And who are you to define which insults are offensive and which are not? Would a homosexual white male be likely to agree with you that "nigger" is a big no-no, but "fag" is fine and dandy?
And where's the evidence that these are actually facts? You're advocating a position which has no supporting evidence beyond an insanely biased political mouthpiece. The source DOES matter, and all this slashdot bullshit cockwaving about how any source is valid is nonsense. Scientific facts remain facts, indeed, but I have absolutely ZERO reason to believe anything on that piece of crap blog has anything to do with facts. If you can provide real evidence to back up your assertion, please do - as it stands now there's nothing to discredit because there's no reputable, peer-reviewed source.
When will slashdotters get over their internet fantasy that a blog is just as good as a peer-reviewed journal?
I tried calling them up and ordering, several times, and they always told me "you need a land line". I've read reports like yours of mixed success on various forums, but I've never personally been able to speak to a customer service rep who will admit that the service works without a phone line.
What bothers me even more is the fact that directv, disregarding DVR completely, requires a land line phone for special services. Is it really that expensive to release a box with drivers for a USB wifi or ethernet adapter? I haven't had a land line in five years, and I'm not about to get one just so I can get the NFL sunday ticket.
Don't get me wrong, I've been labeled a nintendo fanboy by most people I know...
But red steel as an example of good game play? Give me a break. I own the title, and the controls outright suck. The FPS controls on a minigame in monkey ball are more responsive than red steel. From what I hear, far cry is a massive improvement, and of course we can expect metroid to be better still... but the controls in red steel are, to use the vernacular, teh suck.
I'd never seen bust-a-move before, but i definitely see the similarities. That said, I'd be willing to throw 5-10 bucks at the virtual console to play snood for the wii... I don't think I'd plunk down 50 bucks for a similar concept, even if it does have a bunch of slick graphics and extra options.
Come on, you KNOW you want to play snood on your wii. I could imagine tilting the wiimote to control the angle of the shot, or even using the pointer functionality to aim. Either way, ninty needs to get off their butts and license snood for wii PRONTO.
It really bugs me when they post these things as if they are fact, and then give no indication whatsoever about how accurate the results are. You're talking about 135 winners out of 524 nominees - not exactly a huge sample size. Is it that hard to put in a few extra characters telling you what the error bars are? Something as simple as "the researchers found that nobel winners live 2 (+/- 0.5) years on average" would do, as would a sentence saying "the standard deviation was 0.5". How are we supposed to make any judgement about the validity of the study if we don't at least have the tiniest insight into the statsitics?
Uh, WHAT alternative scientific viewpoints, exactly? The consensus is in, and the scientific community agrees that global warming is real. What you're asking for is the equivalent of requiring the "electric universe" crackpots get equal time alongside relativity.
I hate these impossible hypothetical questions. Technical solutions to social issues are inherently flawed. The problem with DRM isn't the technology - it's the corrupt legislation like the DMCA, which makes it illegal to circumvent the DRM. It's utterly impossible for technology to know the difference between legal and illegal, unless you change the laws to define what's illegal based on the technology.
It's like that stupid discussion that was going around the internet about a plane on a treadmill - at the very core it's a flawed question, and just encourages idiotic discussion about meaningless "what if"s
Dual layer dvd-r was introduced in 2005. It's not all that recent. That said, I can't check my powermac at the moment because I'm 800 miles away, and I don't recall the exact model of drive that shipped with the machine.
What rock have you been hiding under? I have a dual layer dvd+/-r burner in my powermac. It came equipped with this drive well over a year ago when I bought it. And Apple was late to the game with dual layer burners. Dual layer media is still a bit expensive for my taste, so I usually use single layer discs - but it's certainly EASILY available. Go to any staples or best buy and you'll see tons of these things.
Uh, it's not due to production numbers. PS3s are sitting on shelves, and people are still lining up at 9pm the night before best buy gets a shipment of Wii's. The people have spoken - and they don't want a PS3. I expect this to change when the next final fantasy game comes out for the PS3, but right now, nintendo is pretty much kicking sony's ass.
Where did they say that? I've been looking all over trying to find a solid confirmation of GPS since I watched the keynote last night. If it has GPS, I will buy it in a heartbeat.
That's fine - an honest question is all well and good, and will no doubt be answered quickly. However, posting a reply with the subject "WTF" that takes on a "these people are idiots" tone in an attempt to get easy early mod points is a shining symbol of jackassitude. Acting like you are smarter than people who are experts in their field makes one look like a complete moron - that's not starting a discussion, it's flamebait and ego-stroking.
The point you're missing is... HE DID GET THE JARGON RIGHT. I've taken plenty of physics courses, in fact all the physics courses one needs to get a PhD in physics, and I heard the qualifier "in a vaccuum" mentioned a handful of times at best. The jargon is "speed of light", no "in a vacuum needed". You'd have to be a complete twit to demand the presense of this extraneous modifier when the meaning is already understood. Saying what you mean in a clear, consise, and compact manner is much more important than jacking off about semantics. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to have editors in a technical publication STRIP the "in a vacuum" off to save text when space is at a premium.
And for the record, using speed and velocity interchangably is perfectly acceptable, again when the context makes it clear. Luckily for those of us who actually PUBLISH in physics, very few editors would get their panties in a wad about such an easily understood distinction.
No, it doesn't sound like the author didn't graduate high school at all. The constant c is almost universally referred to as "the speed of light". Only rarely is the "in a vacuum" tacked onto the end. It's perfectly understood that when you refer to "the speed of light" that it means "the speed of light in a vacuum". Your nit-picking is pointless and goes against the convention used in thousands of published books, papers, articles, ad nauseum.
Yes, I DO have faith in the peer review process. It's far from perfect, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. The thing you need to know is, a lot of physicists, and scientists in general (myself included) can be really anally retentive bastards. I one got blasted for fifteen minutes over my use of the phrase "high reynolds number" when the colleague in question believed "moderate" was the appropriate adjective and "high" was misleading. These are the types of errors that get physicists steaming, and with good reason - physics is perhaps the most rigorous of the sciences, and you have to be damn careful about how you word things. People will complain, loudly, about very minor issues. Many scientists strive for absolute perfection, and fixate on the negatives in an attempt to make the process better. There's nothing wrong with this, but it's useful to keep in mind when you form opinions about the peer review process based on your friends' complaints.
When people bitch about physics journals, in my experience it's been mainly for two common reasons: 1.) Drawing large, over-arching conclusions without enough evidence to support it. This is in no way saying the bulk of the work is invalid, just that the authors got a little greedy when writing the conclusions. 2.) Disagreement with the underlying assumptions that make up the paper. This one is trickier, but again it doesn't immediately invalidate the work, just questions how relevant the results are.
In either case, the peer review process, by people well-versed in the field, is a whole HELL of a lot more trustworthy than the slashdot peanut-gallery. The OP was full of crap, and others have gone into great detail to explain why he/she is full of crap. I was merely pointing out that the knee-jerk slashdot "post early, post often" karma whoring competitions lead to a whole lot of dumbass assertions without any firm understanding of the actual facts of the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
And who are you to define which insults are offensive and which are not? Would a homosexual white male be likely to agree with you that "nigger" is a big no-no, but "fag" is fine and dandy?
And where's the evidence that these are actually facts? You're advocating a position which has no supporting evidence beyond an insanely biased political mouthpiece. The source DOES matter, and all this slashdot bullshit cockwaving about how any source is valid is nonsense. Scientific facts remain facts, indeed, but I have absolutely ZERO reason to believe anything on that piece of crap blog has anything to do with facts. If you can provide real evidence to back up your assertion, please do - as it stands now there's nothing to discredit because there's no reputable, peer-reviewed source.
When will slashdotters get over their internet fantasy that a blog is just as good as a peer-reviewed journal?
I wish there was a way I could mod the linked blog -1, troll. What a ridiculous steaming pile of partisan political horse shit.
I tried calling them up and ordering, several times, and they always told me "you need a land line". I've read reports like yours of mixed success on various forums, but I've never personally been able to speak to a customer service rep who will admit that the service works without a phone line.
What bothers me even more is the fact that directv, disregarding DVR completely, requires a land line phone for special services. Is it really that expensive to release a box with drivers for a USB wifi or ethernet adapter? I haven't had a land line in five years, and I'm not about to get one just so I can get the NFL sunday ticket.
FUCK! ASS!
(if you've never seen the movie, you won't get this - I assure you it's relevant to the parent post and not a troll)
Don't get me wrong, I've been labeled a nintendo fanboy by most people I know...
But red steel as an example of good game play? Give me a break. I own the title, and the controls outright suck. The FPS controls on a minigame in monkey ball are more responsive than red steel. From what I hear, far cry is a massive improvement, and of course we can expect metroid to be better still... but the controls in red steel are, to use the vernacular, teh suck.
I'd never seen bust-a-move before, but i definitely see the similarities. That said, I'd be willing to throw 5-10 bucks at the virtual console to play snood for the wii... I don't think I'd plunk down 50 bucks for a similar concept, even if it does have a bunch of slick graphics and extra options.
Come on, you KNOW you want to play snood on your wii. I could imagine tilting the wiimote to control the angle of the shot, or even using the pointer functionality to aim. Either way, ninty needs to get off their butts and license snood for wii PRONTO.
Because the article is idiotic trolling, and by agreeing with it, you must be a troll too.
And how, exactly, are people going to abuse the labels you use to organize your own email?
It really bugs me when they post these things as if they are fact, and then give no indication whatsoever about how accurate the results are. You're talking about 135 winners out of 524 nominees - not exactly a huge sample size. Is it that hard to put in a few extra characters telling you what the error bars are? Something as simple as "the researchers found that nobel winners live 2 (+/- 0.5) years on average" would do, as would a sentence saying "the standard deviation was 0.5". How are we supposed to make any judgement about the validity of the study if we don't at least have the tiniest insight into the statsitics?
your favorite peanuts cartoon website is loading the comic, then immediately redirecting to the frontpage of the website. Very annoying.
Uh, WHAT alternative scientific viewpoints, exactly? The consensus is in, and the scientific community agrees that global warming is real. What you're asking for is the equivalent of requiring the "electric universe" crackpots get equal time alongside relativity.
I hate these impossible hypothetical questions. Technical solutions to social issues are inherently flawed. The problem with DRM isn't the technology - it's the corrupt legislation like the DMCA, which makes it illegal to circumvent the DRM. It's utterly impossible for technology to know the difference between legal and illegal, unless you change the laws to define what's illegal based on the technology.
It's like that stupid discussion that was going around the internet about a plane on a treadmill - at the very core it's a flawed question, and just encourages idiotic discussion about meaningless "what if"s
Dual layer dvd-r was introduced in 2005. It's not all that recent. That said, I can't check my powermac at the moment because I'm 800 miles away, and I don't recall the exact model of drive that shipped with the machine.
What rock have you been hiding under? I have a dual layer dvd+/-r burner in my powermac. It came equipped with this drive well over a year ago when I bought it. And Apple was late to the game with dual layer burners. Dual layer media is still a bit expensive for my taste, so I usually use single layer discs - but it's certainly EASILY available. Go to any staples or best buy and you'll see tons of these things.
Most americans who see VB also say "wtf are they doing it this way for?".
Uh, it's not due to production numbers. PS3s are sitting on shelves, and people are still lining up at 9pm the night before best buy gets a shipment of Wii's. The people have spoken - and they don't want a PS3. I expect this to change when the next final fantasy game comes out for the PS3, but right now, nintendo is pretty much kicking sony's ass.
Where did they say that? I've been looking all over trying to find a solid confirmation of GPS since I watched the keynote last night. If it has GPS, I will buy it in a heartbeat.
That's fine - an honest question is all well and good, and will no doubt be answered quickly. However, posting a reply with the subject "WTF" that takes on a "these people are idiots" tone in an attempt to get easy early mod points is a shining symbol of jackassitude. Acting like you are smarter than people who are experts in their field makes one look like a complete moron - that's not starting a discussion, it's flamebait and ego-stroking.
The point you're missing is... HE DID GET THE JARGON RIGHT. I've taken plenty of physics courses, in fact all the physics courses one needs to get a PhD in physics, and I heard the qualifier "in a vaccuum" mentioned a handful of times at best. The jargon is "speed of light", no "in a vacuum needed". You'd have to be a complete twit to demand the presense of this extraneous modifier when the meaning is already understood. Saying what you mean in a clear, consise, and compact manner is much more important than jacking off about semantics. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to have editors in a technical publication STRIP the "in a vacuum" off to save text when space is at a premium.
And for the record, using speed and velocity interchangably is perfectly acceptable, again when the context makes it clear. Luckily for those of us who actually PUBLISH in physics, very few editors would get their panties in a wad about such an easily understood distinction.
No, it doesn't sound like the author didn't graduate high school at all. The constant c is almost universally referred to as "the speed of light". Only rarely is the "in a vacuum" tacked onto the end. It's perfectly understood that when you refer to "the speed of light" that it means "the speed of light in a vacuum". Your nit-picking is pointless and goes against the convention used in thousands of published books, papers, articles, ad nauseum.
Yes, I DO have faith in the peer review process. It's far from perfect, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. The thing you need to know is, a lot of physicists, and scientists in general (myself included) can be really anally retentive bastards. I one got blasted for fifteen minutes over my use of the phrase "high reynolds number" when the colleague in question believed "moderate" was the appropriate adjective and "high" was misleading. These are the types of errors that get physicists steaming, and with good reason - physics is perhaps the most rigorous of the sciences, and you have to be damn careful about how you word things. People will complain, loudly, about very minor issues. Many scientists strive for absolute perfection, and fixate on the negatives in an attempt to make the process better. There's nothing wrong with this, but it's useful to keep in mind when you form opinions about the peer review process based on your friends' complaints.
When people bitch about physics journals, in my experience it's been mainly for two common reasons:
1.) Drawing large, over-arching conclusions without enough evidence to support it. This is in no way saying the bulk of the work is invalid, just that the authors got a little greedy when writing the conclusions.
2.) Disagreement with the underlying assumptions that make up the paper. This one is trickier, but again it doesn't immediately invalidate the work, just questions how relevant the results are.
In either case, the peer review process, by people well-versed in the field, is a whole HELL of a lot more trustworthy than the slashdot peanut-gallery. The OP was full of crap, and others have gone into great detail to explain why he/she is full of crap. I was merely pointing out that the knee-jerk slashdot "post early, post often" karma whoring competitions lead to a whole lot of dumbass assertions without any firm understanding of the actual facts of the discussion.