I'm in the same boat as you on the real road, but I don't play video games. So, of the available pool of anecdotal evidence of the two of us, there's no reason to think that us type of drivers are more likely or not to play. But if we got hundreds of reckless drivers to weigh in on this...darnit, once again it seems the only way to do this properly would be science.
Let this be a lesson to all those idiots that were in a tizzy about the end of the Mayan calendar. See, I told you that was nonsense—turns out they were wrong after all. It's 2013, people! The Mayans were off by an entire year.
I'm not skeptical at all. It makes total sense to me that video games would be most attractive to the teenagers that are already the most reckless behind the wheel. If you already behave a certain way in real life because that kind of behavior is attractive to you, and then someone releases a game that allows you to fully explore that predilection, why wouldn't more of that kind of person play that kind of game?
It just stands to reason, doesn't it? If they found that reckless driving games didn't attract people that are naturally fond of reckless driving...well, that would be a claim that would require quite a bit of evidence for me to accept.
Of course, I would be highly skeptical of anyone that claims it's the other way round—that a docile driver goes berserk behind the wheel after playing a video game. That too would require quite a bit of evidence to turn over my assumption (and this is a claim, of course, about which this article has nothing at all to say).
I think I don't care what the advertiser, the great grandparent, or you meant for me to do.:-> I want to see the ad.
There is something very wrong with a mindset that against advertising to the extent that you would prohibit people that want to view an ad from viewing it. The advertiser wants me to see it. I want to see it. What does your opinion have to do with the proceedings?
I'm all for making ads readily available. I wish I could set my TiVo to record ads for things I'm interested in...like when I'm buying a car, could I have my TiVo tape all the car advertisements please? That would be most excellent, particularly if it means I am not compelled to fast forward through them when I have no interest in buying a car.
I do not have a problem with ads in general. I only have a problem with being forced to watch ads for products I do not want. More to the point, why would a company want to pay even one penny for me to see a tampon ad when I do not have a vagina? Surely, we can use technology to figure out a better solution to this than the firehose method of distributing ads.
You can read my follow-up reply higher in this thread. You'll note that I didn't refer to the print technology at all, only the resolution of the source image. The implicit assumption in my statement was that we were not discussing print technology, and that whatever print technology you care to use meets the requirement that it resolve the highest resolution test image with ease.
With this assumption in effect, we can print two source images, one at 200ppi and the same image at 300ppi and, using the same overly capable print methodology, that print process ceases to be a factor. (Again, provided it can easily resolve the highest res source image with room to spare.)
"300dpi" is something of an oversimplification. Images are sent down at 300dpi. The printing plates are usually imaged by laser at 2400dpi, but each halftone cell takes up more then one "dot". Print resolution is measured in "lines per inch", and ranges from ~85 lpi for newsprint to over 200 lpi for higher end printing.
You have made a small but critical error here for people trying to understand this stuff. Screen resolutions are measured in ppi, that's pixels per inch. Printers print things in dpi, dots per inch (or lines per millimeter, or scrivener chiseltips per furlong, or whatever—the point is that print resolutions depend upon the print technology used).
You are correct in saying that printer dots and image pixels are not 1:1...this is the critical point (though it also makes it difficult to understand how you could know this and not make the distinction between image pixels and printer dots correctly). Nothing in what I said has anything to do with the print technology used other than the implicit assumption that, whatever print technology we're talking about, it exceeds the pixel resolution of the highest resolution source image.
Ok, so here's the takeaway, people. When printed, a printer lays down a grid of dots for each image pixel. If the number of dots used per pixel many, many times higher than the number of pixels, then the different in image resolution will manifest in the prints. Whether that difference in resolution is detectable is what is at issue in my post above...what I wrote has nothing whatever to do with the specific print technology used provided it meets this criterion. This is why I spoke only about source images in pixels per inch and didn't mention dpi at all.
For what it's worth, the highest resolution photographs are typically printed ~300ppi. This is the standard used by glossy magazines (Playboy is the canonical reference mag here). Higher than that, most people don't see any difference at all.
Years ago I remember reading a study on this that claimed most people could not reliably differentiate between images printed above 280ppi when asked to pick the image with more detail. However, a significant fraction of people were able to differentiate higher resolutions when asked to judge things like: "which image seems to jump off the page and seem more 3d?"
I don't buy Apple because I don't support their need to own the entire hardware and software stack. However, I'm thrilled that they've put out the first device with a screen that is this hi-res. I hope that by this time next year, there are no phones made with screens under 300ppi.
The article is not exactly clear...did the judges rule that it's ok as long as you don't host or directly share copyrighted material? Is profit a requirement for prosecution? Does this leave the door open to prosecute people that actually are hosting the copyrighted material on the torrent network (even if it is, say, cached in encrypted form and they didn't know they were hosting it while it was in-flight thru an onion proxy like Tor)? Article sucks, too many unknowns!
we herd u like browsin so we put a browser in yo browser so u can browse while u browse.
also, we herd u like macs so we put one pedal in ur car.
(ahem, i don't actually have a problem with macs, i just thought that last one is too good to pass up. well, i don't like the way apple exerts control over the entire hardware/software stack, but as long as we have options i guess i don't have a problem with them existing in general, i just won't buy one.)
It's obvious to me with smart people like this behind the analysis, we should bet big on the correctness of their projections. Perhaps we should tie our economy to their analysis in some way that will potentially result in a large windfall? Who's with me?
Uh...are you guys serious? I was being facetious. I've never had a job where my manager didn't monitor my activities at some level, and yes, I get evaluated based on performance periodically, as do most folks.
I think this discussion here in the forum fails to recognize the other side of this issue. How would you feel if, while carrying out your duties of your job, your actions were monitored? What if certain people in your organization then had the ability to look at the result of that and assess your performance? How would you like to be periodically evaluated?
So, the main difference between MS and Google is that they both suck up lots of user data, and while Google uses it to provide better products and more interesting, highly targeted, and relevant advertising (without being sly or annoying about it), MS uses the user data they collect to supply us with service packs than create more bugs than they fix 6 months after we've already learned how to work around the biggest problems in the first place.
The only reason one ought to be more comforted by sending MS your user data instead of Google is that there is a reasonable chance MS doesn't have any idea how to mine that information effectively, so its effectively providing some security through obscurity (via incompetence). Of course, that's only until either is served with an enforceable warrant and they have to turn the data over to the government...though I might make the point that the govt is probably even more incompetent.:-D
It is reasonable to presume that most people here on/. know how to use google to research topics like what is project natal? It is also reasonable to assume that most will not because there's too many articles, not enough time in the day. I'm for putting all the basics in the article. It'll really speed things up for a lot of folks when there's a political controversy over a Natal game called Top Kill that capitalizes on the oil spill.
I don't care how people at work manage their schedules. I care if they're good at their jobs and not much else...what difference does it make if they're dropping the ball specifically because they're smoking?
Regardless of the reason someone is failing at work, I think the proper thing to do is address the performance issue, not deprive them of health insurance or jack their rates as punishment. What you're advocating for here makes no sense to me...
Yes, absolutely. The only thing that I'm left wondering is why go after smoking when it's not the largest cost, though? I would much prefer that companies go after the biggest costs to save us the most money...that just makes sense, right? We'd sign affidavits attesting to the fact that we don't eat fast food, transfats, more calories per day than is good for us, and we work out strenuously at least 5 hours per week. We should be required to keep our weight within a reasonable body-mass index...it's killing us!
Addicts of any kind are out. People with a history of addiction in their families will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, if their personal circumstances seem like they will successfully avoid addiction, then they can be covered (I'm not proposing something heartless here). If you have some kind of expensive disability, you're out; and if you're predisposed to expensive conditions developing in the future, you're on your own...family history could be used, or they have these really inexpensive genetic tests now like at 23andme.com. We'd have to have people pay for their own, of course (to keep costs down), and disclose the result to the company, and anything expensive in their future we'd have to drop them.
Did you know that car insurance companies adjust rates based on your race? Why has the insurance company not caught on to this? We ought to adjust the amount you pay based on how much you're going to cost the system after all. Of course, this means that if you're a black male smoker in a high-stress job, you're probably out of luck...but I'm not too worried about President Obama, he can take care of himself.
Uhh...no, I think you misunderstood me. My claim on this article stands.
I did not mean to say that correlation in general is not evidence for causation. It certainly is, and has to be taken into account with all other evidence to determine if a causal link is worth investigating.
What I meant to say (and in fact did say) is that correlation is not proof of causation. In this summary, and in the article, the study simply shows evidence that standing up for oneself correlates with being more mature, emotionally & socially developed. But the cited studies say nothing about whether the behavior is caused by the subject's maturity of vice versa. The headlines, on the other hand, make very strong and unproven claims that maturity is developed by standing up for oneself...
That's all well and good, but can you say specifically what data has been recorded that violates privacy? That's the essential ingredient that's missing from this discussion. You have likened this information to snippets of private conversation of people walking by your microphone. Until we know what it is, we can't say it's like that. It's more likely that it's just people that inadvertently put stuff out on public wifi that they shouldn't have. In that case, it's more like someone using a loud voice to discuss a private matter and being embarrassed after the fact when they realize everyone's listening...but that's not the listener's fault.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in the same boat as you on the real road, but I don't play video games. So, of the available pool of anecdotal evidence of the two of us, there's no reason to think that us type of drivers are more likely or not to play. But if we got hundreds of reckless drivers to weigh in on this...darnit, once again it seems the only way to do this properly would be science.
:-)
Let this be a lesson to all those idiots that were in a tizzy about the end of the Mayan calendar. See, I told you that was nonsense—turns out they were wrong after all. It's 2013, people! The Mayans were off by an entire year.
When will we learn not to be so gullible!
I'm not skeptical at all. It makes total sense to me that video games would be most attractive to the teenagers that are already the most reckless behind the wheel. If you already behave a certain way in real life because that kind of behavior is attractive to you, and then someone releases a game that allows you to fully explore that predilection, why wouldn't more of that kind of person play that kind of game?
It just stands to reason, doesn't it? If they found that reckless driving games didn't attract people that are naturally fond of reckless driving...well, that would be a claim that would require quite a bit of evidence for me to accept.
Of course, I would be highly skeptical of anyone that claims it's the other way round—that a docile driver goes berserk behind the wheel after playing a video game. That too would require quite a bit of evidence to turn over my assumption (and this is a claim, of course, about which this article has nothing at all to say).
I think I don't care what the advertiser, the great grandparent, or you meant for me to do. :-> I want to see the ad.
There is something very wrong with a mindset that against advertising to the extent that you would prohibit people that want to view an ad from viewing it. The advertiser wants me to see it. I want to see it. What does your opinion have to do with the proceedings?
I'm all for making ads readily available. I wish I could set my TiVo to record ads for things I'm interested in...like when I'm buying a car, could I have my TiVo tape all the car advertisements please? That would be most excellent, particularly if it means I am not compelled to fast forward through them when I have no interest in buying a car.
I do not have a problem with ads in general. I only have a problem with being forced to watch ads for products I do not want. More to the point, why would a company want to pay even one penny for me to see a tampon ad when I do not have a vagina? Surely, we can use technology to figure out a better solution to this than the firehose method of distributing ads.
You can read my follow-up reply higher in this thread. You'll note that I didn't refer to the print technology at all, only the resolution of the source image. The implicit assumption in my statement was that we were not discussing print technology, and that whatever print technology you care to use meets the requirement that it resolve the highest resolution test image with ease.
With this assumption in effect, we can print two source images, one at 200ppi and the same image at 300ppi and, using the same overly capable print methodology, that print process ceases to be a factor. (Again, provided it can easily resolve the highest res source image with room to spare.)
You have made a small but critical error here for people trying to understand this stuff. Screen resolutions are measured in ppi, that's pixels per inch. Printers print things in dpi, dots per inch (or lines per millimeter, or scrivener chiseltips per furlong, or whatever—the point is that print resolutions depend upon the print technology used).
You are correct in saying that printer dots and image pixels are not 1:1...this is the critical point (though it also makes it difficult to understand how you could know this and not make the distinction between image pixels and printer dots correctly). Nothing in what I said has anything to do with the print technology used other than the implicit assumption that, whatever print technology we're talking about, it exceeds the pixel resolution of the highest resolution source image.
Ok, so here's the takeaway, people. When printed, a printer lays down a grid of dots for each image pixel. If the number of dots used per pixel many, many times higher than the number of pixels, then the different in image resolution will manifest in the prints. Whether that difference in resolution is detectable is what is at issue in my post above...what I wrote has nothing whatever to do with the specific print technology used provided it meets this criterion. This is why I spoke only about source images in pixels per inch and didn't mention dpi at all.
Can anyone link a video of this thing? I'm curious to see what we're talking about.
For what it's worth, the highest resolution photographs are typically printed ~300ppi. This is the standard used by glossy magazines (Playboy is the canonical reference mag here). Higher than that, most people don't see any difference at all.
Years ago I remember reading a study on this that claimed most people could not reliably differentiate between images printed above 280ppi when asked to pick the image with more detail. However, a significant fraction of people were able to differentiate higher resolutions when asked to judge things like: "which image seems to jump off the page and seem more 3d?"
I don't buy Apple because I don't support their need to own the entire hardware and software stack. However, I'm thrilled that they've put out the first device with a screen that is this hi-res. I hope that by this time next year, there are no phones made with screens under 300ppi.
I can't help but notice--no one has mentioned diaspora yet, the open source distributed facebook replacement on the way.
The article is not exactly clear...did the judges rule that it's ok as long as you don't host or directly share copyrighted material? Is profit a requirement for prosecution? Does this leave the door open to prosecute people that actually are hosting the copyrighted material on the torrent network (even if it is, say, cached in encrypted form and they didn't know they were hosting it while it was in-flight thru an onion proxy like Tor)? Article sucks, too many unknowns!
we herd u like browsin so we put a browser in yo browser so u can browse while u browse.
also, we herd u like macs so we put one pedal in ur car.
(ahem, i don't actually have a problem with macs, i just thought that last one is too good to pass up. well, i don't like the way apple exerts control over the entire hardware/software stack, but as long as we have options i guess i don't have a problem with them existing in general, i just won't buy one.)
It's obvious to me with smart people like this behind the analysis, we should bet big on the correctness of their projections. Perhaps we should tie our economy to their analysis in some way that will potentially result in a large windfall? Who's with me?
Yea, just put 'em out like free papers. It's the same thing, they're ad supported just like the free papers. They should be delivered the same way.
Uh...are you guys serious? I was being facetious. I've never had a job where my manager didn't monitor my activities at some level, and yes, I get evaluated based on performance periodically, as do most folks.
Wow.
I think this discussion here in the forum fails to recognize the other side of this issue. How would you feel if, while carrying out your duties of your job, your actions were monitored? What if certain people in your organization then had the ability to look at the result of that and assess your performance? How would you like to be periodically evaluated?
You wouldn't be able to get away with nuthin'!
If you depend on a spell checker, you'll rape what you sew.
So, the main difference between MS and Google is that they both suck up lots of user data, and while Google uses it to provide better products and more interesting, highly targeted, and relevant advertising (without being sly or annoying about it), MS uses the user data they collect to supply us with service packs than create more bugs than they fix 6 months after we've already learned how to work around the biggest problems in the first place.
The only reason one ought to be more comforted by sending MS your user data instead of Google is that there is a reasonable chance MS doesn't have any idea how to mine that information effectively, so its effectively providing some security through obscurity (via incompetence). Of course, that's only until either is served with an enforceable warrant and they have to turn the data over to the government...though I might make the point that the govt is probably even more incompetent. :-D
Just in case you needed one more bit of proof that the literal mind cannot understand the ironic mind...
It is reasonable to presume that most people here on /. know how to use google to research topics like what is project natal? It is also reasonable to assume that most will not because there's too many articles, not enough time in the day. I'm for putting all the basics in the article. It'll really speed things up for a lot of folks when there's a political controversy over a Natal game called Top Kill that capitalizes on the oil spill.
I don't care how people at work manage their schedules. I care if they're good at their jobs and not much else...what difference does it make if they're dropping the ball specifically because they're smoking?
Regardless of the reason someone is failing at work, I think the proper thing to do is address the performance issue, not deprive them of health insurance or jack their rates as punishment. What you're advocating for here makes no sense to me...
Yes, absolutely. The only thing that I'm left wondering is why go after smoking when it's not the largest cost, though? I would much prefer that companies go after the biggest costs to save us the most money...that just makes sense, right? We'd sign affidavits attesting to the fact that we don't eat fast food, transfats, more calories per day than is good for us, and we work out strenuously at least 5 hours per week. We should be required to keep our weight within a reasonable body-mass index...it's killing us!
Addicts of any kind are out. People with a history of addiction in their families will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, if their personal circumstances seem like they will successfully avoid addiction, then they can be covered (I'm not proposing something heartless here). If you have some kind of expensive disability, you're out; and if you're predisposed to expensive conditions developing in the future, you're on your own...family history could be used, or they have these really inexpensive genetic tests now like at 23andme.com. We'd have to have people pay for their own, of course (to keep costs down), and disclose the result to the company, and anything expensive in their future we'd have to drop them.
Did you know that car insurance companies adjust rates based on your race? Why has the insurance company not caught on to this? We ought to adjust the amount you pay based on how much you're going to cost the system after all. Of course, this means that if you're a black male smoker in a high-stress job, you're probably out of luck...but I'm not too worried about President Obama, he can take care of himself.
Uhh...no, I think you misunderstood me. My claim on this article stands.
I did not mean to say that correlation in general is not evidence for causation. It certainly is, and has to be taken into account with all other evidence to determine if a causal link is worth investigating.
What I meant to say (and in fact did say) is that correlation is not proof of causation. In this summary, and in the article, the study simply shows evidence that standing up for oneself correlates with being more mature, emotionally & socially developed. But the cited studies say nothing about whether the behavior is caused by the subject's maturity of vice versa. The headlines, on the other hand, make very strong and unproven claims that maturity is developed by standing up for oneself...
Headline reports causation while story only confirms correlation, news at 11.
If I add one to your number, is that a derivative work? Do I have to cite my source? =)
That's all well and good, but can you say specifically what data has been recorded that violates privacy? That's the essential ingredient that's missing from this discussion. You have likened this information to snippets of private conversation of people walking by your microphone. Until we know what it is, we can't say it's like that. It's more likely that it's just people that inadvertently put stuff out on public wifi that they shouldn't have. In that case, it's more like someone using a loud voice to discuss a private matter and being embarrassed after the fact when they realize everyone's listening...but that's not the listener's fault.