Have I played my Wii much recently? Not really. I beat Metroid Prime 3, and that was fun, but other than that not to much out there interests me right now. Of course, by the same token I've played my PS2 even less than my Wii. I just don't have much time right now to spend on gaming consoles.
That's about the shape of it, I reckon.
Who's buying Wii? New gamers, non-gamers. People who don't buy a new game every month. People who might well just play Wii Sports for years on end and never think to buy another game.
The result is that Wii game sales aren't so high as some people expected, given the enormous sales of hardware.
Myself, although two years ago I was looking forward to buying a PS3, somehow I've gone all Nintendo lately and I'm happy with it. Truth is, I don't have so very much time for games any more. I've already got four or five games waiting for me to complete them, in addition to all the old favourites I still play despite having beaten them every possible way years ago. They compete for my free time with all those DVDs, all those downloads, the damn net itself, and the pub.
Right now, the games I'm likely to buy in the future are Phantom Hourglass (next week), Super Mario Galaxy (next month), Guitar Hero 3 (Christmas) and Smash (whenever). It's not exactly a hardcore schedule, but it's plenty for me. None of these are short games, none will be finished quickly. And if you're Nintendo, does it matter? Every single sale is a profit.
Nonsense. The Sun is a very stable star indeed. You want unstable stars, try YZ Canis Minoris, or Mira, or Eta Carinae if you want something really touchy.
Over the last 30 years, solar output has varied approximately sinusoidally, by rather less than 0.1%, over the course of its eleven-year cycle.
Their decision basically boils down to "we don't like it, so it's banned."
In fairness to the BBFC, this is the second game they've ever banned. The only other case was Carmageddon.
Remember how America had such a fuss over San Andreas? Because with only the violence it was rated for 17+, while with the sex scene it had to be rated 18+, and this was a major issue? Well, here it was rated 18 with the violence (the next rating down is 15) and with the sex it was, er... 18. No problems at all.
For Antiguans. US Citizens, for example, would still be bound by US law, regardless of where the data is located, or for that matter where the individual is located.
True, but give it a little more time and there'll be a data haven set up in Antigua. You SSH in, and then your anonymous account on the Antiguan machine downloads all you want. Then it transmits it back to your home computer, encrypted again. Untraceable, since the Antiguan authorities won't give the **AA the details of a customer who's doing nothing illegal under Antiguan law.
This is the WTO we're talking about. I bet they could come up with a way of applying very considerable pressure.
The idea I heard was that they'd give Antigua the OK to disregard all American copyrights, trademarks, designs and patents.
Very considerable pressure indeed. I give it a week after that ruling before a Caribbean equivalent of thepiratebay is established. And it'll be perfectly legal.
It's 2007. International borders mean little, information is weightless. Organisations like the BBFC are only going to become less and less relevant as time goes by.
Consensus counts for zilch in science, especially when the evidence is interpretive. The IPCC's consensus that "man is responsible" is meaningless without hard evidence -- not their interpretations of their own mathematical models. (And oh, the only reason climatologists can claim their models are "hard" with a straight face is because they aren't used to the standards of proofs that say physicists are.)
Q: how much of contemporary physics consists of the interpretation of mathematical models? Like, say, the Friedmann metric, the Schwarzschild metric, the Schroedinger equation, the Bell inequality...
I fail to see the difference, and when discussing science, "exaggerations" are nothing to be proud of.
Suppose you have a scientific study of a worrying trend in some system - doesn't matter what really. The figures are analysed, and the results say 10% chance of utter catastrophe, 80% chance of moderate amounts of trouble, 10% chance of nothing much.
Which is your headline figure, and why? If you're campaigning for something to be done about this trend, which will you present? If the answer is the 10% risk of catastrophe, are you dishonest in doing so?
Remember, this isn't a scientific paper. It's a film campaigning on a policy issue which happens to depend on scientific data. It's reasonable for Gore to present worst-case scenarios. However, the judge says that if the film is to be used as an educational resource, rather than as a propaganda piece, then it ought to be presented along with more of the scientific data indicating that these scenarios are in fact worst-case, long-term outcomes.
So what do you think you've refuted by posting inaccuracies that the judge used to determine made the movie unreliable?
So, you didn't read the article, and you didn't read the post I wrote either?
Note what the judge did not dispute: he agreed 'that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases').' He further agreed that 'global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts'.
Even if those points are true (I am a man-made-global-warming doubter myself. I dunno, I just think that temperature changed can be better explained by THE HUGE BALL OF NUCLEAR FIRE around which our planet revolves) a film with that many deliberate falsehoods hardly contributes to "world peace." If the truth cannot stand without the support of lies, is it really the truth?
Deliberate falsehoods, or exaggerations? Most of what the judge disputed consisted of matters of degree. For instance, if the icecaps melt fully, the sea level WILL rise that much - simple mechanics - and if the temperatures rise sufficiently then of course the ice will melt. It's a timescale question. Other disputed points are about whether climate change is a main cause or a contributing factor - say, drying lakes, vanishing snows, that sort of thing. Gore has tended towards a worst-case scenario - naturally enough, since the purpose of the film is to show how bad things could get - but in doing so he's gone beyond what the scientific consensus supports, and that's what the judge is calling him on.
Oh, and let's not forget that one of the principal reactions "responsible" for the hole in the ozone layer (i.e. the rapid photolysis of Cl2O2) has been demonstrated to not have the effect necessary to explain ozone depletion (not to mention that the ozone hole has been shrinking of late.)
Perhaps, though it's beside the point; ozone depletion doesn't have very much to do with global warming. And wouldn't we expect the ozone to start recovering, with the reduction in CFC emissions since the problem first became apparent?
the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified "four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC".
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore's arguments: "That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases')."
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
Couldn't this have been rewarded in a science category or were they afraid that that category would get mocked for what the award is about?
Well, no. It wasn't original scientific research, it was a presentation. You don't award a guy a Nobel Prize for producing a really good slideshow of stuff other people have discovered. But if that slideshow makes a political difference, it might well get him in line for the Peace prize.
It wasn't banned, and the judge said nothing of the sort. I would provide a link to back up what I say, but coincidentally, you already did. Did you even read the article you linked?
British schools ordered to provide balance when showing the movie.
Did you actually read what the judge said? Or did you only read what Fox News said?
The Times covered this in rather good detail. The parts of the film that were considered unfounded:
* That sea levels could rise seven metres 'in the immediate future'
* That atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated
* That CO2 levels and temperatures are 'an exact fit' - this, said the judge, overstated the case
* That the drying of Lake Chad, the disappearance of snows on Kilimanjaro, and Hurricane Katrina can be directly attributed to global warming
* That polar bears are known to be drowning as a result of melting ice
* That coral bleaching is due to climate change
Note what the judge did not dispute: he agreed 'that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases').' He further agreed that 'global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts'.
Yes. Him off Shaun of the Dead, sometime Doctor Who villain, and fondly remembered for his portrayal of a gloriously geeky comic store employee in Spaced.
In fact, we have a few hours yet before deadline, do we not? Let us mobilise the/. effect and get this public champion the recognition he deserves! Click here and explain why you think the Russian spam-slayer should get the award. You know it makes sense.
More like the Russian Mafia doesn't like sharing profits.
The Russian Mafia, like all such organisations, love sharing profits. In fact they love it so much, they'll come round from time to time to your place of business, for a friendly discussion about sharing profits and why it's a great thing to do.
I suspect the late spammer was not the sort of person who liked sharing profits, alas.
I wouldnt mind seeing Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link remade as a 3D Zelda.
Wander around in a 3D Hyrule, visit Rauru, Ruto, Saria, Mido, Nabooru and Darunia, pick up cool magic along the way, save world... Yeah. That would be so damn cool.
If you think that moral outrage over comics started in the eighties, research EC Comics.
Actually, I meant that moral outrage over comics ended in the eighties - the bother over 2000AD was the most recent I could think of. Certainly there were earlier examples - I believe I did mention EC's Tales from the Crypt as well.
All I want to do is type up my paper and save it in a format that my professor's copy of Microsoft Word can read without any hassles. OpenOffice does that
That's a whole lot of bloat to install just to type up a paper. Try AbiWord.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Additional:
And if you don't believe GM's clearly stated privacy policies, which state, in short, that "OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research, to protect the rights, property, of safety of any person, in exigent circumstances, to prevent misuse of their service, when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, or in various other circumstances"
In other words 'whenever the fuck we feel like it, for any reason whatever'. I mean, 'for marketing research'? So they'll sell your details to spammers. That's marketing research - for the spammer. 'Or in various other circumstances'? Wow, I feel secure trusting these people with my information.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
From TFA:
OnStar operators, who will send the car a signal via cell phone to slow it to a halt
So: they will send the car a signal. And then it will slow to a halt.
What part of this doesn't sound like 'remotely shutting down vehicles' to you? I had my engine fuck out on me about a year ago - cambelt snapped. All the power went away. Electricals worked, steering, brakes, so I could pull over to the hard shoulder just on inertia and phone for help, but you know what? I'd call that 'shut down', even though I was still moving. And if I'd been out in the right-hand lane instead of going relatively slowly on the left, I'd have been fucked - stranded out in warp-speed M5 traffic with rapidly dropping velocity trying to get across the carriageway to somewhere safe. And they propose to let someone have the authority to inflict that on me remotely via a mobile? Sorry. I don't trust anyone that much.
Slashdot Mirror
That's about the shape of it, I reckon.
Who's buying Wii? New gamers, non-gamers. People who don't buy a new game every month. People who might well just play Wii Sports for years on end and never think to buy another game.
The result is that Wii game sales aren't so high as some people expected, given the enormous sales of hardware.
Myself, although two years ago I was looking forward to buying a PS3, somehow I've gone all Nintendo lately and I'm happy with it. Truth is, I don't have so very much time for games any more. I've already got four or five games waiting for me to complete them, in addition to all the old favourites I still play despite having beaten them every possible way years ago. They compete for my free time with all those DVDs, all those downloads, the damn net itself, and the pub.
Right now, the games I'm likely to buy in the future are Phantom Hourglass (next week), Super Mario Galaxy (next month), Guitar Hero 3 (Christmas) and Smash (whenever). It's not exactly a hardcore schedule, but it's plenty for me. None of these are short games, none will be finished quickly. And if you're Nintendo, does it matter? Every single sale is a profit.
Nonsense. The Sun is a very stable star indeed. You want unstable stars, try YZ Canis Minoris, or Mira, or Eta Carinae if you want something really touchy.
Over the last 30 years, solar output has varied approximately sinusoidally, by rather less than 0.1%, over the course of its eleven-year cycle.
In fairness to the BBFC, this is the second game they've ever banned. The only other case was Carmageddon.
Remember how America had such a fuss over San Andreas? Because with only the violence it was rated for 17+, while with the sex scene it had to be rated 18+, and this was a major issue? Well, here it was rated 18 with the violence (the next rating down is 15) and with the sex it was, er... 18. No problems at all.
True, but give it a little more time and there'll be a data haven set up in Antigua. You SSH in, and then your anonymous account on the Antiguan machine downloads all you want. Then it transmits it back to your home computer, encrypted again. Untraceable, since the Antiguan authorities won't give the **AA the details of a customer who's doing nothing illegal under Antiguan law.
Good luck with that. The EU and Japan are backing Antigua on this one. Look up the figures for yourself.
The idea I heard was that they'd give Antigua the OK to disregard all American copyrights, trademarks, designs and patents.
Very considerable pressure indeed. I give it a week after that ruling before a Caribbean equivalent of thepiratebay is established. And it'll be perfectly legal.
It's 2007. International borders mean little, information is weightless. Organisations like the BBFC are only going to become less and less relevant as time goes by.
Q: how much of contemporary physics consists of the interpretation of mathematical models? Like, say, the Friedmann metric, the Schwarzschild metric, the Schroedinger equation, the Bell inequality...
Suppose you have a scientific study of a worrying trend in some system - doesn't matter what really. The figures are analysed, and the results say 10% chance of utter catastrophe, 80% chance of moderate amounts of trouble, 10% chance of nothing much.
Which is your headline figure, and why? If you're campaigning for something to be done about this trend, which will you present? If the answer is the 10% risk of catastrophe, are you dishonest in doing so?
Remember, this isn't a scientific paper. It's a film campaigning on a policy issue which happens to depend on scientific data. It's reasonable for Gore to present worst-case scenarios. However, the judge says that if the film is to be used as an educational resource, rather than as a propaganda piece, then it ought to be presented along with more of the scientific data indicating that these scenarios are in fact worst-case, long-term outcomes.
So, you didn't read the article, and you didn't read the post I wrote either?
Note what the judge did not dispute: he agreed 'that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases').' He further agreed that 'global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts'.
Deliberate falsehoods, or exaggerations? Most of what the judge disputed consisted of matters of degree. For instance, if the icecaps melt fully, the sea level WILL rise that much - simple mechanics - and if the temperatures rise sufficiently then of course the ice will melt. It's a timescale question. Other disputed points are about whether climate change is a main cause or a contributing factor - say, drying lakes, vanishing snows, that sort of thing. Gore has tended towards a worst-case scenario - naturally enough, since the purpose of the film is to show how bad things could get - but in doing so he's gone beyond what the scientific consensus supports, and that's what the judge is calling him on.
Oh, and let's not forget that one of the principal reactions "responsible" for the hole in the ozone layer (i.e. the rapid photolysis of Cl2O2) has been demonstrated to not have the effect necessary to explain ozone depletion (not to mention that the ozone hole has been shrinking of late.)
Perhaps, though it's beside the point; ozone depletion doesn't have very much to do with global warming. And wouldn't we expect the ozone to start recovering, with the reduction in CFC emissions since the problem first became apparent?
Those court findings? That would be the judgment in which
(from The Times)
the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified "four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC".
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore's arguments: "That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases')."
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
Well, no. It wasn't original scientific research, it was a presentation. You don't award a guy a Nobel Prize for producing a really good slideshow of stuff other people have discovered. But if that slideshow makes a political difference, it might well get him in line for the Peace prize.
It wasn't banned, and the judge said nothing of the sort. I would provide a link to back up what I say, but coincidentally, you already did. Did you even read the article you linked?
Did you actually read what the judge said? Or did you only read what Fox News said?
The Times covered this in rather good detail. The parts of the film that were considered unfounded:
* That sea levels could rise seven metres 'in the immediate future'
* That atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated
* That CO2 levels and temperatures are 'an exact fit' - this, said the judge, overstated the case
* That the drying of Lake Chad, the disappearance of snows on Kilimanjaro, and Hurricane Katrina can be directly attributed to global warming
* That polar bears are known to be drowning as a result of melting ice
* That coral bleaching is due to climate change
Note what the judge did not dispute: he agreed 'that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases').' He further agreed that 'global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts'.
Now we know the answer.
Simon Pegg.
Yes. Him off Shaun of the Dead, sometime Doctor Who villain, and fondly remembered for his portrayal of a gloriously geeky comic store employee in Spaced.
Now THAT rocks.
I mean, click here
In fact, we have a few hours yet before deadline, do we not? Let us mobilise the /. effect and get this public champion the recognition he deserves! Click here and explain why you think the Russian spam-slayer should get the award. You know it makes sense.
The Russian Mafia, like all such organisations, love sharing profits. In fact they love it so much, they'll come round from time to time to your place of business, for a friendly discussion about sharing profits and why it's a great thing to do.
I suspect the late spammer was not the sort of person who liked sharing profits, alas.
Wander around in a 3D Hyrule, visit Rauru, Ruto, Saria, Mido, Nabooru and Darunia, pick up cool magic along the way, save world... Yeah. That would be so damn cool.
Actually, I meant that moral outrage over comics ended in the eighties - the bother over 2000AD was the most recent I could think of. Certainly there were earlier examples - I believe I did mention EC's Tales from the Crypt as well.
That's a whole lot of bloat to install just to type up a paper. Try AbiWord.
In other words 'whenever the fuck we feel like it, for any reason whatever'. I mean, 'for marketing research'? So they'll sell your details to spammers. That's marketing research - for the spammer. 'Or in various other circumstances'? Wow, I feel secure trusting these people with my information.
OnStar operators, who will send the car a signal via cell phone to slow it to a halt
So: they will send the car a signal. And then it will slow to a halt.
What part of this doesn't sound like 'remotely shutting down vehicles' to you? I had my engine fuck out on me about a year ago - cambelt snapped. All the power went away. Electricals worked, steering, brakes, so I could pull over to the hard shoulder just on inertia and phone for help, but you know what? I'd call that 'shut down', even though I was still moving. And if I'd been out in the right-hand lane instead of going relatively slowly on the left, I'd have been fucked - stranded out in warp-speed M5 traffic with rapidly dropping velocity trying to get across the carriageway to somewhere safe. And they propose to let someone have the authority to inflict that on me remotely via a mobile? Sorry. I don't trust anyone that much.
At which point we find out what appalling projects the even younger have in mind...