The only reason I read this article was because I thought it pertained to Monty Python. Now I have broken my new years resolution to not learn anything this year. Thanks Slashdot!
I wouldn't say Tom's has been an ardent Intel fan. They have done a wonderful job at documenting AMDS virtues in the overclocking arena and bashing Intel's attempts to thwart the practice.
"Sounds like you guys need to research more into the Security before your AV servers."
That is a pretty brash judgement when you don't know any of the facts about the causes of the problems or the problems themselves. Perhaps you should ask a few more questions before making snap judgements yourself.
I really don't like to plug any company, but you asked and I will give as honest an answer as possible (as far as reasons are concerned).
We have installed AVG antivirus in both cases, the network editions. Part of that decision was cost. AVG is substantially cheaper that the Symantec, CA, and other major names, by nearly half. The other part of the recomendation comes from our experience with the product. We installed it on our own network, after our own troubles with Symantec's products. That was 2-3 years ago now. We have not had a single un-caught infection since that time.
The network edition is very functional and configurable. I would however judge their documentation as somewhere between lacking and confusing. It can take a respectable amount of time to get your installation set up to function exactly as you expect it to. Perhaps that is partially so many configurable options. There is a US reseller at Impact-Technologies.com if you want to read the fluff or documentation.
I think it's more like Nikon simply made a bad business decision by not giving the rights to Adobe to begin with. It clearly will cause a number of people to avoid the cameras altogether. Perhaps Adobe is on the attack here, but they may just be trying to draw attention to the fact you won't be able to work with the files in an attempt to force Nikon to give them up at no cost. It would be a smart move on Nikon's part at this point.
Funny to hear from someone else that Norton is packed with vulnerabilities too. We had to uninstall two entire corporate installations because of repeated intrusions with the software in place. We had to install software from a different company to correct the issues. They have both been clean ever since. We now recommend that all of our customers DO NOT use NOrton antiviral products because of this.
Personally, I wouldn't believe anything Symantec says anymore.
I think if you read the follow-ups, we both agree that you cannot apply physical properties to a none entity, such as a shadow. It is an interesting observation, but the 'presence' of a shadow is truely the abscense of an object and therefore cannot be consider to be 'moving' or have other attributes attached to it in such a fashion.
I think there are a great number of people working the the quantum 'computing' arena who would disagree with you on that one. I am not even going to attempt to argue the finer points of how information is handled on that level, as it would involve indepth explanations that would be better hashed out in a different setting than this. I do however understand the basis of your supposition that information cannot be 'transfered' quantumly. I believe that it is much too early in our understanding of the material to make such a judgement. I think that with what we know now, that we cannot transfer information at a distance. I do believe that we can make computations on a local level quantumly however and there is a lot of promise in that area. That in itself represents the transference of information, although a bit skewed from the initial point I as attempting to make.
Overall, I think we are all going to find out that some of the long standing ideas we had/have about the physical nature of our surroundings are going to have to change a bit. There simply is too many 'apparently' contradictory things out there that already do not fit into our current models of the 'the way things should be'. It is an exciting time to be involved in the physical sciences. I envy your position as it lends itself to have greater access to those discoveries and initial theories than the general populace. Kudos with regard to your achievements and I thank you personally for participating in an open forum such as this. Your views and your depth of knowledge are refreshing to see here.
"Regarding quantum entanglement, there are aspects of quantum entanglement that travel faster-than-light. However, as other posters have pointed out, these aspects do not permit information transference."
Aren't you picking a nits again? Isn't the change in state alone subject to the definition of information? That seems overtly apparent to me. If an object can have more than one state of existence then the measurement of the state and reporting of that state is the tantamount to the transference of information. So I am not sure where you are going, or even coming from, but any other supposition is absurd.
As far as your 'star' theory, observation of an uncontrollable event, in an uncontrollable environment can hardly be considered evidence of anything. Secondly your example suggests that a large body, with no mass is moving. If the object has no mass, then light would not interact with the object in the 'expected' fashion anyways, would it? There would not even BE a shadow. It doesn't matter whether you consider light a wave or a particle or any combination of the two. Besides that, you are pointing out an absence of light (the shadow, the absence of an object). Yet, if you look at the objects that we are talking about, the light shown around the object, no violations actually take place. The light that surrounds the 'shadow' or absence of light, is not known to be violating the theoretical constant c. You are considering the absence of an object an object in itself. That simply doesn't wash. As I stated, 'tricks' can be easily explained. All of the actual 'objects' in your example behave as expected and violate nothing. Just because we have a name for a void, does not instill upon it physical properties.
Do you want a mulligan on this one?;) There is one example that I can think of that is much more difficult to poke holes in. But that would make me argue against myself, and that is no fun. You can't use an example littered with contradictions to point out a contradiction. I would hope that even you would rip one of your own students with an example like that. I do however really enjoy the discussion of these things immensely. Thank you.
Re:Buy a powermac now, upgrade in 2 weeks?
on
New Mac System Specs
·
· Score: 3, Funny
" If I buy a powermac now......Then I check slashdot. Great. Just frigging great. "
In two weeks I hear Apple will be announcing an even newer model. It will be called the "Big Mac". In a deviation from past policy, Apple will allow customization to occur at order time with the additions of special S.A.U.C.E. (Simple And Usable Custom Enhancements) and even P.I.C.(k)L(e).S. (Peculiarly Integrated Custom Louvers and Shades). You might meet your deadline as these new machines will be available from Apple's new franchise stores and their drive-thru windows (uh, I mean the glass kind).
There do seem to be a few lapses in the 'facts' here don't there. I want to know how time will be measured there. Will they use whatever earth time zone the moon is currently over or make up a whole new system? For complexities sake, I am sure they will make up a new one. Didn't Bush already state that the moon observed Texas time (;-)? Perhaps during the eclipse(s) they will observe Moon daylight savings time, lol?
"Not exactly. What has been proven in a lab is that there are inescapable correlations in entangled quanum systems. However, due to the very nature of quantum mechanics and entanglement (and things like Heisenberg indeterminacy), there is no way to use these correlations to send signals or energy instantaneously. Yes quantum correlations operate over arbitrary distance, and yes they appear to operate "instantly"... but although the extent of correlation is always predictable (using quantum theory) the exact outcome of a particular experiment is not predictable, making it impossible to use this technique to send "faster-than-light" transmissions."
I whole heartedly agree with your statement, as long as I can clarify a couple of minor points. One is that you should have said, "we currently know of no way to use these correlations to send signals..." instead of " there is no way to use these correlations to send signals..." and you said, "...making it impossible to use this technique to send "faster-than-light" transmissions." I would have chosen the words differently, "making it appear impossible" There is certainly a lot we obviously don't yet understand, and I would certainly not rule out any possiblities based on observations, especially knowing that the act of observing to begin with can skew the results. Fifty years ago we would have all laughed at the things we understand today. I think the item we all are beginning to understand and agree upon is that we don't really don't have an understanding to begin with.
Maybe I did say "blows the constant out of the water". Not quite what I meant. I apologize for typing words differently than I was thinking them. I should have said that what we have learned so far has certainly caused us to have to redress our theories of light and travel at speeds faster than 'light', simply stated. That was what I was attempting to point out with my poor choice of words.
"Instantaneous travel is impossible for the simple reason that "instantaneous" has no meaning. Quantum entanglement does not allow the transfer of information at faster-than-light speeds. It is worth noting that all kinds of things can travel faster than light (e.g., it is trival to show that shadows, humorously enough, can travel faster-than-light), but information is not one of those things."
Your facts are inaccurate in that regard. Quantum entanglement absolutely does, and has already been shown to 'violate' the faster than light travel theory. There are arguements to be made on both sides, but subsequent experiments have nearly dashed all challenges to information transference observed due to exploitation of quantumly entangled atoms. You seem to be picking at nits on the use of words, so I will try to use them more carefully here. The below article is old, but states clearly the properties I am refering to.
Instantaneous, does have a definition and denotes something that happens concurrently (as I used it anyways). Furthermore, shadows (absence of light, or the process of 'shutting off' of a light source) absolutely follow the rules of light travel and are not known to ever, even trivially, have traveled faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum). The 'tricks' used to make that supposition seem real are easily explainable. (I can also prove mathematically, that 1+1 does not equal 2, but that doesn't make it true) I will however agree with you comment on the constant of light in a vacuum, but that was not my point at all and I didn't make any comment to suggest otherwise.
We have learned a lot over the past decade or two. Much of what we have learned flies in the face of the established physics of old.
The speed of light is now known to be controllable. One major university laboratory recently was able to actually stop light from moving. That kind of blows the constant out of the water. Kind of makes the statement that I can't travel faster than the speed of light mute too. Einstien had it right though, it's all relative (in very simple terms). We also now know for a fact that instantanious travel is physically possible via quantum entanglement, across any distance. Proven in a lab. Even more hard to grasp concepts have even been proven recently, such as the concept of a single object existing in two different places at the same time. Also proven in a lab. All of these have corresponding articles on Slashdot and are easily tracked down, so I won't waste my time providing the links. The next couple of decades had ought to be pretty exciting for those that pursue new physics in these areas.
"The world is not what it seems, but is what it is. ~ Brian King"
"So, yes, MMORPG players are almost all young and single. The fee has nothing to do with that. The design of the "game" does, because it requires so much dedication to playing it that everything else in life has to suffer."
I think that is a pretty jaded view of the world and the people that occupy it. I would seriously question your viewpoint that 'almost all' of the MMORPG players are young and single. I think there was a study done by PEW or one of those major research groups that recently showed that on-line game players average age is in the mid-thirties. I would call that approaching middle aged rather than young and single. As far as having to spend an inordinate amount of time to be able to play MMORPG's, that's just not true. I play on-line games almost constantly when I have free time. I make free ttime to do it. It's no different than the guy who goes out of his way to fish all of the time. When it's your passion, it will be serviced and you can still get life's requirements satisfied. I shudder at people's comments that suggest on-line game players are not productive members of society. It's simply not true. I am sure there are some out there, just like there are some who have gambling problems. But the vast majority are able to juggle life just fine. The point is really how much those same people value their cash. There is a limited supply of that available to each person and choices are forced in many areas in that regard, leaving a small percentage of dollars in the disposable column. My point was that the young and single have a much greater percentage of those dollars available to them and tend to make judgements in that regard based on perception rather than fact.
I believe the majority of the people playing MMORPGs are also responsible people too. To paint them as irresponsible people who can't prioritze their activities without causing life problems is very biased and nearly bigotrous. Most of the people who gamble do not have a problem with it, only a very small percentage can't stop when they reach their preset limits. Same goes for game players. Unfortunately the steriotype seems to persist. Don't believe it, it's not true.
" I for one don't want "Linux to kill Windows" any more than I want "Firefox to kill IE"."
You started off on the right foot. There is certainly room for both in this world. It would be foolish to remove choices from the public. We would be doing the same thing then that we complain MS does to us, remove choices.
"Ideally, Windows should die......just as IE should die... "
You did a 180 on us here and completely contradict yourself. I don't understand. Personally I get sick of the people who are adimate about any platform they don't like should 'die'. Whatever side of the fence you happen to be on. To me it's like saying that all cars should be removed from the market, because trucks are clearly better and there is no need for a car if you have a truck. Simply closed minded and dumb.
Apparently you are young and single. It shows pretty clearly in your reply. When you get married, have children, pay a mortgage and have to start thinking about college savings, car payments, mortgage, repairing the roof, insurance and even retirement accounts, your priorities changes out of necessity. $15 over the course of a month, regardless of your earnings is a number you pay attention to. You can't just throw money at things anymore, because you want to. You start making educated choices about where to spend your disposable dollars, because you realize they are not infinate.
Perhaps I am jaded by my lifes experiences, but I don't think I am alone nor do I believe I am in a minority. The vast majority of the people in this country earn a middle class to lower class income and hence must watch their dollars pretty closely, simply to survive. To get above that middle class income, you have to cut out 80% of the country's population. US Census numbers confirm this solidly. I would not bank on that 20% having an online rpg as their priority in life. Until those numbers reconcile with each other, the case can't be made for wide spread acceptance of monthly subscription models. 1 million people is extremely small segment of this nations population remember. Once you start dividing that number up amongst a larger pool of available monthly subscription services, diminishing returns kicks in pretty severely and the model collapses. Facts are facts and hard to argue against. Failure to recognize reality is what caused the dot com collapse and the same will happen here unless the model changes and/or growth in the industry stops (which it won't).
I have to agree that I think keeping Hubble going is very important. I do not however believe that Bush deserves any credit, so far. The plan is still in place to allow it to burn up in the atmosphere via controlled re-entry. It's not saved yet. If it is allowed to burn up, I think that would be a horrible legacy for the Bush administration. To have to watch the twin towers fall, our symbol of financial power, and see the hubble burn up too, our symbol of scientific achievement, under the same administration is simply horrific. I hope this guy can see that at the least.
"I kind of like what the Guild Wars guys are doing with the $50 game but with free online play, but I don't think that's going to be a very successful business model."
I think you are wrong on the business model point. I think you will find that the average user, for a subscription based MMORPG is probably 1 to 3 months. After that, the average player loses interest and drops their subscription. Granted, there is a curve there, where addicted players play for the life of the game, but there are also people who buy it and never even open the box. I have done that before myself. Sounds stupid, but it happens. They are extremes though. I think that they will make the same amount of money as a decent subscription model will, if not more. I love the concept of MMORPGs, and have even beta'd some of them. I liked them, but still cannot bring myself to pay a subscription fee every month for a game. It irks me to no end (subscriptions for something I already paid once for) and I can't do it, (yet, WoW was the closests yet for me as I have played all of the warcraft series until now and loved them and I still didn't/couldn't do it). There are a lot of people out there like me that will certainly pay the box price for Guild wars, if for no other reason than the fact that there is no subscription fee after that. The raised revenue ceiling due to that fact alone will certainly outweigh the loss of reoccuring revenue in subscriptions.
Only time will really tell. But I think you will be surprised.
Is that what your life is all about? Picking up spelling mistakes in an on-line forum and trying to suggest that the responses are null and void because it contains a spelling mistake? Who cares? Are you really that infantile?
Oh, I wanted to mention a couple of other things too. I was sentenced to 3 years of probation. On my first report, I was laughed at by the probation officer and told that none of this would have happened if I had just kept my mouth shut. He is right.
The original traffic ticket that this all started over was dismissed. I go to bed every night now wishing I never said a word. I read the papers now and question every arrest I read about and wonder if the person really did do what the police said they did. I have no trust in law enforcement and am scared to death everytime I see on now. I am sure I am not alone, but I am also sure the majority of the people out there also belive that this could never happen and doesn't happen, which gives the police a free hand to continue doing the same thing. Who watches the people who watch us? Apparently nobody.
I hope Baltimore police are more forgiving than police in my area. I found out the hard way that raising a stink can get you in a lot of hot water. I tried to raise a stink about a simple traffic ticket that I received, that was blatantly wrong. The county sheriff's department seemed to take my protest personally and viewed it as an attempt to discredit them. They retaliated by charging me with a slew of things that never happened and even went as far as fabricating evidence. At first I thought everyone would clearly see it as a underhanded attempt by the police to quite me. Boy was I wrong. What recourse do you have when the police say they have evidence of a crime you didn't commit? None. Unless you can persuade a judge that the police have it out for you, (most unlikely), you are toast, as was I. Now, I can't drive, have a criminal record, (no felony, but damn close), and the local police will now go out of their way to make my life miserable because I pointed my finger at them. I learned my lesson. Seems many police departments learned some lessons from Sadam Hussein, repression works. Now I haven't any credibility in anyone's eyes, because I was convicted of something I didn't even do. In their eyes, I am just another criminal who is crying innocence where there is none. It has hurt my family severely as other kids taunt my children, calling their father a liar. Nothing could be more painful than to be persecuted when you know you were in the right and you can't do anything about it.
I would excercise extreme caution here in raising too much of a stink. It has a terrible way of coming back at you ten fold.
Enterprise was simply a bad series. Star Trek has historically relied on a very loyal core group to support it's new series. Viewership was never spectacular, yet it was enough to convince studios to continue down the road. Enterprise however was so poor, that it lost more than half of the small loyal audience they had in previous series runs. They had to let it go.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason I read this article was because I thought it pertained to Monty Python. Now I have broken my new years resolution to not learn anything this year. Thanks Slashdot!
I wouldn't say Tom's has been an ardent Intel fan. They have done a wonderful job at documenting AMDS virtues in the overclocking arena and bashing Intel's attempts to thwart the practice.
"Sounds like you guys need to research more into the Security before your AV servers."
That is a pretty brash judgement when you don't know any of the facts about the causes of the problems or the problems themselves. Perhaps you should ask a few more questions before making snap judgements yourself.
I really don't like to plug any company, but you asked and I will give as honest an answer as possible (as far as reasons are concerned).
We have installed AVG antivirus in both cases, the network editions. Part of that decision was cost. AVG is substantially cheaper that the Symantec, CA, and other major names, by nearly half. The other part of the recomendation comes from our experience with the product. We installed it on our own network, after our own troubles with Symantec's products. That was 2-3 years ago now. We have not had a single un-caught infection since that time.
The network edition is very functional and configurable. I would however judge their documentation as somewhere between lacking and confusing. It can take a respectable amount of time to get your installation set up to function exactly as you expect it to. Perhaps that is partially so many configurable options. There is a US reseller at Impact-Technologies.com if you want to read the fluff or documentation.
I think it's more like Nikon simply made a bad business decision by not giving the rights to Adobe to begin with. It clearly will cause a number of people to avoid the cameras altogether. Perhaps Adobe is on the attack here, but they may just be trying to draw attention to the fact you won't be able to work with the files in an attempt to force Nikon to give them up at no cost. It would be a smart move on Nikon's part at this point.
Funny to hear from someone else that Norton is packed with vulnerabilities too. We had to uninstall two entire corporate installations because of repeated intrusions with the software in place. We had to install software from a different company to correct the issues. They have both been clean ever since. We now recommend that all of our customers DO NOT use NOrton antiviral products because of this.
Personally, I wouldn't believe anything Symantec says anymore.
I think if you read the follow-ups, we both agree that you cannot apply physical properties to a none entity, such as a shadow. It is an interesting observation, but the 'presence' of a shadow is truely the abscense of an object and therefore cannot be consider to be 'moving' or have other attributes attached to it in such a fashion.
I think there are a great number of people working the the quantum 'computing' arena who would disagree with you on that one. I am not even going to attempt to argue the finer points of how information is handled on that level, as it would involve indepth explanations that would be better hashed out in a different setting than this. I do however understand the basis of your supposition that information cannot be 'transfered' quantumly. I believe that it is much too early in our understanding of the material to make such a judgement. I think that with what we know now, that we cannot transfer information at a distance. I do believe that we can make computations on a local level quantumly however and there is a lot of promise in that area. That in itself represents the transference of information, although a bit skewed from the initial point I as attempting to make.
Overall, I think we are all going to find out that some of the long standing ideas we had/have about the physical nature of our surroundings are going to have to change a bit. There simply is too many 'apparently' contradictory things out there that already do not fit into our current models of the 'the way things should be'. It is an exciting time to be involved in the physical sciences. I envy your position as it lends itself to have greater access to those discoveries and initial theories than the general populace. Kudos with regard to your achievements and I thank you personally for participating in an open forum such as this. Your views and your depth of knowledge are refreshing to see here.
"Regarding quantum entanglement, there are aspects of quantum entanglement that travel faster-than-light. However, as other posters have pointed out, these aspects do not permit information transference."
;) There is one example that I can think of that is much more difficult to poke holes in. But that would make me argue against myself, and that is no fun. You can't use an example littered with contradictions to point out a contradiction. I would hope that even you would rip one of your own students with an example like that. I do however really enjoy the discussion of these things immensely. Thank you.
Aren't you picking a nits again? Isn't the change in state alone subject to the definition of information? That seems overtly apparent to me. If an object can have more than one state of existence then the measurement of the state and reporting of that state is the tantamount to the transference of information. So I am not sure where you are going, or even coming from, but any other supposition is absurd.
As far as your 'star' theory, observation of an uncontrollable event, in an uncontrollable environment can hardly be considered evidence of anything. Secondly your example suggests that a large body, with no mass is moving. If the object has no mass, then light would not interact with the object in the 'expected' fashion anyways, would it? There would not even BE a shadow. It doesn't matter whether you consider light a wave or a particle or any combination of the two. Besides that, you are pointing out an absence of light (the shadow, the absence of an object). Yet, if you look at the objects that we are talking about, the light shown around the object, no violations actually take place. The light that surrounds the 'shadow' or absence of light, is not known to be violating the theoretical constant c. You are considering the absence of an object an object in itself. That simply doesn't wash. As I stated, 'tricks' can be easily explained. All of the actual 'objects' in your example behave as expected and violate nothing. Just because we have a name for a void, does not instill upon it physical properties.
Do you want a mulligan on this one?
" If I buy a powermac now... ...Then I check slashdot. Great. Just frigging great. "
In two weeks I hear Apple will be announcing an even newer model. It will be called the "Big Mac". In a deviation from past policy, Apple will allow customization to occur at order time with the additions of special S.A.U.C.E. (Simple And Usable Custom Enhancements) and even P.I.C.(k)L(e).S. (Peculiarly Integrated Custom Louvers and Shades). You might meet your deadline as these new machines will be available from Apple's new franchise stores and their drive-thru windows (uh, I mean the glass kind).
lol, I spell checked it, and it said it was ok, so there (sticking out my tongue). You got me.
;)
Spookey ~ As in, "your wheels are very spookey".(?) As long as we are pointing fingers and toes at spelling mis-steaks.
There do seem to be a few lapses in the 'facts' here don't there. I want to know how time will be measured there. Will they use whatever earth time zone the moon is currently over or make up a whole new system? For complexities sake, I am sure they will make up a new one. Didn't Bush already state that the moon observed Texas time (;-)? Perhaps during the eclipse(s) they will observe Moon daylight savings time, lol?
"Not exactly. What has been proven in a lab is that there are inescapable correlations in entangled quanum systems. However, due to the very nature of quantum mechanics and entanglement (and things like Heisenberg indeterminacy), there is no way to use these correlations to send signals or energy instantaneously. Yes quantum correlations operate over arbitrary distance, and yes they appear to operate "instantly"... but although the extent of correlation is always predictable (using quantum theory) the exact outcome of a particular experiment is not predictable, making it impossible to use this technique to send "faster-than-light" transmissions."
I whole heartedly agree with your statement, as long as I can clarify a couple of minor points. One is that you should have said, "we currently know of no way to use these correlations to send signals..." instead of " there is no way to use these correlations to send signals..." and you said, "...making it impossible to use this technique to send "faster-than-light" transmissions." I would have chosen the words differently, "making it appear impossible" There is certainly a lot we obviously don't yet understand, and I would certainly not rule out any possiblities based on observations, especially knowing that the act of observing to begin with can skew the results. Fifty years ago we would have all laughed at the things we understand today. I think the item we all are beginning to understand and agree upon is that we don't really don't have an understanding to begin with.
Maybe I did say "blows the constant out of the water". Not quite what I meant. I apologize for typing words differently than I was thinking them. I should have said that what we have learned so far has certainly caused us to have to redress our theories of light and travel at speeds faster than 'light', simply stated. That was what I was attempting to point out with my poor choice of words.
"Instantaneous travel is impossible for the simple reason that "instantaneous" has no meaning. Quantum entanglement does not allow the transfer of information at faster-than-light speeds. It is worth noting that all kinds of things can travel faster than light (e.g., it is trival to show that shadows, humorously enough, can travel faster-than-light), but information is not one of those things."
i es/qt-entangle/#2
Your facts are inaccurate in that regard. Quantum entanglement absolutely does, and has already been shown to 'violate' the faster than light travel theory. There are arguements to be made on both sides, but subsequent experiments have nearly dashed all challenges to information transference observed due to exploitation of quantumly entangled atoms. You seem to be picking at nits on the use of words, so I will try to use them more carefully here. The below article is old, but states clearly the properties I am refering to.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2002/entr
Instantaneous, does have a definition and denotes something that happens concurrently (as I used it anyways). Furthermore, shadows (absence of light, or the process of 'shutting off' of a light source) absolutely follow the rules of light travel and are not known to ever, even trivially, have traveled faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum). The 'tricks' used to make that supposition seem real are easily explainable. (I can also prove mathematically, that 1+1 does not equal 2, but that doesn't make it true) I will however agree with you comment on the constant of light in a vacuum, but that was not my point at all and I didn't make any comment to suggest otherwise.
We have learned a lot over the past decade or two. Much of what we have learned flies in the face of the established physics of old.
The speed of light is now known to be controllable. One major university laboratory recently was able to actually stop light from moving. That kind of blows the constant out of the water. Kind of makes the statement that I can't travel faster than the speed of light mute too. Einstien had it right though, it's all relative (in very simple terms). We also now know for a fact that instantanious travel is physically possible via quantum entanglement, across any distance. Proven in a lab. Even more hard to grasp concepts have even been proven recently, such as the concept of a single object existing in two different places at the same time. Also proven in a lab. All of these have corresponding articles on Slashdot and are easily tracked down, so I won't waste my time providing the links. The next couple of decades had ought to be pretty exciting for those that pursue new physics in these areas.
"The world is not what it seems, but is what it is. ~ Brian King"
"So, yes, MMORPG players are almost all young and single. The fee has nothing to do with that. The design of the "game" does, because it requires so much dedication to playing it that everything else in life has to suffer."
I think that is a pretty jaded view of the world and the people that occupy it. I would seriously question your viewpoint that 'almost all' of the MMORPG players are young and single. I think there was a study done by PEW or one of those major research groups that recently showed that on-line game players average age is in the mid-thirties. I would call that approaching middle aged rather than young and single. As far as having to spend an inordinate amount of time to be able to play MMORPG's, that's just not true. I play on-line games almost constantly when I have free time. I make free ttime to do it. It's no different than the guy who goes out of his way to fish all of the time. When it's your passion, it will be serviced and you can still get life's requirements satisfied. I shudder at people's comments that suggest on-line game players are not productive members of society. It's simply not true. I am sure there are some out there, just like there are some who have gambling problems. But the vast majority are able to juggle life just fine. The point is really how much those same people value their cash. There is a limited supply of that available to each person and choices are forced in many areas in that regard, leaving a small percentage of dollars in the disposable column. My point was that the young and single have a much greater percentage of those dollars available to them and tend to make judgements in that regard based on perception rather than fact.
I believe the majority of the people playing MMORPGs are also responsible people too. To paint them as irresponsible people who can't prioritze their activities without causing life problems is very biased and nearly bigotrous. Most of the people who gamble do not have a problem with it, only a very small percentage can't stop when they reach their preset limits. Same goes for game players. Unfortunately the steriotype seems to persist. Don't believe it, it's not true.
" I for one don't want "Linux to kill Windows" any more than I want "Firefox to kill IE"."
...just as IE should die... "
You started off on the right foot. There is certainly room for both in this world. It would be foolish to remove choices from the public. We would be doing the same thing then that we complain MS does to us, remove choices.
"Ideally, Windows should die...
You did a 180 on us here and completely contradict yourself. I don't understand. Personally I get sick of the people who are adimate about any platform they don't like should 'die'. Whatever side of the fence you happen to be on. To me it's like saying that all cars should be removed from the market, because trucks are clearly better and there is no need for a car if you have a truck. Simply closed minded and dumb.
Apparently you are young and single. It shows pretty clearly in your reply. When you get married, have children, pay a mortgage and have to start thinking about college savings, car payments, mortgage, repairing the roof, insurance and even retirement accounts, your priorities changes out of necessity. $15 over the course of a month, regardless of your earnings is a number you pay attention to. You can't just throw money at things anymore, because you want to. You start making educated choices about where to spend your disposable dollars, because you realize they are not infinate.
Perhaps I am jaded by my lifes experiences, but I don't think I am alone nor do I believe I am in a minority. The vast majority of the people in this country earn a middle class to lower class income and hence must watch their dollars pretty closely, simply to survive. To get above that middle class income, you have to cut out 80% of the country's population. US Census numbers confirm this solidly. I would not bank on that 20% having an online rpg as their priority in life. Until those numbers reconcile with each other, the case can't be made for wide spread acceptance of monthly subscription models. 1 million people is extremely small segment of this nations population remember. Once you start dividing that number up amongst a larger pool of available monthly subscription services, diminishing returns kicks in pretty severely and the model collapses. Facts are facts and hard to argue against. Failure to recognize reality is what caused the dot com collapse and the same will happen here unless the model changes and/or growth in the industry stops (which it won't).
I have to agree that I think keeping Hubble going is very important. I do not however believe that Bush deserves any credit, so far. The plan is still in place to allow it to burn up in the atmosphere via controlled re-entry. It's not saved yet. If it is allowed to burn up, I think that would be a horrible legacy for the Bush administration. To have to watch the twin towers fall, our symbol of financial power, and see the hubble burn up too, our symbol of scientific achievement, under the same administration is simply horrific. I hope this guy can see that at the least.
"I kind of like what the Guild Wars guys are doing with the $50 game but with free online play, but I don't think that's going to be a very successful business model."
I think you are wrong on the business model point. I think you will find that the average user, for a subscription based MMORPG is probably 1 to 3 months. After that, the average player loses interest and drops their subscription. Granted, there is a curve there, where addicted players play for the life of the game, but there are also people who buy it and never even open the box. I have done that before myself. Sounds stupid, but it happens. They are extremes though. I think that they will make the same amount of money as a decent subscription model will, if not more. I love the concept of MMORPGs, and have even beta'd some of them. I liked them, but still cannot bring myself to pay a subscription fee every month for a game. It irks me to no end (subscriptions for something I already paid once for) and I can't do it, (yet, WoW was the closests yet for me as I have played all of the warcraft series until now and loved them and I still didn't/couldn't do it). There are a lot of people out there like me that will certainly pay the box price for Guild wars, if for no other reason than the fact that there is no subscription fee after that. The raised revenue ceiling due to that fact alone will certainly outweigh the loss of reoccuring revenue in subscriptions.
Only time will really tell. But I think you will be surprised.
Is that what your life is all about? Picking up spelling mistakes in an on-line forum and trying to suggest that the responses are null and void because it contains a spelling mistake? Who cares? Are you really that infantile?
Oh, I wanted to mention a couple of other things too. I was sentenced to 3 years of probation. On my first report, I was laughed at by the probation officer and told that none of this would have happened if I had just kept my mouth shut. He is right.
The original traffic ticket that this all started over was dismissed. I go to bed every night now wishing I never said a word. I read the papers now and question every arrest I read about and wonder if the person really did do what the police said they did. I have no trust in law enforcement and am scared to death everytime I see on now. I am sure I am not alone, but I am also sure the majority of the people out there also belive that this could never happen and doesn't happen, which gives the police a free hand to continue doing the same thing. Who watches the people who watch us? Apparently nobody.
I hope Baltimore police are more forgiving than police in my area. I found out the hard way that raising a stink can get you in a lot of hot water. I tried to raise a stink about a simple traffic ticket that I received, that was blatantly wrong. The county sheriff's department seemed to take my protest personally and viewed it as an attempt to discredit them. They retaliated by charging me with a slew of things that never happened and even went as far as fabricating evidence. At first I thought everyone would clearly see it as a underhanded attempt by the police to quite me. Boy was I wrong. What recourse do you have when the police say they have evidence of a crime you didn't commit? None. Unless you can persuade a judge that the police have it out for you, (most unlikely), you are toast, as was I. Now, I can't drive, have a criminal record, (no felony, but damn close), and the local police will now go out of their way to make my life miserable because I pointed my finger at them. I learned my lesson. Seems many police departments learned some lessons from Sadam Hussein, repression works. Now I haven't any credibility in anyone's eyes, because I was convicted of something I didn't even do. In their eyes, I am just another criminal who is crying innocence where there is none. It has hurt my family severely as other kids taunt my children, calling their father a liar. Nothing could be more painful than to be persecuted when you know you were in the right and you can't do anything about it.
I would excercise extreme caution here in raising too much of a stink. It has a terrible way of coming back at you ten fold.
Enterprise was simply a bad series. Star Trek has historically relied on a very loyal core group to support it's new series. Viewership was never spectacular, yet it was enough to convince studios to continue down the road. Enterprise however was so poor, that it lost more than half of the small loyal audience they had in previous series runs. They had to let it go.