In addition, you should never access young data and pornographic data in the same session, as the young impressionable data may get corrupted by the pornographic data if they exist in RAM at the same time.
indeed, young pornographic data is disturbing. Fortunately there is a legal social firewall of 18.
The simple reality is that the PS3 is priced well outside what most people are willing to pay for a game system. When the price comes down, sales will improve.
The thing is too expensive, period.
Part of that is the rapid inflation of the US dollar. It's price is reasonable to most other markets thus you see the 360 slowing down in those markets as the Ps3 eats the 360's lunch but in the Us the 40% value loss of the US dollar hedged it so that the PS3 is beyond a "reasonable" price. If you compare the price of a PS2 at launch to a Ps3 at launch in any other area you find close to parity. Off by about 5-10%. Int he US it is a difference of about 30.
I'm aware, I think he should have qualified that statement to be pc hardware. I am now using a MS mouse and keyboard to type this but all of my friends 360's have broken. Sample size: 12 failure rate out of this sample: 100%
Likely locality of failure correlation. There might be some monster bump between here and the main MS warehouse, but the other electronics manufacturers don't have a similiar problem.
Latest/. discussion has been focused entirely on hardware numbers. Lately it has been Wii > 360 > PS3.
If you look internationally it's Wii > Ps3 > 360 by a slight margin for the last 4 months now. The 360 is doing really well in America but far worse in other markets.
People bought Apple machines because they were a high quality (that famous Woz engineering).
Remember the power PC? There is a market for cheap Apple clones, only Apple does not want to expand their market in that way because it may run away from them like the market did for IBM. Many people like how the Apple OS's were laid out but wanted it on cheaper hardware. Unbeknown to these people that cheap hardware drives a fair portion of the issues that Windows PC's have. Unlike Linux, OS-X/Mac OS Aren't uniformly technically savy.
Microsoft's skill, as an organization, is creating and defining the market. And frequently, destroying the market to kneecap a competitor. Aside from the initial Bill Gates break with DOS, Microsoft hasn't been that "lucky" in a business sense. A lot of people, especially on Slashdot, look at Microsoft and their frequently shoddy products, and go "How did Microsoft get here? It must've been luck!". Never mind that Microsoft isn't the only one that releases shoddy products and engages in unfair business practices (IBM, today's darling, used to be yesterday's nemesis). What Microsoft has today that most companies don't have is tens of billions of dollars of cash reserves. Which means they can survive a mistake or two that might otherwise kill a competitor (like Borland).
I am certain they would still have been the premier business suite with or without the lucky happenstance of IBM's short sightedness and a lucky appointment with IBM. However their total market dominance in OS's has more to do with that lucky happenstance. I'm am not a stereo typical \.er. I work in a predominantly windows shop, I like and operate windows at home and can't imagine any other home platform(actually according to the web states on visitors I may be typical). But their rise was marked by that one key chance occurrence of being selected the OS for IBM's PC's.
If you look at their success it seems mostly tied in with their office suite. Excel, Word, Outlook etc.. Their other ventures tend to come in #2 or #3 (xbox, 360, MSN, IIS, Server, windows ce). It seems to be 50/50 because of the breadth of their office related software.
I think they are influential but not key to the spread of computing. They pushed it in certain directions but did not dictate those directions. Like Blizzard they made their money off of taking other peoples ideas and adding polish and marketing to it.
But you have to admit, Microsoft helped bring computing to the masses. If there had been no Microsoft, the internet would be what USENET was back in the day: something used by geeks and scientists and not much else. In that sense, I think he's right.
I wouldn't credit Microsoft, I'd credit IBM and their incredible lack of foresight. It was cheap computing that made PC's ubiquitous. If for some reason Apple had thought of cheap commodity hardware first we'd all be complaining about a apple hegemony and how much we fear and hate the evil apple empire. We'd bemoan the cruel and restrictive titan etc... MS was lucky to get where they are. I have no doubt MS would have been successful due to its shrewd business practices, ruthless direction etc.. but it's total dominance is more about luck then talent or skill.
I wonder why Knight isn't setting up to sue VH1 for "stealing" "his" content and rebroadcasting it.
It might be difficulty finding a lawyer. A lawyer wanting a % may be hesitant when they know they will be facing a well funded corporation. The end result is not guaranteed nore is the odds of winning known. So he may waste a 100+ billable hours doing % case and end up losing. IANAL but it would be my guess as to why. If he did find a lawyer and if he wins then dozen of lawyers will spring up in each city to offer their services for cases like this. We just need a win first.
A land/property tax is the worst kind of tax. What you've just suggested is eliminating all private property ownership, instead leasing your property from the government.
Considering every place in the western world has some form of property tax and think your objection is extremely late.
Based on the summary, not quite the same thing. I have a Katadyn Pocket filter which is generally regarded as one of the BEST consumer water filter systems (I've been told that it is basically a scaled down version of what the UN uses for refugee missions). It is rugged, not too heavy (though much lighter ones exists), pumps about 1 liter per minute, and a single filter cartridge is good for 50,000 liters.
Viruses become a concern when you know for sure other human beings are int he water with you and are likely in poor health and defecating into the water. Hep A, Hep B, Hep c all become concerns and are fairly common ailments. A chemical treatment can likely deal with that but in a emergency with a heterogeneous user base it might be better over all to have a single device do it all. If you hand out boxes with a filter bottle and a bottle of drops odds are among 1000 people a fair number will use it wrong. A simpler 1 piece device would be a better idea. Perhaps that is the market for this device, water filtration for people who can't follow or read instructions.
Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas.
Perhaps mass production will eventually reduce the cost. Perhaps the gov will invest in a large quantity to ship as needed. Empty water bottles are easier to shit then a equivalent volume of water. Even if they were full to start with it means your not just shipping X volume of water but also the means to purify Y volume more.
The still suits were also recirculation devices so very warm areas like the groin or armpits had the heat recirculated to extremities to cool. It's likely the suit itself had a low insulation value so it would conduct heat away. Given the restriction to evaporation as well it would lead to higher over all temperatures, but it would even out the heat that is there. I assumed they would wear white fabric over top similar to what current desert dwellers do. They might have had some secondary mechanical cooling mechanism, like some sort of advanced unknown mechanism to convert heat to something else like electricity as well. who knows they don't really exist.
I suppose I may have read it wrong. The quotes lead to some ambiguity on what he meant but now that you mention it it's likely he was saying what you suggested.
Actually it is 'evolution'. Because everytime an obstacle comes up, string theory is changed in another untestable manner to accomadate an uncomfortable reality that it is not really science.
Right so Newtons theory of gravity was perfectly good enough and Copernicus's theories were just fine as well. No need to revise for data./sarcasm
How on earth did this get +2 interesting. please mod it '-1 author should never breed'.
Evolution like all scientific theories are either rejected or modified over time. If there is enough data that contravenes the theory then the theory is rejected. If a little data points to an error in the original idea then it's modified. Evolution has never been rejected because the core idea is right but things like the mechanism and some subtitles must be changed as data came in.
The conversely the arguments against string theory never needs revision because the formula can accommodate almost every possible observation.
He may have made Diablo II, but he, astoundingly, doesn`t GET Diablo II. Diablo II offered the same single-player experiecne online, for sure - but that's if you played alone and...well..why play online, then? No, what made Diablo II great was that you could hop into a game and combine forces with other players to dramatically increase your power, much more than even the same two players alone but combined would achieve. Not so with a tiered service. Why would a paying customer want to play with a gimped free player when he could play with other fully-powered paying customers? It makes about as much sense as a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk living on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks.
It scaled in a good way with more players. You didn't just gang buster your way through if you had more then 1 person but if you had 5-8 people who were decently equipped and knew their role it made life easier. It only really matters in nightmare or hell difficulties. On normal any old group would wade through unscathed.
A big part of it however was showing off your gear. On a illegitimate server, you knew all the equipment was likely hacked. Thus having a party decked out in perfect gear wasn't interesting. But on the legitimate server you could brag about the storm shield you had (until the botting made it less unique). So their shooting for that, to addict people and then have people pay to stroke their vanity. Possibly they may make items that unlock. So you got the +5 storm shield of evisceration. If you pay $1.50, it adds an extra +1. HArd to say if what ever they have planned will work.
Storyline is not a masterpiece as Halo fanboys make it out to be. Halo fans tend to reply that you need to read the novels to appreciate the whole Halo universe, but that stuff needs to be in the game. Graphics are not groundbreaking.
I enjoyed cliches so I bought some of the novels. They're dreck. gr. 10 reading level, simple exposition, cardboard characters. basically typical of the cheap pulp sci-fi fare. It's a well made games and a sort of interesting rehash of old storyline so I'd play it and like it but indeed it's not some seminal masterpiece of story line.
Isn't that like having a multi-million dollar campaign to let everyone know the sky is blue?
You know the Apple switcher ads? My thoughts on them are that they aren't to entice people to come to apple as they are so ridiculously silly as anyone who would switch would likely return the box because it didn't come with windows. The ads however comically play to What Apples user base already thinks. It re-enforces brand value in the people who already reside in the apple camp. So its not a ad campaign seeking new customers but re-enforcing value in current customers.
Ditto with the Halo 3 ad campaign. It re-enforces the value of peoples purchase. Saying "hey you bought a winner."
The coolest part of the project is a tool called Writeprint, which 'automatically extracts thousands of multilingual, structural, and semantic features to determine who is creating "anonymous" content' with an accuracy of 95%, according to the release."
So when they get it wrong, and the police storm my front door instead of my neighbors, will it still be "cool"?
Look, most people who want to code games are gamers. They're young, have little motivation to learn hard topics (by hard I mean solid, such as advanced math and sciences, not necessarily difficult). Heck, many have little motivation to do anything but play games.
The correlation you implied was that gamers are lazy. Not that lazy people game but that gamers want to code games and they are lazy. My rebuttal was that the entire graduating class and 2 entire generation are gamers so it's difficult to say we're all lazy.
Sounds nice, but how do you know that will continue to be the case?
The fact is, people in cheaper countries don't have to be as good to outcompete us. Their housing is cheaper, their food is cheaper, their healthcare is cheaper. And it's not like they're unintelligent people, either.
Most other jobs have better geographical insulation from foreign competition. (I can think of exceptions, such as manufacturing - and look what happened to US manufacturing). Why not favor those positions
On the other hand you need good managers to pull it off. Foreign competition has to deal with not only vague project specs but vague project specs in a language they are barely literate in. My cousin works at a tech firm in Ghoung Zhou. Their one and only attempt at picking up a outsourcing contract was a huge debacle for both sides as the manager put in charge is yammering idiots and the design specs seemed to change at random and often.
Maybe it's "biz speak". To employers, "shortage" really means "we weren't inundated with hundreds of resumes for 1 position".
Shortage means "lacking 5-10 year professional willing to work for peanuts".
I personally struggled for several years before finding my current decent job. I started off at a small post boom web firm whose management was as competent as FEMA, worked support for a few years at a larger company until I finally landed a decent started at a non-profit. I kep getting interviews and being told it was close but they went with the 5 year industry veteran. I'm thinking the pool of 5 year veterans has dried up because for the last 5 years most tech companies stopped hiring entry level positions so the attrition wiped out any available veterans.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition, you should never access young data and pornographic data in the same session, as the young impressionable data may get corrupted by the pornographic data if they exist in RAM at the same time.
indeed, young pornographic data is disturbing. Fortunately there is a legal social firewall of 18.
The simple reality is that the PS3 is priced well outside what most people are willing to pay for a game system. When the price comes down, sales will improve.
The thing is too expensive, period.
Part of that is the rapid inflation of the US dollar. It's price is reasonable to most other markets thus you see the 360 slowing down in those markets as the Ps3 eats the 360's lunch but in the Us the 40% value loss of the US dollar hedged it so that the PS3 is beyond a "reasonable" price. If you compare the price of a PS2 at launch to a Ps3 at launch in any other area you find close to parity. Off by about 5-10%. Int he US it is a difference of about 30.
Except PS3 back-compat has gone straight to hell with the new 80GB PS3's that use emulation instead of embedded PS2 hardware...
IT went from 99% to 80%. hardly going to hell. 360's still at 30%-40%.
I'm aware, I think he should have qualified that statement to be pc hardware. I am now using a MS mouse and keyboard to type this but all of my friends 360's have broken.
Sample size: 12
failure rate out of this sample: 100%
Likely locality of failure correlation. There might be some monster bump between here and the main MS warehouse, but the other electronics manufacturers don't have a similiar problem.
Latest /. discussion has been focused entirely on hardware numbers. Lately it has been Wii > 360 > PS3.
If you look internationally it's Wii > Ps3 > 360 by a slight margin for the last 4 months now. The 360 is doing really well in America but far worse in other markets.
People bought Apple machines because they were a high quality (that famous Woz engineering).
Remember the power PC? There is a market for cheap Apple clones, only Apple does not want to expand their market in that way because it may run away from them like the market did for IBM. Many people like how the Apple OS's were laid out but wanted it on cheaper hardware. Unbeknown to these people that cheap hardware drives a fair portion of the issues that Windows PC's have. Unlike Linux, OS-X/Mac OS Aren't uniformly technically savy.
Really?
Microsoft's skill, as an organization, is creating and defining the market. And frequently, destroying the market to kneecap a competitor. Aside from the initial Bill Gates break with DOS, Microsoft hasn't been that "lucky" in a business sense. A lot of people, especially on Slashdot, look at Microsoft and their frequently shoddy products, and go "How did Microsoft get here? It must've been luck!". Never mind that Microsoft isn't the only one that releases shoddy products and engages in unfair business practices (IBM, today's darling, used to be yesterday's nemesis). What Microsoft has today that most companies don't have is tens of billions of dollars of cash reserves. Which means they can survive a mistake or two that might otherwise kill a competitor (like Borland).
I am certain they would still have been the premier business suite with or without the lucky happenstance of IBM's short sightedness and a lucky appointment with IBM. However their total market dominance in OS's has more to do with that lucky happenstance. I'm am not a stereo typical \.er. I work in a predominantly windows shop, I like and operate windows at home and can't imagine any other home platform(actually according to the web states on visitors I may be typical). But their rise was marked by that one key chance occurrence of being selected the OS for IBM's PC's.
If you look at their success it seems mostly tied in with their office suite. Excel, Word, Outlook etc.. Their other ventures tend to come in #2 or #3 (xbox, 360, MSN, IIS, Server, windows ce). It seems to be 50/50 because of the breadth of their office related software.
I think they are influential but not key to the spread of computing. They pushed it in certain directions but did not dictate those directions. Like Blizzard they made their money off of taking other peoples ideas and adding polish and marketing to it.
But you have to admit, Microsoft helped bring computing to the masses. If there had been no Microsoft, the internet would be what USENET was back in the day: something used by geeks and scientists and not much else. In that sense, I think he's right.
I wouldn't credit Microsoft, I'd credit IBM and their incredible lack of foresight. It was cheap computing that made PC's ubiquitous. If for some reason Apple had thought of cheap commodity hardware first we'd all be complaining about a apple hegemony and how much we fear and hate the evil apple empire. We'd bemoan the cruel and restrictive titan etc... MS was lucky to get where they are. I have no doubt MS would have been successful due to its shrewd business practices, ruthless direction etc.. but it's total dominance is more about luck then talent or skill.
I wonder why Knight isn't setting up to sue VH1 for "stealing" "his" content and rebroadcasting it.
It might be difficulty finding a lawyer. A lawyer wanting a % may be hesitant when they know they will be facing a well funded corporation. The end result is not guaranteed nore is the odds of winning known. So he may waste a 100+ billable hours doing % case and end up losing. IANAL but it would be my guess as to why. If he did find a lawyer and if he wins then dozen of lawyers will spring up in each city to offer their services for cases like this. We just need a win first.
A land/property tax is the worst kind of tax. What you've just suggested is eliminating all private property ownership, instead leasing your property from the government.
Considering every place in the western world has some form of property tax and think your objection is extremely late.
Based on the summary, not quite the same thing. I have a Katadyn Pocket filter which is generally regarded as one of the BEST consumer water filter systems (I've been told that it is basically a scaled down version of what the UN uses for refugee missions). It is rugged, not too heavy (though much lighter ones exists), pumps about 1 liter per minute, and a single filter cartridge is good for 50,000 liters.
Viruses become a concern when you know for sure other human beings are int he water with you and are likely in poor health and defecating into the water. Hep A, Hep B, Hep c all become concerns and are fairly common ailments. A chemical treatment can likely deal with that but in a emergency with a heterogeneous user base it might be better over all to have a single device do it all. If you hand out boxes with a filter bottle and a bottle of drops odds are among 1000 people a fair number will use it wrong. A simpler 1 piece device would be a better idea. Perhaps that is the market for this device, water filtration for people who can't follow or read instructions.
Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas.
Perhaps mass production will eventually reduce the cost. Perhaps the gov will invest in a large quantity to ship as needed. Empty water bottles are easier to shit then a equivalent volume of water. Even if they were full to start with it means your not just shipping X volume of water but also the means to purify Y volume more.
The still suits were also recirculation devices so very warm areas like the groin or armpits had the heat recirculated to extremities to cool. It's likely the suit itself had a low insulation value so it would conduct heat away. Given the restriction to evaporation as well it would lead to higher over all temperatures, but it would even out the heat that is there. I assumed they would wear white fabric over top similar to what current desert dwellers do. They might have had some secondary mechanical cooling mechanism, like some sort of advanced unknown mechanism to convert heat to something else like electricity as well. who knows they don't really exist.
I was too hasty. I'm sort of a science zealot. which is bad if I don't read things right.
I suppose I may have read it wrong. The quotes lead to some ambiguity on what he meant but now that you mention it it's likely he was saying what you suggested.
When any Big Bang type of theory is mentioned, I sometimes wonder why alternative theories, like the Electric Universe, are never mentioned,/i>
Because that particular theory is obviously wrong.
Actually it is 'evolution'. Because everytime an obstacle comes up, string theory is changed in another untestable manner to accomadate an uncomfortable reality that it is not really science.
/sarcasm
Right so Newtons theory of gravity was perfectly good enough and Copernicus's theories were just fine as well. No need to revise for data.
How on earth did this get +2 interesting. please mod it '-1 author should never breed'.
Evolution like all scientific theories are either rejected or modified over time. If there is enough data that contravenes the theory then the theory is rejected. If a little data points to an error in the original idea then it's modified. Evolution has never been rejected because the core idea is right but things like the mechanism and some subtitles must be changed as data came in.
The conversely the arguments against string theory never needs revision because the formula can accommodate almost every possible observation.
He may have made Diablo II, but he, astoundingly, doesn`t GET Diablo II. Diablo II offered the same single-player experiecne online, for sure - but that's if you played alone and...well..why play online, then? No, what made Diablo II great was that you could hop into a game and combine forces with other players to dramatically increase your power, much more than even the same two players alone but combined would achieve. Not so with a tiered service. Why would a paying customer want to play with a gimped free player when he could play with other fully-powered paying customers? It makes about as much sense as a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk living on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks.
It scaled in a good way with more players. You didn't just gang buster your way through if you had more then 1 person but if you had 5-8 people who were decently equipped and knew their role it made life easier. It only really matters in nightmare or hell difficulties. On normal any old group would wade through unscathed.
A big part of it however was showing off your gear. On a illegitimate server, you knew all the equipment was likely hacked. Thus having a party decked out in perfect gear wasn't interesting. But on the legitimate server you could brag about the storm shield you had (until the botting made it less unique). So their shooting for that, to addict people and then have people pay to stroke their vanity. Possibly they may make items that unlock. So you got the +5 storm shield of evisceration. If you pay $1.50, it adds an extra +1. HArd to say if what ever they have planned will work.
Storyline is not a masterpiece as Halo fanboys make it out to be. Halo fans tend to reply that you need to read the novels to appreciate the whole Halo universe, but that stuff needs to be in the game. Graphics are not groundbreaking.
I enjoyed cliches so I bought some of the novels. They're dreck. gr. 10 reading level, simple exposition, cardboard characters. basically typical of the cheap pulp sci-fi fare. It's a well made games and a sort of interesting rehash of old storyline so I'd play it and like it but indeed it's not some seminal masterpiece of story line.
A $10m ad campaign for Halo 3?
Isn't that like having a multi-million dollar campaign to let everyone know the sky is blue?
You know the Apple switcher ads? My thoughts on them are that they aren't to entice people to come to apple as they are so ridiculously silly as anyone who would switch would likely return the box because it didn't come with windows. The ads however comically play to What Apples user base already thinks. It re-enforces brand value in the people who already reside in the apple camp. So its not a ad campaign seeking new customers but re-enforcing value in current customers.
Ditto with the Halo 3 ad campaign. It re-enforces the value of peoples purchase. Saying "hey you bought a winner."
The coolest part of the project is a tool called Writeprint, which 'automatically extracts thousands of multilingual, structural, and semantic features to determine who is creating "anonymous" content' with an accuracy of 95%, according to the release."
So when they get it wrong, and the police storm my front door instead of my neighbors, will it still be "cool"?
Look, most people who want to code games are gamers. They're young, have little motivation to learn hard topics (by hard I mean solid, such as advanced math and sciences, not necessarily difficult). Heck, many have little motivation to do anything but play games.
The correlation you implied was that gamers are lazy. Not that lazy people game but that gamers want to code games and they are lazy. My rebuttal was that the entire graduating class and 2 entire generation are gamers so it's difficult to say we're all lazy.
Sounds nice, but how do you know that will continue to be the case?
The fact is, people in cheaper countries don't have to be as good to outcompete us. Their housing is cheaper, their food is cheaper, their healthcare is cheaper. And it's not like they're unintelligent people, either.
Most other jobs have better geographical insulation from foreign competition. (I can think of exceptions, such as manufacturing - and look what happened to US manufacturing). Why not favor those positions
On the other hand you need good managers to pull it off. Foreign competition has to deal with not only vague project specs but vague project specs in a language they are barely literate in. My cousin works at a tech firm in Ghoung Zhou. Their one and only attempt at picking up a outsourcing contract was a huge debacle for both sides as the manager put in charge is yammering idiots and the design specs seemed to change at random and often.
Maybe it's "biz speak". To employers, "shortage" really means "we weren't inundated with hundreds of resumes for 1 position".
Shortage means "lacking 5-10 year professional willing to work for peanuts".
I personally struggled for several years before finding my current decent job. I started off at a small post boom web firm whose management was as competent as FEMA, worked support for a few years at a larger company until I finally landed a decent started at a non-profit. I kep getting interviews and being told it was close but they went with the 5 year industry veteran. I'm thinking the pool of 5 year veterans has dried up because for the last 5 years most tech companies stopped hiring entry level positions so the attrition wiped out any available veterans.