Ok, I took a closer look...I guess the benefit is screen space. But the tradeoff is accessibility. Just think, how long does it take you to hunt for the right button in a large series of toolbars...how long did it take to train your brain to go to the right places for certain functions. I think it might actually be more confusing to see all your options which were previously visible disappear and reappear....your brain would have to re-hunt for the right button, etc. I think in general, in human factors research, disappearing/unpredictable UI is not a good thing.
Well there are ways to trim down CORBA alot to bypass network requirements, etc...but yes, even the trimmest CORBA orb will have some additional overhead over straight calls...it just needs to be used when appropriate.
Both of these people are agreeing with each other, and are somewhat on the same side of the fence:
1) They both believe maliciousness of any form is reprehensible and rightfully legally punishable.
2) They both agree that "true" hackers (those who follow the "hacker ethic") are doing it for the passion, the intrigue, the curiosity and discovery of it.
3) They both think that more encryption and education are the solution, not just closing their eyes and blaming "bad" people.
That's a good point...how does DoubleClick know it is obtaining information from people in countries in which it is legal to do so? Is there a way for DoubleClick to know, besides looking up an index of ISPs and discarding the information if it is illegally obtained, which I'm sure they would never do...
"It enables nifty user interface tricks, like toolbar menus that fade away when you aren't touching the mouse."
More eyecandy and stupid gui tricks from MS...how is this useful in the slightest? This is on par with the amazing zooming menus. A lot of use it is...anyway, if I'm not touching the mouse, I'm possibly gone from the computer, at which point it doesn't matter what tricks it does, I won't see it...
"How will Americans feel when most of the young come from another culture?"
I think our conventional approach is to put them in pots and melt them...or so I've heard...
But on a serious note...I a tiny part of the reason poor, or underdeveloped countries have more children per family, is that as you reach the asymptote of scarcity of resources, conditions become different. Now death is a lot more random. Your chances of survival, even if you are the best equipped given the circumstances, may still not be enough. For instance, disease kills almost indiscriminately. The logicaly choice then would be, against conventional thinking of maximising the resources per child, to have somewhat more children in hopes that random events don't kill your only as-well-as-can-be-expected cared-for child.
I just want to note something. Coercion indicates an ability to resist. However, it is quite possible, to have brainwashed belief...or suggestive belief. Belief in which one simply does not resist. For instance, you can tell a child almost anything and they will believe it (I onced guessed that my father made approximately 1 million dollars a year and thought that was sensible). If you start a child on religion (or any system of beliefs) young, then they will most probably never doubt it and never come to it themselves. Instead of doing something like this, I would rather see children brought up in a religiously agnostic environment and come to their own beliefs (or lack thereof). Of course this makes it too late to choose some religions (baptism, circumcision??).
"What Katz ignores, ignores, IGNORES is the fallacy that is implied by the above statement. The fallacy is as follows: "All Christians have exactly the same views, and all those views are terribly narrow-minded." This statement is so laughably untrue that I don't even know where to begin."
It is not ABNORMAL, to characterize people following the same religion similarly. In fact it is normal and expected. Sure it's a stereotype, but it is not an unfounded stereotype. The religion itself usually predefines characteristics of its followers, so in most cases one/is/ safe to assume the followers are generally alike in respect to the tenets of their religion. SURE, there are people who have different interpretations and believe differently. But Christianity in general is pretty homogenous. That there are people who dissent with the "standard" view, does not make it any less laughable that staunch advocates or "fundamentals" are doing something percieved as hypocritical. I don't see how people who DO have differing beliefs would be so affected by this...the immediate thought that would come to mind is "look at what/they/ are doing", a differentiation between the perception of "Christianity" being put forth, and my own, admittably variant perception. If your beliefs are admittedly different, how does a characterization of the average insult you? Sure, people have different beliefs, but I think the connotation of the average organized Christian establishment Sunday-church-going makes this humorous. Perhaps Katz should just preface his articles with:
"No, Katz did not critisize religion. He critisized the members of a religion, by lumping them together as a group and otherwise acting in the way he claims the traditional media does towards geeks."
Well...a religion is a lot more binding and characteristic than an ill-defined and vague slang term. When someone proclaims to be of a certain religion, it is NOT unexpected to conceptually group them with others proclaiming the same religion...in fact it is EXPECTED, and often desired. It's nobody's fault if Christians don't want to be lumped with other Christians (applies for any religion). Maybe the particular sect should be mentioned as a qualifier then. If the traditional media described all geeks as being the "average" geek then they would still be a bit flawed, but certainly closer to the truth. What the media does is provide a view wildly different from all geeks in general. Christianity, on the other hand has a standard to which one can be normalized. When one says "Christian", well, you can pretty much surmise that they believe in the texts of the Bible and accept Christ as their savior. I don't see any evil stereotyping going on there.
"In fact I am not, but I do intensely dislike anyone putting people down as a group on the basis of something like religion, skin color or political belief. I am for freedom and tolerance, and Katz's article just didn't seem very tolerant to me..."
The fundamental problem in the "tolerance" argument is that the only thing tolerating people do not tolerate is intolerance! I think that's the problem. Sure, it's wrong to put people down base merely on religion, skin color, or political belief...BUT, in this atmosphere of altruistic tolerance, the one catch is that any who are/intolerant/ are naturally the enemy of the system, regardless of their skin color, religion, race, whatever. Some people just take the opportunity (or make the slip) or observing a high correlation between intolerance and another given trait, like, say, religion...
"Sorry, but Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity"
But isn't "Hebrew" an ethnicity though? It sounds awkward, but aren't there really a Hebrew people? What about the descendents/followers of Abraham? I would assume these are the "Hebrew", as in the ethnicity characterized by the language. As you mention, it is entirely possible to be Hebrew and/not/ Jewish. It was my impression though, that there was a distinct and intact ethnicity, Hebrew.
"If this is significant of anything, it's that this is the first time this particular group has been targeted by a video game company (as opposed to retro-gamers, wargamers, arm-chair huntsmen, etc.)."
I think the point is that it isn't simply another demographic being targeted by the "game industry", but that the programmers are Christian and are doing because they believe they have a calling (obligation, whatever) from God to do it.
"Why is this bad news if they're good games? Because they're religion based? Or for other reasons?"
I think the bad news he means in this sentence is that this will spawn more hypocritical people churning out games dictating a rule of morality and ethics, but only looking for a buck in doing so.
I think the bad news in general, though, is that the very people who preach against violence and hate, etc., are actually promoting (whether meaningfully or not), but selling a game in which one is rewarded for performing heinous violent acts of other beings as long as these being are considered "evil" by the author. How many more steps removed is an "NRA: Shoot the Liberals" game?
If they give you the opportunity to ascend into holiness and stomp the evil demons, I don't think it is fair that they dictate that you just be destroyed if you go the other way. I mean, shouldn't you be just as able to become a powerful henchman of Satan and overthrow heaven or something? I guess it isn't about fairness though...
Sheesh...I thought we wiped out Hell in the Doom saga...Hell is trite, contrived and boring...I'm sick of fighting demons...
I would like to see what the characters look like in this game though...are there abortion doctor demons? how about Howard Stern...man, he's both obscene AND jewish...he would be worth a lot of points.
Barnes and Nobles, after their recent purchase, is now BOTH the largest retailer AND the largest publisher in the US (I believe). They put many small book shops and publishers out of business every day. I don't feel sorry for them. On the other hand, Amazon.com is a CUSTOMER of these small bookshops. Order a book in Great Britain and it comes from the tiny bookshop down the street. That's money that goes into small businesses pockets. That's more choice, and a much more open system. Sure the Amazon "patent" might be silly, but I'm not going to cry for Barnes and Nobles.
Man! Wouldn't I love to use patterns named Fist of the Firemonkey, etc. That should would liven up meetings and code reviews...
"As you can see here, I'm using the FISTOFTHEFIREMONKEY pattern...this pattern integrates well with the previous FLAMINGLIZARDBREATH and OMIGODTHESEAMONKEYSAREHATCHING patterns."
I don't want to be a naysayer, but Linux just might not fit the bill in this case. Although I'm personally a fan of the cutesyness of the Mac OS GUI, I'd have to say I would suggest it over Linux or Windows. Heck, install BeOS.
The Mac/BeOS is simple enough that one can turn the box on and off and not have to worry about what's going on under the hood. Your grandfather should not even have to know what "log on" means.
Ok, I read like the first few sentences and thought imediately, if, unlike copyrights, patents don't serve to protect people from others stealing/copying their ideas, but instead allow them to create a monopoly on an idea, WHY do we even have them? The two characteristics of a patent listed were novelty, and non-obviousness. If another inventor/invented/ a/novel//non-obvious/ piece of work which was similar to yours, you should NOT have the right to force him from selling or distributing or using it, as long as he didn't steal any content or ideas from you.
Does this not make sense. Really...if we have copyright law, what are patents for? Sure, you can say patents are for ideas, whereas copyrights are for materials things. That still doesn't answer the question what good patents are. Ideas could just as well fit under "copyright"able items (not that that is a great idea, but it has to be better than patents).
I say if you did something cool in your backyard, so to speak, you should not be able to be stomped on by someone bigger just because he "called it" first.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I took a closer look...I guess the benefit is screen space. But the tradeoff is accessibility. Just think, how long does it take you to hunt for the right button in a large series of toolbars...how long did it take to train your brain to go to the right places for certain functions. I think it might actually be more confusing to see all your options which were previously visible disappear and reappear....your brain would have to re-hunt for the right button, etc. I think in general, in human factors research, disappearing/unpredictable UI is not a good thing.
Well there are ways to trim down CORBA alot to bypass network requirements, etc...but yes, even the trimmest CORBA orb will have some additional overhead over straight calls...it just needs to be used when appropriate.
Both of these people are agreeing with each other, and are somewhat on the same side of the fence:
1) They both believe maliciousness of any form is reprehensible and rightfully legally punishable.
2) They both agree that "true" hackers (those who follow the "hacker ethic") are doing it for the passion, the intrigue, the curiosity and discovery of it.
3) They both think that more encryption and education are the solution, not just closing their eyes and blaming "bad" people.
"hacker" is a state of mind...
I was just checking out the research link and am amazed at the amount of research MS has...
/that/ off??
Some even in Beijing, China...how do they pull
That's a good point...how does DoubleClick know it is obtaining information from people in countries in which it is legal to do so? Is there a way for DoubleClick to know, besides looking up an index of ISPs and discarding the information if it is illegally obtained, which I'm sure they would never do...
"It enables nifty user interface tricks, like toolbar menus that fade away when you aren't touching the mouse."
More eyecandy and stupid gui tricks from MS...how is this useful in the slightest? This is on par with the amazing zooming menus. A lot of use it is...anyway, if I'm not touching the mouse, I'm possibly gone from the computer, at which point it doesn't matter what tricks it does, I won't see it...
"I think my favorite part about this story is the comment about Americans being a likely market. *grin*"
Well, I'm still waiting for glow in the dark, multicolored lawn flamingos...
"How will Americans feel when most of the young come from another culture?"
I think our conventional approach is to put them in pots and melt them...or so I've heard...
But on a serious note...I a tiny part of the reason poor, or underdeveloped countries have more children per family, is that as you reach the asymptote of scarcity of resources, conditions become different. Now death is a lot more random. Your chances of survival, even if you are the best equipped given the circumstances, may still not be enough. For instance, disease kills almost indiscriminately. The logicaly choice then would be, against conventional thinking of maximising the resources per child, to have somewhat more children in hopes that random events don't kill your only as-well-as-can-be-expected cared-for child.
"Coerced belief isn't really belief."
I just want to note something. Coercion indicates an ability to resist. However, it is quite possible, to have brainwashed belief...or suggestive belief. Belief in which one simply does not resist. For instance, you can tell a child almost anything and they will believe it (I onced guessed that my father made approximately 1 million dollars a year and thought that was sensible). If you start a child on religion (or any system of beliefs) young, then they will most probably never doubt it and never come to it themselves. Instead of doing something like this, I would rather see children brought up in a religiously agnostic environment and come to their own beliefs (or lack thereof). Of course this makes it too late to choose some religions (baptism, circumcision??).
"What Katz ignores, ignores, IGNORES is the fallacy that is implied by the above statement.
/is/ safe to assume the followers are generally alike in respect to the tenets of their religion. SURE, there are people who have different interpretations and believe differently. But Christianity in general is pretty homogenous. That there are people who dissent with the "standard" view, does not make it any less laughable that staunch advocates or "fundamentals" are doing something percieved as hypocritical. I don't see how people who DO have differing beliefs would be so affected by this...the immediate thought that would come to mind is "look at what /they/ are doing", a differentiation between the perception of "Christianity" being put forth, and my own, admittably variant perception. If your beliefs are admittedly different, how does a characterization of the average insult you? Sure, people have different beliefs, but I think the connotation of the average organized Christian establishment Sunday-church-going makes this humorous. Perhaps Katz should just preface his articles with:
The fallacy is as follows:
"All Christians have exactly the same views, and all those views are terribly narrow-minded."
This statement is so laughably untrue that I don't even know where to begin."
It is not ABNORMAL, to characterize people following the same religion similarly. In fact it is normal and expected. Sure it's a stereotype, but it is not an unfounded stereotype. The religion itself usually predefines characteristics of its followers, so in most cases one
#undef Christianity_Individual_Differing_Views
#define Christianity Christianity_Std_Definition
"No, Katz did not critisize religion. He critisized the members of a religion, by lumping them together as a group and otherwise acting in the way he claims the traditional media does towards geeks."
/intolerant/ are naturally the enemy of the system, regardless of their skin color, religion, race, whatever. Some people just take the opportunity (or make the slip) or observing a high correlation between intolerance and another given trait, like, say, religion...
Well...a religion is a lot more binding and characteristic than an ill-defined and vague slang term. When someone proclaims to be of a certain religion, it is NOT unexpected to conceptually group them with others proclaiming the same religion...in fact it is EXPECTED, and often desired. It's nobody's fault if Christians don't want to be lumped with other Christians (applies for any religion). Maybe the particular sect should be mentioned as a qualifier then. If the traditional media described all geeks as being the "average" geek then they would still be a bit flawed, but certainly closer to the truth. What the media does is provide a view wildly different from all geeks in general. Christianity, on the other hand has a standard to which one can be normalized. When one says "Christian", well, you can pretty much surmise that they believe in the texts of the Bible and accept Christ as their savior. I don't see any evil stereotyping going on there.
"In fact I am not, but I do intensely dislike anyone putting people down as a group on the basis of something like religion, skin color or political belief. I am for freedom and tolerance, and Katz's article just didn't seem very tolerant to me..."
The fundamental problem in the "tolerance" argument is that the only thing tolerating people do not tolerate is intolerance! I think that's the problem. Sure, it's wrong to put people down base merely on religion, skin color, or political belief...BUT, in this atmosphere of altruistic tolerance, the one catch is that any who are
"Sorry, but Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity"
/not/ Jewish. It was my impression though, that there was a distinct and intact ethnicity, Hebrew.
But isn't "Hebrew" an ethnicity though? It sounds awkward, but aren't there really a Hebrew people? What about the descendents/followers of Abraham? I would assume these are the "Hebrew", as in the ethnicity characterized by the language. As you mention, it is entirely possible to be Hebrew and
"If this is significant of anything, it's that this is the first time this particular group has been targeted by a video game company (as opposed to retro-gamers, wargamers, arm-chair huntsmen, etc.)."
I think the point is that it isn't simply another demographic being targeted by the "game industry", but that the programmers are Christian and are doing because they believe they have a calling (obligation, whatever) from God to do it.
"Why is this bad news if they're good games? Because they're religion based? Or for other reasons?"
I think the bad news he means in this sentence is that this will spawn more hypocritical people churning out games dictating a rule of morality and ethics, but only looking for a buck in doing so.
I think the bad news in general, though, is that the very people who preach against violence and hate, etc., are actually promoting (whether meaningfully or not), but selling a game in which one is rewarded for performing heinous violent acts of other beings as long as these being are considered "evil" by the author. How many more steps removed is an "NRA: Shoot the Liberals" game?
If they give you the opportunity to ascend into holiness and stomp the evil demons, I don't think it is fair that they dictate that you just be destroyed if you go the other way. I mean, shouldn't you be just as able to become a powerful henchman of Satan and overthrow heaven or something? I guess it isn't about fairness though...
Sheesh...I thought we wiped out Hell in the Doom saga...Hell is trite, contrived and boring...I'm sick of fighting demons...
I would like to see what the characters look like in this game though...are there abortion doctor demons? how about Howard Stern...man, he's both obscene AND jewish...he would be worth a lot of points.
Alcohol has a lower freezing point than water, though...so you can get it much cooler before it freezes up on you.
Barnes and Nobles, after their recent purchase, is now BOTH the largest retailer AND the largest publisher in the US (I believe). They put many small book shops and publishers out of business every day. I don't feel sorry for them. On the other hand, Amazon.com is a CUSTOMER of these small bookshops. Order a book in Great Britain and it comes from the tiny bookshop down the street. That's money that goes into small businesses pockets. That's more choice, and a much more open system. Sure the Amazon "patent" might be silly, but I'm not going to cry for Barnes and Nobles.
Both osopinion and upsidetoday are screwed...
sheesh
Will this be a Bonobo component?
Man! Wouldn't I love to use patterns named Fist of the Firemonkey, etc. That should would liven up meetings and code reviews...
"As you can see here, I'm using the FISTOFTHEFIREMONKEY pattern...this pattern integrates well with the previous FLAMINGLIZARDBREATH and OMIGODTHESEAMONKEYSAREHATCHING patterns."
onward indeed...I hope other hardware companies join the bandwagon
all Linux soliders and solderers prepare...
"Although I'm personally a fan" = "Although I'm NOT personally a fan"
I don't want to be a naysayer, but Linux just might not fit the bill in this case. Although I'm personally a fan of the cutesyness of the Mac OS GUI, I'd have to say I would suggest it over Linux or Windows. Heck, install BeOS.
The Mac/BeOS is simple enough that one can turn the box on and off and not have to worry about what's going on under the hood. Your grandfather should not even have to know what "log on" means.
Ok, I read like the first few sentences and thought imediately, if, unlike copyrights, patents don't serve to protect people from others stealing/copying their ideas, but instead allow them to create a monopoly on an idea, WHY do we even have them? The two characteristics of a patent listed were novelty, and non-obviousness. If another inventor /invented/ a /novel/ /non-obvious/ piece of work which was similar to yours, you should NOT have the right to force him from selling or distributing or using it, as long as he didn't steal any content or ideas from you.
Does this not make sense. Really...if we have copyright law, what are patents for? Sure, you can say patents are for ideas, whereas copyrights are for materials things. That still doesn't answer the question what good patents are. Ideas could just as well fit under "copyright"able items (not that that is a great idea, but it has to be better than patents).
I say if you did something cool in your backyard, so to speak, you should not be able to be stomped on by someone bigger just because he "called it" first.
Jurassic Park was another completely hokey depiction of computers.