"Unprovable but maybe-someday-provable is not any more science than religion. Most religious types will tell you that they will have proof of God someday too."
The fundamental difference is that such scientific theories are recognised as merely "theories", they recognise there isn't certainty that they are correct. Religions are different from this, they proclaim that they are correct with certainty, despite the absence of any proof.
Scientists will generally accept their theory is improbable if the evidence starts to contradict it and will admit it's wrong if it is proved such, theists don't accept any uncertainty no matter how much the evidence contradicts their beliefs. There are countless examples of sciences proving biblical statements wrong for example, yet most christens (being theists) will never even consider the idea that their beliefs may be wrong.
"But I do agree that there's just as much money to be made on the Green side of the fence as on the Exxon-Mobil side (or whatever)."
You obviously have no experience in this area. I have several friends who are researchers in Chemical Engineering at my university. They say about how they are constantly being approached by various large oil companies wanting them to do research (mostly nothing to do with climate change whatsoever) whereas independent research are extremely difficult to get funding for.
Large energy companies have billions ready to be thrown at all different research projects if they feel the research helps their cause (whether it be a new method for oil extraction or stopping "carbon taxes") but there are only a handful of pitifully small research grants for independent climate change research and more-or-less zero grants for pro-climate-change research.
You have got your facts completely wrong, if scientists are purely chasing the money then climate change denial is definitely the way they'll go.
I found it odd the article relates to a multi-player game also. Had it been about a single-player game then it would make a lot more sense.
The order of most-pirated must be something like: 1) single-player and old multi-pleyer PC games 2) single-player console games 3) modern multi-player PC & console games
"modern multi-player PC & console games" is at the bottom of the list because, as you state, real-time multi-player portals are impossible to crack unless you can guess ones of the CD-Keys from a game sitting on a shelf in a shop somewhere. Such a task is statistically speaking, almost impossible.
Such games are pivotal examples of the warez-groups' claims that they merely allow people to "try out" games and think they should buy the full copy if they like them. Speaking from a personal point of view (and taking myself as an average games consumer), two originally downloaded games I have in recently enjoyed are 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' and 'Battlefield 2' (I know I'm a year or two backwards, but I only just got PC capable of running them).
I have completed but not actually purchased Grand Theft Auto as I don't see the point in forking out cash when I already had the game for free, but I have purchased a copy of Battlefield 2 as the servers require it and playing single-player on the pirated game compelled me to purchase the full-game so that I could play on the official multi-player servers.
Given that the new Quake is cdkey-verified multiplayer, I think ID are just using piracy as an excuse to jump to console games which boast an even higher shop price than PC games.
I've also read up on some of the reports by this "scientist" and many are anything but scientific. Scientists criticise other scientists all the time for this.
The only difference here seems to be that the issue is a politically sensitive one.
"Why do we need to go and kill those people - God says so."
The fact that in many wars (and there are countless examples, the Crusades being classic, totally refutable ones), both sides claim god is on their side, means if god is real he is either:
a) A really sick bastard who either enjoys watching groups kill, rape and torture each other, or b) the various clergies of the world do not actually know God's wishes are and so established religions are just as likely being blasphemous as godly.
Personally, considering what he (supposably) put his son through (torture followed by execution by one of the most excruciating means possible), I think (a) sounds most likely.
In addition it is quite common for this to happen. I'm not saying that justifies the procedure, however it does seem strange that this research in particular is so prominently specified as being 'controversially' released.
Surely it would have been better for the summary to contain a bit of actual detail on the article rather than just the author's speculation and a slightly over-the-top criticism of the release procedure.
The more we can download all of our media, the less need there is for a giant distribution company. I don't think the big players want legal, easy, inexpensive media downloads.
I would have to disagree. The value of the "big players" to the actual content creators' isn't their ability to distribute films, it's their available capital and connections which are used to create insane amounts of marketing, world-wide.
For the independent movie producer, finding a distribution company to manufacture and distribute movies is relatively cheap and easy. What's prohibitively expensive is the TV ads, Billboard Ads, Radio Station ads and all the other publicity (in SONY's case even fake movie reviewers) which ensures the "blockbuster" movies are a hit; usually regardless of their actual quality.
The horrendous (but still very commercially successful) Da Vinci Code movie is a recent example.
Then why didn't he just say "One Microsoft department doesn't know what the other is doing" rather than some unnecessarily cryptic analogy which only serves to introduce ambiguity and has the potential to mislead readers.
Philanthropy is an amusing concept. First you wait for someone to come up with a method by which to rip off the public and thereby make billions of dollars, then you ask them to contribute some of that money back to the community.
Surely a better idea would be to just stop them ripping everyone off in the first place and then use that money (via say a fairer tax structure) to fund projects like Wikipedia and the many other "worthy causes" that Philanthropy supports.
The U.K. government has absolutely zero control over the BBC, which is completely commanded by a group of 'governors' who are people who have worked their way through the organisation and have never had anything todo with national politics.
Furthermore the BBC is often among the present government's harshest critics, as was clearly demonstrated a couple of years ago when BBC investigative reporters (supposably falsely) made several "unfounded" accusations against the government over a whole heap of stuff to do with false intelligence about WMDs in Iraq and a scientist who later killed himself. Also, several of the BBC interviewers (e.g. Jeremy Paxman) are among the government's most loathed for their constant grillings of ministers.
The BBC has many faults (far too many to list here) but I think its method funding offers the ideal mix of formalised public funding (thereby avoiding overt corporate influence) without the corrupting effects of government control.
Government / Public funding is the answer. Wikipedia offers the general public of developed countries a great resource and Wikipedia should therefor look to the governments and public institutions of various countries to contribute the (relativity) minuscule amounts which are needed to support it.
You only has to look to the BBC for proof that this would work. They seem to be able to operate one of the Internet's great resources (with multimedia features which are surely far more demanding than wikipedia's) without the need for adverts or such.
I understand what you are saying, but its the same arguement that was used by the UNIX developers of old. My point is in reality, there is a lot more opportunity for competition now in the PC industry then there was back in the 1970's when purchasing a UNIX system meant just using that developer's products for everything.
"For a variety of reasons...competition is a GOOD thing...in addition"
I think your argument is deeply flawed. Different gaming platforms is not done in the name of competition it is very much anti-competitive, a method the various companies use to exhibit total control over their platform.
The only way your argument would make sense is if the designs were opened up so anyone could create an XBox or Playstation. While this could be a revolutionary event (in the same way that the cloning of IBM PCs is seen as a revolutionary event in PC development) it is extremely unlikely to happen any time soon. Unfortunately.
Lots of journal articles have simplistic calculations here and there. The point of showing such calculations isn't to prove that the author is capable of performing 3rd grade maths, its so that the reader knows where number X came from. IMHO It is probably the most frustrating thing when papers / books / lecture notes just present numbers and presumes the reader realises where they were derived from.
The article specifically discounts your category (1) population density reasons. England may have a higher population density but several other countries (and rural areas within other countries) mentioned have far lower population densities than the U.S.A.
Your other categories then become less and less comprehensible.
Regardless of the crop the main common need is space, space in which to grow these lucrative crops. Judging by recent Brazilian government statemnents, the only area of the Amazon which has a chance of surviving the next 50 years is tiny areas in the north.
In awnser to your question: No-one is currently stating "lets cut-down the Amazon to make biofuels" but in the same way noone in the 9's and 90's said "lets destroy 1/3 of the Amazon to produce Soya and Cattle", it still happened. I believe if biofuels are pursued significantly then it is probable that the Amazon will destroyed so that the Biofuel companies (i.e. current Oil Companies) can grow their cash cows. Its pure (short-term) economics.
"Execution and presentation are the keys to good storytelling. Originality is cheap."
Hmm, after thinking about it, I agree 100% with the first sentence, it is extremely insightful (*hint*, *hint* to any moderators about). No matter how good or poor a story's core is, "Execution and presentation" will trump it in a game (this is where Half-life 2 - along with many other games - fell flat, imho).
No, you just came up with a quite frankly ridiculous scenario which bares no sense in reality and - once again - even less sense in context to the discussion at hand.
"I am all for having some story to games. It's generally a plus."
I agree, as long as it's an original story. The one suggested in the article sounded worryingly similar to Deus Ex which - while undeniably an amazing game - has now been done (and repeated by several other games). I think originality is the key to a good story.
I guess we will have to wait to see what they can come up with though as often the devil is in the detail (i.e. Half-life 2 had a great story premise, but the story-telling was absolutely shite).
"This news article is all about the content of news sites on google - not whether you type in "cnn" and google returning the CNN home page URL. That is a pointless and mostly useless search, and discussion about it has NOTHING to do with what is going on"
It has everything to do with searches for "cnn". If you had read the previous posts you would see that the entire focus of this thread is people using google as an address bar and start page, not people searching for "Iraq" or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the poster is referring to Xbox Live subscribers.
"Unprovable but maybe-someday-provable is not any more science than religion. Most religious types will tell you that they will have proof of God someday too."
The fundamental difference is that such scientific theories are recognised as merely "theories", they recognise there isn't certainty that they are correct. Religions are different from this, they proclaim that they are correct with certainty, despite the absence of any proof.
Scientists will generally accept their theory is improbable if the evidence starts to contradict it and will admit it's wrong if it is proved such, theists don't accept any uncertainty no matter how much the evidence contradicts their beliefs. There are countless examples of sciences proving biblical statements wrong for example, yet most christens (being theists) will never even consider the idea that their beliefs may be wrong.
"Does anyone know the editor over there?"
I "wiki-know" him.
He says he's a tenured professor of religion at a private university somewhere.
"But I do agree that there's just as much money to be made on the Green side of the fence as on the Exxon-Mobil side (or whatever)."
You obviously have no experience in this area. I have several friends who are researchers in Chemical Engineering at my university. They say about how they are constantly being approached by various large oil companies wanting them to do research (mostly nothing to do with climate change whatsoever) whereas independent research are extremely difficult to get funding for.
Large energy companies have billions ready to be thrown at all different research projects if they feel the research helps their cause (whether it be a new method for oil extraction or stopping "carbon taxes") but there are only a handful of pitifully small research grants for independent climate change research and more-or-less zero grants for pro-climate-change research.
You have got your facts completely wrong, if scientists are purely chasing the money then climate change denial is definitely the way they'll go.
I found it odd the article relates to a multi-player game also. Had it been about a single-player game then it would make a lot more sense.
The order of most-pirated must be something like:
1) single-player and old multi-pleyer PC games
2) single-player console games
3) modern multi-player PC & console games
"modern multi-player PC & console games" is at the bottom of the list because, as you state, real-time multi-player portals are impossible to crack unless you can guess ones of the CD-Keys from a game sitting on a shelf in a shop somewhere. Such a task is statistically speaking, almost impossible.
Such games are pivotal examples of the warez-groups' claims that they merely allow people to "try out" games and think they should buy the full copy if they like them. Speaking from a personal point of view (and taking myself as an average games consumer), two originally downloaded games I have in recently enjoyed are 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' and 'Battlefield 2' (I know I'm a year or two backwards, but I only just got PC capable of running them).
I have completed but not actually purchased Grand Theft Auto as I don't see the point in forking out cash when I already had the game for free, but I have purchased a copy of Battlefield 2 as the servers require it and playing single-player on the pirated game compelled me to purchase the full-game so that I could play on the official multi-player servers.
Given that the new Quake is cdkey-verified multiplayer, I think ID are just using piracy as an excuse to jump to console games which boast an even higher shop price than PC games.
I think the article is intending to mislead.
I've also read up on some of the reports by this "scientist" and many are anything but scientific. Scientists criticise other scientists all the time for this.
The only difference here seems to be that the issue is a politically sensitive one.
""Jolly good, ol' chap! Let us name it after a fictional military system that runs off the rails and destroys humanity!"
Uh, the British Skynet system pre-dates the original terminator movie by about 15 years.
"Why do we need to go and kill those people - God says so."
The fact that in many wars (and there are countless examples, the Crusades being classic, totally refutable ones), both sides claim god is on their side, means if god is real he is either:
a) A really sick bastard who either enjoys watching groups kill, rape and torture each other,
or
b) the various clergies of the world do not actually know God's wishes are and so established religions are just as likely being blasphemous as godly.
Personally, considering what he (supposably) put his son through (torture followed by execution by one of the most excruciating means possible), I think (a) sounds most likely.
In addition it is quite common for this to happen. I'm not saying that justifies the procedure, however it does seem strange that this research in particular is so prominently specified as being 'controversially' released.
Surely it would have been better for the summary to contain a bit of actual detail on the article rather than just the author's speculation and a slightly over-the-top criticism of the release procedure.
I would have to disagree. The value of the "big players" to the actual content creators' isn't their ability to distribute films, it's their available capital and connections which are used to create insane amounts of marketing, world-wide.
For the independent movie producer, finding a distribution company to manufacture and distribute movies is relatively cheap and easy. What's prohibitively expensive is the TV ads, Billboard Ads, Radio Station ads and all the other publicity (in SONY's case even fake movie reviewers) which ensures the "blockbuster" movies are a hit; usually regardless of their actual quality.
The horrendous (but still very commercially successful) Da Vinci Code movie is a recent example.
Then why didn't he just say "One Microsoft department doesn't know what the other is doing" rather than some unnecessarily cryptic analogy which only serves to introduce ambiguity and has the potential to mislead readers.
"Is this simply a case of left-hand, right-hand, or is something deeper going on?"
What a stupid analogy. Inappropriate and unnecessary.
Philanthropy is an amusing concept. First you wait for someone to come up with a method by which to rip off the public and thereby make billions of dollars, then you ask them to contribute some of that money back to the community.
Surely a better idea would be to just stop them ripping everyone off in the first place and then use that money (via say a fairer tax structure) to fund projects like Wikipedia and the many other "worthy causes" that Philanthropy supports.
"i'd rathe corp influence than govt. influence"
The U.K. government has absolutely zero control over the BBC, which is completely commanded by a group of 'governors' who are people who have worked their way through the organisation and have never had anything todo with national politics.
Furthermore the BBC is often among the present government's harshest critics, as was clearly demonstrated a couple of years ago when BBC investigative reporters (supposably falsely) made several "unfounded" accusations against the government over a whole heap of stuff to do with false intelligence about WMDs in Iraq and a scientist who later killed himself. Also, several of the BBC interviewers (e.g. Jeremy Paxman) are among the government's most loathed for their constant grillings of ministers.
The BBC has many faults (far too many to list here) but I think its method funding offers the ideal mix of formalised public funding (thereby avoiding overt corporate influence) without the corrupting effects of government control.
Government / Public funding is the answer. Wikipedia offers the general public of developed countries a great resource and Wikipedia should therefor look to the governments and public institutions of various countries to contribute the (relativity) minuscule amounts which are needed to support it.
You only has to look to the BBC for proof that this would work. They seem to be able to operate one of the Internet's great resources (with multimedia features which are surely far more demanding than wikipedia's) without the need for adverts or such.
I understand what you are saying, but its the same arguement that was used by the UNIX developers of old. My point is in reality, there is a lot more opportunity for competition now in the PC industry then there was back in the 1970's when purchasing a UNIX system meant just using that developer's products for everything.
"For a variety of reasons...competition is a GOOD thing...in addition"
I think your argument is deeply flawed. Different gaming platforms is not done in the name of competition it is very much anti-competitive, a method the various companies use to exhibit total control over their platform.
The only way your argument would make sense is if the designs were opened up so anyone could create an XBox or Playstation. While this could be a revolutionary event (in the same way that the cloning of IBM PCs is seen as a revolutionary event in PC development) it is extremely unlikely to happen any time soon. Unfortunately.
Lots of journal articles have simplistic calculations here and there. The point of showing such calculations isn't to prove that the author is capable of performing 3rd grade maths, its so that the reader knows where number X came from. IMHO It is probably the most frustrating thing when papers / books / lecture notes just present numbers and presumes the reader realises where they were derived from.
The article specifically discounts your category (1) population density reasons. England may have a higher population density but several other countries (and rural areas within other countries) mentioned have far lower population densities than the U.S.A.
Your other categories then become less and less comprehensible.
Been drinking by any chance?
Regardless of the crop the main common need is space, space in which to grow these lucrative crops. Judging by recent Brazilian government statemnents, the only area of the Amazon which has a chance of surviving the next 50 years is tiny areas in the north.
In awnser to your question: No-one is currently stating "lets cut-down the Amazon to make biofuels" but in the same way noone in the 9's and 90's said "lets destroy 1/3 of the Amazon to produce Soya and Cattle", it still happened. I believe if biofuels are pursued significantly then it is probable that the Amazon will destroyed so that the Biofuel companies (i.e. current Oil Companies) can grow their cash cows. Its pure (short-term) economics.
"Execution and presentation are the keys to good storytelling. Originality is cheap."
Hmm, after thinking about it, I agree 100% with the first sentence, it is extremely insightful (*hint*, *hint* to any moderators about). No matter how good or poor a story's core is, "Execution and presentation" will trump it in a game (this is where Half-life 2 - along with many other games - fell flat, imho).
No, you just came up with a quite frankly ridiculous scenario which bares no sense in reality and - once again - even less sense in context to the discussion at hand.
"I am all for having some story to games. It's generally a plus."
I agree, as long as it's an original story. The one suggested in the article sounded worryingly similar to Deus Ex which - while undeniably an amazing game - has now been done (and repeated by several other games). I think originality is the key to a good story.
I guess we will have to wait to see what they can come up with though as often the devil is in the detail (i.e. Half-life 2 had a great story premise, but the story-telling was absolutely shite).
"This news article is all about the content of news sites on google - not whether you type in "cnn" and google returning the CNN home page URL. That is a pointless and mostly useless search, and discussion about it has NOTHING to do with what is going on"
It has everything to do with searches for "cnn". If you had read the previous posts you would see that the entire focus of this thread is people using google as an address bar and start page, not people searching for "Iraq" or whatever.
For the last time: I am not talking about news summaries!!!
Are you even reading the posts you are replying to?
The original post referred to possible Google reciprocal action of completely de-listing the websites from their search engine.
The rest of your post doesn't even make sense.