Right, because if someone found this thing smashed at the bottom of the ocean 4,000 years from now with no written records of its existence they'd know EXACTLY what its purpose was.
It's one thing when the doctor gives the patient a choice and the patient can either agree or see another doctor. It's another when government dictates the decision for them.
Part of the reason the TNG movies had such a good return on investment was that they were literally glorified TV episodes. Even a very expensive TV episode is cheap compared to the average movie. I don't intend this to be an indictment, I enjoyed the TNG movies, but they are what they are. You paid ~$6.50 (at the time) to watch a really well made Star Trek episode in a nice theater.
Therein lies the problem. For Star Trek to continue, they have to discard you, the old fan base, and forge a new fan base. You are far too few to make them enough money for it to be financially viable to continue making new series/movies. Without it being financially viable, there is no new content.
It's a trade off. The real question is whether the original vision of Gene Roddenberry (a relatively hopeful future in which human nature and contemporary conflicts are explored through a future/space allegory) is lost in the process. Of course, some say it was already lost by mid TNG, anyway.
I told EA that we were NOT going to ship that as the first Id Software product on the iPhone. Using the iPhone's hardware 3D acceleration was a requirement, and it should be easy -- when I did the second generation mobile renderer (written originally in java) it was layered on top of a class I named TinyGL that did the transform / clip / rasterize operations fairly close to OpenGL semantics, but in fixed point and with both horizontal and vertical rasterization options for perspective correction. The developers came back and said it would take two months and exceed their budget.
Rather than having a big confrontation over the issue, I told them to just send the project to me and I would do it myself.
Carmack is such a bad ass. "You guys are morons. I'll code this myself."
The reason people say it so much is because people constantly take a correlation and purposefully deduce incorrect causation relationships from it.
Take this study as an example. Does living in air with less pollution increase your life span? Probably. But to narrow it down to a statement like "A decrease in air pollution amounting to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of of particulates in the air led to an additional.61 years of life." is total idiocy. There is no way there is a direct relationship between the PPM of shit in the air and the exact duration of your life. The pollution may cause your neighbor to die 10 years earlier but may not impact your life span at all. You can't take a big average of millions of people and try to boil it down to an actual, direct relationship like that. That should be obvious to anyone yet people still make statements like that in news stories and slashdot posts all the time. And this is only an example of people incorrectly interpreting the data when there is likely a real causal relationship in the data. Now take this and apply it to a situation where there is no direct causal relationship.
Let's make up a pretend scenario since I don't feel like thinking of a real one. Let's say that someone did a study on number of pigeons in a city and life span of people in the city. Now there could be a hundred things that affect pigeon population in a particular city such as climate and presence of predatory birds, etc. But it turned out one contributing factor was air pollution, but this wasn't mentioned in the study. Now someone says: "An increase in pigeon populations amounting to 10 pigeons per capita led to an additional.61 years of life." They are now trying to assume a direct, implicitly causal relationship between the pigeons and life span, even though the real reason was the air pollution which drove the pigeons off in some areas. So your pigeons start decreasing due to an increase in predatory birds in the area (say an introduced species). Due to everyone believing this study, they start legislating that we kill the predator bird to try and increase the pigeon population to increase the lifespan of people in the city. Yet it was the pollution that was the connecting factor, and so it actually has zero effect on lifespan. Millions of dollars and time and effort wasted on bird exterminators with zero effect on human lifespan because it was a third factor that was affecting both.
People look around and see this type of idiocy and misrepresentation of data and mis-use of a study every day. Whether it's some climate change thing, a study on videogames and violence, or autism and vaccines. Somebody somewhere is misinterpreting data, assigning causal relationships where they don't exist, and at best wasting people's time and money, and at worst killing them indirectly. Until we lose the cargo cult science, that phrase is not going to go away.
No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.
The difference between France and the USA is supposed to be that the people control the government, and the government does not control the people. The more this fades away, the less unique and important the USA is to the world, and the less incentive people have to live here instead of somewhere else.
If you're an American, you're not supposed to want anyone controlling your lives. Someone controlling your life is fascism. If you do want someone controlling your life, I kindly suggest you move to one of those other countries you mentioned, so that those of us who don't want it will have somewhere on earth we can live. Don't you think it's fair to give people the option between socialism A or capitalism B, instead of just socialism A, B, C, or D?
About half of them have below-average intelligence.
50% of people are below average??? AMAZING!!
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T
on
Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA
·
· Score: 5, Informative
To take a lesson from history, the American Progressive Party never won a presidential election, but took enough votes from the Rep/Dem parties that both parties began to adopt elements of the Progressive platform.
Why? So gold spammers can spam you more easily? You know these people, is it really that complex to play the game in fullscreen windowed mode with an IM client running in the background and changing focus to it whenever you want to talk to them? Why is this something Blizzard should do when there's already 100 other companies doing it and doing it better?
I think what scream loudest in this case is that you are uncomfortable with the implications; perhaps there are things in your lifestyle you don't want to change?
What the fuck? Did you even read anything of his post beyond the title? How can you go from "there are likely other root causes of which increased TV watching is merely a simultaneous symptom/result" (the gist of the GPP) to "YOU JUST WANT TO JUSTIFY SITTING IN FRONT OF THE TV ALL DAY" (the gist of your first sentence)?
The hero was victorious, but not acting hero-like, and in fact was the antagonist.
This is still exactly how it plays out. This is why people say the ending "still works". Because it does still work. You have to remember that they completely cut out the Black Frigate and the comic author going missing and the street corner and everything else even remotely related to that, so the squid would have seemed completely contrived and stupid in the minds of anyone who had not read the comic, and that section (meaning, the MAJORITY of the viewers) would have been alienated at the expense of making comic book fanboys feel good.
In fact, Ozzy's cat makes an appearance at the end, and everyone who hadn't read the comic that went to see the movie with me basically went "what the fuck was up with the cat?" and I had to explain that it made sense in the comic due to the focus on genetic engineering, and had to explain the squid and its backstory.
And to be honest, even at 2:45 this movie was pushing the limits for me (as much as I love it, Return of the King was actually difficult for me to watch in the theater due to its length) so to make room for explaining the squid would have required cutting out a lot of sections of movie that were more relevant to the character development.
Re:I think you jumped the gun a little.
on
Watchmen Watched
·
· Score: 1
But who will sanitize our telephones?
Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either
on
Watchmen Watched
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You're right. I see an "R" rating and immediately think "family friendly".
Slashdot Mirror
The real question is: Why would you need Firefox 3.5 in order to perform these tasks? FF 3.1 or Chrome or Opera or IE should be sufficient.
For 99% of raiders, Naxxramas *was* new content.
Right, because if someone found this thing smashed at the bottom of the ocean 4,000 years from now with no written records of its existence they'd know EXACTLY what its purpose was.
All that money wasted.... :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmQRmHgExV0
You're supposed to post that as AC. Ah crap...
You should re-read the emphasized part.
That being said, the second part is inaccurate. This usage may (or may not) have originated with science fiction, but it's not exclusive to scifi.
It's one thing when the doctor gives the patient a choice and the patient can either agree or see another doctor. It's another when government dictates the decision for them.
Part of the reason the TNG movies had such a good return on investment was that they were literally glorified TV episodes. Even a very expensive TV episode is cheap compared to the average movie. I don't intend this to be an indictment, I enjoyed the TNG movies, but they are what they are. You paid ~$6.50 (at the time) to watch a really well made Star Trek episode in a nice theater.
Therein lies the problem. For Star Trek to continue, they have to discard you, the old fan base, and forge a new fan base. You are far too few to make them enough money for it to be financially viable to continue making new series/movies. Without it being financially viable, there is no new content.
It's a trade off. The real question is whether the original vision of Gene Roddenberry (a relatively hopeful future in which human nature and contemporary conflicts are explored through a future/space allegory) is lost in the process. Of course, some say it was already lost by mid TNG, anyway.
You're right. It was naive of me to think simply linking the article before the quoted section of text would be sufficient for slashdot.
From the linked article:
Carmack is such a bad ass. "You guys are morons. I'll code this myself."
The reason people say it so much is because people constantly take a correlation and purposefully deduce incorrect causation relationships from it.
Take this study as an example. Does living in air with less pollution increase your life span? Probably. But to narrow it down to a statement like "A decrease in air pollution amounting to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of of particulates in the air led to an additional .61 years of life." is total idiocy. There is no way there is a direct relationship between the PPM of shit in the air and the exact duration of your life. The pollution may cause your neighbor to die 10 years earlier but may not impact your life span at all. You can't take a big average of millions of people and try to boil it down to an actual, direct relationship like that. That should be obvious to anyone yet people still make statements like that in news stories and slashdot posts all the time. And this is only an example of people incorrectly interpreting the data when there is likely a real causal relationship in the data. Now take this and apply it to a situation where there is no direct causal relationship.
Let's make up a pretend scenario since I don't feel like thinking of a real one. Let's say that someone did a study on number of pigeons in a city and life span of people in the city. Now there could be a hundred things that affect pigeon population in a particular city such as climate and presence of predatory birds, etc. But it turned out one contributing factor was air pollution, but this wasn't mentioned in the study. Now someone says: "An increase in pigeon populations amounting to 10 pigeons per capita led to an additional .61 years of life." They are now trying to assume a direct, implicitly causal relationship between the pigeons and life span, even though the real reason was the air pollution which drove the pigeons off in some areas. So your pigeons start decreasing due to an increase in predatory birds in the area (say an introduced species). Due to everyone believing this study, they start legislating that we kill the predator bird to try and increase the pigeon population to increase the lifespan of people in the city. Yet it was the pollution that was the connecting factor, and so it actually has zero effect on lifespan. Millions of dollars and time and effort wasted on bird exterminators with zero effect on human lifespan because it was a third factor that was affecting both.
People look around and see this type of idiocy and misrepresentation of data and mis-use of a study every day. Whether it's some climate change thing, a study on videogames and violence, or autism and vaccines. Somebody somewhere is misinterpreting data, assigning causal relationships where they don't exist, and at best wasting people's time and money, and at worst killing them indirectly. Until we lose the cargo cult science, that phrase is not going to go away.
And yeah, the GPP was just joking. :P
The difference between France and the USA is supposed to be that the people control the government, and the government does not control the people. The more this fades away, the less unique and important the USA is to the world, and the less incentive people have to live here instead of somewhere else.
If you're an American, you're not supposed to want anyone controlling your lives. Someone controlling your life is fascism. If you do want someone controlling your life, I kindly suggest you move to one of those other countries you mentioned, so that those of us who don't want it will have somewhere on earth we can live. Don't you think it's fair to give people the option between socialism A or capitalism B, instead of just socialism A, B, C, or D?
50% of people are below average??? AMAZING!!
To take a lesson from history, the American Progressive Party never won a presidential election, but took enough votes from the Rep/Dem parties that both parties began to adopt elements of the Progressive platform.
Perhaps a more accurate term he could have used is imperative (of which procedural languages are a subset), as opposed to functional.
Why? So gold spammers can spam you more easily? You know these people, is it really that complex to play the game in fullscreen windowed mode with an IM client running in the background and changing focus to it whenever you want to talk to them? Why is this something Blizzard should do when there's already 100 other companies doing it and doing it better?
What the fuck? Did you even read anything of his post beyond the title? How can you go from "there are likely other root causes of which increased TV watching is merely a simultaneous symptom/result" (the gist of the GPP) to "YOU JUST WANT TO JUSTIFY SITTING IN FRONT OF THE TV ALL DAY" (the gist of your first sentence)?
This is still exactly how it plays out. This is why people say the ending "still works". Because it does still work. You have to remember that they completely cut out the Black Frigate and the comic author going missing and the street corner and everything else even remotely related to that, so the squid would have seemed completely contrived and stupid in the minds of anyone who had not read the comic, and that section (meaning, the MAJORITY of the viewers) would have been alienated at the expense of making comic book fanboys feel good.
In fact, Ozzy's cat makes an appearance at the end, and everyone who hadn't read the comic that went to see the movie with me basically went "what the fuck was up with the cat?" and I had to explain that it made sense in the comic due to the focus on genetic engineering, and had to explain the squid and its backstory.
And to be honest, even at 2:45 this movie was pushing the limits for me (as much as I love it, Return of the King was actually difficult for me to watch in the theater due to its length) so to make room for explaining the squid would have required cutting out a lot of sections of movie that were more relevant to the character development.
But who will sanitize our telephones?
You're right. I see an "R" rating and immediately think "family friendly".
I think I saw that on a vanity plate the other day...
That's just an excuse dumb people use.
I keep trying to explain this to people but no one listens. :(