I was actually agreeing with what you were saying... up until you started going all population control.
I didn't go all population control on anyone. I suggested self regulation if you actually want to do something for the environment. I'm not suggesting the same incompetent and greedy as fuck governments and corporations be put in charge of limiting population. That would not end well.
The main reason that population control goes all wacky, is when you run the numbers, EVERY man, woman and child could live in the state of Texas, with NOBODY else on the planet... and that is with everyone having about 1200 sq ft around them. Start grouping people into families, and the size needed to hold everyone gets smaller. Now, just start going up... you get the picture.
It's not about real-estate. There's huge enough sections of the planet unpopulated as it is. We don't need 6.5 BILLION humans alive to maintain a social structure. We could get by with a tenth of that, or a hundredth, and perhaps people wouldn't starve or kill each other over land.
Also, how many insects are around? They don't have any "modern technology" and yet "at any time, it is estimated that there are some 10 quintillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) individual insects alive." Your argument that humans are overpopulated just doesn't hold water.
Fuck me, are you being obtuse on purpose? Insects breed even more prolifically but their footprint compared to a human being is tiny. They don't exactly burn coal to drive hundreds of kilometers now do they? This is possibly the stupidest extension or misrepresentation of an analogy of mine I've seen here. That's really saying something.
However, if you continue to feel that humans are overpopulating the Earth, please lead the way in reducing the population instead of telling everyone else what they should do.
I don't plan on having more than 2 children. I am no more telling people what they should do than the parent article which suggests you eat your dog. In contrast my suggestion of not breeding like a rabbit is moderate. But feel free to twist it as stupidly as you possibly can. I bet you're one of these religious nut jobs that has a family of 12 because god told him contraception is sinful.
I'm fucking fed up with people absolutely losing their minds whenever the word "environment" is mentioned. Suddenly they're willing to buy stupid shit that makes no sense. People lose all objectivity, all ability to add up total cost of ownership and conversion and turn into sock puppets for large corps who are selling them fairytales about being green.
Shit like this wouldn't fly with a sane rationed well educated public:
1) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology "for the environment" (no it's not just because there's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price, honest it's not). Never mind that LED technology has much more potential.
2) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable "green" "enviro" bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away. Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we couldn't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail. Fucking hypocrites!
3) Solar hot water systems that cost more environmentally and financially to produce, install, run maintain than their conventional counterparts, often require that they be supplemented/boosted by a conventional heater (so net negative gain in terms of production). Honest it's not about selling shit people don't need!
4) Water conservation and rationing. What a fucking joke. It's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so. Water is not scarce on this planet. It recycles well if you don't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals. The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet. Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we weren't so skitish about grey water. Water as a scarce resource, and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infrastructure.
Want to know what you can do to stop fucking the environment? No you don't need to fucking eat Fido. Don't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime. Want to be really good? Have just one. Not into kids? Don't let your birth control regime slip. The one reason we're fucking up there environment is that there's about 6.5 BILLION people and growing. That many of a species that without modern technology and medicine should by rights number in the tens or hundreds of thousands just isn't going to be sustainable. Yet we breed like we're insects and look for ways to live longer and longer (even if it means our quality of life is ass in old age).
I guess you've never heard of tax breaks and energy subsidies? Just because it costs $X to produce a computer, doesn't mean the manufacturer will indeed foot the whole bill and at retail rates.
Granted 5000 KWH still does sound a little high, but kudos to GP for considering cost of manufacture. People are all too often keen to jump on the "green" band wagon and are manipulated by manufacturers and retailers into actually doing things which may be of little benefit or even harmful to the environment, because it's worth money to the retailer or manufacturer. People's common sense goes out the window once you mention the environment. Ever thining plastic bags, and thick overpriced non-degradeable costly shopping bags, solar power systems that cost more to the environoment to manufacture, install and maintain, Fluro light bulbs with mercury....the list goes on. Time to use our brains. Any company caught cooking the books to profiteer from the environment should be liable for very large fines.
The cheapest per GB are DVDs at about 3.5c per GB. Hard drives are about 8.5c per GB. You might find it more liberating keeping your 1000 photos of uncle ted from every side of your house on a spindle of DVDs packed in a box behind the coal shed.
The time and effort to burn and read those DVDs makes the option impractical. 1 TB would require over 200 DVDs. Swapping them in to read them again later? No thanks.
Of course they will be cheapest, but only cheapest per/GB.
The very definition of cheapest.
As time goes on, SSD's will be the default in desktops and laptops... mostly because these systems don't need very large drives... especially as we move more and more data to the "cloud".
You've fallen for nothing but marketing drivel. The idea that programs and data are going to be more reliable and better (including better trusted) when one or more random organisations are in charge of it is just plain laughable. This is just data/software outsourcing at it's worst, with a bit of thin client drivel thrown in topped with meaningless buzzwords 2.0.
Sure, per GB, magnetic storage will remain king when it comes to capacity, but they will only be used by those with extreme storage needs.
My main machine runs with 4 Terabytes. I have over half a TB of photos, most going back 10 years, some scanned going back before I was born. I also have multiple backups on removable drives on and off site. I prefer still photography but if I were interested in video my needs would be more "extreme". I think you'll find lots of people have needs you'd define as extreme. There's nothing extreme about it. Liberating is what it is. People who do nothing but surf the web, read email, and spend their lives on social networking sites, with the very occassional need to produce a word document for work might not need lots of storage. Other people will.
Who ever knew that Australia was a developing country! Broadband costs here are killer. Oh and we're slipping backwards when it comes to trasnport, health care, employment and education.
A single at typical encoding settings is 4 MB; even over dial-up, a single takes only 15 minutes to download. Your video game is probably at least 10 times that if not 100. And to distribute a game in a genre not well suited to PCs, you have to gain the approval of a console maker that prefers to work with big publishers instead of small self-publishing developers. Music doesn't have such a gatekeeper.
Yes, and most people still stuck on dialup are at many kinds of disadvantage. You're completely overlooking live console gaming on the latest consoles. Many games now require broadband. Dialup isn't going to let you play.
Nintendo flatly refuses to work with hobbyists.
Longer term this may yet prove to be suicide. Then again longer term this may change.
Video games are more than complex software. They are also complex meshes, textures, audio, etc. I don't see as much evidence of mass collaboration on those as I do on system and business software.
Take a look at a few of the Microsoft flight simulator sites. Many terrabytes of meshes, textures, audio, configuration files, effects files, scripts etc. Being unaware of something existing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I have never purchased a game that wasn't in a store.
There are plenty of people who haven't purchased music online either. However the majority of sales are online. What does that mean? It means you and I are dinosaurs.
Good luck with your hobby.
Isn't that what gaming's suppose to be? A hobby? I'm sorry if you're so caught up in it being a serious money making industry that you've completely forgotten that, to the point that you'd use it as an insult.
The problem with your argument is that the best games tend to be proprietary; open source game development has been mostly mediocre for the past decade, with the occasional gem.
Funny, that's how I'd describe most commercial titles too. They just vastly outnumber the open source efforts. Perhaps its time for all of this to change. The only reason we've had so much commercial work is that it's so competitive that most developers fall over each other trying to do longer hours and outdo everyone else for comparatively mediocre pay.
I guess you've never heard of high bandwidth web hosting? Or teams of developers that build complex software that are either sponsored, do it for profit but independently, or do it as a hobby. By that logic most open source wouldn't ever exist.
In fact last I heard most publishing houses treated their developers like shit - expecting them to work 80-100 hour weeks year round.
Who the fuck needs shelf space in high street stores? Music downloads now exceed physical sales, and music is more main stream. Advertising in computer mags isn't what makes a game sell. Certainly mention in mainstream press doesn't make a hit. If you're a hot developer with good titles you'll also be able to show at E3, and overpaid web designers who speicalise in page layout are highly over-rated. As for funding development for a year, I guess complex software never gets written by hobbyists, or by sponsored professionals - Linux, Open Office etc must be figments of my imagination.
I have an Internet connection. I can rent bandwidth and rent or buy space on a web server. I can broadcast news of my game via social networking, message boards and other free medium. If I can work out how to write games, managing a web server isn't going to be brain surgery.What the fuck do I need a publisher for? I'm not unique.
Take some responsibility for yourself. If every event was at a strip club you may have a point about being left out and it affecting your career. But if it's one event stop calling for people to be fired, and walk out like you said you would instead of blaming people for "making" you shove money down a stripper's pants.
Get the popcorn... this is going to be an epic thread. We've already had the "Wish I was there" post, it's time for the feminist wing to turn up. Oh the objectification!
It's not our fault. For years now geeks have grown up being taught that object oriented is the way to go.
You forgot: 6. Fuck I'm so dumb I think an application can turn my iPhone into X-ray glasses. Why yes I do give you permission to spam me into oblivion at $5 per message.
1. It's "basic stuff" most people get wrong. Sorry but if you think it's easy YOU are probably not doing it right.
2. Not every library, existing code base and environment is thread safe
3. There are entire classes of problems that can't be parallelised
You're probably taking some very narrow experience and extrapolating to well everything. Sometimes it's not just a lazy programmer that means it's doesn't get done.
There's no gain control algorithm that'll let you have both fine and (fast) coarse control algorithm if its only input is vehicle speed, and the joystick has a fixed range of motion.
Clearly you don't fly remote control planes. On a modern r/c plane with most modern r/c radios, you get the option of setting up something called exponential (exp for short). Basically you create a curve such that small movements near the center result in small changs whereas larger movements towards the extremes produce much larger changes. If you're a sloppy pilot or have trouble with keeping your hands steady (for example due to a medical condition) the other thing you can do is program in a dead zone.
The results with expo are quite good and r/c pilots spend time setting it up to taste. Most find around 30% expo makes it easy to make small corrections while flying but if you really need an extreme movement, all you have to do is max out the stick which is quite intuitive.
All that said the center console is the wrong place for the joystick. The joystick should be well away from passengers. I think a side stick is the way to go.
People forget that all aircraft use joysticks and that flying aircraft requires MORE precision than driving cars.
If a joystick's good enough for control of an aircraft as large as the Airbus A380, I'm sure it can be adapted to a car. If you think pilots don't have a need for accuracy or that they don't travel at high speed you're simply mistaken
Slashdot Mirror
I was actually agreeing with what you were saying ... up until you started going all population control.
I didn't go all population control on anyone. I suggested self regulation if you actually want to do something for the environment. I'm not suggesting the same incompetent and greedy as fuck governments and corporations be put in charge of limiting population. That would not end well.
The main reason that population control goes all wacky, is when you run the numbers, EVERY man, woman and child could live in the state of Texas, with NOBODY else on the planet ... and that is with everyone having about 1200 sq ft around them. Start grouping people into families, and the size needed to hold everyone gets smaller. Now, just start going up ... you get the picture.
It's not about real-estate. There's huge enough sections of the planet unpopulated as it is. We don't need 6.5 BILLION humans alive to maintain a social structure. We could get by with a tenth of that, or a hundredth, and perhaps people wouldn't starve or kill each other over land.
Also, how many insects are around? They don't have any "modern technology" and yet "at any time, it is estimated that there are some 10 quintillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) individual insects alive." Your argument that humans are overpopulated just doesn't hold water.
Fuck me, are you being obtuse on purpose? Insects breed even more prolifically but their footprint compared to a human being is tiny. They don't exactly burn coal to drive hundreds of kilometers now do they? This is possibly the stupidest extension or misrepresentation of an analogy of mine I've seen here. That's really saying something.
However, if you continue to feel that humans are overpopulating the Earth, please lead the way in reducing the population instead of telling everyone else what they should do.
I don't plan on having more than 2 children. I am no more telling people what they should do than the parent article which suggests you eat your dog. In contrast my suggestion of not breeding like a rabbit is moderate. But feel free to twist it as stupidly as you possibly can. I bet you're one of these religious nut jobs that has a family of 12 because god told him contraception is sinful.
I'm fucking fed up with people absolutely losing their minds whenever the word "environment" is mentioned. Suddenly they're willing to buy stupid shit that makes no sense. People lose all objectivity, all ability to add up total cost of ownership and conversion and turn into sock puppets for large corps who are selling them fairytales about being green.
Shit like this wouldn't fly with a sane rationed well educated public:
1) Compulsory replacement of lightbulbs with more expensive technology "for the environment" (no it's not just because there's a huge profit to be made selling new technology at 20x the price, honest it's not). Never mind that LED technology has much more potential.
2) Creation of flimsy plastic bags that fucking fall apart so that you need twice as many to carry the same groceries followed by the removal of plastic bags with studier but still flawed and breakable "green" "enviro" bags which are now sold at large profit instead of being given away. Lets nickel and dime our customers to death in the name of the environment - but we couldn't possibly stop filling their mailboxes with dead tree junk mail. Fucking hypocrites!
3) Solar hot water systems that cost more environmentally and financially to produce, install, run maintain than their conventional counterparts, often require that they be supplemented/boosted by a conventional heater (so net negative gain in terms of production). Honest it's not about selling shit people don't need!
4) Water conservation and rationing. What a fucking joke. It's got nothing to do with environmental impact of building more dams and desalination plants and everything to do with the dollars it takes to do so. Water is not scarce on this planet. It recycles well if you don't abuse it badly with extremely noxious chemicals. The system is build to deal with the shit and piss of every creature on the planet. Anything short of sewage and noxious chemicals often can be reused if we weren't so skitish about grey water. Water as a scarce resource, and kids no longer being able to play in their back yards with a hose has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with politicians lining their pockets with taxes that should be spent on infrastructure.
Want to know what you can do to stop fucking the environment? No you don't need to fucking eat Fido. Don't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime. Want to be really good? Have just one. Not into kids? Don't let your birth control regime slip. The one reason we're fucking up there environment is that there's about 6.5 BILLION people and growing. That many of a species that without modern technology and medicine should by rights number in the tens or hundreds of thousands just isn't going to be sustainable. Yet we breed like we're insects and look for ways to live longer and longer (even if it means our quality of life is ass in old age).
5000 KWH @ 10 cents per kwh = $500.
I guess you've never heard of tax breaks and energy subsidies? Just because it costs $X to produce a computer, doesn't mean the manufacturer will indeed foot the whole bill and at retail rates.
Granted 5000 KWH still does sound a little high, but kudos to GP for considering cost of manufacture. People are all too often keen to jump on the "green" band wagon and are manipulated by manufacturers and retailers into actually doing things which may be of little benefit or even harmful to the environment, because it's worth money to the retailer or manufacturer. People's common sense goes out the window once you mention the environment. Ever thining plastic bags, and thick overpriced non-degradeable costly shopping bags, solar power systems that cost more to the environoment to manufacture, install and maintain, Fluro light bulbs with mercury....the list goes on. Time to use our brains. Any company caught cooking the books to profiteer from the environment should be liable for very large fines.
The cheapest per GB are DVDs at about 3.5c per GB. Hard drives are about 8.5c per GB. You might find it more liberating keeping your 1000 photos of uncle ted from every side of your house on a spindle of DVDs packed in a box behind the coal shed.
The time and effort to burn and read those DVDs makes the option impractical. 1 TB would require over 200 DVDs. Swapping them in to read them again later? No thanks.
Of course they will be cheapest, but only cheapest per/GB.
The very definition of cheapest.
As time goes on, SSD's will be the default in desktops and laptops... mostly because these systems don't need very large drives... especially as we move more and more data to the "cloud".
You've fallen for nothing but marketing drivel. The idea that programs and data are going to be more reliable and better (including better trusted) when one or more random organisations are in charge of it is just plain laughable. This is just data/software outsourcing at it's worst, with a bit of thin client drivel thrown in topped with meaningless buzzwords 2.0.
Sure, per GB, magnetic storage will remain king when it comes to capacity, but they will only be used by those with extreme storage needs.
My main machine runs with 4 Terabytes. I have over half a TB of photos, most going back 10 years, some scanned going back before I was born. I also have multiple backups on removable drives on and off site. I prefer still photography but if I were interested in video my needs would be more "extreme". I think you'll find lots of people have needs you'd define as extreme. There's nothing extreme about it. Liberating is what it is. People who do nothing but surf the web, read email, and spend their lives on social networking sites, with the very occassional need to produce a word document for work might not need lots of storage. Other people will.
I can't believe it's not btrfs.
...after reading that terrible analogy.
Who ever knew that Australia was a developing country! Broadband costs here are killer. Oh and we're slipping backwards when it comes to trasnport, health care, employment and education.
Sparkfun police spoil everything!
Sparc are no fun!
Sparks fly at Sparc!
No more Sparkfun!
Sparc missing from this relationship!
Sparkfun fight begins!
A single at typical encoding settings is 4 MB; even over dial-up, a single takes only 15 minutes to download. Your video game is probably at least 10 times that if not 100. And to distribute a game in a genre not well suited to PCs, you have to gain the approval of a console maker that prefers to work with big publishers instead of small self-publishing developers. Music doesn't have such a gatekeeper.
Yes, and most people still stuck on dialup are at many kinds of disadvantage. You're completely overlooking live console gaming on the latest consoles. Many games now require broadband. Dialup isn't going to let you play.
Nintendo flatly refuses to work with hobbyists.
Longer term this may yet prove to be suicide. Then again longer term this may change.
Video games are more than complex software. They are also complex meshes, textures, audio, etc. I don't see as much evidence of mass collaboration on those as I do on system and business software.
Take a look at a few of the Microsoft flight simulator sites. Many terrabytes of meshes, textures, audio, configuration files, effects files, scripts etc. Being unaware of something existing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I have never purchased a game that wasn't in a store.
There are plenty of people who haven't purchased music online either. However the majority of sales are online. What does that mean? It means you and I are dinosaurs.
Good luck with your hobby.
Isn't that what gaming's suppose to be? A hobby? I'm sorry if you're so caught up in it being a serious money making industry that you've completely forgotten that, to the point that you'd use it as an insult.
The problem with your argument is that the best games tend to be proprietary; open source game development has been mostly mediocre for the past decade, with the occasional gem.
Funny, that's how I'd describe most commercial titles too. They just vastly outnumber the open source efforts. Perhaps its time for all of this to change. The only reason we've had so much commercial work is that it's so competitive that most developers fall over each other trying to do longer hours and outdo everyone else for comparatively mediocre pay.
I guess you've never heard of high bandwidth web hosting? Or teams of developers that build complex software that are either sponsored, do it for profit but independently, or do it as a hobby. By that logic most open source wouldn't ever exist.
In fact last I heard most publishing houses treated their developers like shit - expecting them to work 80-100 hour weeks year round.
Who the fuck needs shelf space in high street stores? Music downloads now exceed physical sales, and music is more main stream. Advertising in computer mags isn't what makes a game sell. Certainly mention in mainstream press doesn't make a hit. If you're a hot developer with good titles you'll also be able to show at E3, and overpaid web designers who speicalise in page layout are highly over-rated. As for funding development for a year, I guess complex software never gets written by hobbyists, or by sponsored professionals - Linux, Open Office etc must be figments of my imagination.
I have an Internet connection. I can rent bandwidth and rent or buy space on a web server. I can broadcast news of my game via social networking, message boards and other free medium. If I can work out how to write games, managing a web server isn't going to be brain surgery.What the fuck do I need a publisher for? I'm not unique.
Publishers fuck off.
....the system is probably a piece of shit built by incompetents. What are the odds they can even find them after 3 years?
On the other hand perhaps they can delete them but they're claiming not to be able to so they can hang onto them.
Either way police that don't comply with the law, or incompetent fools - not good.
Let's just see how stupid you are shall we?
I have a cat
That's strike one.
Having carefully observed me using the computer over a long period of time, he figured out how to reset my computer
Very doubtful. I think you're anthropomorphising - strike two.
He had to stick his claw in that specific hole, and *bam* - there goes an hour of work
Went an hour without saving work. Strike three.....you're outta here!
Take some responsibility for yourself. If every event was at a strip club you may have a point about being left out and it affecting your career. But if it's one event stop calling for people to be fired, and walk out like you said you would instead of blaming people for "making" you shove money down a stripper's pants.
Get the popcorn... this is going to be an epic thread. We've already had the "Wish I was there" post, it's time for the feminist wing to turn up. Oh the objectification!
It's not our fault. For years now geeks have grown up being taught that object oriented is the way to go.
You forgot:
6. Fuck I'm so dumb I think an application can turn my iPhone into X-ray glasses. Why yes I do give you permission to spam me into oblivion at $5 per message.
Well you bloody well should be, it's basic stuff.
1. It's "basic stuff" most people get wrong. Sorry but if you think it's easy YOU are probably not doing it right.
2. Not every library, existing code base and environment is thread safe
3. There are entire classes of problems that can't be parallelised
You're probably taking some very narrow experience and extrapolating to well everything. Sometimes it's not just a lazy programmer that means it's doesn't get done.
There's no gain control algorithm that'll let you have both fine and (fast) coarse control algorithm if its only input is vehicle speed, and the joystick has a fixed range of motion.
Clearly you don't fly remote control planes. On a modern r/c plane with most modern r/c radios, you get the option of setting up something called exponential (exp for short). Basically you create a curve such that small movements near the center result in small changs whereas larger movements towards the extremes produce much larger changes. If you're a sloppy pilot or have trouble with keeping your hands steady (for example due to a medical condition) the other thing you can do is program in a dead zone.
The results with expo are quite good and r/c pilots spend time setting it up to taste. Most find around 30% expo makes it easy to make small corrections while flying but if you really need an extreme movement, all you have to do is max out the stick which is quite intuitive.
All that said the center console is the wrong place for the joystick. The joystick should be well away from passengers. I think a side stick is the way to go.
People forget that all aircraft use joysticks and that flying aircraft requires MORE precision than driving cars.
If a joystick's good enough for control of an aircraft as large as the Airbus A380, I'm sure it can be adapted to a car. If you think pilots don't have a need for accuracy or that they don't travel at high speed you're simply mistaken
An experiment is only a failure if you don't learn anything from it.
Another word for a failed experiment is "corporation".
Erm, she is called Neelie Kroes.
Nancy is Neelie's hotter evil twin sister.