No. This is the result of bad security. If they hadn't done it, some mafia somewhere probably would have. If you are in the government and have a car plainly marked as such, do you leave it on the side of the road with no one attending it, and wait for someone to plant a bomb in it or cut the brakes? I highly doubt it. Big targets need security, if they want to remain secure.
I could be wrong, but I would think that Sony Pictures cares very much about movies. Also, I think they have enough money invested in the Blu-Ray format to not want another Betamax. If the Blu-ray Disc Association had every movie studio use their standard, Sony could probably make up for all the losses on the PS3.
Like the PS2 did for DVDs, they want the PS3 to do. Every HDTV with a Blu-ray machine under it is another testimonial. And I agree, the large storage is nice for games. But I think they are expecting more money from the disc sales.
There seems to have been a bit of a sea change regarding Microsoft's TCP stack. First off, people complain because it was just a rehash (to some degree, I am not a coder) of the BSD stack, and now that Microsoft is changing it, people complain about the bugs. I realize that the first one is used to complain about MSFT's intellectual property stance, and the second is to complain about security, but which is the lesser of the evils? Would everyone rather it stayed true to its roots, perpetually, or would they stop complaining about the BSD stack reuse if it was changed?
There's another reason I think the PS3 is superior. For about (?) the price of a basic PS3, you get a DVD console with an HD-DVD player beside it. Not that the extra memory can be used for games... and with all the content for a high definition game, I can imagine the storage capacity of a DVD is starting to feel a bit cramped. I think it is a bad move to have the add on work only for movies... although I suppose bus speed would be comparatively low, and this way they can make the drive cheaper (as it only needs to be 1X, and of course can use the 360's processor and graphics card).
It seems probable to me that the primary motivation for the PS3, is to put a blu-ray drive under every expensive TV. Perhaps that is why there is no 720p downsampler, they want people to look at blu-ray disks and say wow. Rather than creating a cheap console that will do the job, they went overkill (I want one, by the way, even if I may never get one). With high prices, and low cost alternatives, you can expect that the early owners of PS3s are going to have their displays up to date as well. Demand for blu-ray grows, more studios sign on, Sony Pictures can put out more movies in Blu-ray, and pretty soon the profits destroy the losses on the PS3. More of an "investment" than a "terrible blunder" if you consider not just game sales, but blu-ray proliferation.
It seems to me that they are not trying to make money on the game system, and instead are focusing on populating living rooms with blue-ray players. If they can get studios to sign to their format, Sony could do very well when high definition is ubiquitous, and people want discs to watch on it. The PS3 is an investment, either way.
Yes, I shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater... but it just seems like so much science is now corporate sanctioned. Universities have major sponsors who tend to affect their work, according to an essay "The Prostitution of Academia" by David Suzuki I read once (in an English literature course book I think). Harvard has patents on mice. And even if I was to get into theoretical physics, I'd be sitting behind a computer coding, in all likelyhood. At least for journalism, there are independent papers.
It seems like most of the people in the world are as materially poor, if not poorer, before than after science. Thanks to the wonder of coal, islands are being washed away, and I can turn on a heater rather than lighting a fire. Medical science, with all its advancements, is being subverted with new drugs that aren't much better, and probably have more side effects than the previous, lapped up by the doctors. Modern surgery and moderated antibody use is a definite improvement, especially here in Canada where we have health insurance almost worthy of the name. It is sad the majority of science is being subverted to move more from the bottom to the top, but that is the nature of heroes, I guess.
Ah yes, but a local commercial orchard? Assuming you live in a semi-urban area, it will probably be on a small scale, and assuming you can buy directly from them, they probably aren't shipping world wide, and growing for shipability. Or did you get one from someone on the inside? How big of an orchard is it?
I went to Mexico, and had a similar experience with bananas. The contrast is pretty incredible to the stringy, styrofoamy things we have here. I have a feeling that only greater profit margins will come of it, and perhaps more kids who hate fruits and vegetables. With any luck, America will collapse under the weight of its own fat, and leave the rest of the world alone in a few years.
Let he who has had his/her daily share of fruits and vegetables cast the first -1 troll.
Chemicals may be expensive in some cases, but I believe in general chemical fertilizer is cheaper than transporting compost, when crops are grown in large batches. I think "you are what you eat" applies to apples as well as anything, and a bag of chemicals... is not going to taste as good as a bag of composted leaves, windfall, and faecal matter. OK, never mind that analogy.
Disclaimer: I am a Canadian, not well versed in American history, and probably don't know what I am talking about, revolution wise. I am against the control of information, so to speak. I have heard a lot about how bad it can get, and believe it. What I mean is that from your description, it sounds like the author is putting in similarities to the revolution, to show the whole idea of corprate ownership of life to be against what America is supposed to stand for.
That's one less cent than I currently have in my wallet, from me.
Haven't you ever seen any pictures of cave men? How can you say they are weak? Those were some badass doods!
Also, some things are beyond potential for misuse, and can no longer be used well. Take nuclear weapons, and asbestos (I believe there are almost-as-good replacements to it now). No one is saying, as I said before, that technology is bad, just that some thought should be used now. And is it a good thing the dodos are extinct?
Good for you. No one is saying that there should be no technology, just that there should be some thought. What is burning all this coal doing? What is going to happen if we keep hunting Dodos? Should I drive to work, or walk to the bus and lose some weight? Also, I don't think humans were as weak in nature as you portray them.
yeah yeah yeah. I didn't mean it that way. Thanks. I should have been more clear about it. I really didn't feel like being clear about it, I must admit.
I am biased here, but I doubt such a change in nutrition would be beneficial. First, what nutrients? It seems every day, a new acid is found to be necessary, or the balance of proper fats is redefined. Until nutrition science is way more advanced, I think evolution will be much better provider of food. Where do you get your price? Why do you think this method will be so cheap? Power would need to be supplied and maintained. What the poor countries need is a reduction in the monoculture farming practices, I say. And is a decrease in population a problem?
Technology can be of use sometimes, but it seems to me that the way things are organized now is just ridiculous, and could easily be changed for the better without carbohydrate factories. P.S. I am a bit of a socialist, if you didn't notice.
I haven't read any of the books, but it sounds to me to be alluding at the situations leading up to the American Revolution. Is the author implying that patents on life are un-American? Depends on your definition of American, I guess. Still, it sounds like an interesting series.
Like the urge to discover what that woman is like in bed? That child? Like the urge to gain political power, and wipe out segments of the population? Like the urge to shoot a man in Reno, just to watch him die?
My family is heavily into organic food, and now that I am out of the house, I still try to eat stuff grown reasonably well, for taste and health reasons. But anyway, back at my old house, there were a number of apple trees in the yard when we moved in. One tree always has apples that look like they are covered in dust. The other trees don't. Blemishes and bumps are common, along with the occasional worm. Nothing in the supermarket, "organic" or otherwise, compares. Firm, not full of water, not ridiculously crispy, and have more of the taste of an apple than any other apple I have tried.
The way an apple looks matters little to me. Sure, the inability to wipe the dirty appearance off the apples put me off at first, but I now know that a bright red apple will taste more like water than anything else. And now thanks to the discovery of this gene, mega-orchards can grow good looking crops with far less effort, fertilizer, or taste, I would expect.
Things like this make me consider dropping out of the sciences. Every advancement seems to merely be another opportunity to cut back something else, and get away with less bottom-line. Still, maybe with the extra anti-oxidant thing, it could be worth it.
Who says it is going to stay at that price? See the section on history here. And the main point of the PS3, I believe, is to create a market for Blue-Ray discs, and have more studios sign on with Sony.
Perhaps you should take some set theory. Astrolabes are subsets of computers, I would think. Perhaps the article is stretching the significance, but it is a device to perform calculations, like gun targeting computers, and Babbage's computational engines.
Slashdot Mirror
No. This is the result of bad security. If they hadn't done it, some mafia somewhere probably would have. If you are in the government and have a car plainly marked as such, do you leave it on the side of the road with no one attending it, and wait for someone to plant a bomb in it or cut the brakes? I highly doubt it. Big targets need security, if they want to remain secure.
I could be wrong, but I would think that Sony Pictures cares very much about movies. Also, I think they have enough money invested in the Blu-Ray format to not want another Betamax. If the Blu-ray Disc Association had every movie studio use their standard, Sony could probably make up for all the losses on the PS3.
Like the PS2 did for DVDs, they want the PS3 to do. Every HDTV with a Blu-ray machine under it is another testimonial. And I agree, the large storage is nice for games. But I think they are expecting more money from the disc sales.
There seems to have been a bit of a sea change regarding Microsoft's TCP stack. First off, people complain because it was just a rehash (to some degree, I am not a coder) of the BSD stack, and now that Microsoft is changing it, people complain about the bugs. I realize that the first one is used to complain about MSFT's intellectual property stance, and the second is to complain about security, but which is the lesser of the evils? Would everyone rather it stayed true to its roots, perpetually, or would they stop complaining about the BSD stack reuse if it was changed?
There's another reason I think the PS3 is superior. For about (?) the price of a basic PS3, you get a DVD console with an HD-DVD player beside it. Not that the extra memory can be used for games... and with all the content for a high definition game, I can imagine the storage capacity of a DVD is starting to feel a bit cramped. I think it is a bad move to have the add on work only for movies... although I suppose bus speed would be comparatively low, and this way they can make the drive cheaper (as it only needs to be 1X, and of course can use the 360's processor and graphics card).
If there is, it will be dirt cheap. It would probably be worth it for Microsoft and/or friends, as an attempt to help HD-DVD and crush Blu-ray.
It seems probable to me that the primary motivation for the PS3, is to put a blu-ray drive under every expensive TV. Perhaps that is why there is no 720p downsampler, they want people to look at blu-ray disks and say wow. Rather than creating a cheap console that will do the job, they went overkill (I want one, by the way, even if I may never get one). With high prices, and low cost alternatives, you can expect that the early owners of PS3s are going to have their displays up to date as well. Demand for blu-ray grows, more studios sign on, Sony Pictures can put out more movies in Blu-ray, and pretty soon the profits destroy the losses on the PS3. More of an "investment" than a "terrible blunder" if you consider not just game sales, but blu-ray proliferation.
It seems to me that they are not trying to make money on the game system, and instead are focusing on populating living rooms with blue-ray players. If they can get studios to sign to their format, Sony could do very well when high definition is ubiquitous, and people want discs to watch on it. The PS3 is an investment, either way.
Yes, I shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater... but it just seems like so much science is now corporate sanctioned. Universities have major sponsors who tend to affect their work, according to an essay "The Prostitution of Academia" by David Suzuki I read once (in an English literature course book I think). Harvard has patents on mice. And even if I was to get into theoretical physics, I'd be sitting behind a computer coding, in all likelyhood. At least for journalism, there are independent papers.
It seems like most of the people in the world are as materially poor, if not poorer, before than after science. Thanks to the wonder of coal, islands are being washed away, and I can turn on a heater rather than lighting a fire. Medical science, with all its advancements, is being subverted with new drugs that aren't much better, and probably have more side effects than the previous, lapped up by the doctors. Modern surgery and moderated antibody use is a definite improvement, especially here in Canada where we have health insurance almost worthy of the name. It is sad the majority of science is being subverted to move more from the bottom to the top, but that is the nature of heroes, I guess.
Ah yes, but a local commercial orchard? Assuming you live in a semi-urban area, it will probably be on a small scale, and assuming you can buy directly from them, they probably aren't shipping world wide, and growing for shipability. Or did you get one from someone on the inside? How big of an orchard is it?
Those things... work?
I went to Mexico, and had a similar experience with bananas. The contrast is pretty incredible to the stringy, styrofoamy things we have here. I have a feeling that only greater profit margins will come of it, and perhaps more kids who hate fruits and vegetables. With any luck, America will collapse under the weight of its own fat, and leave the rest of the world alone in a few years.
Let he who has had his/her daily share of fruits and vegetables cast the first -1 troll.
Chemicals may be expensive in some cases, but I believe in general chemical fertilizer is cheaper than transporting compost, when crops are grown in large batches. I think "you are what you eat" applies to apples as well as anything, and a bag of chemicals... is not going to taste as good as a bag of composted leaves, windfall, and faecal matter. OK, never mind that analogy.
Disclaimer: I am a Canadian, not well versed in American history, and probably don't know what I am talking about, revolution wise. I am against the control of information, so to speak. I have heard a lot about how bad it can get, and believe it. What I mean is that from your description, it sounds like the author is putting in similarities to the revolution, to show the whole idea of corprate ownership of life to be against what America is supposed to stand for.
That's one less cent than I currently have in my wallet, from me.
Haven't you ever seen any pictures of cave men? How can you say they are weak? Those were some badass doods!
Also, some things are beyond potential for misuse, and can no longer be used well. Take nuclear weapons, and asbestos (I believe there are almost-as-good replacements to it now). No one is saying, as I said before, that technology is bad, just that some thought should be used now. And is it a good thing the dodos are extinct?
um, thanks? I suppose my post is beneath you refuting it, or replying with your account name?
Good for you. No one is saying that there should be no technology, just that there should be some thought. What is burning all this coal doing? What is going to happen if we keep hunting Dodos? Should I drive to work, or walk to the bus and lose some weight? Also, I don't think humans were as weak in nature as you portray them.
yeah yeah yeah. I didn't mean it that way. Thanks. I should have been more clear about it. I really didn't feel like being clear about it, I must admit.
I am biased here, but I doubt such a change in nutrition would be beneficial. First, what nutrients? It seems every day, a new acid is found to be necessary, or the balance of proper fats is redefined. Until nutrition science is way more advanced, I think evolution will be much better provider of food. Where do you get your price? Why do you think this method will be so cheap? Power would need to be supplied and maintained. What the poor countries need is a reduction in the monoculture farming practices, I say. And is a decrease in population a problem?
Technology can be of use sometimes, but it seems to me that the way things are organized now is just ridiculous, and could easily be changed for the better without carbohydrate factories.
P.S. I am a bit of a socialist, if you didn't notice.
I haven't read any of the books, but it sounds to me to be alluding at the situations leading up to the American Revolution. Is the author implying that patents on life are un-American? Depends on your definition of American, I guess. Still, it sounds like an interesting series.
Like the urge to discover what that woman is like in bed? That child? Like the urge to gain political power, and wipe out segments of the population? Like the urge to shoot a man in Reno, just to watch him die?
Always follow your dreams.
So your parents read slashdot too?
My family is heavily into organic food, and now that I am out of the house, I still try to eat stuff grown reasonably well, for taste and health reasons. But anyway, back at my old house, there were a number of apple trees in the yard when we moved in. One tree always has apples that look like they are covered in dust. The other trees don't. Blemishes and bumps are common, along with the occasional worm. Nothing in the supermarket, "organic" or otherwise, compares. Firm, not full of water, not ridiculously crispy, and have more of the taste of an apple than any other apple I have tried.
The way an apple looks matters little to me. Sure, the inability to wipe the dirty appearance off the apples put me off at first, but I now know that a bright red apple will taste more like water than anything else. And now thanks to the discovery of this gene, mega-orchards can grow good looking crops with far less effort, fertilizer, or taste, I would expect.
Things like this make me consider dropping out of the sciences. Every advancement seems to merely be another opportunity to cut back something else, and get away with less bottom-line. Still, maybe with the extra anti-oxidant thing, it could be worth it.
Who says it is going to stay at that price? See the section on history here. And the main point of the PS3, I believe, is to create a market for Blue-Ray discs, and have more studios sign on with Sony.
Or like calling my TI-89 a "calculator". Pshaw!
Perhaps you should take some set theory. Astrolabes are subsets of computers, I would think. Perhaps the article is stretching the significance, but it is a device to perform calculations, like gun targeting computers, and Babbage's computational engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Computer