While Kennecott might be boring to you, so might skiing, mountain biking, hiking, fishing, etc. be boring to others.
Utah has a lot to offer to outdoorsy type people, but not much to offer to the less active. So the couch potatoes will just have to visit the copper mine (or dozens of closed silver mines that also attract touristas).
it's the only FPS many immature gamers have ever played
If only that weren't true. I started out on cs, love the game, but I wish 90% of the people on there would grow up or get out. I will often turn to medal of honor, call of duty, or a different genre (usually rts) just for a change in maturity level.
Honestly I wasn't kidding. I may be ignorant as to what importance those stats mean in BF2, but I wasn't that impressed. The best way to tell how good a person is is not their stats, but actually watching them in game. As I'm currently "working" I don't see that as too likely.
I mostly stopped playing 1942 because rounds lasted too long. I'm used to counterstrike where it's 5 minutes top per round. Like I said before, I may widely off base.
0.94 kills a minute? 14.21 kills per round? That's just bollocks.
It's been a while since I played Battlefield 1942, haven't played BF2, but one kill every sixty seconds? Crap. Maybe you play to succeed (take over/defend), but killing is my forte. If I go into an enemy base (almost always on foot or via parachute from a kamikaze plane) I end up killing everything in sight. Two minutes between runs, at least 10 kills per run (depending on size of other team, and how cramped together they are).
Racking up kills is my only strategy. I'd recommend some time on counterstrike to improve that 21.69% accuracy. Shoot for head. If you miss, you suck. If you hit, you kill. What more do you need? 6 months of cs and you'll be pushing 50% accuracy or more.
Overall though, you seem competent enough with 885/423 win/loss and 0.36 deaths per minute (mine would more like.75 - 1 per minute). If I misinterpreted your stats (like I said, haven't played BF2, on 1942), feel free to correct me.
I agree. Having just started playing the game Saturday night I can say it's a damn fine game, but nothing terribly new.
From what I can tell it's essentially ICO with a better battle system and without the ghost girl. Solve a puzzle, beat up baddies. It is Zelda (the original 2d top down ones) in 3d.
That all said, I loved ICO and I loved the Zelda games. I love God of War for the same reasons. It's an extremely fun game, with great visuals to boot. The story is so so, the puzzles are relatively simple, but it's FUN. I agree that it should be a finalist, but it's not innovative. Very few games (for the PS2 at least, the Gamecube and DS have tons) are innovative nowadays, but that doesn't detract from a really good game.
If there's a true need for it, won't the market fulfil the need?
Also, just because the government says that it should "understand" spoken audio, I'm pretty sure that no existing technology could even come close (<sarcasm>just look at the wonderful translation tools</sarcasm>).
Sans keayboard, viewsonic makes something just like this.
It's essentially a tablet pc without the pc. Crappy resolution, but it works wirelessly. The biggest problem though: it's about the same heft and thickness as a normal tablet pc.
What I'd like is one that works wirelessly, 1280x1024 or greater res., has a detachable keybord/touchpad, and is at least as light and thin as a good laptop. Of course, it would probably cost as much as a real laptop as the lcd alone is more than half the price.
They didn't sell the stock earbuds. This is what my friend asked for. They might have been sold out of the cheaper ones. This was during the holiday rush.
Admittedly I really liked the store (and most of the products). The layout reminded me of a jewelry shop. Almost every item they had was shown operational and touchable on a medium height table. This meant no racks of stuff (except on one wall w/ software) to clutter up the esthetics. Unfortunately they hadn't thought of the fact that ipods are popular. The place was packed with 100+ people while the isles were about 4 feet apart. With 15+ people packed into each isle it was nearly impossible to even see what they had, let alone what it cost.
...disposable income to spend on legal downloads than owner of lesser^H^H expensive mp3 players.
I'd say that this is actually quite likely.
My friend and I recently went to an Apple store to replace his worn out earbuds for his ipod. They had two different earbuds for sale; both over an hundred clams. Not having access to large amounts of money, we ended up going elsewhere.
By noticing the large amount of hundred dollar shirts, two hundred dollar shoes, and smelling quite a large amount of yuppiness, I'd have to say that the average joe there earned more than my friend and I combined. Admittedly both of us are middle classians, but these folks obviously did not fall into that category.
My friend's music collection is probably 50/50 when it comes to legality. He would buy it all if it were available though. He listens to some weird shit, so it's unlikely that the ITMS will start having all of his musical interests any time soon.
Re:Mod parent either "Funny" or "Sci Fi Villain"
on
Return to the Moon
·
· Score: 1
I've always wanted to me modded +5 Sci Fi Villain.
The moon, tis a harsh mistress
on
Return to the Moon
·
· Score: 3, Funny
... the proposal to make the miners permanent settlers...
Why not just send up the thousands of criminals filling our penal system? Have them work the mines. We'll give them a ticket home when they've served off their sentance.
I don't understand the analogy. Could you elaborate?
I'm not talking about the paint making process, but the actual paint compound. My point is that software is more than just a sequence of instructions, just as paint is more than just a color. Software is (or at least most commercial software is) essentially a black box that does something. For example, if you create a purely physical machine to detect counterfiet money, would that not be patentable? Why then wouldn't a piece of software that just reads the scanned image to detect forgery not be patentable? Both devices accomplish the same task, but through different means. Both, as genuine inventions, deserve equal rights.
What seperates software from being "just an idea" or "just a formula" is that its creation process is identical to that of a physical device. You start with a problem, you design a solution, you build it. The instructions in software are just the metals and plastics of modern invention.
I don't like the idea of patenting all solutions to a problem, but patenting a solution (whether tangible or not) to problem is, and always should be, perfectly acceptable. The argument that all software patents are overly broad is no more valid than saying that asians are good at math. Not being omniscient, I don't know of any software patents that I would deem valid, but that doesn't mean there can't be any.
Nonsense. I can think of plenty of reasons to innovate and to create new products other than their potential patentability.
I agree. There are many reasons (hobby, fun, etc), but the biggest reason products are created is for profit. Usually if a product is anything but the most complex, it is readily copied by competitors. This results in little profit for the original inventor. Sure, you get the ego trip of saying you were the first, but in the corporate world, that's not much.
If certain types patents turn out to be bad for the economy (which I agree almost all software patents are), they would be eliminated in time. This is the direct result of living in a democracy. If things get bad, the elected officials are (eventually) forced to change their ways. Even in a non-elected department like the USPTO, there is still oversight and influence from elected officials.
Remember that the government moves slowly. This seems to be the first step towards sanity.
Second, software is essentially a number,
While software has abstractly always existed, it still needs to be created. It can not be discoverd like other things in nature. Prime numbers aren't patentable because they are discovered, not created. (sidenote: Genes shouldn't be patentable because they were discovered, not created). Maybe if, in the future, software is somehow discovered in the same way we discover prime numbers then you can make the math argument. Until then, they are indeed invented.
Third, software is essentially a sequence of instructions, and a recipe is not an invention.
That's like saying that you can't patent a new type of paint because its color is blue. A sequence of instructions (ie a business method) is indeed patentable. The problem lies in the fact that people are patenting something that they contributed little or nothing to. Software, like recipes, is very rarely made completely from scratch. It is usually based on some preexisting idea or solution. However, making a new flavor of cake, and a creating competing search engine algorithm are too widely different things. Most people make that distinction. I'm glad the USPTO does too.
Fourth, the unique properties of software allow its development to be very rapid
Since that is the case, you should be arguing for shorter patent lengths. In my opinion there should be two kinds of patents: tangibles and intangibles. Tangibles (things, drug formulas, etc) would have the current term (17 years?), and intangibles (business practices, software, etc) would have a much shorter term, like 5 years. Your argument makes it sound like you're whining. Boo hoo, I can't compete with the big guys because they thought of an idea first. Well suck it up. When thier patent expires you can have a shot at them. If you want to compete now you'll have to solve the problem a different way. If your way is better, you'll win. That's what capatilism is all about.
Later we can worry about elliminating software patents entirely.
This I don't get. Why should we limit the ability for an ingenius inventor to gain a government funded temporary monopoly for software, but not for a physical thing? If you're against intellectual property completely, you're against patents completely. Without patents there is little incentive (ie money) for new products to be made.
I see this as (if implemented correctly) the only necessary step. The biggest problem with software patents fall into three categories: 1) too vague/too broad, and thus can be used to sue the little guy who does something relatively similar, 2) already exists, and thus can be used to sue everyone, and 3) blatently obvious, and can be used to sue people you don't like, or you think have too much money.
All three of these problems can be solved by correct oversight. If somebody comes up with a truly unique piece of software, that person is entitled to a patent just as if he/she had invented something tangible. The world has evolved, so should the patent office.
blogger.com doesn't take ref'ed links to images.
copy and pase the link to view the dude's doo, or lack there of. I'd mostly rogaine should be his friend.
That's essentially one of the 10 or so ways that I filter spam at my company. Want the list of blacklisted spam servers? Here ya go (or at least the last 500 of 11000+):
69.251.4.133 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 00:57:17 MST 12005
202.140.36.53 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 02:44:37 MST 12005
60.49.57.77 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 04:08:35 MST 12005
202.175.190.35 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 04:45:05 MST 12005
69.207.109.25 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 05:11:19 MST 12005
82.228.10.168 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 05:21:54 MST 12005
71.194.172.94 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 05:36:16 MST 12005
71.192.144.96 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 06:35:08 MST 12005
71.198.224.94 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 06:54:46 MST 12005
84.227.195.5 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 07:04:47 MST 12005
66.98.89.58 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 07:09:13 MST 12005
209.128.122.4 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 08:36:17 MST 12005
221.128.77.96 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 08:47:11 MST 12005
66.176.177.123 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 09:25:55 MST 12005
69.15.194.66 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 10:24:53 MST 12005
10.10.223.148 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 10:24:53 MST 12005
71.56.252.236 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 10:38:17 MST 12005
216.91.137.142 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 10:38:17 MST 12005
85.164.12.85 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 10:40:12 MST 12005
66.24.76.120 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 11:03:20 MST 12005
200.121.78.122 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 11:11:41 MST 12005
67.189.134.138 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 11:48:49 MST 12005
24.175.121.141 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 11:51:43 MST 12005
216.163.188.54 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 11:51:43 MST 12005
86.62.199.181 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 12:02:42 MST 12005
85.228.96.231 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 12:11:17 MST 12005
24.164.119.71 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 12:11:23 MST 12005
85.225.90.116 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 12:13:34 MST 12005
24.19.255.79 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 13:05:20 MST 12005
83.171.156.120 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 13:52:02 MST 12005
66.63.208.195 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 14:01:45 MST 12005
130.212.178.158 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 14:59:52 MST 12005
71.14.19.44 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 17:04:56 MST 12005
87.74.70.29 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 17:06:51 MST 12005
65.190.135.168 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 17:45:33 MST 12005
68.60.66.189 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 18:07:58 MST 12005
66.65.41.231 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 19:04:49 MST 12005
129.187.254.102 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 19:04:49 MST 12005
24.10.202.61 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 19:14:03 MST 12005
38.117.156.34 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 19:49:52 MST 12005
66.75.158.41 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 20:58:11 MST 12005
212.108.64.64 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 20:58:11 MST 12005
12.25.244.120 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 20:58:41 MST 12005
61.91.131.114 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 21:45:03 MST 12005
24.210.100.147 REJECT # ST:Mon Dec 19 23:02:23 MST 1
I agree. Too often admins see the problem of "insecure or unwanted traffic on port XX" and solve it by blocking port XX. My question is why wasn't that port already blocked? As a system administrator I block All ports except the ones we need. Even then those ports are monitored for the correct kind of data.
No this won't stop all the baddies, but why would you leave ports open at all?
It's not so much that they have names that aren't self documenting, it's that they have easily remembered names. The list they have shows Nero and WinAmp as popular windows.
I don't think the problem is with odd names (although sometimes they can be a bit obtuse), I think it's really just market share. If thunderbird was preinstalled on 100% of windows machines (like outlook express does), people would quickly learn to equate thunderbird to e-mail the same way they do with outlook. The same thing applies to gimp, xine, konquerer, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, thanks to google, I found a link to the story.
Just remember, when we jump we'll be going roughly the speed of light, so roll when land.
Utah has a lot to offer to outdoorsy type people, but not much to offer to the less active. So the couch potatoes will just have to visit the copper mine (or dozens of closed silver mines that also attract touristas).
Yes, yes I do.
If only that weren't true. I started out on cs, love the game, but I wish 90% of the people on there would grow up or get out. I will often turn to medal of honor, call of duty, or a different genre (usually rts) just for a change in maturity level.
I mostly stopped playing 1942 because rounds lasted too long. I'm used to counterstrike where it's 5 minutes top per round. Like I said before, I may widely off base.
It's been a while since I played Battlefield 1942, haven't played BF2, but one kill every sixty seconds? Crap. Maybe you play to succeed (take over/defend), but killing is my forte. If I go into an enemy base (almost always on foot or via parachute from a kamikaze plane) I end up killing everything in sight. Two minutes between runs, at least 10 kills per run (depending on size of other team, and how cramped together they are).
Racking up kills is my only strategy. I'd recommend some time on counterstrike to improve that 21.69% accuracy. Shoot for head. If you miss, you suck. If you hit, you kill. What more do you need? 6 months of cs and you'll be pushing 50% accuracy or more.
Overall though, you seem competent enough with 885/423 win/loss and 0.36 deaths per minute (mine would more like .75 - 1 per minute). If I misinterpreted your stats (like I said, haven't played BF2, on 1942), feel free to correct me.
From what I can tell it's essentially ICO with a better battle system and without the ghost girl. Solve a puzzle, beat up baddies. It is Zelda (the original 2d top down ones) in 3d.
That all said, I loved ICO and I loved the Zelda games. I love God of War for the same reasons. It's an extremely fun game, with great visuals to boot. The story is so so, the puzzles are relatively simple, but it's FUN. I agree that it should be a finalist, but it's not innovative. Very few games (for the PS2 at least, the Gamecube and DS have tons) are innovative nowadays, but that doesn't detract from a really good game.
Yes. Google's founders are part of the market. Even if they developed a lot of it in college, they were still acting to fill a void in the market.
Maybe you interpreted "true need" improperly. The internet was not a need before it existed. It has since become a need.
Also, just because the government says that it should "understand" spoken audio, I'm pretty sure that no existing technology could even come close (<sarcasm>just look at the wonderful translation tools</sarcasm>).
It's essentially a tablet pc without the pc. Crappy resolution, but it works wirelessly. The biggest problem though: it's about the same heft and thickness as a normal tablet pc.
What I'd like is one that works wirelessly, 1280x1024 or greater res., has a detachable keybord/touchpad, and is at least as light and thin as a good laptop. Of course, it would probably cost as much as a real laptop as the lcd alone is more than half the price.
Why not charge what the market will bear? I saw many-a-people just eating it all up.
Admittedly I really liked the store (and most of the products). The layout reminded me of a jewelry shop. Almost every item they had was shown operational and touchable on a medium height table. This meant no racks of stuff (except on one wall w/ software) to clutter up the esthetics. Unfortunately they hadn't thought of the fact that ipods are popular. The place was packed with 100+ people while the isles were about 4 feet apart. With 15+ people packed into each isle it was nearly impossible to even see what they had, let alone what it cost.
I'd say that this is actually quite likely.
My friend and I recently went to an Apple store to replace his worn out earbuds for his ipod. They had two different earbuds for sale; both over an hundred clams. Not having access to large amounts of money, we ended up going elsewhere.
By noticing the large amount of hundred dollar shirts, two hundred dollar shoes, and smelling quite a large amount of yuppiness, I'd have to say that the average joe there earned more than my friend and I combined. Admittedly both of us are middle classians, but these folks obviously did not fall into that category.
My friend's music collection is probably 50/50 when it comes to legality. He would buy it all if it were available though. He listens to some weird shit, so it's unlikely that the ITMS will start having all of his musical interests any time soon.
I've always wanted to me modded +5 Sci Fi Villain.
Why not just send up the thousands of criminals filling our penal system? Have them work the mines. We'll give them a ticket home when they've served off their sentance.
I'm not talking about the paint making process, but the actual paint compound. My point is that software is more than just a sequence of instructions, just as paint is more than just a color. Software is (or at least most commercial software is) essentially a black box that does something. For example, if you create a purely physical machine to detect counterfiet money, would that not be patentable? Why then wouldn't a piece of software that just reads the scanned image to detect forgery not be patentable? Both devices accomplish the same task, but through different means. Both, as genuine inventions, deserve equal rights.
What seperates software from being "just an idea" or "just a formula" is that its creation process is identical to that of a physical device. You start with a problem, you design a solution, you build it. The instructions in software are just the metals and plastics of modern invention.
I don't like the idea of patenting all solutions to a problem, but patenting a solution (whether tangible or not) to problem is, and always should be, perfectly acceptable. The argument that all software patents are overly broad is no more valid than saying that asians are good at math. Not being omniscient, I don't know of any software patents that I would deem valid, but that doesn't mean there can't be any.
Oh wait! I just got confirmation from a second source; the internet! It must be true.
I agree. There are many reasons (hobby, fun, etc), but the biggest reason products are created is for profit. Usually if a product is anything but the most complex, it is readily copied by competitors. This results in little profit for the original inventor. Sure, you get the ego trip of saying you were the first, but in the corporate world, that's not much.
If certain types patents turn out to be bad for the economy (which I agree almost all software patents are), they would be eliminated in time. This is the direct result of living in a democracy. If things get bad, the elected officials are (eventually) forced to change their ways. Even in a non-elected department like the USPTO, there is still oversight and influence from elected officials.
Remember that the government moves slowly. This seems to be the first step towards sanity.
While software has abstractly always existed, it still needs to be created. It can not be discoverd like other things in nature. Prime numbers aren't patentable because they are discovered, not created. (sidenote: Genes shouldn't be patentable because they were discovered, not created). Maybe if, in the future, software is somehow discovered in the same way we discover prime numbers then you can make the math argument. Until then, they are indeed invented.
That's like saying that you can't patent a new type of paint because its color is blue. A sequence of instructions (ie a business method) is indeed patentable. The problem lies in the fact that people are patenting something that they contributed little or nothing to. Software, like recipes, is very rarely made completely from scratch. It is usually based on some preexisting idea or solution. However, making a new flavor of cake, and a creating competing search engine algorithm are too widely different things. Most people make that distinction. I'm glad the USPTO does too.
Since that is the case, you should be arguing for shorter patent lengths. In my opinion there should be two kinds of patents: tangibles and intangibles. Tangibles (things, drug formulas, etc) would have the current term (17 years?), and intangibles (business practices, software, etc) would have a much shorter term, like 5 years. Your argument makes it sound like you're whining. Boo hoo, I can't compete with the big guys because they thought of an idea first. Well suck it up. When thier patent expires you can have a shot at them. If you want to compete now you'll have to solve the problem a different way. If your way is better, you'll win. That's what capatilism is all about.
This I don't get. Why should we limit the ability for an ingenius inventor to gain a government funded temporary monopoly for software, but not for a physical thing? If you're against intellectual property completely, you're against patents completely. Without patents there is little incentive (ie money) for new products to be made.
I see this as (if implemented correctly) the only necessary step. The biggest problem with software patents fall into three categories: 1) too vague/too broad, and thus can be used to sue the little guy who does something relatively similar, 2) already exists, and thus can be used to sue everyone, and 3) blatently obvious, and can be used to sue people you don't like, or you think have too much money.
All three of these problems can be solved by correct oversight. If somebody comes up with a truly unique piece of software, that person is entitled to a patent just as if he/she had invented something tangible. The world has evolved, so should the patent office.
blogger.com doesn't take ref'ed links to images.
copy and pase the link to view the dude's doo, or lack there of. I'd mostly rogaine should be his friend.
and that's why you're on my hit list
No this won't stop all the baddies, but why would you leave ports open at all?
I don't think the problem is with odd names (although sometimes they can be a bit obtuse), I think it's really just market share. If thunderbird was preinstalled on 100% of windows machines (like outlook express does), people would quickly learn to equate thunderbird to e-mail the same way they do with outlook. The same thing applies to gimp, xine, konquerer, etc.