The only Microsoft monopoly that has any leverage is the Office productivity market.
However, there is a solution to that monopoly if DRM comes in full effect. A person can run Office on a Mac, and a person can run OpenOffice on a Mac (if necessary).
As a consumer, if DRM becomes the norm for Wintel systems. I'm going to switch.
Eh, I could see where you would get that. But I my comment was intented to demonstrate that he had played an "alpha", which meant there has yet to be any "beta", so it couldn't even fit into any definition of vaporware, including the article's. I probably should have utilized some highlighting technique on the word "alpha" to make it more clear.
I think that it's clear here that vaporware is just a totally loaded word. I think that including Doom 3 the use of "vaporware" has more to do with hype and anticipation of the game and nothing to do with what "vaporware" is supposed to mean.
Getting specific about a word that's clearly just journalistic slang is probably a worthless cause, but since it's tossed around as an insult I can't see how something like Doom 3 would qualify.
(And that's not just the fanboy in me talking, honest)
DOOM isn't locked in a "pre-release, beta-testing state", it's currently under development and has not been pre-released for testing and is not in some kind of limbo state of Q/A. The leak was just that, a leak from a hardware vendor.
By your expert interpretation of "the manual", every piece of software in development is therefore vaporware until it's shrinked wrapped. That wouldn't be a very useful definition if it makes the word all-inclusive.
In fact, the DOOM III poster that's up here on my wall has a 2003 release date in big bold letters right at the bottom.
Perhaps you should tell me to RTFM next, if it actually misses a release date.
There maybe only one EM spectrum, but there are infinite uses of that EM spectrum as technology and ability increase.
A property rights system would need to be implimented, but it does not need much additional "special" legislation because it's not a "special" property. A quick observation on the futures market (and other derivitives) shows just how smoothly and peacefully the market can handle abstract ownership rights.
A "deed" for a frequency would simply need to be an area specific broadcast right. There's no problem "quantifying" frequencies because we measure and quantify frequencies every day using almost simple equipment.
It could be similar to the way that land is divvied up. As technology increases and our ability to utilize the EM spectrum increases, the effective land mass of existing deeds would increase. It would then just be a matter of allowing a deed owner to split is property into smaller ranges and sell them as he sees fit.
I urge you to look past the propeganda and current status quo as a foundtation for rational thought on the subject. Just because we've been trained to believe that EM frequencies are "special", doesn't mean that they are insurmountable for a market system. A free market system always puts the greatest use out of the smallest resource, regardless of how abstract that resource is.
There would indeed be highly technical disputes that our current system isn't equiped to handle. But our current system isn't equiped to handle any high tech dispute... just look at the DMCA and the incroaches on your personal liberties that take place every day in the more technical aspects of our lives.
I would venture to say that the inability of government to keep up and effectively manage things of advanced technical complication and significance is the best possible reason to remove the complete government control of a medium.
We take for granted the current solution of EM frequency management because no one is free to come up with a better one.
Einstein said, "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom."
That theory holds true for concepts like organization and management. Without the armed guards enforcing the status quo, someone with a brain can think up a better way to handle and manage the EM spectrum property. Probably with some scheme or idea that is so simple and elegant that our children would think that anything else is infantile.
At least we know from the leaked alpha that the game will ROCK:-)
If you've played the alpha and it rocks, and you're sure that it will rock when it comes out... how exactly is it vaporware?
I've had the pleasure of seeing the DOOM 3 theater presentation at QuakeCon 2002, and I can assure you that DOOM 3 is no where near vaporware. It's just so advanced that it's taking a slightly longer development cycle than your typical derived engined game.
I would probably guess that it's more finished than unfinished at this point. (entirely speculation) And Todd Hollenshead did joke with the crowd at QCon that id wasn't in the habit of showing preview versions of the same game year after year at E3.
Who decided that any government "owns" the radio spectrum?
The people own the radio spectrum, the government is "the people". At least in theory.
What makes radio frequencies so special that they require public ownership? And what makes a person think that public ownership really means owned by the "people"?
The government owns a lot of land, facilities and equipment. I'll be damned if I try to use any of it myself. If I, as one of "the people", own everything that the government owns, I'd really like to take a hum-v for a spin, or cruise around in a jet plane. Not bloody likely.
It would be more accurate to say that things owned by the "public" are really owned by no one, because no one is really allowed to use them. The only use is granted by someone who has rationalized themselves a form of power to make decisions for "the public". Seriously, how many times does doing things for "the public good" when they really mean "do this for others, not yourself".
It seems a lot more rational to me if radio broadcasting ownership were just given to owners, who then could buy and sell those properties just like anything else. Or I guess we could just continue to let the government pick the privelidged and favorites.
The last great act that the government did as far as ownership goes was the Oklahoma land rush. That's the way that "unowned property" should be taken care of, not some institutionalize nepotism.
If that were the case, the innovator in this story could have just asked the people that he would be "interfering with" for permission. Might have need to buy or lease a couple frequencies for a while.
Instead, he's just turned it down considerably. I'd wager pretty good money that the capacity he gave up is now being used by "no one", rather than another one of "the public" who "own" the radio frequencies.
I think that they have taken this into consideration.
In the article, it mentions that they had designs for both an "inchworm" welding robot and then a drilling system for exploring Mars. Then, the article says, the combined the features from both designs to make one singular design.
I have no idea what either design looked like originally, but I'm picturing some kind of base station that's above ground at the entry point that is helping with the process somehow.
I also can't help but think that one could avoid the "cuttings" volume problem by using chemical reactions on the debris. Depending on the minerals present, perhaps some could be released in a gaseous form to escape up the hole, and then others turned into a dense sludge trail up the vacated hole. The possible pollution is obvious, but the implications of that kind of pollution are unknown. I'm pretty sure it would be difficult to pollute the practically nonexistant atmosphere with gases.
Could it be that their truth simply differs from that of their critics[?]
No! To suggest that reality itself is subject to the perception for definition is to reject science itself.
Reality exists outside of the perception and understanding of man, and science is the gradual process of defining and understanding reality.
To assert that "[h]igh-energy physics, by its very definition, is purely personal and subjective" is completely absurd. And to further state that "[n]o physical law can possibly be applicable to all observers" is clearly the realm of metaphysical philosophy, and not the realm of science.
The scientific method is specifically designed to overcome the limitations of individual perceptive biases in order to discover those physical laws that do indeed apply to all things in all situations. If one were to conceed, as you suggest, that no physical law holds true for all observers, then all knowledge that mankind has accumulated would be rendered false by crude and childish statements.
In example, following your relativist logic, I could say something astranged like, "Gravity doesn't exist because when I was skydiving nothing appeared to be moving. Instead, Gravity is the force of air moving upwards to meet the sky when I'm no longer limited to terrestrial movement." Everyone and anyone can admit that this is not an accurate description or representation of reality, because while it may have seemed true based on my individual perception, it clearly doesn't hold true in all situations and for all people.
Humans have been using this method of determining reality since the discovery of communication. Science simply accelerates our ability to compare and contrast perceptions of individuals to find that subset of perceptions that accurately define reality.
Your suggestion that the reality of high energy physics doesn't exists because we have yet to determine the subset of perception to define that reality. This is the same as saying that organisms didn't have cells before the cellular dogma was discovered, or that magnatism didn't exist before someone discovered how to polarise something (or observe it's polarity). We don't yet know the exact reality of high energy physics, so there are no clear physical laws defined. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
This is the exact purpose of a scientific paper, to present the most accurate account of observation and perception to other skilled and willing individuals who will then retrace those steps to verify those observations and perceptions. The process of many individuals reproducing the conditions and observing the results is what allows reality to be defined.
You would like to say that it's arrogant to want to go through this process. That we shouldn't be "bent" on disproving these authors own perceptions and reality because that would somehow be pompous and ego centric. You even go further as to state that somehow perpetuating this vague undefinition rather than attempting to discover it's truth or untruth would somehow bet of some "more vibrant cultural relevance to the developing world".
To suggest that anything other than the truth and anything other than the most accurate understanding of reality would be superior is nothing less than a failure to the marvel of human acheivement.
If you want arrogance, I'll let you have it. A heartless metaphysical facade like this is nothing more than a proof of your own character. You are an intellectual degenerate. Trying to denouce science as some "hoary old shibboleth" and suggesting that relativism is "something of more vibrant cultural relevance to the developing world" is discusting.
Without a greater understanding of reality, there is no developing in the developing world. Crawl back into the socialist dogma you slithered out of.
At the risk of becoming way to technical about a fiction work... holodecks didn't really just make "images".
The Star Trek Holodecks used replicator technology to actually assemble all of the things in the holodeck out of "real" matter. But since (for some reason) Star Trek technology is unable to create life, the holodeck then uses an inanely complex system of mini tractor beams to move all of that matter in the life-like fashion.
The "fake" portions of the holodeck are the images projected on the walls (the holodeck is just a room), and then some elements of energy and matter are substituted for safety reasons.
For those that would consider this flamebait, sorry about that, I picked up a Star Trek NC1701-D Technical Manual at a convention once while I was in high school, and it was awesome.
Actually, I've gotten used to the way that the stories are written up here at slashdot.
The stories are typically intentionally inaccurate and sensationalist, then readers will spend more time discussing (correcting) the article and generating revenue.
If there were a care in the world about accuracy, you'd see articles getting fixed now and then. But that's not the goal./. makes no effort to be a "real" news resource. They just throw interesting stories online for people to discuss. When the story is wrong, then they just get more hits from the "bonus discussion" that results from people arguing the validity of the story, along with the subject matter itself.
I always find it humorous how so many veteran gamers start to wax nostalgic about classic games having "better gameplay" or "good enough graphics" but seem to really miss the point.
I loved Zork when it first came out, and spent an inordinate amount of time going through the maze while mapping it out on tractor feed paper, just so I could have a complete map. (damn one way passages). And there were other gamers out there doing the same thing... but not too many.
When CGA graphics rox0red my box0rs, I always had a great time dialing up to my local RBBS and downloading a cool game and giving it a whirl. Computer pinball became a demigod in my household. These graphics brought more gamers into the fold.
The saga continued, with more technology (processor and graphic) upping the ante. Duke Nukem (the side scroller), [I'm going to fork to id now, just like I did in real life] Commander Keen (4 was my favorite), Castle Wolfenstein 3D (learned my first bit of German, then killed Barney), DOOM (absorbed me, frightened me, forced me to bleach my underpants), Duke 3D, Quake (online revolution, I still haven't escaped), etc... etc... etc.
Now I'd like to make a different observation based on that list. Rather than looking at how much the processor and graphics technology improved, I want everyone to consider how much the "gamer" demographic increased. Think of how much those better graphics and game logic made games more accessible to non-gamers.
Increased computer and (especially) graphic technology is what keeps gaming on a growth model. Without coming out with something "bigger and better" on the completely shallow sense, then few *new* gamers will take on the challenge of finding the inner quality of the game.
I too remember the days when Gameplay was king. Now I search long and hard for those games today that still reach those expectations. But as a modern gamer, it's not easy to get my attention with subpar graphics (and sound).
I would say that advanced graphics do indeed equal good graphics, because "good" graphics are graphics that make the game more enjoyable and accessable to the mainstream crowd. Games aren't just competing with arcades anymore, or books, or a spreadsheet. Games are competing with television, movies, and increasingly reality itself.
I love the classic games, but I don't play them anymore. (often, the nostalgia is better than the experience. Ever tried to explain to a new gamer why DOOM was the shit? I bet you had to settle for "this was brand new" or "revolutionary") I may feel a little shallow, but when it comes to better graphics, I say bring it!
I can tell you exactly what the limitation of a keyboard is... you can't draw with it. At least not quickly.
I noticed this shortcoming of my laptop just this Friday while I was in a review session for a biology class.
As per usual, I had my laptop out and I was diligently... well... I was at least taking *some* notes during the session for later perusal. Then, while going into genetics, the instructor showed a method of completing the genetics problems that actually involved drawing the allels and chromatids and combining that simple and effective artwork with the typical table used to find genotype/phenotype probabilities.
It was so simple, so elegent, and I couldn't find a damn way to get that quickly (I'm in a lecture after all) down into my text file or word processing document.
All I could think of was. Damn, I wish I could just pull out a stylus and draw this on my screen.
I ended up whipping out my mad ascii art skills from days of BBS yore. But I would have much rather had a stylus.
Corporations == People
I guess you'd think that robots or aliens make up corporations. Corporations are simply people that incorporate. It's a fantastic way for people of similar vision and goal to work together and benefit from each other to the maximum effect.
To say that corporations are not people is to deny people the right to joint ownership. I can't fathom the stiffling of human acheivement if we were to try and limit cooperation between people, especially when it comes to the ownership of the production of the human mind.
Its like if they would be selling Masters Diplomas for few bucks and they would be as good as these you earned. Wouldn't you think it devaluates your efforts throughout the school?
Like it or not, you have responsibility towards ALL other network peers (i.e. the whole Internet) to make your system as secure as possible.
This couldn't be more wrong. YOU have a responsibility to make your box as safe as YOU feel is necessary. If a person doesn't mind having all of your data compromised, then it doesn't really matter.
However, if your box becomes compromised, you are completely responsible for what your computer does.
So if you want to play the odds and get lucky, more power to you. As long as you are comfortable with taking responsibility for your own destroyed data and/or annoyed "peers", then no one can hold it against you.
But saying that any person is "responsible" for anyone elses security is retarded.
And this is the exact kind of counterpoint that your laizze-faire free-market friends should be prepared for.
I can think of a case right off hand that would make this scenario perfectly acceptable and in the companies best interest. A company can leverage this ability to hire and hold executives of such a calibre that the company might not normally be able to afford.
Typically, stock options are the way to lure a talented executive to a risky business venture. (I mean "risky" in the economic sense, rather than "risky business" in the Tom Cruise movie sense.) But that offer really balances on the event that the company is going to make strong profits in the near future (usually within three years for an employee stock option). What if you want to get a number of skilled executives that have no reason to take such a risk?
You can utilize the companies credit to extend the investment ability of those executives, without adding additional risk to those executives. It's a very powerful bargaining chip to offer a group of successful business persons. You can effectively say, "I realize that this venture is probably more risk than you're willing to undertake, but we can leverage our credit for options in a less riskier stock position. This way, if we do great, then that affiliated company you have stock in does great. If this venture isn't going to fly (perhaps just bad market timing, rather than the fault of the employees), then you could still take advantage of an affiliated companies success. And in the worst case scenario, and the entire market suffers greatly, we won't hold you liable for the loans."
It's a very powerful card for a corporation to play. And when it comes to a publicly traded company, it's required to be illuminated to the stock holders when such an action takes place. If the stock owners disapprove, then thay can cancel that ability via proxy ballot.
But most importantly, before you blame this on some kind of inherent business-class greed that needs to be stopped, here's some ammo for your free-market friends.
This is the exact same kind of loan that the federal government is offering year after year to the farmers of the US. They are given no recourse loans to plant crops with their maximum potential yield as collateral. If the crops fail, they don't have to pay a red cent, and it doesn't even flaw their credit record. Year after year, farmers will plant the highest yield crops (even in poor years, rather than planting more weather resistance crops) because the money is free.
The moral of the story? Before you think this kind of behavior is founded by the "greed" in business, think again. The government is the role model of all poor business practices you could think of. And the closer the business is to the government (*cough*enron*cough*) the worse the corruption gets.
In a true free market, companies that do things like this when it's not appropriate.... die. In a economy slimy with the hands of government, they get lended an extra hand until they eventually slip off (if we're lucky, if not, then the government will keep them in place for an eternity).
Don't open your eyes, you won't like what you see.
The devils of truth, deal the souls of the free.
Don't open your eyes, take it from me.
I have found, you can find, happiness in slavery.
Personally, I don't see where a poor set of rebels without a governing plan justifies as facist dictatorship. Too bad the seperatist movement (those eager for a capitalist society) didn't win, they might have been the Hong Kong of the Star Wars universe.
Of course, they would probably be handed to the Empire after several centuries anyway...
We need to stop the "type of thinking" displayed in this post.
RedHat isn't 'stooping' to low levels overing discounts like this, it's called a good business practice. In a capitalist economy, businesses need to take whatever action generates the most profit for *themselves*, not for a political movement.
I realize that the open source movement and ideology has a tendency to move thought into the realms of political movements and altruistic actions. But altruism has no place in the business world, and our "political movements" will be better off the more linux businesses realize this.
If this rebate offer helps RedHat's bottom line, then RedHat did a damn good thing. If anything, this just makes another linux and open source company that much stronger to fight "the good fight" (if a person cares about that sort of thing.;)
When we're talking capitalism, competition is good... period. The only evil is deception. If RedHat and SuSe get a little at each other throats, it's only going to help them in the long run. They will either by wiser and stronger, or a weaker company will be gone. Both results are what's best for the consumer.
I think this is an awefully alarmist perspective on what could be a very cool utility.
When I was a kid, my Mom had a system like this. It worked really simply. If I was anywhere in the neighborhood, it was fine with her. However, I had to leave my bike in the front yard of whatever house/park/property that I happened to be "playing" at.
Kidnapping scenarios aside, this type of technology could easily provide *freedom* for children that are relatively responsible, but perhaps just a little naive (like most good kids). While I don't have the experience of being a parent, I think that I would allow my child more freedom if I just knew exactly where they were at any time I happened to feel that 6th sense like parental worry.
I don't understand how a commercial project like this has anything to do with federal or state legistation of child protection. Irrational worry? Big Brother scenarios? Hell, to me it looks like technology, innovation, and the capitalist system is providing yet another method for parents to raise their children the way that they want.
Power to the parents. (Well, at least those that can afford it,;)
Slashdot Mirror
I would have replied to this topic, but you really said *exactly* what I was thinking.
Thanks.
The only Microsoft monopoly that has any leverage is the Office productivity market.
However, there is a solution to that monopoly if DRM comes in full effect. A person can run Office on a Mac, and a person can run OpenOffice on a Mac (if necessary).
As a consumer, if DRM becomes the norm for Wintel systems. I'm going to switch.
Eh, I could see where you would get that. But I my comment was intented to demonstrate that he had played an "alpha", which meant there has yet to be any "beta", so it couldn't even fit into any definition of vaporware, including the article's. I probably should have utilized some highlighting technique on the word "alpha" to make it more clear.
I think that it's clear here that vaporware is just a totally loaded word. I think that including Doom 3 the use of "vaporware" has more to do with hype and anticipation of the game and nothing to do with what "vaporware" is supposed to mean.
Getting specific about a word that's clearly just journalistic slang is probably a worthless cause, but since it's tossed around as an insult I can't see how something like Doom 3 would qualify.
(And that's not just the fanboy in me talking, honest)
Perhaps you should pay more attention then.
DOOM isn't locked in a "pre-release, beta-testing state", it's currently under development and has not been pre-released for testing and is not in some kind of limbo state of Q/A. The leak was just that, a leak from a hardware vendor.
By your expert interpretation of "the manual", every piece of software in development is therefore vaporware until it's shrinked wrapped. That wouldn't be a very useful definition if it makes the word all-inclusive.
In fact, the DOOM III poster that's up here on my wall has a 2003 release date in big bold letters right at the bottom.
Perhaps you should tell me to RTFM next, if it actually misses a release date.
There maybe only one EM spectrum, but there are infinite uses of that EM spectrum as technology and ability increase.
A property rights system would need to be implimented, but it does not need much additional "special" legislation because it's not a "special" property. A quick observation on the futures market (and other derivitives) shows just how smoothly and peacefully the market can handle abstract ownership rights.
A "deed" for a frequency would simply need to be an area specific broadcast right. There's no problem "quantifying" frequencies because we measure and quantify frequencies every day using almost simple equipment.
It could be similar to the way that land is divvied up. As technology increases and our ability to utilize the EM spectrum increases, the effective land mass of existing deeds would increase. It would then just be a matter of allowing a deed owner to split is property into smaller ranges and sell them as he sees fit.
I urge you to look past the propeganda and current status quo as a foundtation for rational thought on the subject. Just because we've been trained to believe that EM frequencies are "special", doesn't mean that they are insurmountable for a market system. A free market system always puts the greatest use out of the smallest resource, regardless of how abstract that resource is.
There would indeed be highly technical disputes that our current system isn't equiped to handle. But our current system isn't equiped to handle any high tech dispute... just look at the DMCA and the incroaches on your personal liberties that take place every day in the more technical aspects of our lives.
I would venture to say that the inability of government to keep up and effectively manage things of advanced technical complication and significance is the best possible reason to remove the complete government control of a medium.
We take for granted the current solution of EM frequency management because no one is free to come up with a better one.
Einstein said, "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom."
That theory holds true for concepts like organization and management. Without the armed guards enforcing the status quo, someone with a brain can think up a better way to handle and manage the EM spectrum property. Probably with some scheme or idea that is so simple and elegant that our children would think that anything else is infantile.
If you've played the alpha and it rocks, and you're sure that it will rock when it comes out... how exactly is it vaporware?
I've had the pleasure of seeing the DOOM 3 theater presentation at QuakeCon 2002, and I can assure you that DOOM 3 is no where near vaporware. It's just so advanced that it's taking a slightly longer development cycle than your typical derived engined game.
I would probably guess that it's more finished than unfinished at this point. (entirely speculation) And Todd Hollenshead did joke with the crowd at QCon that id wasn't in the habit of showing preview versions of the same game year after year at E3.
What makes radio frequencies so special that they require public ownership? And what makes a person think that public ownership really means owned by the "people"?
The government owns a lot of land, facilities and equipment. I'll be damned if I try to use any of it myself. If I, as one of "the people", own everything that the government owns, I'd really like to take a hum-v for a spin, or cruise around in a jet plane. Not bloody likely.
It would be more accurate to say that things owned by the "public" are really owned by no one, because no one is really allowed to use them. The only use is granted by someone who has rationalized themselves a form of power to make decisions for "the public". Seriously, how many times does doing things for "the public good" when they really mean "do this for others, not yourself".
It seems a lot more rational to me if radio broadcasting ownership were just given to owners, who then could buy and sell those properties just like anything else. Or I guess we could just continue to let the government pick the privelidged and favorites.
The last great act that the government did as far as ownership goes was the Oklahoma land rush. That's the way that "unowned property" should be taken care of, not some institutionalize nepotism.
If that were the case, the innovator in this story could have just asked the people that he would be "interfering with" for permission. Might have need to buy or lease a couple frequencies for a while.
Instead, he's just turned it down considerably. I'd wager pretty good money that the capacity he gave up is now being used by "no one", rather than another one of "the public" who "own" the radio frequencies.
I think that they have taken this into consideration.
In the article, it mentions that they had designs for both an "inchworm" welding robot and then a drilling system for exploring Mars. Then, the article says, the combined the features from both designs to make one singular design.
I have no idea what either design looked like originally, but I'm picturing some kind of base station that's above ground at the entry point that is helping with the process somehow.
I also can't help but think that one could avoid the "cuttings" volume problem by using chemical reactions on the debris. Depending on the minerals present, perhaps some could be released in a gaseous form to escape up the hole, and then others turned into a dense sludge trail up the vacated hole. The possible pollution is obvious, but the implications of that kind of pollution are unknown. I'm pretty sure it would be difficult to pollute the practically nonexistant atmosphere with gases.
Anyway, that's just my .02
On my campus, I get hit with crap like this every day from people that are not joking.
It felt good to vent.
No! To suggest that reality itself is subject to the perception for definition is to reject science itself.
Reality exists outside of the perception and understanding of man, and science is the gradual process of defining and understanding reality.
To assert that "[h]igh-energy physics, by its very definition, is purely personal and subjective" is completely absurd. And to further state that "[n]o physical law can possibly be applicable to all observers" is clearly the realm of metaphysical philosophy, and not the realm of science.
The scientific method is specifically designed to overcome the limitations of individual perceptive biases in order to discover those physical laws that do indeed apply to all things in all situations. If one were to conceed, as you suggest, that no physical law holds true for all observers, then all knowledge that mankind has accumulated would be rendered false by crude and childish statements.
In example, following your relativist logic, I could say something astranged like, "Gravity doesn't exist because when I was skydiving nothing appeared to be moving. Instead, Gravity is the force of air moving upwards to meet the sky when I'm no longer limited to terrestrial movement." Everyone and anyone can admit that this is not an accurate description or representation of reality, because while it may have seemed true based on my individual perception, it clearly doesn't hold true in all situations and for all people.
Humans have been using this method of determining reality since the discovery of communication. Science simply accelerates our ability to compare and contrast perceptions of individuals to find that subset of perceptions that accurately define reality.
Your suggestion that the reality of high energy physics doesn't exists because we have yet to determine the subset of perception to define that reality. This is the same as saying that organisms didn't have cells before the cellular dogma was discovered, or that magnatism didn't exist before someone discovered how to polarise something (or observe it's polarity). We don't yet know the exact reality of high energy physics, so there are no clear physical laws defined. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
This is the exact purpose of a scientific paper, to present the most accurate account of observation and perception to other skilled and willing individuals who will then retrace those steps to verify those observations and perceptions. The process of many individuals reproducing the conditions and observing the results is what allows reality to be defined.
You would like to say that it's arrogant to want to go through this process. That we shouldn't be "bent" on disproving these authors own perceptions and reality because that would somehow be pompous and ego centric. You even go further as to state that somehow perpetuating this vague undefinition rather than attempting to discover it's truth or untruth would somehow bet of some "more vibrant cultural relevance to the developing world".
To suggest that anything other than the truth and anything other than the most accurate understanding of reality would be superior is nothing less than a failure to the marvel of human acheivement.
If you want arrogance, I'll let you have it. A heartless metaphysical facade like this is nothing more than a proof of your own character. You are an intellectual degenerate. Trying to denouce science as some "hoary old shibboleth" and suggesting that relativism is "something of more vibrant cultural relevance to the developing world" is discusting.
Without a greater understanding of reality, there is no developing in the developing world. Crawl back into the socialist dogma you slithered out of.
The Star Trek Holodecks used replicator technology to actually assemble all of the things in the holodeck out of "real" matter. But since (for some reason) Star Trek technology is unable to create life, the holodeck then uses an inanely complex system of mini tractor beams to move all of that matter in the life-like fashion.
The "fake" portions of the holodeck are the images projected on the walls (the holodeck is just a room), and then some elements of energy and matter are substituted for safety reasons.
For those that would consider this flamebait, sorry about that, I picked up a Star Trek NC1701-D Technical Manual at a convention once while I was in high school, and it was awesome.
The stories are typically intentionally inaccurate and sensationalist, then readers will spend more time discussing (correcting) the article and generating revenue.
If there were a care in the world about accuracy, you'd see articles getting fixed now and then. But that's not the goal. /. makes no effort to be a "real" news resource. They just throw interesting stories online for people to discuss. When the story is wrong, then they just get more hits from the "bonus discussion" that results from people arguing the validity of the story, along with the subject matter itself.
It's literally a reward for inaccuracy.
I loved Zork when it first came out, and spent an inordinate amount of time going through the maze while mapping it out on tractor feed paper, just so I could have a complete map. (damn one way passages). And there were other gamers out there doing the same thing... but not too many.
When CGA graphics rox0red my box0rs, I always had a great time dialing up to my local RBBS and downloading a cool game and giving it a whirl. Computer pinball became a demigod in my household. These graphics brought more gamers into the fold.
The saga continued, with more technology (processor and graphic) upping the ante. Duke Nukem (the side scroller), [I'm going to fork to id now, just like I did in real life] Commander Keen (4 was my favorite), Castle Wolfenstein 3D (learned my first bit of German, then killed Barney), DOOM (absorbed me, frightened me, forced me to bleach my underpants), Duke 3D, Quake (online revolution, I still haven't escaped), etc... etc... etc.
Now I'd like to make a different observation based on that list. Rather than looking at how much the processor and graphics technology improved, I want everyone to consider how much the "gamer" demographic increased. Think of how much those better graphics and game logic made games more accessible to non-gamers.
Increased computer and (especially) graphic technology is what keeps gaming on a growth model. Without coming out with something "bigger and better" on the completely shallow sense, then few *new* gamers will take on the challenge of finding the inner quality of the game.
I too remember the days when Gameplay was king. Now I search long and hard for those games today that still reach those expectations. But as a modern gamer, it's not easy to get my attention with subpar graphics (and sound).
I would say that advanced graphics do indeed equal good graphics, because "good" graphics are graphics that make the game more enjoyable and accessable to the mainstream crowd. Games aren't just competing with arcades anymore, or books, or a spreadsheet. Games are competing with television, movies, and increasingly reality itself.
I love the classic games, but I don't play them anymore. (often, the nostalgia is better than the experience. Ever tried to explain to a new gamer why DOOM was the shit? I bet you had to settle for "this was brand new" or "revolutionary") I may feel a little shallow, but when it comes to better graphics, I say bring it!
I can tell you exactly what the limitation of a keyboard is... you can't draw with it. At least not quickly. I noticed this shortcoming of my laptop just this Friday while I was in a review session for a biology class. As per usual, I had my laptop out and I was diligently... well... I was at least taking *some* notes during the session for later perusal. Then, while going into genetics, the instructor showed a method of completing the genetics problems that actually involved drawing the allels and chromatids and combining that simple and effective artwork with the typical table used to find genotype/phenotype probabilities. It was so simple, so elegent, and I couldn't find a damn way to get that quickly (I'm in a lecture after all) down into my text file or word processing document. All I could think of was. Damn, I wish I could just pull out a stylus and draw this on my screen. I ended up whipping out my mad ascii art skills from days of BBS yore. But I would have much rather had a stylus.
Corporations == People I guess you'd think that robots or aliens make up corporations. Corporations are simply people that incorporate. It's a fantastic way for people of similar vision and goal to work together and benefit from each other to the maximum effect. To say that corporations are not people is to deny people the right to joint ownership. I can't fathom the stiffling of human acheivement if we were to try and limit cooperation between people, especially when it comes to the ownership of the production of the human mind.
And this is the exact kind of counterpoint that your laizze-faire free-market friends should be prepared for.
I can think of a case right off hand that would make this scenario perfectly acceptable and in the companies best interest. A company can leverage this ability to hire and hold executives of such a calibre that the company might not normally be able to afford.
Typically, stock options are the way to lure a talented executive to a risky business venture. (I mean "risky" in the economic sense, rather than "risky business" in the Tom Cruise movie sense.) But that offer really balances on the event that the company is going to make strong profits in the near future (usually within three years for an employee stock option). What if you want to get a number of skilled executives that have no reason to take such a risk?
You can utilize the companies credit to extend the investment ability of those executives, without adding additional risk to those executives. It's a very powerful bargaining chip to offer a group of successful business persons. You can effectively say, "I realize that this venture is probably more risk than you're willing to undertake, but we can leverage our credit for options in a less riskier stock position. This way, if we do great, then that affiliated company you have stock in does great. If this venture isn't going to fly (perhaps just bad market timing, rather than the fault of the employees), then you could still take advantage of an affiliated companies success. And in the worst case scenario, and the entire market suffers greatly, we won't hold you liable for the loans."
It's a very powerful card for a corporation to play. And when it comes to a publicly traded company, it's required to be illuminated to the stock holders when such an action takes place. If the stock owners disapprove, then thay can cancel that ability via proxy ballot.
But most importantly, before you blame this on some kind of inherent business-class greed that needs to be stopped, here's some ammo for your free-market friends.
This is the exact same kind of loan that the federal government is offering year after year to the farmers of the US. They are given no recourse loans to plant crops with their maximum potential yield as collateral. If the crops fail, they don't have to pay a red cent, and it doesn't even flaw their credit record. Year after year, farmers will plant the highest yield crops (even in poor years, rather than planting more weather resistance crops) because the money is free.
The moral of the story? Before you think this kind of behavior is founded by the "greed" in business, think again. The government is the role model of all poor business practices you could think of. And the closer the business is to the government (*cough*enron*cough*) the worse the corruption gets.
In a true free market, companies that do things like this when it's not appropriate.... die. In a economy slimy with the hands of government, they get lended an extra hand until they eventually slip off (if we're lucky, if not, then the government will keep them in place for an eternity).
Of course, they would probably be handed to the Empire after several centuries anyway...
We need to stop the "type of thinking" displayed in this post.
;)
RedHat isn't 'stooping' to low levels overing discounts like this, it's called a good business practice. In a capitalist economy, businesses need to take whatever action generates the most profit for *themselves*, not for a political movement.
I realize that the open source movement and ideology has a tendency to move thought into the realms of political movements and altruistic actions. But altruism has no place in the business world, and our "political movements" will be better off the more linux businesses realize this.
If this rebate offer helps RedHat's bottom line, then RedHat did a damn good thing. If anything, this just makes another linux and open source company that much stronger to fight "the good fight" (if a person cares about that sort of thing.
When we're talking capitalism, competition is good... period. The only evil is deception. If RedHat and SuSe get a little at each other throats, it's only going to help them in the long run. They will either by wiser and stronger, or a weaker company will be gone. Both results are what's best for the consumer.
I think this is an awefully alarmist perspective on what could be a very cool utility.
;)
When I was a kid, my Mom had a system like this. It worked really simply. If I was anywhere in the neighborhood, it was fine with her. However, I had to leave my bike in the front yard of whatever house/park/property that I happened to be "playing" at.
Kidnapping scenarios aside, this type of technology could easily provide *freedom* for children that are relatively responsible, but perhaps just a little naive (like most good kids). While I don't have the experience of being a parent, I think that I would allow my child more freedom if I just knew exactly where they were at any time I happened to feel that 6th sense like parental worry.
I don't understand how a commercial project like this has anything to do with federal or state legistation of child protection. Irrational worry? Big Brother scenarios? Hell, to me it looks like technology, innovation, and the capitalist system is providing yet another method for parents to raise their children the way that they want.
Power to the parents. (Well, at least those that can afford it,