Sorry, no, that doesn't follow. That line of logic suggests that, every time I open my mouth about a subject I'm required to spend equal time arguing for my opponent's view point. If there are more people who want to vote for someone, you have to expect that more people will write positively about that person. You can't fight math.
Ok, here's an education in IPv6. If you were to distribute all of the IPv6 addresses evenly across the people of the world, every human CELL would be able to have 55 million complete IPv4 address sets.
There's so many available addresses that they don't even expect to make use of 1% of the address range in the foreseeable future.
He cares because he'd like the fruit of his labors to do something besides tank when it hits the shelves. Playing "every man for himself" is never a good philosophy when starting a new product. It's not just the product itself that's unproven, it's the company's ability to sell and support that product.
The flip side of this is that it IS the marketing people's job to figure out how to sell it. Even though their idea of bumping the product up to 6.3 is an amazingly stupid one that's only going to sucker in a few chumps, and probably get the company labeled as scam-artists, if you push your opinion on them you'll just get targeted as a troublemaker. Calmly collect your information, give it to them, and then update your resume.
Or don't and update your resume anyway. That's where the company's headed.
Nope, not at all. This system would be dependent upon already existing technology which could tell you how close the person in front of you is to them. The worst thing that would happen would be that they could artificially cause you to slow down when you don't need to. Just a small amount of that where their actual location doesn't match the information that it's broadcasting would result in the assumption that the information they're presenting isn't reliable. At that point, the car would revert to normal following distance rules, only using its own distance checking as a guide.
Given that, they'd have a tough time even getting you to collide with THEM, much less have those behind you run into you.
This is a perfectly reasonable concept. It would be awesome if my car knew a few things about the car in front of it. If it was connected to it via an LED wireless network, then it could tell a few things about the next car, and the next, and the next. This would mean that minimum following distance was no longer constrained by human reaction speed, instead being limited more by the actual deceleration capabilities of the vehicle itself. A blowout in heavy traffic would no longer result in nine car pileups.
You could tell your car to maintain safe following speed, while you just concentrate on keeping yourself in the lane. That would TOTALLY blow away existing cruise control, and could theoretically be programmed to eliminate stop-and-go traffic entirely. If this were implemented across all cars, it would save hundreds of thousands of gallons of gas on a daily basis.
Seriously, while I appreciate their tenacity, these attempts weren't news the last time either. Please skip the "here they go again" post and just let us know how it went, ok?
No, it's a lot more scientific than that. As a simple example, because of how our brains are structured we tend to look to the left when lying (your left, not theirs) because we're using our constructive centers, not our rememberence centers. We'll look to the right (your right, not theirs) when piecing together memories.
As it turns out, our facial expressions aren't tied 100% through our front-brain. We flex certain muscles based on emotional response as opposed to intellectual intent. This makes it possible (but not necessary easy or reliable) to determine what someone is thinking when they talk. Humans are pretty good at picking up on the rough cues, and some of these cues actually bypass our front brain and directly interact with our emotional centers. This is an attempt to replicate that facility with computer systems.
Now with Windows, we can give our supercomputer the same great performance of your desktop system! I really can't even imagine what they were thinking. This must be a MS subsidized sales gimmick.
Whoa, dude, this is Slashdot. Slashdot is infotainment at its finest. If you're looking for a fair and balanced news source, you're definitely looking in the wrong place. Asking Slashdot to talk fair and balanced about something Microsoft does is like asking Fox News to be fair and balanced about the Obama campaign. At least Slashdot has no pretense about its bias.
This is a lesson we have to learn over and over again. The more unnecessarily difficult you make it to get something enjoyable, the more likely it becomes that a black market will rise up to supplant the regular one. This is why alcohol prohibition failed, this is the reason that cigarette taxes haven't risen further, and this is the reason that the current drug war is more harmful than the drugs themselves.
People don't like to have to jump through hoops for their entertainment. From the consumer's perspective, this is a dominance game that says "I'm going to make you suffer just because I can." If people can get their entertainment without jumping through the hoops they consider themselves the victor in this struggle. This is why "sin taxes" are usually counterproductive. This is also why so many men cheat on their wives.
Personally I'm disappointed that they've ruined the game for me, but I'm glad that EA decided to do this with Spore. If DRM like this can completely wreck sales of the most anticipated game of the decade, it might teach the industry a lesson. I, for one, will not be giving EA any of my money this year.
Re:Motorcycle, not a car; Agreed, but...
on
DIY Hybrid Car Kit
·
· Score: 1
If these things are even vaguely successful, someone will eventually start up a build-and-delivery service. If my commute didn't involve delivering the children to school, I'd seriously consider one myself.
I agree with parent post, but you should be certain to cite your reasonable and legal use of the domain (for personal email) in your response to them. Make sure they pay for the legal expenses of producing an internationally binding contract, and get the money passed through a standard intermediary that holds the money in trust until you deliver the domain address.
Sorry, apparently this debate makes people humor challenged. Gaming truly has nothing to do with this phenomena - the consumerism is individualized too much for that part of the equation to matter.
Football and politics are things that are so complex that people lose track of the original purpose and start playing for points. Football is designed to measure speed, strength, agility, teamwork, planning ability, and a few other things. Unfortunately, this is too complex for most people to keep in their head all the time, so they get focused on the measurement instead of the thing being measured, and introduce skills like rules lawyering, rough tactics, and stealing the other team's playbooks into the mix. We have to keep reminding them "It's not whether you win or lose...". Despite accusations of mud-slinging, most politicians seem to have completely lost track of this, and we don't seem to care either.
There's also a factor of team loyalty. We feel uplifted when our team wins. It doesn't matter if that team is the Chicago Bulls or the Republicans. Many of us (about 80% by most studies) are so much fixated on facilitating that uplift that we've stopped paying attention to who we're supporting. We backfill our reasons for supporting a candidate so that we can happily stay on the same team. People like Rush Limbaugh provide us with plenty of backfilling opportunities.
We're proud of this behavior, too. "I've voted for X party in every election since I was 18!" is something I hear all the time. Why should I be happy that someone's party loyalty exceeds their desire to pick the best candidate?
I blame organized sports, rampant consumerism and gaming. By focusing on earning enough money to buy the next gaming console, people don't have enough of their brain left to differentiate between politics and football.
I hate to say it, but their sampling is flawed. Since they were using satellite images for their study, they automatically selected a sampling for which sunlight was visible. Even if the sunlight were not currently visible, the kindly bovines might just prefer to stare in that direction out of habit from when the sun IS visible.
Who are these people who call themselves "Scientists", anyway?
With all due respect, Bensam, I think that you are finding flaws in the analogy where it wasn't meant to be stretched. If you want a more perfect analogy, you can take big-budget movie production.
In movie production, creating a finished work takes tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands of people's contributions, and a decent idea at the outset. The success of a film is based on a large number of contributions. The initial story line is just a seed. If the acting sucks or the cinematography is flat, it can kill a movie regardless of how good the initial idea was. Video games are similar. Blocky models, amateurish skins, unrealistic kinetics or body motions, or flat lighting could each individually make a good game just plain unpleasant to play.
The reason they make sequels is because they're capitalizing on people's desire to get more of something that they really liked in the first place. Even if it's schlock, it can be counted on to sell better than an equivalent unknown.
You're definitely wrong in thinking that good ideas are uncommon. Spectacular ideas are uncommon, but are actually usually just something that catches the zeitgeist of the players, and that isn't determinable in advance.
Unfortunately, video game ideas are about as rare as fiction plotlines. Every major series on TV is deluged by hundreds of story ideas that they are not allowed to read because they fear that if they read them, they'll be sued for using an idea that they already had on their own.
Writers of all types suffer from this on a continual basis. The writers themselves usually have far more ideas than they have writing time. The desire to turn those ideas into reality is usually what pushed them to learn the skill in the first place. As a result, recommendations by other people that the writer should develop THEIR idea usually just winds up being annoying.
Video game ideas are the same. People with the resources to develop video games are perpetually surrounded by people who say "wouldn't it be cool if...". Unless you have the development skill (or can find a friend with such) to actually create the game yourself and put it out on the internet, it'll never happen.
The dead carbon DOESN'T matter. I wouldn't matter in the least whether or not the dead carbon were even on that capsule. In a very real way, his dead carbon wasn't on the capsule because it's really Scotty that people are thinking of, not the actor that played him.
It's merely the concept of the universe's greatest engineer being on a rocket that exploded that is amusing to people.
I'll agree with the parent, but also say that anyone designing an API should work to at least understand the limitations of the medium. I don't expect my UI designers to understand what a smart pointer is, but they DO need to understand the difference between a checkbox and a radio button, even if they aren't designing for web.
The answer actually lies in your own use of language. Symbolism is the use of pattern matching to make one event mimic another. Pattern matching is the core of our sense of beauty, so these things are inherently beautiful to us.
Superstition involves allowing your behavior to be altered by unprovable connections. We aren't changing our behavior for symbolism any more than necessary to wonder at the entertaining symmetries.
This is not true. The small object near the asteroid would be pulled towards the asteroid. The energy required to keep the small object away from the asteroid would be mathematically identical to the deflection energy imparted onto the asteroid. This is the first law of thermodynamics at work.
The only advantage that you get is that you don't have to expend energy to stop the asteroid from spinning so you have a stable platform to thrust from. The disadvantage is that you have to move the secondary object near the asteroid and make the secondary object stop spinning before it's usable. If the object is any meaningful distance from the asteroid you're wasting quite a bit of effort getting it there.
I also have a wife, to kids, two dogs, three cats, and about six hobbies. I never suggested that you should program to the exclusion of the rest of your life. However, if you never see software engineering as a solution to any of your problems at home, then what does that say about your interest in the medium?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, no, that doesn't follow. That line of logic suggests that, every time I open my mouth about a subject I'm required to spend equal time arguing for my opponent's view point. If there are more people who want to vote for someone, you have to expect that more people will write positively about that person. You can't fight math.
So only women think that you are overrated?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Ok, here's an education in IPv6. If you were to distribute all of the IPv6 addresses evenly across the people of the world, every human CELL would be able to have 55 million complete IPv4 address sets.
There's so many available addresses that they don't even expect to make use of 1% of the address range in the foreseeable future.
He cares because he'd like the fruit of his labors to do something besides tank when it hits the shelves. Playing "every man for himself" is never a good philosophy when starting a new product. It's not just the product itself that's unproven, it's the company's ability to sell and support that product.
The flip side of this is that it IS the marketing people's job to figure out how to sell it. Even though their idea of bumping the product up to 6.3 is an amazingly stupid one that's only going to sucker in a few chumps, and probably get the company labeled as scam-artists, if you push your opinion on them you'll just get targeted as a troublemaker. Calmly collect your information, give it to them, and then update your resume.
Or don't and update your resume anyway. That's where the company's headed.
Is a surgical technique that can alter the geometry of my skull! It's so simple! Hollywood, here I come!
Nope, not at all. This system would be dependent upon already existing technology which could tell you how close the person in front of you is to them. The worst thing that would happen would be that they could artificially cause you to slow down when you don't need to. Just a small amount of that where their actual location doesn't match the information that it's broadcasting would result in the assumption that the information they're presenting isn't reliable. At that point, the car would revert to normal following distance rules, only using its own distance checking as a guide.
Given that, they'd have a tough time even getting you to collide with THEM, much less have those behind you run into you.
This is a perfectly reasonable concept. It would be awesome if my car knew a few things about the car in front of it. If it was connected to it via an LED wireless network, then it could tell a few things about the next car, and the next, and the next. This would mean that minimum following distance was no longer constrained by human reaction speed, instead being limited more by the actual deceleration capabilities of the vehicle itself. A blowout in heavy traffic would no longer result in nine car pileups.
You could tell your car to maintain safe following speed, while you just concentrate on keeping yourself in the lane. That would TOTALLY blow away existing cruise control, and could theoretically be programmed to eliminate stop-and-go traffic entirely. If this were implemented across all cars, it would save hundreds of thousands of gallons of gas on a daily basis.
Seriously, while I appreciate their tenacity, these attempts weren't news the last time either. Please skip the "here they go again" post and just let us know how it went, ok?
Nature did it first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penitentes
No, it's a lot more scientific than that. As a simple example, because of how our brains are structured we tend to look to the left when lying (your left, not theirs) because we're using our constructive centers, not our rememberence centers. We'll look to the right (your right, not theirs) when piecing together memories.
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php
As it turns out, our facial expressions aren't tied 100% through our front-brain. We flex certain muscles based on emotional response as opposed to intellectual intent. This makes it possible (but not necessary easy or reliable) to determine what someone is thinking when they talk. Humans are pretty good at picking up on the rough cues, and some of these cues actually bypass our front brain and directly interact with our emotional centers. This is an attempt to replicate that facility with computer systems.
Now with Windows, we can give our supercomputer the same great performance of your desktop system! I really can't even imagine what they were thinking. This must be a MS subsidized sales gimmick.
Whoa, dude, this is Slashdot. Slashdot is infotainment at its finest. If you're looking for a fair and balanced news source, you're definitely looking in the wrong place. Asking Slashdot to talk fair and balanced about something Microsoft does is like asking Fox News to be fair and balanced about the Obama campaign. At least Slashdot has no pretense about its bias.
This is a lesson we have to learn over and over again. The more unnecessarily difficult you make it to get something enjoyable, the more likely it becomes that a black market will rise up to supplant the regular one. This is why alcohol prohibition failed, this is the reason that cigarette taxes haven't risen further, and this is the reason that the current drug war is more harmful than the drugs themselves.
People don't like to have to jump through hoops for their entertainment. From the consumer's perspective, this is a dominance game that says "I'm going to make you suffer just because I can." If people can get their entertainment without jumping through the hoops they consider themselves the victor in this struggle. This is why "sin taxes" are usually counterproductive. This is also why so many men cheat on their wives.
Personally I'm disappointed that they've ruined the game for me, but I'm glad that EA decided to do this with Spore. If DRM like this can completely wreck sales of the most anticipated game of the decade, it might teach the industry a lesson. I, for one, will not be giving EA any of my money this year.
If these things are even vaguely successful, someone will eventually start up a build-and-delivery service. If my commute didn't involve delivering the children to school, I'd seriously consider one myself.
I agree with parent post, but you should be certain to cite your reasonable and legal use of the domain (for personal email) in your response to them. Make sure they pay for the legal expenses of producing an internationally binding contract, and get the money passed through a standard intermediary that holds the money in trust until you deliver the domain address.
Sorry, apparently this debate makes people humor challenged. Gaming truly has nothing to do with this phenomena - the consumerism is individualized too much for that part of the equation to matter.
Football and politics are things that are so complex that people lose track of the original purpose and start playing for points. Football is designed to measure speed, strength, agility, teamwork, planning ability, and a few other things. Unfortunately, this is too complex for most people to keep in their head all the time, so they get focused on the measurement instead of the thing being measured, and introduce skills like rules lawyering, rough tactics, and stealing the other team's playbooks into the mix. We have to keep reminding them "It's not whether you win or lose...". Despite accusations of mud-slinging, most politicians seem to have completely lost track of this, and we don't seem to care either.
There's also a factor of team loyalty. We feel uplifted when our team wins. It doesn't matter if that team is the Chicago Bulls or the Republicans. Many of us (about 80% by most studies) are so much fixated on facilitating that uplift that we've stopped paying attention to who we're supporting. We backfill our reasons for supporting a candidate so that we can happily stay on the same team. People like Rush Limbaugh provide us with plenty of backfilling opportunities.
We're proud of this behavior, too. "I've voted for X party in every election since I was 18!" is something I hear all the time. Why should I be happy that someone's party loyalty exceeds their desire to pick the best candidate?
I blame organized sports, rampant consumerism and gaming. By focusing on earning enough money to buy the next gaming console, people don't have enough of their brain left to differentiate between politics and football.
I hate to say it, but their sampling is flawed. Since they were using satellite images for their study, they automatically selected a sampling for which sunlight was visible. Even if the sunlight were not currently visible, the kindly bovines might just prefer to stare in that direction out of habit from when the sun IS visible.
Who are these people who call themselves "Scientists", anyway?
With all due respect, Bensam, I think that you are finding flaws in the analogy where it wasn't meant to be stretched. If you want a more perfect analogy, you can take big-budget movie production.
In movie production, creating a finished work takes tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands of people's contributions, and a decent idea at the outset. The success of a film is based on a large number of contributions. The initial story line is just a seed. If the acting sucks or the cinematography is flat, it can kill a movie regardless of how good the initial idea was. Video games are similar. Blocky models, amateurish skins, unrealistic kinetics or body motions, or flat lighting could each individually make a good game just plain unpleasant to play.
The reason they make sequels is because they're capitalizing on people's desire to get more of something that they really liked in the first place. Even if it's schlock, it can be counted on to sell better than an equivalent unknown.
You're definitely wrong in thinking that good ideas are uncommon. Spectacular ideas are uncommon, but are actually usually just something that catches the zeitgeist of the players, and that isn't determinable in advance.
Unfortunately, video game ideas are about as rare as fiction plotlines. Every major series on TV is deluged by hundreds of story ideas that they are not allowed to read because they fear that if they read them, they'll be sued for using an idea that they already had on their own.
Writers of all types suffer from this on a continual basis. The writers themselves usually have far more ideas than they have writing time. The desire to turn those ideas into reality is usually what pushed them to learn the skill in the first place. As a result, recommendations by other people that the writer should develop THEIR idea usually just winds up being annoying.
Video game ideas are the same. People with the resources to develop video games are perpetually surrounded by people who say "wouldn't it be cool if...". Unless you have the development skill (or can find a friend with such) to actually create the game yourself and put it out on the internet, it'll never happen.
Sorry, but that's the harsh reality of things.
The dead carbon DOESN'T matter. I wouldn't matter in the least whether or not the dead carbon were even on that capsule. In a very real way, his dead carbon wasn't on the capsule because it's really Scotty that people are thinking of, not the actor that played him.
It's merely the concept of the universe's greatest engineer being on a rocket that exploded that is amusing to people.
I'll agree with the parent, but also say that anyone designing an API should work to at least understand the limitations of the medium. I don't expect my UI designers to understand what a smart pointer is, but they DO need to understand the difference between a checkbox and a radio button, even if they aren't designing for web.
The answer actually lies in your own use of language. Symbolism is the use of pattern matching to make one event mimic another. Pattern matching is the core of our sense of beauty, so these things are inherently beautiful to us.
Superstition involves allowing your behavior to be altered by unprovable connections. We aren't changing our behavior for symbolism any more than necessary to wonder at the entertaining symmetries.
This is not true. The small object near the asteroid would be pulled towards the asteroid. The energy required to keep the small object away from the asteroid would be mathematically identical to the deflection energy imparted onto the asteroid. This is the first law of thermodynamics at work.
The only advantage that you get is that you don't have to expend energy to stop the asteroid from spinning so you have a stable platform to thrust from. The disadvantage is that you have to move the secondary object near the asteroid and make the secondary object stop spinning before it's usable. If the object is any meaningful distance from the asteroid you're wasting quite a bit of effort getting it there.
I also have a wife, to kids, two dogs, three cats, and about six hobbies. I never suggested that you should program to the exclusion of the rest of your life. However, if you never see software engineering as a solution to any of your problems at home, then what does that say about your interest in the medium?