Because launching from the earth is the same? Clearly I'm not a rocket scientist, but with 1/6th the gravity, wouldn't it take far less propulsion to get off the ground on the moon?
Also: traveling horizontally for 100-200m? I'm guessing there are more crosswinds on earth than on the moon. Also, once again, the same thrust that might move you 100m on the moon wouldn't move you 10m on earth. This seems like a ridiculous standard to meet, and it's going to require far more engineering to accomplish than is necessary for lunar travel.
Or am I missing some large part of the puzzle here, like their.15Gee test field?
Personally, I think Google/Yahoo/MSN are being scapegoated in this China deal. Disobeying Chinese law is simply not an option, and abstaining from the Chinese market benefits no one. Getting their collective feet in the door is the first step toward effecting change anyway. If they're successful, it gives them bargaining power. Maybe not much, but certainly more than they have as outsiders.
Obeying the laws of the host country is simply the price of doing business. We expect visitors to the US to obey our laws when they're in our country, despite the fact that some of our laws (DMCA, PATRIOT Act, substance prohibitions) impose on the rights foreign travellers might enjoy in their home countries. There's no reason to expect otherwise when the situation is reversed. We can't have it both ways.
I would've guessed the number one reason companies loosed lawsuits was to win them. I'd venture that some companies policy, indeed the basis of their existance, is centered around loosing lawsuits.
Sorry, I thought my point was clear in the context of the article:
If anything, DSL should be lowered to dialup costs; dialup costs shouldn't be raised to DSL levels. DSL is essentially the same service over the same network as dialup. It's what dialup would be if FCC regs didn't prohibit traditional modems from operating at DSL frequencies. It doesn't cost more to connect at 56Kbps than it does at 33.3Kbps, or 28.8Kbps, and often dialup users don't connect at full speed anyway; it shouldn't cost more for DSL, especially now that it's an established technology. I can accept that there are installation charges, because some additional work is nessecary for each line, but beyond that the differences are skin deep.
I can't believe you've been peeking at my IQ scores. Stalker.
You are aware that DSL is, on average, 50% slower than cable right? Citing the maximum for a very limited coverage area is irrelevant to the general discussion. Of course you are.. that's why you posted AC.
I said "the difference is not insignificant, however..."
100Mbit/Sec over cable vs 3Mbit over DSL? Not to mention the number of people who can get maximum speeds is inversely proportional to the distance from the telco office, which means the vast majority of customers will not experience the theoretical maximum. Twisted pair will never be as effective or efficient a medium as coax. If you don't understand that, we can talk again when you do.
"I dont think that DSL should even be considered as broadband". In your universe it probably isn't.
That doesn't even make sense. The definition of "fast" changes over time. I'm arguing that a couple of Mbits (or generally much less) shouldn't be the current definition of "fast," and it's not, in many places. In my world, 56k probably isn't fast either, even though it blows 300bps out of the water. What a crazy world I live in.
That's ridiculous. I'm not saying the administration had anything to do with it, because I have no idea, but Washington absolutely leans on foreign governments, and works in coordination with foreign law enforcement in order to "protect intellectual property." The idea that we had no part in it just because it occured on foreign soil is simply wrong.
Man.. I can remember the days when the current flamewars were over which was better: DSL with its unique connection per user, or cable with its shared bandwidth. Nowadays I don't think DSL should even be considered as broadband. Not that it's not a huge upgrade from dialup, but it should be an intrinsic part of landline service by now, rather than requiring a separate subscription. The only real difference between DSL and dialup is that it's using spectrum outside of the FCC's regulations for POTS. Sure, the modulation is different, but it's still just a signal traveling over copper wire.
Wouldn't the most obvious solution be to just hire people? Wouldn't that be a much more efficient means of getting money directly in the hands of the impoverished?
I mean, the only way a company can legally reconcile charitable work with their responsibility to shareholders in the first place is to label it as marketing. If spun correctly, hiring (and training) people in poverty could be handled the same way, but with more lasting and substantial results.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against charities by any means. But charitable work is usually done by persons who have no other means of helping. The Red Cross isn't staffed or run by people who have the resources to engage in mass training and/or hiring. When you think of charity workers, you don't think of corporate giants, you think of little old ladies who donate their time because it's the only thing they have to give. And that's what makes the most sense.
I just think the whole thing smacks of PR and corporate rivalry. After all, how can Google claim the "Do no evil" motto while Bill (or actually, his wife, who I tend to believe was actually sincerely motivated) is the largest charitable contributor in the world?
I suppose that in the big picture, if disadvantaged people can benefit from corporate rivalry then it's a net gain, even if there are better solutions. I might be jaded, but I don't really think Google deserves a High Five and a Hug for being a responsible world citizen. Maybe if/when they surpass what should be basic expectations, I'll change my opinion. But the way I see it, Google.org is just a creation to give a more public face to what would otherwise be a 2nd page news story about corporate donations to charity. As far as I'm concerned, it's still a 2nd page story.
Well.. the thing is, time isn't directly rewarded, althought the gameplay is so mundane that it often may seem like it. What's actually rewarded is repetitive action.
Also I find the idea that "games should teach lessons" to be absurd. The reason games are appealing is that they reward behavior which is either a) not possible in the real world, or b) not generally rewarded in the real world. WoW falls into the latter category. I think one of the reasons games of its type are so popular is that there are clearly defined rewards (Ding!) and clearly defined paths to those rewards (kill 5,000 goblins); something which is largely lacking in the real world. (Not to mention, it's a classic example of Pavlovian training). Games are entertainment after all, and most entertainment is escapist by nature. Some entertainment may provide valuable and/or insightful lessons, but that's not its primary function, and "entertainment" which focuses on teaching lessons is often not very entertaining at all.
While I understand this might get my nerd quals revoked, I was completely unaware that Infinium even existed until I read this yesterday. Although I have to say, it seems like you're just asking for this sort of thing to happen when you name your console "Phantom."
Which gives me an idea.. any VCs interested in my new VaporStation? It'll be HD-DVD/BluRay compatible, play all the current and next gen console titles (thanks to our special Preverse Engineering), and all parts will be user upgradeable. It will also be HDCP compliant, although an actual HDCP connector will be missing from the final product.
I agree completely, and I found the ads to be misleading as well. Not only was the footage from the CoD2 commercials prerendered, but it not exist at all in the game (that I noticed), even as a cutscene. Personally, I thought it was actual gameplay footage before I saw and played the game firsthand, and I agree that the commercials are misleading. That may sound naive, but games such as HL2 and Q4 have pushed the limits so far that the sequence shown in the commercial didn't seem like much of a stretch. What's worse is that CoD2 is a pretty good game on its own merits, and I don't think there was a real need to resort to an "artist's impression" of the game. Of course, marketers will always flirt with the line between hype and misleading because it works, and they don't get paid to keep products on shelves.
It's all about context. I'd expect as many Muslims to turn up at an event organized by Mark Williams as chicks at a LAN party. If you made a post on/. about an all-female LAN party, that wouldn't make it any more popular because you're still not likely to reach your target audience.. and I doubt Mr. Williams' listening demographic has a large Muslim representation.
If I said "hot chicks can prove they read/. by coming to my house," I wouldn't expect them to turn up, I'd expect them to ignore me as an idiot.
Yeah, I started to make the exact same argument myself, until I realized that the Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs don't traditionally engage in the same sort of behavior, despite similar socioeconomic conditions. You don't see Hindus flipping out over people eating burgers, or Buddhists getting upset over images of Homer Simpson imitating a certain statue. All three of those religions are similar in that they don't view God as "good," but rather as "everything." Neitzsche believed religion was a tool to gain and weild power, and I tend to agree with him insofar as most western religions are concerned (considering Islam as a western religion, since it bears a much closer resemblance to western philosophy than eastern). Eastern religions may also be used to weild power by the "righteous," but the methods are dissimilar in that people who disagree are merely unenlightened rather than evil.
Granted, people living in abject poverty, with little control over their own lives and nothing but religion to cling to, are probably more likely to resort to violence because they feel they have no alternative. I think, however, that there are clearly other factors involved than merely socioeconomic conditions, and religion plays a large role in people's behavior, despite the political correctness of saying so.
Most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam still condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive or satirical pictures are a different case -- disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious, and blasphemy is seen as a kind of apostasy, which many Muslims believe should be punished by death, though not all Muslims agree that this is the only or correct interpretation. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muham mad_cartoons#Islamic_tradition
Either way, I don't think people are upset over the deification of Mohommad...
The former Soviet Union collapsed largely from internal decay, so I'm not sure what "external help" you're referring to. If China's government falls, it will be from their own failure to adapt. As the saying goes, a great civilization is never conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.
Yeah, but stuff happens faster now. We've had a few breakthroughs in communication technology since 1000AD, and it takes a lot less time to find a leader to blame now. BUSH! See? Look how fast I did that.
Beijing tried to make a journalist's pay at one newspaper depend on official reactions to their stories
Am I the only one getting tired of seeing China copy all of our ideas? This is just getting out of control. Next thing you know, they'll be spying on their citizenry. Look, China: You guys need to become a democracy if you want to use our ideas. You're only allowed to quash minority opinion when it's done through an electorate.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yeah.. just one more kill and I'm the.."
"Psst! Boss is comin'"
"!@$#.. ALT-F4, ALT-F4, ALT-F4.. come on you piece of $#@%.. Screw it. Power -> OFF. Whew. Oh, hey boss!"
"Hey, I need you to.." QUAD DAMAGE! "..the hell was that?"
Outlook bundles calendar and e-mail functionality?
Lawsuit!
Empty spaces that fill me up with holes. :(
Because launching from the earth is the same? Clearly I'm not a rocket scientist, but with 1/6th the gravity, wouldn't it take far less propulsion to get off the ground on the moon?
.15Gee test field?
Also: traveling horizontally for 100-200m? I'm guessing there are more crosswinds on earth than on the moon. Also, once again, the same thrust that might move you 100m on the moon wouldn't move you 10m on earth. This seems like a ridiculous standard to meet, and it's going to require far more engineering to accomplish than is necessary for lunar travel.
Or am I missing some large part of the puzzle here, like their
Ha.. wives are easy to find. Try finding a girl who doesn't mind remaining a friend with privelages for more than a couple of months.
(No really, try. Let me know if you find one. Thanks.)
Personally, I think Google/Yahoo/MSN are being scapegoated in this China deal. Disobeying Chinese law is simply not an option, and abstaining from the Chinese market benefits no one. Getting their collective feet in the door is the first step toward effecting change anyway. If they're successful, it gives them bargaining power. Maybe not much, but certainly more than they have as outsiders.
Obeying the laws of the host country is simply the price of doing business. We expect visitors to the US to obey our laws when they're in our country, despite the fact that some of our laws (DMCA, PATRIOT Act, substance prohibitions) impose on the rights foreign travellers might enjoy in their home countries. There's no reason to expect otherwise when the situation is reversed. We can't have it both ways.
is a failure to follow policy.
I would've guessed the number one reason companies loosed lawsuits was to win them. I'd venture that some companies policy, indeed the basis of their existance, is centered around loosing lawsuits.
Sorry, I thought my point was clear in the context of the article:
If anything, DSL should be lowered to dialup costs; dialup costs shouldn't be raised to DSL levels. DSL is essentially the same service over the same network as dialup. It's what dialup would be if FCC regs didn't prohibit traditional modems from operating at DSL frequencies. It doesn't cost more to connect at 56Kbps than it does at 33.3Kbps, or 28.8Kbps, and often dialup users don't connect at full speed anyway; it shouldn't cost more for DSL, especially now that it's an established technology. I can accept that there are installation charges, because some additional work is nessecary for each line, but beyond that the differences are skin deep.
I can't believe you've been peeking at my IQ scores. Stalker.
You are aware that DSL is, on average, 50% slower than cable right? Citing the maximum for a very limited coverage area is irrelevant to the general discussion. Of course you are.. that's why you posted AC.
Dude? Dude!
I said "the difference is not insignificant, however..."
100Mbit/Sec over cable vs 3Mbit over DSL? Not to mention the number of people who can get maximum speeds is inversely proportional to the distance from the telco office, which means the vast majority of customers will not experience the theoretical maximum. Twisted pair will never be as effective or efficient a medium as coax. If you don't understand that, we can talk again when you do.
"I dont think that DSL should even be considered as broadband". In your universe it probably isn't.
That doesn't even make sense. The definition of "fast" changes over time. I'm arguing that a couple of Mbits (or generally much less) shouldn't be the current definition of "fast," and it's not, in many places. In my world, 56k probably isn't fast either, even though it blows 300bps out of the water. What a crazy world I live in.
That's ridiculous. I'm not saying the administration had anything to do with it, because I have no idea, but Washington absolutely leans on foreign governments, and works in coordination with foreign law enforcement in order to "protect intellectual property." The idea that we had no part in it just because it occured on foreign soil is simply wrong.
Man.. I can remember the days when the current flamewars were over which was better: DSL with its unique connection per user, or cable with its shared bandwidth. Nowadays I don't think DSL should even be considered as broadband. Not that it's not a huge upgrade from dialup, but it should be an intrinsic part of landline service by now, rather than requiring a separate subscription. The only real difference between DSL and dialup is that it's using spectrum outside of the FCC's regulations for POTS. Sure, the modulation is different, but it's still just a signal traveling over copper wire.
Wouldn't the most obvious solution be to just hire people? Wouldn't that be a much more efficient means of getting money directly in the hands of the impoverished?
I mean, the only way a company can legally reconcile charitable work with their responsibility to shareholders in the first place is to label it as marketing. If spun correctly, hiring (and training) people in poverty could be handled the same way, but with more lasting and substantial results.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against charities by any means. But charitable work is usually done by persons who have no other means of helping. The Red Cross isn't staffed or run by people who have the resources to engage in mass training and/or hiring. When you think of charity workers, you don't think of corporate giants, you think of little old ladies who donate their time because it's the only thing they have to give. And that's what makes the most sense.
I just think the whole thing smacks of PR and corporate rivalry. After all, how can Google claim the "Do no evil" motto while Bill (or actually, his wife, who I tend to believe was actually sincerely motivated) is the largest charitable contributor in the world?
I suppose that in the big picture, if disadvantaged people can benefit from corporate rivalry then it's a net gain, even if there are better solutions. I might be jaded, but I don't really think Google deserves a High Five and a Hug for being a responsible world citizen. Maybe if/when they surpass what should be basic expectations, I'll change my opinion. But the way I see it, Google.org is just a creation to give a more public face to what would otherwise be a 2nd page news story about corporate donations to charity. As far as I'm concerned, it's still a 2nd page story.
Did anyone else hear Stewie's voice as they read that comment?
Well.. the thing is, time isn't directly rewarded, althought the gameplay is so mundane that it often may seem like it. What's actually rewarded is repetitive action.
Also I find the idea that "games should teach lessons" to be absurd. The reason games are appealing is that they reward behavior which is either a) not possible in the real world, or b) not generally rewarded in the real world. WoW falls into the latter category. I think one of the reasons games of its type are so popular is that there are clearly defined rewards (Ding!) and clearly defined paths to those rewards (kill 5,000 goblins); something which is largely lacking in the real world. (Not to mention, it's a classic example of Pavlovian training). Games are entertainment after all, and most entertainment is escapist by nature. Some entertainment may provide valuable and/or insightful lessons, but that's not its primary function, and "entertainment" which focuses on teaching lessons is often not very entertaining at all.
While I understand this might get my nerd quals revoked, I was completely unaware that Infinium even existed until I read this yesterday. Although I have to say, it seems like you're just asking for this sort of thing to happen when you name your console "Phantom."
Which gives me an idea.. any VCs interested in my new VaporStation? It'll be HD-DVD/BluRay compatible, play all the current and next gen console titles (thanks to our special Preverse Engineering), and all parts will be user upgradeable. It will also be HDCP compliant, although an actual HDCP connector will be missing from the final product.
I agree completely, and I found the ads to be misleading as well. Not only was the footage from the CoD2 commercials prerendered, but it not exist at all in the game (that I noticed), even as a cutscene. Personally, I thought it was actual gameplay footage before I saw and played the game firsthand, and I agree that the commercials are misleading. That may sound naive, but games such as HL2 and Q4 have pushed the limits so far that the sequence shown in the commercial didn't seem like much of a stretch. What's worse is that CoD2 is a pretty good game on its own merits, and I don't think there was a real need to resort to an "artist's impression" of the game. Of course, marketers will always flirt with the line between hype and misleading because it works, and they don't get paid to keep products on shelves.
I smell a jingle..
Protect the profits by protecting the prophets!
Doo doo doo dee doodalee doo.
It's all about context. I'd expect as many Muslims to turn up at an event organized by Mark Williams as chicks at a LAN party. If you made a post on /. about an all-female LAN party, that wouldn't make it any more popular because you're still not likely to reach your target audience.. and I doubt Mr. Williams' listening demographic has a large Muslim representation.
/. by coming to my house," I wouldn't expect them to turn up, I'd expect them to ignore me as an idiot.
If I said "hot chicks can prove they read
Yeah, I started to make the exact same argument myself, until I realized that the Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs don't traditionally engage in the same sort of behavior, despite similar socioeconomic conditions. You don't see Hindus flipping out over people eating burgers, or Buddhists getting upset over images of Homer Simpson imitating a certain statue. All three of those religions are similar in that they don't view God as "good," but rather as "everything." Neitzsche believed religion was a tool to gain and weild power, and I tend to agree with him insofar as most western religions are concerned (considering Islam as a western religion, since it bears a much closer resemblance to western philosophy than eastern). Eastern religions may also be used to weild power by the "righteous," but the methods are dissimilar in that people who disagree are merely unenlightened rather than evil.
Granted, people living in abject poverty, with little control over their own lives and nothing but religion to cling to, are probably more likely to resort to violence because they feel they have no alternative. I think, however, that there are clearly other factors involved than merely socioeconomic conditions, and religion plays a large role in people's behavior, despite the political correctness of saying so.
Either way, I don't think people are upset over the deification of Mohommad...
The former Soviet Union collapsed largely from internal decay, so I'm not sure what "external help" you're referring to. If China's government falls, it will be from their own failure to adapt. As the saying goes, a great civilization is never conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.
Yeah, but stuff happens faster now. We've had a few breakthroughs in communication technology since 1000AD, and it takes a lot less time to find a leader to blame now. BUSH! See? Look how fast I did that.
Beijing tried to make a journalist's pay at one newspaper depend on official reactions to their stories
Am I the only one getting tired of seeing China copy all of our ideas? This is just getting out of control. Next thing you know, they'll be spying on their citizenry. Look, China: You guys need to become a democracy if you want to use our ideas. You're only allowed to quash minority opinion when it's done through an electorate.
They're gonna be in for a surprise if they try to start charging ME for content. I'm so cheap, I don't even pay attention.