Ads? No, it doesn't have anything to do with ads. Advertising on Hulu is little more than a shell game for the networks (dba Hulu).
Consider the history of the music industry on the Internet. The technology for purchasing music online was entirely in place by 1995 when people started to use Netscape Navigator in large numbers. Napster didn't come into play until 1999, iTunes in 2001.
The general (and correct) opinion is that the music industry wasted several years of opportunity to establish themselves as the major purveyor of online music content on their own terms. When Napster came around people got used to trading music for free, and with iTunes the industry accidentally ceded major amounts of mindshare and control to Apple. I've seen interviews explaining that the reason for the wasted opportunity was that they had no clue what to do, even who they should work with.
The TV studios today are not nearly as clueless as the music industry was in 1995, and they are determined not to repeat the same mistakes. They are aware that they have an opportunity to dictate terms and lengthen the survival of their traditional broadcast delivery model if they play things right.
Enter Hulu -- Hulu is not a for-profit corporation in reality. Hulu is a (perhaps illegal) collusion among NBC, FOX, and ABC (via their respective owners) to provide a "just right" level of service via the Internet -- enough that people are not (as) tempted by BitTorrent/iTunes, but not enough to make for a better experience than that available on a TV.
That's the reason for all the jacking around with availability schedules and the reason Hulu will never allow itself to be repackaged into a convenient format. The inconvenience is the entire purpose of the service.
Exactly, the Solarians apply much better than the Matrix, as they were a society where everyone interacted strictly through electronic means (and this stuff was written in 1957).
More than real? I'm not sure. Keep in mind that reality is already "more than real", in that there's a lot of information we don't perceive with our senses, or (more importantly) ignore with our brains. We will always be encumbered to some extent by those limitations -- the "reality" we imagine that we live in is mostly defined by those limitations.
TFA makes an interesting point -- that if video games are to be art, they need to engage us on more than one level. The art style in Oblivion, to me, was way too saturated, going beyond "vivid" into a nearly cartoonish world.
I've attempted to make decent landscape photos, and it's always tempting to amp up the saturation like that. It's hard to make a photo look much more interesting than whatever else the viewer could be looking at (like their watch, in the case of my photos). But when we do that, beyond some point I'm not sure that we're making anything "more real" so much as trading off subtleties of meaning for instant gratification. To get to "more real" we need to expand ourselves, not merely our technology.
The Matrix? Seriously? With a great question like "is virtual companionship good for our race going forward" you turn to the Matrix? Not Asimov's Solarians?
Kids these days. Must be time to fire up my lawn-clearing robot.
Your understanding seems off -- the picture we're discussing is a photograph in every sense. "Trick of perspective" is an odd way to speak of it, since the perspective is simply that as visible from the ground, where the photo was taken.
It's been almost a law of Internet content for a while. If you charge for content and lock it down, you can make some money here and there, but almost all the time you'll make more overall if you don't charge, attract way, way more readers, and sell ads. Of course, making "more" doesn't mean you'll be making "much", but so it goes.
I'm not sure you're looking at this the right way. The abstract does not suppose that this phenomenon results from a quantum physics effect, though I don't know if the research does. Rather, the abstract and the linked article are applying the mathematical models behind quantum theory to problems in cognition. The brain could very well compute these results using classical physics.
base-2 and base-3 computers have exactly the same capabilities so there is no relevance to AI. Also, base-10 is lame; humans went to it naturally because we are not very smart.
Let's all give up on TV for free. It's been a myth for ages anyway, with the costs either buried on your (mysteriously expensive) cable bill or in your purchase of mountains of stuff you don't need (and if you believe you're invulnerable to advertising you are the perfect mark).
Consumers have fought for years to be able to choose to pay for only the cable channels they want. Let's just go one better and pay for the specific shows we want.
Clearly culture is going to cost us something; no reason to fight that. Let's just try to get an itemized invoice.
Well, Windows 95 did have preemptive multitasking, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "full". At the time many users were still using 16-bit apps or had hardware that wasn't fully supported. Windows 95 was also poorly implemented overall, so it's not like it really multitasked "as well".
Also, Windows 95 DID have protected memory, though like the multitasking its potential was limited by poor implementation and backwards-compatibility concerns.
Heck, as long as you're talking about the teaching in "most grade schools", I remember not only understanding the explanation the first time, but understanding what aspects of the teacher's explanation were inaccurate and often even how the explanation could be clarified so that the other students could grasp it properly.
It goes without saying that I learned how to keep my mouth shut without even being presented with an explanation.
Back here in the real world, it's completely impossible to allocate medical care based on some kind of folk-morality assignment of "responsibility". Can you imagine a system where I would have to hire a lawyer and go through due process to determine whether any disease was my "fault"?
Besides, also in the real world, most medical spending is not the consequence of some moral failing on the part of the patient.
As oft-repeated as this tripe is, no, it's not a relevant question, or a very good one.
The macroeconomic rationale for the stimulus has little to do with what, precisely, the money is spent on. The essential idea is to generate demand for goods and services so that the production machinery does not fall apart.
As long as the money is spent (not saved) the goal is met, so it's rational to spend it on a bunch of stuff that would be nice to have. Hence it comes out as a sort of goody bag.
Although some spending can have a better stimulus effect, there seems to be an ongoing "why is this STIMULUS?" knee-jerk reaction going around. This particular case is an example of good stimulus, as it will employ specialists working in the US.
something like NPR in the US. It's not very popular because it's not very sensational
NPR is very popular; the twin news shows Morning Edition and All Things Considered make up the "elephant in the room" of radio news, with millions of people listening to each while assuming that nobody else does.
No, it's so dangerous that it actually destroys the entire universe. Therefore, the only universes left are the ones where the LHC did not work, such as this one.
I don't like it either. You just know some poor soul is going to have bad RAM, get some "Illegal Operation" errors, and start keeping the MS Office disk by his PC so he can uninstall Excel and install Word whenever he needs to write a letter.
Slashdot Mirror
Ads? No, it doesn't have anything to do with ads. Advertising on Hulu is little more than a shell game for the networks (dba Hulu).
Consider the history of the music industry on the Internet. The technology for purchasing music online was entirely in place by 1995 when people started to use Netscape Navigator in large numbers. Napster didn't come into play until 1999, iTunes in 2001.
The general (and correct) opinion is that the music industry wasted several years of opportunity to establish themselves as the major purveyor of online music content on their own terms. When Napster came around people got used to trading music for free, and with iTunes the industry accidentally ceded major amounts of mindshare and control to Apple. I've seen interviews explaining that the reason for the wasted opportunity was that they had no clue what to do, even who they should work with.
The TV studios today are not nearly as clueless as the music industry was in 1995, and they are determined not to repeat the same mistakes. They are aware that they have an opportunity to dictate terms and lengthen the survival of their traditional broadcast delivery model if they play things right.
Enter Hulu -- Hulu is not a for-profit corporation in reality. Hulu is a (perhaps illegal) collusion among NBC, FOX, and ABC (via their respective owners) to provide a "just right" level of service via the Internet -- enough that people are not (as) tempted by BitTorrent/iTunes, but not enough to make for a better experience than that available on a TV.
That's the reason for all the jacking around with availability schedules and the reason Hulu will never allow itself to be repackaged into a convenient format. The inconvenience is the entire purpose of the service.
Exactly, the Solarians apply much better than the Matrix, as they were a society where everyone interacted strictly through electronic means (and this stuff was written in 1957).
More than real? I'm not sure. Keep in mind that reality is already "more than real", in that there's a lot of information we don't perceive with our senses, or (more importantly) ignore with our brains. We will always be encumbered to some extent by those limitations -- the "reality" we imagine that we live in is mostly defined by those limitations.
TFA makes an interesting point -- that if video games are to be art, they need to engage us on more than one level. The art style in Oblivion, to me, was way too saturated, going beyond "vivid" into a nearly cartoonish world.
I've attempted to make decent landscape photos, and it's always tempting to amp up the saturation like that. It's hard to make a photo look much more interesting than whatever else the viewer could be looking at (like their watch, in the case of my photos). But when we do that, beyond some point I'm not sure that we're making anything "more real" so much as trading off subtleties of meaning for instant gratification. To get to "more real" we need to expand ourselves, not merely our technology.
The Matrix? Seriously? With a great question like "is virtual companionship good for our race going forward" you turn to the Matrix? Not Asimov's Solarians?
Kids these days. Must be time to fire up my lawn-clearing robot.
I think you need to spend more time staring at the Sun. Big yellow orb? Check.
Your understanding seems off -- the picture we're discussing is a photograph in every sense. "Trick of perspective" is an odd way to speak of it, since the perspective is simply that as visible from the ground, where the photo was taken.
That's OK. Go is thousands of years old and they keep changing the komi.
Exactly -- forget ebay hawkers, allegedly legitimate big corporations use nonsense statements like "100% Natural" all the time.
Can't we take this back a bit further? Surely horses were bred to fit under a person.
Same as ever -- put the card in a cheap plastic sleeve, then make the user promise not to open it.
It's been almost a law of Internet content for a while. If you charge for content and lock it down, you can make some money here and there, but almost all the time you'll make more overall if you don't charge, attract way, way more readers, and sell ads. Of course, making "more" doesn't mean you'll be making "much", but so it goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
In any case, all base-3 arithmetic can be emulated with base-2 arithmetic.
What? It's not as if the American public has never been exposed to the correct population of China. Your argument makes no sense to me.
I'm not sure you're looking at this the right way. The abstract does not suppose that this phenomenon results from a quantum physics effect, though I don't know if the research does. Rather, the abstract and the linked article are applying the mathematical models behind quantum theory to problems in cognition. The brain could very well compute these results using classical physics.
base-2 and base-3 computers have exactly the same capabilities so there is no relevance to AI. Also, base-10 is lame; humans went to it naturally because we are not very smart.
Editing/removing posts is lame. Don't be in such a hurry.
"1" please.
Let's all give up on TV for free. It's been a myth for ages anyway, with the costs either buried on your (mysteriously expensive) cable bill or in your purchase of mountains of stuff you don't need (and if you believe you're invulnerable to advertising you are the perfect mark).
Consumers have fought for years to be able to choose to pay for only the cable channels they want. Let's just go one better and pay for the specific shows we want.
Clearly culture is going to cost us something; no reason to fight that. Let's just try to get an itemized invoice.
I like to run a 64-bit version of Python and make a really big list. Or, you can run Java programs (for a while) with GC disabled.
Well, Windows 95 did have preemptive multitasking, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "full". At the time many users were still using 16-bit apps or had hardware that wasn't fully supported. Windows 95 was also poorly implemented overall, so it's not like it really multitasked "as well".
Also, Windows 95 DID have protected memory, though like the multitasking its potential was limited by poor implementation and backwards-compatibility concerns.
Heck, as long as you're talking about the teaching in "most grade schools", I remember not only understanding the explanation the first time, but understanding what aspects of the teacher's explanation were inaccurate and often even how the explanation could be clarified so that the other students could grasp it properly.
It goes without saying that I learned how to keep my mouth shut without even being presented with an explanation.
Back here in the real world, it's completely impossible to allocate medical care based on some kind of folk-morality assignment of "responsibility". Can you imagine a system where I would have to hire a lawyer and go through due process to determine whether any disease was my "fault"?
Besides, also in the real world, most medical spending is not the consequence of some moral failing on the part of the patient.
As oft-repeated as this tripe is, no, it's not a relevant question, or a very good one.
The macroeconomic rationale for the stimulus has little to do with what, precisely, the money is spent on. The essential idea is to generate demand for goods and services so that the production machinery does not fall apart.
As long as the money is spent (not saved) the goal is met, so it's rational to spend it on a bunch of stuff that would be nice to have. Hence it comes out as a sort of goody bag.
Although some spending can have a better stimulus effect, there seems to be an ongoing "why is this STIMULUS?" knee-jerk reaction going around. This particular case is an example of good stimulus, as it will employ specialists working in the US.
something like NPR in the US. It's not very popular because it's not very sensational
NPR is very popular; the twin news shows Morning Edition and All Things Considered make up the "elephant in the room" of radio news, with millions of people listening to each while assuming that nobody else does.
Well, see, the game houses are afraid that if they charge less for a game, people will assume it's cheap because it's crap and then won't buy it.
Just like the original Katamari Damacy release in the US -- they charged a bit less for it, so everyone figured it was worthless and nobody bought it.
Oh, wait...
No, it's so dangerous that it actually destroys the entire universe. Therefore, the only universes left are the ones where the LHC did not work, such as this one.
I don't like it either. You just know some poor soul is going to have bad RAM, get some "Illegal Operation" errors, and start keeping the MS Office disk by his PC so he can uninstall Excel and install Word whenever he needs to write a letter.