does gaming have akin to that sort of inspiring athem?
Remember, it's the "geeks," US, that keep bringing up "Mario" as the only lasting anthem for gaming I know of.
So no, man, not for a second do I believe that it is just US. I do believe there's a profit-taking model progressing, that IMO is unsustainable. It feels eerily like evolution or at least like something we can't control.
And while my cynical mind can agree with you on that much, my spirit won't roll, and I hope to kindle something in anyone over 25, and kids of all ages, who actually enjoy this hobby.
Anything over at Spiderweb games. Gog.com hooked me up with a strange little game called "Evil Genius" for $9.99. You have to hack the widescreen in, but it's a surprising lot of fun.
There are so many options, and I would dearly like to see AAA publishers die so they would have more room to flourish.
This is just great news, and has put a bounce in my step. I wonder how this administrative ruling will affect things like Nintendo's efforts to stop people running third party stuff on the Wii? Not pirated stuff, third party stuff. My daughter's current favorite Wii game is "My Little Ball."
Yup. They killed a thriving industry, now they're looking to squeeze blood from the stone they made out of that vibrant, resilient hobby. Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze.
It's gruff, but that's the way I see it. The faster these arrogant publishers go out of business, the quicker we can start over. When they've gone, nothing of value will have been lost.
This all started with floppy disks and baggies. We don't need Hollywood-style production values to play and enjoy, and we can't abide the cost of corresponding Hollywood-style accounting and mismanagement that goes with it. I don't see the value of adding all that production cost to what amounts to the same crappy FPS, or a makeover on "The Sims."
Let it die already, fast, the sooner we can all go back to enjoying weird little games in baggies, and maybe find something interesting to play as a result.
OMG. Here is confirmable data, streaming in newsfeeds from all over the world, that the LHC is actually involved in a time travel paradox with a Higgs boson it can never create. Eventually the entire site will be nuked from orbit by the Higgs boson, because it's the only way to be sure.
No! That's exactly what the Mayans would have us believe, from their time traveling relative dimension pocket near the Andromeda galaxy. The only way to prevent the catastrophic end of the B'ak'tun is to RUN the Large Hadron Collider and create a Higgs Boson that will counteract all the neutrino emissions from the sun.
For the love of god, we must run the LHC or we may yet pass through the CGI event horizon, our imaginations running wild, causing the ruination of all the good creatures and the ultimate victory of the Woodland Critters!
(Oof. Perhaps I shouldn't have watched the John Cusack 2012 movie and South Park back to back on Netflix last night?)
That is an ubiquitous equation. Hype is directly proportional to outrage. This is why any company doing competent PR handling needs to watch the hype on any new design, especially when it is a new design of a popular product.
Apple caused all of this, by ridiculously overstating the utility, elegance, and functionality of the iPhone, and by rolling the dice by redesigning the wheel. This isn't the first time they've screwed up with that one.
Then Jobs whined about it. He literally whined. He's done everything short of saying "he wants his iLife back."
I have no sympathy whatsoever for the man, nor his company. It's true, this isn't about any critical issue, but it's a severe issue, a design flaw worthy of a recall, IMHO, and also Jobs' opinion, as Apple is offering refunds.
But ultimately, this is about Jobs being a lousy spokesman when representing his company. If I was a shareholder, I'd be pissed. If I were on the board I'd want some assurances from him, or I'd ask for new leadership, before it turns into a real problem.
"The issue was that we had a 'signal bar' on the phone. We had forgotten that this was a magical device. The signal bar has now been replaced with a Mana bar. We expect the rest to work itself out."
Now everyone please drink the blue potions that we are distributing amongst you. Don't worry, it's just our own formulation of "magic Kool-Aid."
The Doctor: If I always told you the truth, I wouldn't have to ask you to trust me.
Trust is not a state of absolute certainty or God-like understanding. In the end, it's a process of establishing your own comfort. You have to decide which risks matter to you personally, and which assurances are sufficient.
Trying to guarantee that every component and piece of software in a computer is "benign" to everyone is a fruitless, endless process.
But I certainly appreciate the complications you bring up. In the final analysis, all trust must be conditional, and revocable.
It's a "proof of concept" for the patent office. You don't have to have a working prototype to demonstrate that you have a vision. If Molyneux is really on board, this is almost certainly vaporware.
I wonder if this can be installed in a "Big Ass Table?"
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa! Are we now the first and best example of international terrorism? Is that what you're saying? Look up the history of the IRA, dude. A campaign that had successful attacks over decades, and a much higher cost in lives and property. Then tell me we haven't gone a little, a smidge, crazy.
Patriotic landmarkism bugs me too. We should still be talking about the firemen, not the Trade Center. The lives are what matters, not the property, nor the notoriety of that property.
--
Toro
And if there's no way to stop it, we can end the conversation and go back to burning more organics? ;^)
It's funny, but in a way, the non-anthropogenic argument is a bit like someone saying "STFU." From a climate activist's viewpoint, it must seem almost nihilistic.
I'm neither a denier nor an activist. I believe a lot of people are upset with the fact that a minority group of scientists (relative to non-scientist humanity, not within the field) who are just laying groundwork in the study of global climate systems are proposing massive global solutions that will require suffering, perhaps wars, and possibly won't work.
People are frightened and they want to be very sure that it is as bad as the activists say it is, and those activists can't provide anything more than tree rings and ice cores to back up their claims beyond the past few hundred years of climate data collection from the modern scientific era.
The "hockey stick" is unconvincing, because while we're warming, there's no correlative temperature hockey stick proportional to the carbon. Never mind that the presumption is baloney, it's what people see.
The concern is emotional. It's is hard to get people to move in such drastic unity over a collection of data. They look around and say, "Nothing has changed. Why should I?"
Plus, there's a basic logical failure in a position of "activism," that precedes facts and cause. You have to be able to act, and that action has to be effective. If we (the Western world) stop burning fossils, is China going to? Will India? How about any country in Africa? If not, are we willing to invade and shut down any country that refuses to do so?
What are the tanks going to burn? ;^)
We are a proto-global society, built on oil. We simply don't have the political apparatus to extract from that, regardless of the validity of the research. Activists who ask for global change on climate are politically clueless.
While a global climate exists, a global government does not.
We will be well beyond peak oil before we can pull it together. The oil will be burned, because if we don't, it makes it cheaper for someone else, and they will consume it. The developing world wants our lifestyle. It's all going to burn, at the same rate, no matter how we shoot ourselves in the foot.
That's not nihilism, it's a political analysis of the situation. The best way to slow the process is to invent technologies that get more work with less carbon production. Capping carbon will not help, because someone else in the developing world will gladly use the "bad technologies" that produce more carbon and fill in the gaps with the cheaper fuels. It destabilizes the oil market, and drives up consumption in developing countries.
My alternative: Invent and refine better engines and ramp up alternatives. Fast. Put the money into research. Don't try to draw it from carbon caps, though. That's destabilizing. Here in America? Give it to the NSF and industry spend it. It's a good idea whether we're a cause of warming or not. Plus, if we succeed, we get rich, we get new industries, and we all get to live in peace (hopefully).
--
Toro
"Relativism" is a poor tool to determine performance. You have to set a benchmark somewhere, circumspect of measurements and objective conditions of course, but there is no way to run a school when everyone can argue with a grade, or claim that the system is out to get them.
At least not in cases where that isn't true.
That's what got us into this mess.
Secondly, if 76% of a given curriculum is truly vital to every day use, it needs to be taught over a longer period of time to reduce the density of the coursework, with the only exception being an honors track.
You pack as many kids in a school as they do these days, and design a curriculum that requires that much effectiveness from the teacher and that level of retention from the students, and what you have is a fundamental failure in design.
And then there's the simple fact that schools also exist to provide opportunities and new horizons to their students. They are places of experimentation.
The second thing that has gotten us here is that we have utterly forgotten that, and turned many of our institutions into credential farms. We expect people who don't have the temperament for it to look only to passing the next test, so some NCLB review board doesn't shut it down.
But what if the student is going on to become a world famous violinist? What is vital to that person? What does a B+ in orchestra actually mean?
--
Toro
The study shows that the theft risk of black was disproportionate to its popularity (Silver/grey was most popular in recent years).
The study also shows that there are darned few pink cars on the road, period. Which means that the margin of error here is huge. You get one pink car stolen, and it becomes wildly disproportionate to the number of pink cars on the road.
So he's right. Someone's being a little cutesy. The fact is there probably aren't enough pink cars on the road to tell if that "zero" is reliable.
But it is fun to claim that car thieves are avoiding pink, and perhaps choosing black because it's easier to lose the cops in a black car.
The study is good statistics, TFA is a cutesy blog piece. Her argument is fail. Unpopular cars are not unsellable, because it's trivial to repaint them. Additionally, a lot of car theft goes to chop shops, where they don't give a crap about the panel colors.
Her only valid point is about the black cars being easier to drive away with, and it isn't actually supported by the study, only suggested as a theory that could be tested.
--
Toro
Here's what this system looks like.
Imagine a bell curve. Imagine one standard deviation to the left and right.
I'm going to exaggerate that curve.
98% of the student population is "B", to the left and right of the mean.
1% is "troubled/near fail" and we call them "C" students.
1% is the honor roll, and we call them "A" students.
That's where they're going to end up. Pass/Fail, with a recommendation for extra help for the lower end, and pass with honors for the upper end.
In all likelihood, it will fall along statistical lines, which means "below average" students will have no way (down the curve) to tell that they are, in fact, now "in crisis" (no "D" warning) before they fall off and fail. The administration will respond by being even less likely to fail people (as even average students get caught off-guard), or instituting some kind of warning system, which will bring the "D" right back, under a different name.
The size of the groups will move more students into the "A" category, which will cheapen or obfuscate any distinctions of true excellence, and will either require the creation of an honor roll to emphasize truly talented students, or more likely, just have that fall even more into disuse as it lowers the self esteem of the huge "B" group and near-failing "C" group.
The Devil's in the details, but on its surface, that's an astoundingly bad idea.
--
Toro
In my district:
A 93 - 100 Excellent Achievement
B 85 - 92 Above Average Achievement
C 77 - 84 Average Achievement
D 69 - 76 Below Average Achievement, but passing
I hope they're not using those ranges for grading, because it would astound me that they could fail a student with a 76% average. I'm guessing they're using the usual 60/70/80/90% spread. Raising standards is always about empowering teachers to apply standards, and backstopping those efforts with actually supportive and coordinated administration, not rejiggering the nomenclature, which is like trying to solve the problem by pulling numbers out of a hat.
Narrowing the standard deviation, or in this case actually removing one, in my estimation, means teachers will have to rely more upon the numerical standards to justify harsher choices, and less upon judgment. It becomes about teachers having the power to grade on a curve taken from them, by wrecking it and probably turning "B-grade" into a huge mean group. All that happens, best case, is teachers start fudging grades to get away from an overly restrictive system. Then someone charges "racism," "sexism," or whatever and you've got a very serious problem.
Why whittle down the choices teachers have in giving feedback? Teachers need to be able to express their opinions about their students. The only credible reason is if the parents and teachers are being overwhelmed by the complexity of the system. 5 letters is not too complex. A person who cannot understand 5 letter grades is functionally a moron, and should not be in charge of any children at all.
It gets worse. Now, if you're a C student, you're nearly failing? How are the parents who grew up with and internalized the 10 point A/B/C/D system even going to be able to relate to that, or recognize that their mostly C's student has a very serious problem?
This is probably a political gimmick to look "tough" to the district. I suspect it will screw up everyone for a few years, make parents fail to act when they need to, and rob the teachers of yet another degree of freedom to express their frank evaluation of a student's ability and progress, which is the only actually valuable standard for grading students.
The cynic in me strongly suspects this trend of "fundamentally changing the rules around standards," for no apparent reason, is simply to keep what administrators see as over-zealous parents and teachers off-balance. In some cases they are over-zealous, but confusing the heck out of everyone doesn't help that. Clear communication does.
This is the opposite of clear.
--
Toro
You're probably right, but I'm guessing that removing the threat of criminal copyright prosecution may put the legitimate hackers on a sounder footing.
FTFA:
...but perhaps the existence of a stalker's online black book might finally persuade less security-minded Facebook users to get their arses in gear.
A fine sentiment, but you must be new here. As in planet earth. Born yesterday.
Cue "I wanna be famous." or even the alternate: NSFW song (first time I saw that one!).
Think of it this way, Facebook might keep a John Hinkley from ever happening again. Naw, I'd have to have been born yesterday to believe that. ^_^
--
Toro
LOL oF Kill somebody important oF
Left the summary laughing (thinking it was a play on Jobs' "magical" comment), went to RTFA. OMG they're really calling the product "Magic?"
Seriously, this is taking the Arthur C. Clarke quote a bit too far. Are we now saying that any sufficiently devolved consumer can't distinguish technology from magic?
What the hell? Are they releasing a "Sorcerer's Apprentice" edition?
I know plenty of Apple customers. Most have a firm grip on reality. This just seems mad. I hope it's a "code name."
--
Toro
I disagree. I have kids. Mainstream kids. They bring the neighborhood kids around, and I let them into the candy shop every now and then.
You break out Sonic the Hedgehog or Bonk, and they drop Super Mario Galaxy or Viva Pinata or Little Big World like a rotting, cold potato battery. It's the instant and natural responsiveness of the game that does it, I think.
Especially around age 9.
When I pull out those games, I begin to see actual, instantaneous enthusiasm. Enjoyment. No furrowed brow and frustration with the controls like with any comparable modern game. It isn't just that this tack has ruined gaming for US. It's ruining it for everyone but a small segment of the market, and publishers are undercutting their future bottom line, to satisfy (but often just plain bilk) an increasingly picky, and attenuating, "hardcore" gamer segment, some of whom have turned to piracy in response (which is just more attenuation from a business perspective).
At this rate, the new generation of gamers, and by extension any future game writers/designers, finds something else to do. Gimmicks that get people to pay more money, for less value, don't last. In the long run, the hobby needs enthusiasts like US. It dies without new blood. Hollywood was darned smart to write "There's No Business Like Show Business." What does gaming have akin to that sort of inspiring athem?
Remember, it's the "geeks," US, that keep bringing up "Mario" as the only lasting anthem for gaming I know of.
So no, man, not for a second do I believe that it is just US. I do believe there's a profit-taking model progressing, that IMO is unsustainable. It feels eerily like evolution or at least like something we can't control.
And while my cynical mind can agree with you on that much, my spirit won't roll, and I hope to kindle something in anyone over 25, and kids of all ages, who actually enjoy this hobby.
--
Toro
I have, I could list them. Nothing I play right now is what I would call a AAA title.
My favorites:
Weird Worlds, distributed by Shrapnel Games. Basic, top down Star Control IIish space combat and exploration game. $24.95
Cave Story (Doukutsu Monogatari). Free.
Anything over at Spiderweb games. Gog.com hooked me up with a strange little game called "Evil Genius" for $9.99. You have to hack the widescreen in, but it's a surprising lot of fun.
There are so many options, and I would dearly like to see AAA publishers die so they would have more room to flourish.
--
Toro
This is just great news, and has put a bounce in my step. I wonder how this administrative ruling will affect things like Nintendo's efforts to stop people running third party stuff on the Wii? Not pirated stuff, third party stuff. My daughter's current favorite Wii game is "My Little Ball."
--
Toro
Yup. They killed a thriving industry, now they're looking to squeeze blood from the stone they made out of that vibrant, resilient hobby. Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze.
It's gruff, but that's the way I see it. The faster these arrogant publishers go out of business, the quicker we can start over. When they've gone, nothing of value will have been lost.
This all started with floppy disks and baggies. We don't need Hollywood-style production values to play and enjoy, and we can't abide the cost of corresponding Hollywood-style accounting and mismanagement that goes with it. I don't see the value of adding all that production cost to what amounts to the same crappy FPS, or a makeover on "The Sims."
Let it die already, fast, the sooner we can all go back to enjoying weird little games in baggies, and maybe find something interesting to play as a result.
--
Toro
OMG. Here is confirmable data, streaming in newsfeeds from all over the world, that the LHC is actually involved in a time travel paradox with a Higgs boson it can never create. Eventually the entire site will be nuked from orbit by the Higgs boson, because it's the only way to be sure.
--
Toro
No! That's exactly what the Mayans would have us believe, from their time traveling relative dimension pocket near the Andromeda galaxy. The only way to prevent the catastrophic end of the B'ak'tun is to RUN the Large Hadron Collider and create a Higgs Boson that will counteract all the neutrino emissions from the sun.
For the love of god, we must run the LHC or we may yet pass through the CGI event horizon, our imaginations running wild, causing the ruination of all the good creatures and the ultimate victory of the Woodland Critters!
(Oof. Perhaps I shouldn't have watched the John Cusack 2012 movie and South Park back to back on Netflix last night?)
--
Toro
I don't like the slant of the last part of your post.
--
Toro
Sounds like Breshnev.
--
Toro
That qualification is probably on the advice of counsel, though. If he makes an unqualified apology, he is throwing his company to the wolves. :^/
--
Toro
That is an ubiquitous equation. Hype is directly proportional to outrage. This is why any company doing competent PR handling needs to watch the hype on any new design, especially when it is a new design of a popular product.
Apple caused all of this, by ridiculously overstating the utility, elegance, and functionality of the iPhone, and by rolling the dice by redesigning the wheel. This isn't the first time they've screwed up with that one.
Then Jobs whined about it. He literally whined. He's done everything short of saying "he wants his iLife back."
I have no sympathy whatsoever for the man, nor his company. It's true, this isn't about any critical issue, but it's a severe issue, a design flaw worthy of a recall, IMHO, and also Jobs' opinion, as Apple is offering refunds.
But ultimately, this is about Jobs being a lousy spokesman when representing his company. If I was a shareholder, I'd be pissed. If I were on the board I'd want some assurances from him, or I'd ask for new leadership, before it turns into a real problem.
--
Toro
It's a sig delimeter and my sig. Force of habit really.
After reading an article like that, and seeing such a video, I have this incredible desire to "kill all the phonies."
Anyone want to give me a ride to NYC?
--
Toro
(Jesus Hopping Christ on a POGO STICK)
"The issue was that we had a 'signal bar' on the phone. We had forgotten that this was a magical device. The signal bar has now been replaced with a Mana bar. We expect the rest to work itself out."
Now everyone please drink the blue potions that we are distributing amongst you. Don't worry, it's just our own formulation of "magic Kool-Aid."
Yup. I can see that.
--
Toro
Reminds me of a line in Doctor Who's last season:
Amy: You don't always tell me the truth.
The Doctor: If I always told you the truth, I wouldn't have to ask you to trust me.
Trust is not a state of absolute certainty or God-like understanding. In the end, it's a process of establishing your own comfort. You have to decide which risks matter to you personally, and which assurances are sufficient.
Trying to guarantee that every component and piece of software in a computer is "benign" to everyone is a fruitless, endless process.
But I certainly appreciate the complications you bring up. In the final analysis, all trust must be conditional, and revocable.
--
Toro
It's a "proof of concept" for the patent office. You don't have to have a working prototype to demonstrate that you have a vision. If Molyneux is really on board, this is almost certainly vaporware.
I wonder if this can be installed in a "Big Ass Table?"
--
Toro
(*eye roll*)
If it was BP instead of NASA, you could be sure there would be a tarball. ;^)
I'm shocked, ,shocked that there's no DEB for Ubuntu, and I'm not even sure I'm using the old Casablanca joke there.
I want my Linux version.
--
Toro