No, it means that the ratings board, whose job it is to evaluate every piece of the entertainment, should know everything about the game.
It's still absurd though, if it means that it's hidden so well that you need to download an extra tool to be able to access the hidden content, at which point it's easier to just search for real porn on the internet, than it is to search for the hidden-artificial-porn-revealer on the internet.
Before this feature, articles like this would simply never appear on the main page unless users configured their homepage to include all articles from the section (in this case "Science"). Now, these non-front-page articles get a small footprint at least.
Anybody that claims "We tried X, and it produced amazing results! Nobody understands the scientific reason behind it, but I sure can tell you it works." is almost certainly peddling snake oil. If something has a profound effect and obviously works, isn't it usually something that's easy to test in the laboratory? And wouldn't it be easy to get research funding for if it's easy to demonstrate? And aren't scientists constantly looking for the next big thing to boost their career? So where is the flock of scientists then?
Simple solution: allow game authors to add whatever cutscenes they want, but make it clear that it's very bad form to not allow the user to skip the cutscene by pressing a key. Then everybody wins.
You're right to some extent, that I wasn't thinking about all possible goals. But technically, CX-OLEV doesn't reduce space junk, though it does delay a satellite's transition from operational to space junk.
Other, less direct approaches would be work towards making work in space cheaper, and thus make it at least less costly to move things around, but generally make it less costly to have more satellites have deorbit plans, and also reduce upper-stage orbital debris.
Okay, look at it another way. How many missions have there been that tried to recover material from space? How many were successful? How much extra did they spend to add the physical recovery capability? Per Genesis, material recovery is currently a fairly tricky and expensive thing to accomplish.
(as a sideline, saying that something that anything can be economical enough if people just used their imagination is a little silly... while imagination can make the impossible into the possible, you still have to always compare the cost of doing something one way versus doing it another... and there's always going to be a cheapest way to do something, no matter how much imagination you apply to a problem)
And had to make sure you didn't put a floppy disk in the drive while booting up, or make sure to configure the BIOS to not boot off the floppy. I used to help maintain a highschool computer lab back in those days, and man, lots of users with poor habits made viruses spread through the lab pretty quickly.
Actually, that's not the proper way to break it down:
Using subpoenas to get data that helps a criminal prosecution -- nonissue
Using court summons to demand that companies aid the research phase of only one side of a political debate -- serious issue
The ONLY OTHER way is to comply, then go tell a newspaper right away. That is, if you can find any actual honest-to-god journalists hanging around anymore these days.
People. Get a grip.
The grip-losing isn't about primarily about companies... if George Bush knocked on my door and demanded something, I don't think anybody would hold it against me if I gave him what he wanted. The issue is still the knocking on the door and demanding stuff, that should never have happened.
Moreover, they did it in a brilliant way. If I was a big guy, and somebody said something I strongly disagreed with, my initial reaction would be to tell them why I disagree with them. But that would have given Bell South an opportunity to argue back, and keep this concept in the headlines for a week or two. By resisting the urge to enumerate why it's such a stupid proposal, and making it clear that there should be no conversation between ISP's and website providers, Google has effectively killed this news story immediately, making it pretty clear that it doesn't matter what ISP's try to say about the issue in the press, because it's simply a non-isuse.
Not to be terribly pedantic, but doesn't it make the sentence look more like a typo, or at least make you do a double-take to make sure they're not talking about multiple rubrics cubes?
a 20 year old Cal Tech student set a new record by solving a 3 rubrics cube in 11.13 seconds.
Killing pawns and rooks is obviously intended to desensitize people into more violent means of expression. Why do you think there are so many smelly people who do medieval reenactment?
As others pointed out, not all 12v-input DC-DC power supplies can handle automotive voltages, which, if my memory serves correctly, usually run 10-12v, but can briefly spike pretty high (40v?). In an automotive environment, you don't want to use a power supply that demands 12.5 - 15v.
Mine's 1920x1080p (the westinghouse 37"). It's more than adequate. The pixel-density isn't really a big deal for computers; you can always move closer or further away to suit personal needs. At some level, the size is there mainly so it can double as a proper television. Also, 1920x1080 is way more than most people are used to running. 21" CRT's can't touch that kind of resolution (you can send a high 4:3 signal to like that to them, but if you run test patterns, you discover that much of the detail can't be displayed). You need a fairly expensive system to run games in 1080p. For desktop apps, it's good, depending on what you use it for. Photoshop and photo viewing are spectacular.
I haven't found a way to rotate 37" widescreen monitors, and I'd really like to move up to 50" at some point. Does anyone know of a mount that lets you rotate large widesceen LCD monitors? One that doesn't attach to the wall so you can use it in an apartment?:(
Alt tabbing works for both maximized and non-maximized windows. The difference is that to maximize something in Windows, you just alt+space X. If you had a tiling window manager, there might be a couple extra keystrokes to select which sub-section of the screen you want to put the window in, but it's still just a few keys.
If, instead, you want to manually partition the screen with your mouse, or otherwise get things to overlap, 1) taking the time to position a window with a mouse, and then resize the window with the mouse, generally takes much more time than banging at 2 - 5 keys, and 2) you're never going to be perfectly precise with the mouse, and you'll always be wasting some part of the screen space because windows aren't nudged up next to each other, or otherwise window boundaries will creep over time, or otherwise you'll end up being forced to overlap windows.
Yeah, webpages are poorly designed, but as far as I know, there's no easy way to make text wrap around in a newspaper-column sort of way. (or if there is, certainly IE won't support it for several more years)
do you consider the windows to be "maximized" in the case where say, two are tiled side by side? I do not; are we simply disagreeing on terminology
Maybe "maximized" isn't the right word, but it allows you to quickly and accurately position the windows with a few keystrokes, which, IMHO, is the impetus for the original maximize-everything habit.
Are you sure 16:9 is more pricey than 4:3? (eg. it's better to computer total number of pixels, or total area of the display, rather than simply the diagonal)
Nonetheless, even if that were true, if you ever play games or watch movies on the display, the pixels are better used if arranged in 16:9/16:10. See these game screenshot comparisons. What really sticks out to me is that on the 4:3 version, you see a lot more of the sky and the ground. On the 16:10 version, you see a lot more to the left and the right, and that stuff is always way more interesting than the sky or the ground. So the extra pixels to the left/right are more valuable to you than pixels on the top/bottom.
Unfortunately if you read text very often, the argument is all wrong, newspaper columns aren't very wide for a reason, and A4 paper is taller than it is wide for a reason, because that's the best configuration for reading text. So what you really want is a 16:9/10 display that can be rotated 90 degrees. Unfortunately I also think that computer monitors should be 40-50", and rotating 40" widescreen displays just doesn't happen.
the usual recommendation seems to be that you want to sit about 3x the screen diagonal away
I've heard those arguments often, but I think they're rediculous. Maybe they apply for movies, I don't know. For my computer, I sit 2' away from a 37" monitor, and it doesn't fill my entire view. Sitting 1' away almost fills my view, but alas I only have 1920x1080, which is a fairly low pixel density for a computer monitor. I really honestly think that 40-50" computer monitors that are something like 5120x3200 are what we'll be using in 20 years.
Maximizing windows is used by a wide number of geeks to speed up their interaction with the window manager, particularly by geeks who prefer the keyboard over the mouse for its speed. Spending time resizing the window with the mouse is not a useful way to spend your time when a few keystrokes do the same job in much less time. The solution to 16 hojillion x 10 hojillon screens is not to stop this maximizing habit, but to have window managers better support heavy keyboard users, possibly through tiling rather than the traditional free-floating paradigm.
Or, to put it another way: a lot of smart geeks do it, and do it for a reason. Saying "just stop doing that" is stupid and doesn't address the reasons why they do it.
I'm perfectly well aware of the applicability of the squareroot button, I just believe strongly in my argument, and chose to present it in the best light possible.
Another argument: Does anyone think it's a good idea to cap all computer games at a 720 x 480 resolution? eg. if the hardware you bought limited resolution to only 480 lines, do you think that's a good idea, or do you want to be able to do 1024x768 or higher? As far as I can tell, if they had the choice, nobody would ever limit themselves to 480 lines for PC games. Why then is playing movies at 1280x720 not a no-brainer?
Slashdot Mirror
It's still absurd though, if it means that it's hidden so well that you need to download an extra tool to be able to access the hidden content, at which point it's easier to just search for real porn on the internet, than it is to search for the hidden-artificial-porn-revealer on the internet.
Is that an internal memo? That seems eerily like it's written by someone with personal experience with it (other than Gates=Him part).
Before this feature, articles like this would simply never appear on the main page unless users configured their homepage to include all articles from the section (in this case "Science"). Now, these non-front-page articles get a small footprint at least.
I can't find the explanation there... care to list the relevant quote from the article?
Anybody that claims "We tried X, and it produced amazing results! Nobody understands the scientific reason behind it, but I sure can tell you it works." is almost certainly peddling snake oil. If something has a profound effect and obviously works, isn't it usually something that's easy to test in the laboratory? And wouldn't it be easy to get research funding for if it's easy to demonstrate? And aren't scientists constantly looking for the next big thing to boost their career? So where is the flock of scientists then?
See also the Joint European Torus, the largest nuclear fusion reactor yet built, and ITER, the international attempt to build a much bigger one.
Simple solution: allow game authors to add whatever cutscenes they want, but make it clear that it's very bad form to not allow the user to skip the cutscene by pressing a key. Then everybody wins.
Oh, you're right, see this article. A chip of white paint travelling 10,800 hit the Shuttle window. wow.
Other, less direct approaches would be work towards making work in space cheaper, and thus make it at least less costly to move things around, but generally make it less costly to have more satellites have deorbit plans, and also reduce upper-stage orbital debris.
Already happened, see the french satellite Cerise (and Lottie Williams from Oklahoma?)
Yes, there are numerous ways to retrieve material (see the Long Duration Exposure Facility), but AFAIK, all of them are quite expensive. Something that moves material into a graveyard orbit, or otherwise moves it out of the way of important stuff is probably a much more efficient idea.
(as a sideline, saying that something that anything can be economical enough if people just used their imagination is a little silly... while imagination can make the impossible into the possible, you still have to always compare the cost of doing something one way versus doing it another... and there's always going to be a cheapest way to do something, no matter how much imagination you apply to a problem)
And had to make sure you didn't put a floppy disk in the drive while booting up, or make sure to configure the BIOS to not boot off the floppy. I used to help maintain a highschool computer lab back in those days, and man, lots of users with poor habits made viruses spread through the lab pretty quickly.
Using subpoenas to get data that helps a criminal prosecution -- nonissue
Using court summons to demand that companies aid the research phase of only one side of a political debate -- serious issue
People. Get a grip.
The grip-losing isn't about primarily about companies... if George Bush knocked on my door and demanded something, I don't think anybody would hold it against me if I gave him what he wanted. The issue is still the knocking on the door and demanding stuff, that should never have happened.Moreover, they did it in a brilliant way. If I was a big guy, and somebody said something I strongly disagreed with, my initial reaction would be to tell them why I disagree with them. But that would have given Bell South an opportunity to argue back, and keep this concept in the headlines for a week or two. By resisting the urge to enumerate why it's such a stupid proposal, and making it clear that there should be no conversation between ISP's and website providers, Google has effectively killed this news story immediately, making it pretty clear that it doesn't matter what ISP's try to say about the issue in the press, because it's simply a non-isuse.
Killing pawns and rooks is obviously intended to desensitize people into more violent means of expression. Why do you think there are so many smelly people who do medieval reenactment?
As others pointed out, not all 12v-input DC-DC power supplies can handle automotive voltages, which, if my memory serves correctly, usually run 10-12v, but can briefly spike pretty high (40v?). In an automotive environment, you don't want to use a power supply that demands 12.5 - 15v.
Mine's 1920x1080p (the westinghouse 37"). It's more than adequate. The pixel-density isn't really a big deal for computers; you can always move closer or further away to suit personal needs. At some level, the size is there mainly so it can double as a proper television. Also, 1920x1080 is way more than most people are used to running. 21" CRT's can't touch that kind of resolution (you can send a high 4:3 signal to like that to them, but if you run test patterns, you discover that much of the detail can't be displayed). You need a fairly expensive system to run games in 1080p. For desktop apps, it's good, depending on what you use it for. Photoshop and photo viewing are spectacular.
I haven't found a way to rotate 37" widescreen monitors, and I'd really like to move up to 50" at some point. Does anyone know of a mount that lets you rotate large widesceen LCD monitors? One that doesn't attach to the wall so you can use it in an apartment? :(
If, instead, you want to manually partition the screen with your mouse, or otherwise get things to overlap, 1) taking the time to position a window with a mouse, and then resize the window with the mouse, generally takes much more time than banging at 2 - 5 keys, and 2) you're never going to be perfectly precise with the mouse, and you'll always be wasting some part of the screen space because windows aren't nudged up next to each other, or otherwise window boundaries will creep over time, or otherwise you'll end up being forced to overlap windows.
Yeah, webpages are poorly designed, but as far as I know, there's no easy way to make text wrap around in a newspaper-column sort of way. (or if there is, certainly IE won't support it for several more years)
Maybe "maximized" isn't the right word, but it allows you to quickly and accurately position the windows with a few keystrokes, which, IMHO, is the impetus for the original maximize-everything habit.Nonetheless, even if that were true, if you ever play games or watch movies on the display, the pixels are better used if arranged in 16:9/16:10. See these game screenshot comparisons. What really sticks out to me is that on the 4:3 version, you see a lot more of the sky and the ground. On the 16:10 version, you see a lot more to the left and the right, and that stuff is always way more interesting than the sky or the ground. So the extra pixels to the left/right are more valuable to you than pixels on the top/bottom.
Unfortunately if you read text very often, the argument is all wrong, newspaper columns aren't very wide for a reason, and A4 paper is taller than it is wide for a reason, because that's the best configuration for reading text. So what you really want is a 16:9/10 display that can be rotated 90 degrees. Unfortunately I also think that computer monitors should be 40-50", and rotating 40" widescreen displays just doesn't happen.
I've heard those arguments often, but I think they're rediculous. Maybe they apply for movies, I don't know. For my computer, I sit 2' away from a 37" monitor, and it doesn't fill my entire view. Sitting 1' away almost fills my view, but alas I only have 1920x1080, which is a fairly low pixel density for a computer monitor. I really honestly think that 40-50" computer monitors that are something like 5120x3200 are what we'll be using in 20 years.
Or, to put it another way: a lot of smart geeks do it, and do it for a reason. Saying "just stop doing that" is stupid and doesn't address the reasons why they do it.
Another argument: Does anyone think it's a good idea to cap all computer games at a 720 x 480 resolution? eg. if the hardware you bought limited resolution to only 480 lines, do you think that's a good idea, or do you want to be able to do 1024x768 or higher? As far as I can tell, if they had the choice, nobody would ever limit themselves to 480 lines for PC games. Why then is playing movies at 1280x720 not a no-brainer?