this article helps me understand our problems in Iraq and elsewhere in two ways
1. The technology in games has facilitated a revolution in the art of warfare
Ok, from a Sun-Tsu like perspective of warfare, yes, having the best war games is something that a victorious warrior would do. But, these video games are a very poor substitute for real field simulations. It is dumb to think that video game simulations are significantly better than field work.
2. When the time came for [a solider in training] to fire his weapon, he was ready to do that. And capable of doing that. His experience leading up to that time, through on-the-ground training and playing 'Halo' and whatever else, enabled him to execute
If this statement is true, then FPS's, and really all games that simulate killing should be more regulated. I don't think that myself, but the logic of the military, specifically that playing Halo-like games makes it significantly easier to kill a person in warfare, would lead to that conclusion.
I disagree with the general and his view of the benefits of video game sims. I definitely think video simulations have an effect, but if you know Sun-Tsu, you know that the environment is one of the determining factors in warfare, and this eliminates that aspect completely, no matter how hard they try, it's true. I would like to see a comparison between the number of incedents where the US soldier did not kill when military training and code dictated that they should and relate that to whether the soldier had played or used various types of fps/military simulations or had only non-video game training.
I see a few flaws in your well written and well linked post.
First, and glaringly....you said:
The attempts to come up with alternative theories of gravity are quite noble, but they only work on certain scales
about scales, from TFA:
A non-Newtonian gravity theory is now fully specified on all scales by a smooth continuous function.
so, this yet to be reviewed theory claims to have overcome your first objection, and you cannot prove them wrong until April.
you said:
the proponents of these theories sometimes neglect examples that invalidate their theory
This effect is impossible to reproduce using alternative theories of gravity
ok, so no theory that you have seen can explain gravity better than dark matter without being REALLY contradictory to observations. Yeah, you know what I'm going to say...it is possible this new theory can do what you say it can't...which brings me to:
You will find that yes, these alternative theories do work quite well at describing the rotation curves of galaxies, as TFA suggest. But on larger scales, such as in cluster of galaxies and the cosmic microwave background, they seem to fail convincingly
overall, i think you're wrong when you say dark matter absolutely must exist. Supposedly, this theory can explain gravity in a way that somehow changes predictably on different scales.
IANAA, but judging from the new kuiper belt objectxena, I think the Oort Cloud may be the beginning of a new understanding of what it is exactly that lies between us and our nearest neighbors...on all scales. I think it's possible we will eventually observe many more such objects. While it may sound as if I'm supporting a dark matter theory, no...I am merely stating that neither dark matter nor this new theory will be the last, simplest theory of gravity. Dr Fameay from TFA would agree:
It is possible that neither the modified gravity theory, nor the Dark Matter theory, as they are formulated today, will solve all the problems of galactic dynamics or cosmology. The truth could in principle lie in between, but it is very plausible that we are missing something fundamental about gravity, and that a radically new theoretical approach will be needed to solve all these problems. Nevertheless, our formula is so attractively simple that it is tempting to see it as part of a yet unknown fundamental theory. All galaxy data seem to be explained effortlessly
You sound like the kind of guy that takes a doggie bag to an all-you-can-eat buffet and sues the restaurant because the waitress stops clearing your table as quickly after your twentieth plate.
heh...more TOTALLY AWESOME assumptions on your part...
just b/c I expect to get what advertising promises doesn't mean i'm a cheap redneck/whitetrash bastard...you must work for the RIAA
I usually wouldn't respond to a comment like yours that is so obviously full of assumptions and misperceptions, but one part caught my attention:
The people getting throttled aren't "ignorant to new, abusive polices"; they have been scrutinizing the Netflix TOS and dreading this day's arrival.
What is wrong with that behavior? It is our right as consumers to hold businesses accountable for what they SAY they are selling us. If they say UNLIMITED then consumers have the right (some say the duty, caveat emptor...) to take full advantage of the company's services within the limits of the agreement. That was the point of my blockquote in my original post...NF is ethically bound to make their policies clear, then consumers can make an informed decision...they did not make their policies clear, therefore they are abusing their customes. It's that simple. Therefore, your defense of NF and criticism of alleged 'pirates' are both rendered invalid by logic.
How would you like it if I dug up your mothers grave and took any jewelry and/or goodies that happen to be buried with here.
ok, i get it...i understand why some dumbass/.'ers are criticizing this find. First of all, no one knew this tomb existed, it's not like it's a tombstone in a local cemetary. Second, time is a factor here. Time matters alot for things like privacy...heh...17 yr. old girl = jailbait, 18 yr old girl = fair game. Face facts: if you are being consistent, you could not live in America, b/c somewhere you might be trampling on a grave of someone from the far-flung past...
5000 year old pots are not going to benefit science. we already know how to make pots
damn, wish you'd have put this idiotic sentence at the top of your post, then i would have disregarded you altogether as a hopeless/. counterpoint cabal bs artist who knows nothing of what you are talking about...goodbye
They don't end up looking like buttholes if they are just honest about it up front.
you're 100% right. What is wrong, however, is that our way of doing business rewards businesses who are as hidden and dishonest about their business practices as possible. Really, it comes down to pleasing shareholders vs. customers...
good businesspeople understand that pleasing shareholders and customers is, at it's core, the same thing...anyone who makes a distinction is selling out
I really hate that this is happening, but it makes total sense. First, netfix has its customers by the balls. NF is guarateed that automatically billed monthly fee. They are counting on people being ignorant to new, abusive policies like this one that penalizes people for using the service they pay for.
Before I get any further, let me address your defense of NF:
It would only be ethically wrong if they could change their contract and you could *not* leave
first of all, shame on you for defending such abusive business practices. second, this is only ethical if NF sent out a notice saything something to the effect of:
we are changing our policy regarding rentals. we have designed a computer program to identify people who rent excessively (more than x number of rentals a month) and those excessive renters will have their movies shipped later, and be put lower in the que for new releases
Anything less than the above admission from NF in PLAIN LANGUAGE is abuse of their understanding with their clients, and no ammount of counterpoint/cabal.bs can change that fact.
another thing, from TFA:
After collecting consumer opinions about the Web's 40 largest retailers last year, Ann Arbor, Mich., research firm ForeSeeResults rated Netflix as "the cream of the crop in customer satisfaction."
so this is what passes as collecting customer feedback??? this 'foreseeresults' company is probably full of shit...just like most of the people in their profession...an evil, self-sustaining virus of a profession that only circulates bullshit and misperception.
ok dude...read the very first post of this discussion
ok, if you have read and understand the first post, then you have one of two logical options
1. Believe it
2. Prove it wrong
If you do not reply by proving the first post wrong, then you must accept the following statement: this new version of windows (vista) will definitely NOT require most people to 'buy a new box'
it will require some users to buy a new box if they want to use all the features of vista, areo glass, glass blown pipes...whatever
look, i've laid it out as simply as possible...your lame-ass mac propaganda is proven wrong
your logical fallacy is known as a 'false dichotomy' or a false choice.
you see, you assume that we EITHER go to the moon OR 'get our house in order first'. Why can't we do both simultaneously...hmmm...
And, this is definitely not a budget issue. DoD spending vs. Nasa spending...it's a joke.
Who goes on holiday when their house is a mess eh?
You're not joking, are you? Some (most?) slashdot readers ALWAYS have a messy house, holiday or not...I know I wouldn't let a messy house keep me from going on a weeklong heli-boarding trip in Alaska...
buzzword: a word or phrase that is popular in use, but not as popularly understood as a concept
I used to be in broadcast journalism, and from my def. above, 'information clutter' is mostly used as a buzzword in TFA. Yes, information clutter exists, but not when the user, receiver has control...
you may reply that TV news like CNN, etc. have crawls and graphics all over the place that are not changable...indeed they do, but it's not the USE of the crawl that is bad, it is what is put on the crawl, and also, the quality of graphics.
I agree that TV news graphics suck in general, but they are theoretically a step forward in the evolution of visual communication.
Digital graphcis are severely UNDERUTILIZED in TV news, that doesn't mean we should get rid of it...we just need to learn how to use it better. Don't throw the baby out w/ the bathwater.
Really, the question of whether HUD is more/less realistic depends on what the game is designed to do.
from TFA:
However, nothing screams "this is just a game" louder than an old-fashioned HUD.
Not so! If the game is a FPS, then having a HUD might greatly increase the 'immersion factor' (a factor which I don't necessarily think is part of good gaming...that's another post). A soldier of the future might very well have a helmet w/ an HUD.
another thing, HUD doesn't have to be intrusive. It could be modified to take up mere millimeters of space around the edge of the screen. Most games have options like this. (i'd give examples but I haven't played much recently...i still know a good game when i see it tho)
but aren't different types of antennas needed for different applications? Isn't the best size of antenna a function of its frequency?
from TFA:
Although software-defined radio devices use a normal antenna and amplifier to receive a signal they are fundamentally different from conventional radio-based equipment. An analogue-to-digital converter changes the signal into a digital format, which can be then be processed and manipulated by the software.
So from what i see in the above quotation, the standard antenna will work, with software providing the necessary adaptations. I'm curious to see how big the box will be for this type of tech., and I'm wondering if a typical consumer cell phone has an antenna capable at detecting broadcast radio signals from the same distance as, say, a walkman...any ideas?
I am not as tech. knowledgeable as most/.'ers, but it seems to me that Microsoft has been using its security features as a gateway for consumers leading them to the land of fee-based, subscription SaaS (Software as a Service)...much like a casino advertises a free dinner buffet to attract patrons, but purposefully makes the building difficult to exit, so people will stay longer.
Do you agree that fee-based SaaS would be highly profitable for a company like Microsoft? Why/why not? If yes, then why doesn't Microsoft use its security features to bring in customers? If a company did what I described, would it be unethical?
yes, I agree they should have tried out an ion engine. Was it that much more expensive?
Besides budgetary issues, the only reason I could imagine for not using an ion engine is reliability. Maybe the final decision came down to going with what was cheaper and more reliable.
Do they have some kind of computer that can figure the cost v. speed benefit v. probability of crash? I don't know, but from what I've been reading recently something like that does not seem too far-fetched.
yeah, I think alot of times 'porn' is used as a straw man by people who take a very narrow view of online privacy.
I support going after child pornographers. Freedom of speech is not absolute. The problem is, the way our government is going about it is so ass-backwards. It shows that the people writing the specifics of the policy do not have the level of technical understanding to make an effective law.
The DMCA is another good example. They really tried, congress, to make some solid provisions for 'fair use'...not the ones they should have, but the desire was there. What they ended up with was something that was outdated before it went into effect. Until lawmakers have a real understanding of how the 1st amendment is being tested, they cannont proper enforce porn laws.
The COPA is a bad law. Bad in the sense that it is not doing what it truly seeks to do: curb child exploitation on the internet.
The DOJ is trying to go after child pornographers, but they are making laws for service providers.
This discrepancy is typical of old-school thinking. Stop the profitablility of such activity by going after the people making money in the process, but, especially on the internet, this only servers to inhibit legal providers of porn.
So you just think 'meta-discussion' on slashdot is boring? Can you elaborate?
I agree that having a meta-discussion routinely is a bad idea. If you say that meta-discussions usually devolve into predictable pro v. con sides I would agree.
But that doesn't mean it is not valuable. Just by reading a discussion thread about 'cmdrtaco is unfairly linking to his friend's sites' in post about new microprocessor research I can learn alot about websites, if I was new to the internet.
I've learned alot by using slashdot, and to get rid of meta-discussion, which sometimes is critical of you and others, would make your life easier, I think it would reduce the educational value of meta-discussion.
The modern word surfaced in American slang in the early 20th century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and continued to refer to various kinds of oddballs. The OED records this example from the 1916 Wells Fargo Messenger: "A new Wells agent struck our town the other week, and say you never saw a more enthusiastic geek!" By the 1950s Webster's dictionary recorded that the word referred to a carnival sideshow weirdo "whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake".
At some point, the word began to be used to refer to people with an interest so obsessive that it puts them outside the mainstream -- as it still is used to talk about people with an inordinate knowledge of, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. However, it's most immediate association is now with technology, and particularly with people who actually make technology work.
I've found 'geek' to be neutral at best in common usage, and nerd always is negative. Now being 'rich' as opposed to being a 'geek'...I've found the former is always better socially, but is directly proportionate to the latter.
I read the core of this article to be this question: is google the next microsoft?
"Google may be less liked in the industry than Microsoft inside 12 months," says Pip Coburn, a technology analyst
So yeah Pip could be right. I don't trust any publicly held corporation. They are required by law to act in their stockholder's best interest...not the consumer.
Google is already working on a massive and global computing grid.
And they'll do it. It's really just a matter of time. Someone will, and google is positioned to be the one to do it.
the co-founders of Google, the world's most popular internet search engine, can legitimately claim to have caused an information and media revolution.
eh, no...they did not invent the internet...the U.S. military did that (ARPANET anyone?). But they did set the standard for information retrieval/cataloguing on the internet. So far they are the uber:librarians of the internet.
So yeah, in my final analysis, google will not take over the world...the same thing that has allowed them to become so noticed so fast...being a publicly held corporation...will also serve to limit their potential to 'do evil' in the long-term. Yes, corporations are evil and powerful, but they have a limit in a free economy: people can choose not to use their services and take their business to a competitor. This same principle is what will eventually change microsoft.
And it says a lot about the intensity of media attention Apple generates.
Indeed, apple generates alot of press. It has to, it's a small company, but you can't deny alot of people in positions of influence use their stuff.
I used to be in TV and print news, and my read on this *particular* story is: slow news day...gotta put something out on the wire. The 'news alerts' from the AP are like most mainstream media: they report the most relevant news they can find, and need to have at least one 'breaking news' event every day or so just to keep people watching/reading/etc...
bottom line: it's about top of mind awareness for the AP
you are a fucking idiot and it is now my personal goal to expose your lack of depth and understanding every time you post anything on here...
if you're thinking 'bring it on' then good, b/c I am...
also, consider this an invitation for you to do the same to me...b/c i know you don't have anything to bring, except stupid bumper-sticker and t-shirt level logic...
btw, I hate Bush as much as you do, you're just a fucking idiot in the way you express it. You don't know the details, you're inarticulate, and worst of all you get up-modded for it on here...
Slashdot Mirror
this article helps me understand our problems in Iraq and elsewhere in two ways
1. The technology in games has facilitated a revolution in the art of warfare
Ok, from a Sun-Tsu like perspective of warfare, yes, having the best war games is something that a victorious warrior would do. But, these video games are a very poor substitute for real field simulations. It is dumb to think that video game simulations are significantly better than field work.
2. When the time came for [a solider in training] to fire his weapon, he was ready to do that. And capable of doing that. His experience leading up to that time, through on-the-ground training and playing 'Halo' and whatever else, enabled him to execute
If this statement is true, then FPS's, and really all games that simulate killing should be more regulated. I don't think that myself, but the logic of the military, specifically that playing Halo-like games makes it significantly easier to kill a person in warfare, would lead to that conclusion.
I disagree with the general and his view of the benefits of video game sims. I definitely think video simulations have an effect, but if you know Sun-Tsu, you know that the environment is one of the determining factors in warfare, and this eliminates that aspect completely, no matter how hard they try, it's true. I would like to see a comparison between the number of incedents where the US soldier did not kill when military training and code dictated that they should and relate that to whether the soldier had played or used various types of fps/military simulations or had only non-video game training.
First, and glaringly....you said:
about scales, from TFA:
A non-Newtonian gravity theory is now fully specified on all scales by a smooth continuous function.
so, this yet to be reviewed theory claims to have overcome your first objection, and you cannot prove them wrong until April.
you said:
ok, so no theory that you have seen can explain gravity better than dark matter without being REALLY contradictory to observations. Yeah, you know what I'm going to say...it is possible this new theory can do what you say it can't...which brings me to:
overall, i think you're wrong when you say dark matter absolutely must exist. Supposedly, this theory can explain gravity in a way that somehow changes predictably on different scales.
IANAA, but judging from the new kuiper belt object xena, I think the Oort Cloud may be the beginning of a new understanding of what it is exactly that lies between us and our nearest neighbors...on all scales. I think it's possible we will eventually observe many more such objects. While it may sound as if I'm supporting a dark matter theory, no...I am merely stating that neither dark matter nor this new theory will be the last, simplest theory of gravity. Dr Fameay from TFA would agree:
It is possible that neither the modified gravity theory, nor the Dark Matter theory, as they are formulated today, will solve all the problems of galactic dynamics or cosmology. The truth could in principle lie in between, but it is very plausible that we are missing something fundamental about gravity, and that a radically new theoretical approach will be needed to solve all these problems. Nevertheless, our formula is so attractively simple that it is tempting to see it as part of a yet unknown fundamental theory. All galaxy data seem to be explained effortlessly
You sound like the kind of guy that takes a doggie bag to an all-you-can-eat buffet and sues the restaurant because the waitress stops clearing your table as quickly after your twentieth plate.
heh...more TOTALLY AWESOME assumptions on your part...
just b/c I expect to get what advertising promises doesn't mean i'm a cheap redneck/whitetrash bastard...you must work for the RIAA
What is wrong with that behavior? It is our right as consumers to hold businesses accountable for what they SAY they are selling us. If they say UNLIMITED then consumers have the right (some say the duty, caveat emptor...) to take full advantage of the company's services within the limits of the agreement. That was the point of my blockquote in my original post...NF is ethically bound to make their policies clear, then consumers can make an informed decision...they did not make their policies clear, therefore they are abusing their customes. It's that simple. Therefore, your defense of NF and criticism of alleged 'pirates' are both rendered invalid by logic.
How would you like it if I dug up your mothers grave and took any jewelry and/or goodies that happen to be buried with here.
/.'ers are criticizing this find. First of all, no one knew this tomb existed, it's not like it's a tombstone in a local cemetary. Second, time is a factor here. Time matters alot for things like privacy...heh...17 yr. old girl = jailbait, 18 yr old girl = fair game. Face facts: if you are being consistent, you could not live in America, b/c somewhere you might be trampling on a grave of someone from the far-flung past...
/. counterpoint cabal bs artist who knows nothing of what you are talking about...goodbye
ok, i get it...i understand why some dumbass
5000 year old pots are not going to benefit science. we already know how to make pots
damn, wish you'd have put this idiotic sentence at the top of your post, then i would have disregarded you altogether as a hopeless
They don't end up looking like buttholes if they are just honest about it up front.
you're 100% right. What is wrong, however, is that our way of doing business rewards businesses who are as hidden and dishonest about their business practices as possible. Really, it comes down to pleasing shareholders vs. customers...
good businesspeople understand that pleasing shareholders and customers is, at it's core, the same thing...anyone who makes a distinction is selling out
Before I get any further, let me address your defense of NF:
It would only be ethically wrong if they could change their contract and you could *not* leave
first of all, shame on you for defending such abusive business practices. second, this is only ethical if NF sent out a notice saything something to the effect of:
Anything less than the above admission from NF in PLAIN LANGUAGE is abuse of their understanding with their clients, and no ammount of counterpoint/cabal.bs can change that fact.
another thing, from TFA:
After collecting consumer opinions about the Web's 40 largest retailers last year, Ann Arbor, Mich., research firm ForeSeeResults rated Netflix as "the cream of the crop in customer satisfaction."
so this is what passes as collecting customer feedback??? this 'foreseeresults' company is probably full of shit...just like most of the people in their profession...an evil, self-sustaining virus of a profession that only circulates bullshit and misperception.
What's with some slashdotters criticizing the excavation of this tomb as 'graverobbing'?
/. counterpoint cabal bs...
What a dumb thing to criticize! Of course it's not grave robbing...whatever they find will be used for science/history, just like Tut's stuff.
it's not like this guy is going to auction off what he finds in the tomb...
just more
ok dude...read the very first post of this discussion
ok, if you have read and understand the first post, then you have one of two logical options
1. Believe it
2. Prove it wrong
If you do not reply by proving the first post wrong, then you must accept the following statement: this new version of windows (vista) will definitely NOT require most people to 'buy a new box'
it will require some users to buy a new box if they want to use all the features of vista, areo glass, glass blown pipes...whatever
look, i've laid it out as simply as possible...your lame-ass mac propaganda is proven wrong
your logical fallacy is known as a 'false dichotomy' or a false choice.
you see, you assume that we EITHER go to the moon OR 'get our house in order first'. Why can't we do both simultaneously...hmmm...
And, this is definitely not a budget issue. DoD spending vs. Nasa spending...it's a joke.
Who goes on holiday when their house is a mess eh?
You're not joking, are you? Some (most?) slashdot readers ALWAYS have a messy house, holiday or not...I know I wouldn't let a messy house keep me from going on a weeklong heli-boarding trip in Alaska...
buzzword: a word or phrase that is popular in use, but not as popularly understood as a concept
I used to be in broadcast journalism, and from my def. above, 'information clutter' is mostly used as a buzzword in TFA. Yes, information clutter exists, but not when the user, receiver has control...
you may reply that TV news like CNN, etc. have crawls and graphics all over the place that are not changable...indeed they do, but it's not the USE of the crawl that is bad, it is what is put on the crawl, and also, the quality of graphics.
I agree that TV news graphics suck in general, but they are theoretically a step forward in the evolution of visual communication.
Digital graphcis are severely UNDERUTILIZED in TV news, that doesn't mean we should get rid of it...we just need to learn how to use it better. Don't throw the baby out w/ the bathwater.
undergarmets!
Really, the question of whether HUD is more/less realistic depends on what the game is designed to do.
from TFA:
However, nothing screams "this is just a game" louder than an old-fashioned HUD.
Not so! If the game is a FPS, then having a HUD might greatly increase the 'immersion factor' (a factor which I don't necessarily think is part of good gaming...that's another post). A soldier of the future might very well have a helmet w/ an HUD.
another thing, HUD doesn't have to be intrusive. It could be modified to take up mere millimeters of space around the edge of the screen. Most games have options like this. (i'd give examples but I haven't played much recently...i still know a good game when i see it tho)
but aren't different types of antennas needed for different applications? Isn't the best size of antenna a function of its frequency?
from TFA:
Although software-defined radio devices use a normal antenna and amplifier to receive a signal they are fundamentally different from conventional radio-based equipment. An analogue-to-digital converter changes the signal into a digital format, which can be then be processed and manipulated by the software.
So from what i see in the above quotation, the standard antenna will work, with software providing the necessary adaptations. I'm curious to see how big the box will be for this type of tech., and I'm wondering if a typical consumer cell phone has an antenna capable at detecting broadcast radio signals from the same distance as, say, a walkman...any ideas?
Mr. Nash,
/.'ers, but it seems to me that Microsoft has been using its security features as a gateway for consumers leading them to the land of fee-based, subscription SaaS (Software as a Service)...much like a casino advertises a free dinner buffet to attract patrons, but purposefully makes the building difficult to exit, so people will stay longer.
I am not as tech. knowledgeable as most
Do you agree that fee-based SaaS would be highly profitable for a company like Microsoft? Why/why not? If yes, then why doesn't Microsoft use its security features to bring in customers? If a company did what I described, would it be unethical?
_justin
you might as well build a real nuclear rocket.
Why don't we? Or why doesn't somebody... if it would mean a faster rocket.
I guess what I'm really asking is, why aren't 'we' using the absolute best tech. we can find for space travel?
yes, I agree they should have tried out an ion engine. Was it that much more expensive?
Besides budgetary issues, the only reason I could imagine for not using an ion engine is reliability. Maybe the final decision came down to going with what was cheaper and more reliable.
Do they have some kind of computer that can figure the cost v. speed benefit v. probability of crash? I don't know, but from what I've been reading recently something like that does not seem too far-fetched.
hey, is $$$$ supposed to be Adam Smith's black box, or what?
yeah, I think alot of times 'porn' is used as a straw man by people who take a very narrow view of online privacy.
I support going after child pornographers. Freedom of speech is not absolute. The problem is, the way our government is going about it is so ass-backwards. It shows that the people writing the specifics of the policy do not have the level of technical understanding to make an effective law.
The DMCA is another good example. They really tried, congress, to make some solid provisions for 'fair use'...not the ones they should have, but the desire was there. What they ended up with was something that was outdated before it went into effect. Until lawmakers have a real understanding of how the 1st amendment is being tested, they cannont proper enforce porn laws.
The COPA is a bad law. Bad in the sense that it is not doing what it truly seeks to do: curb child exploitation on the internet.
The DOJ is trying to go after child pornographers, but they are making laws for service providers.
This discrepancy is typical of old-school thinking. Stop the profitablility of such activity by going after the people making money in the process, but, especially on the internet, this only servers to inhibit legal providers of porn.
So you just think 'meta-discussion' on slashdot is boring? Can you elaborate?
I agree that having a meta-discussion routinely is a bad idea. If you say that meta-discussions usually devolve into predictable pro v. con sides I would agree.
But that doesn't mean it is not valuable. Just by reading a discussion thread about 'cmdrtaco is unfairly linking to his friend's sites' in post about new microprocessor research I can learn alot about websites, if I was new to the internet.
I've learned alot by using slashdot, and to get rid of meta-discussion, which sometimes is critical of you and others, would make your life easier, I think it would reduce the educational value of meta-discussion.
from TFA
The modern word surfaced in American slang in the early 20th century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and continued to refer to various kinds of oddballs. The OED records this example from the 1916 Wells Fargo Messenger: "A new Wells agent struck our town the other week, and say you never saw a more enthusiastic geek!" By the 1950s Webster's dictionary recorded that the word referred to a carnival sideshow weirdo "whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake".
At some point, the word began to be used to refer to people with an interest so obsessive that it puts them outside the mainstream -- as it still is used to talk about people with an inordinate knowledge of, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. However, it's most immediate association is now with technology, and particularly with people who actually make technology work.
I've found 'geek' to be neutral at best in common usage, and nerd always is negative. Now being 'rich' as opposed to being a 'geek'...I've found the former is always better socially, but is directly proportionate to the latter.
uh...duuude....there's, like, other ways to grow plants besides in the ground...
it's called hydroponics, greenhouses, etc...
this is a good idea, not a waste of money
I read the core of this article to be this question: is google the next microsoft?
"Google may be less liked in the industry than Microsoft inside 12 months," says Pip Coburn, a technology analyst
So yeah Pip could be right. I don't trust any publicly held corporation. They are required by law to act in their stockholder's best interest...not the consumer.
Google is already working on a massive and global computing grid.
And they'll do it. It's really just a matter of time. Someone will, and google is positioned to be the one to do it.
the co-founders of Google, the world's most popular internet search engine, can legitimately claim to have caused an information and media revolution.
eh, no...they did not invent the internet...the U.S. military did that (ARPANET anyone?). But they did set the standard for information retrieval/cataloguing on the internet. So far they are the uber:librarians of the internet.
So yeah, in my final analysis, google will not take over the world...the same thing that has allowed them to become so noticed so fast...being a publicly held corporation...will also serve to limit their potential to 'do evil' in the long-term. Yes, corporations are evil and powerful, but they have a limit in a free economy: people can choose not to use their services and take their business to a competitor. This same principle is what will eventually change microsoft.
And it says a lot about the intensity of media attention Apple generates.
Indeed, apple generates alot of press. It has to, it's a small company, but you can't deny alot of people in positions of influence use their stuff.
I used to be in TV and print news, and my read on this *particular* story is: slow news day...gotta put something out on the wire. The 'news alerts' from the AP are like most mainstream media: they report the most relevant news they can find, and need to have at least one 'breaking news' event every day or so just to keep people watching/reading/etc...
bottom line: it's about top of mind awareness for the AP
you are a fucking idiot and it is now my personal goal to expose your lack of depth and understanding every time you post anything on here...
if you're thinking 'bring it on' then good, b/c I am...
also, consider this an invitation for you to do the same to me...b/c i know you don't have anything to bring, except stupid bumper-sticker and t-shirt level logic...
btw, I hate Bush as much as you do, you're just a fucking idiot in the way you express it. You don't know the details, you're inarticulate, and worst of all you get up-modded for it on here...