Wait...you judge a game based on how long your initial play-through of the single-player game takes?
The initial playthrough of Nethack takes roughly 10 seconds. By your system, it's one of the worst games ever.
But wait, perhaps you mean you judge a game based on how long it takes to reach a successful ending. In Nethack, you can walk up the staircase to freedom. Successful end. By your system, Nethack's one of the worst games ever.
But wait, maybe Nethack IS one of the worst games ever and your system is fine. Let's look at a different game. How about Monkey Island? Involved plot, adventure game, several hours of play. But wait, pressing CTRL+W wins the game. Whoops. One of the worst games ever.
So maybe we'll redefine "initial play-through" to mean 'beating' the game without any workarounds, seeing a large percentage of the contents of the game, and reaching some sort of conclusion. By that logic, "Heroin Hero" is an infinitely good game.
But wait, why am I ever arguing about this? Surely a 500-hour boring game isn't nearly as good as a 100-hour awesome game, is it?
Slander is saying harmful, untrue stuff about someone. It may do harm, and when it does, it's just like vandalism, only harder to clean up. If an AC eggs my house, it's a crime. Why not if he eggs my reputation?
Yeah! And why not if he eggs my feelings? That's hard to clean up, too!
So, what you're saying is that if it were any more expensive or had fewer features, you would no longer subscribe? Sounds like you're in the sweet spot of exactly how capitalism is supposed to work. If the deal isn't good enough, you should not accept the deal. If the deal is good enough, you should accept the deal. You accepted the deal. Of course you'd like to get more stuff and like to pay less for it. That's true for any industry.
That being said, my god, who do I have to fellate in Congress to pay per channel?
Oh, and while I'm on the subject, I almost feel sorry for Putin. If I had to pick an archnemesis, I think probably close to the last one I'd pick would be a chess grandmaster.
While Kasparov isn't a US citizen, and while he does have great love and patriotism for his homeland, I feel that calling him a US citizen isn't that big a lie. He speaks fluent English, appears on US talkshows, and his family lives in a residence he maintains in New York city. Throw in his love of democracy and freedom and you've got somebody I'd be happy to call a citizen of the United States. Heck, I'd vote for him for President.
But your point is taken.
Wait a second, this introduces an interesting chicken and egg problem. If the phones are made from the tears of those who are upset about the price drop, what are the phones those original zealots overpaid for glued together with?
Re:If someone patents something stupid, do we care
on
IBM Patents Checking a Box
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It is because they picked that key before F5 meant refresh for everybody else, and they don't want to change it and confuse all the experienced Notes users just because some newfangled (read: after 1990 or so) products do it differently.
You'll probably feel equally angry when you try out Notes 8 and realize that CTRL+tab doesn't take you between tabs because they decided to update themselves to use the same shortcut keys Eclipse uses for that operation, but you can't be angry at BOTH decisions and maintain internal rational consistency.
Yes, but not always. Look at CSPAN. They film the senate proceedings in the senate hall, generally without moving the camera. There's no art, no originality, no commentary, just video of the senate proceedings. It's copyrighted. This might be because CSPAN's not technically part of the government, but there are lots of ways to make things not technically part of the government. Maybe a company is paid to issue state IDs.
I like copyright, too, but I'm not willing to be amazed at the people who don't. Copyright is a nice thing to have, and it feels like being given additional freedoms if you're the copyrighter, but it's really the government stepping in and saying "we like a particular business model, but it could never possibly exist without heavy government interference. So we will remove your right to take a document and make a copy of it if you didn't write it, and if you do make a copy of a document you didn't write, we reserve the right to put you in prison and take away all your other freedoms. That's how much we like like this business model."
That's a really big leap to take. I don't like legislating failed business models into continued existence. I don't like farm subsidies, I don't like corporate handouts, and I don't like arguments like "but that'll put the X dealers out of business." I like it a heck of a lot less when it involves removing freedoms and obvious liberties from other people "Wait, it's a CRIME to learn a tune and perform it without paying someone else?"
Copyright gets even scarier when you watch the pattern of its extensions, especially the retroactive ones. The point of copyright is to encourage new works, so when you see copyrights extended on existing works, that's scary. When you see stuff that's about to finally enter the private domain after decades and lifetimes past the death of its creator, that's scary. Do you know where copyright started and stayed for the longest time? 14 years.
You can't notice that we don't have the rights to put video of a senate session on our website and not be at least a little bit concerned about whether or not copyright's such a great idea anymore. I'd quote a relevant Robert Frost poem to you, but that'd be a crime.
Conveniently, I also have an MSCS, so I think I also know what it is, and I suspect you may not. I suspect this from your line:
this Computer Scientist had never taken a CS class! He was just good at algorithms.
Algorithms are a fundamental part of computer science. They're so fundamental that computer science was a discipline before there actually were computers. I'll bet you Ada herself would be an awful programmer today (until she got the hang of it), but don't you dare say she didn't know computer science. Computer science is 50% automata theory, 20% algorithms, and 30% softer sciences, like HCI and cognitive science. What you're thinking of is software engineering, which is often what computer scientists end up doing, and because of that they usually offer many, many classes on it, but don't you dare say that you're not good at computer science just because you're not a software engineer.
That's as stupid as saying that Turing was a hack because he wasn't MSDN certified (and dude didn't even know C++!)
Y'know, that's funny and all, but from the limited sample of people I know, the health freaks tend to know about way more kinds of foods than the overweight ones.
I'm sure the phones will work at more or less any height - the higher the better.
Not to be a sarcastic, literal-taking idiot, but I bet if I were, say, 0.5 AU high, my phone wouldn't work. Heck, I bet the lousy thing wouldn't even work from the moon's surface, especially if I was in a tunnel.
But Disney isn't going to "accidentally" include a sequence where you murder prostitutes and bathe in their blood in the next "Learning With Nemo" title
I counsel my kids that it's usually their fault when they are the victims. They are responsible for themselves and their own well being, and they are the ones who suffer when they don't ensure this.
Man, see, that's EXACTLY why I feel that when a woman is raped, we should stone her to death. Usually she was totally asking for it. Women are responsible for themselves and their own well being, and they are the ones who suffer when they don't ensure this.
You are wrong. A victim is a victim. Sure a victim could probably take steps to prevent being victimized, but a victim is never guilty because they didn't take those steps. If I leave my wallet on my front porch, if I put my social security number on the Internet, if I wear sleazy clothes into a bad kind of bar in a bad kind of neighborhood and flirt with bad, drunk people, I am putting myself in a bad situation. That does not, however, mean that I have done something wrong.
Look, if I'm a wussy, 98-pound weakling with no self-confidence, and I get beat up by some kid who is confused because his dad beat him too many times, it is NOT my fault, and I should NOT be punished. Punishing everybody involved, be they victim or criminal, is the opposite of a justice system. It will probably keep the peace, but it's not justice, it's not right, and it's about 1000 years of backwards.
Forget "fair". Life isn't fair, and law is just a set of consequences that only take effect when you get caught.
Do you know who think this way? Psychopaths. Life's not fair, but that doesn't mean we should abandon fairness as a goal. You're wrong about laws, too. They're not a set of consequences--they're a set of guidelines. The consequences are there to provide teeth so people like you will at least consider following some of them.
Yes, I agree. When you cannot prove a case, you should default to the defendant.
Oh, wait, you said victim. So, if I sued you, but I couldn't prove my case because government won't tell if spying is going on, we should presume I'm right? You'll shortly be receiving notification of my intent to sue you for violating my privacy while spying on me for the government.
A minimum unit of distance, and a finite number of states for a minimum particle to exist in, would indeed mean that there's a finite number of states for an area of any particular size, but if the universe has no bounds, it is still not finite.
Plus, they didn't usually guard them too well. They'd put them up on trade routes and such outside of town as a warning, and from time to time some friends would be able to save them.
Slashdot Mirror
The trick is to make sure that you never have any way of finding out that the person you're tracking is under 13. Never ask for their age.
If competing standard need to be decided by the marketplace, then what the hell do we have an ISO for?!
But if you spent an extra $300-$600 on your computer instead of buying a console, you wouldn't have to check its specs, either.
Wait...you judge a game based on how long your initial play-through of the single-player game takes?
The initial playthrough of Nethack takes roughly 10 seconds. By your system, it's one of the worst games ever.
But wait, perhaps you mean you judge a game based on how long it takes to reach a successful ending. In Nethack, you can walk up the staircase to freedom. Successful end. By your system, Nethack's one of the worst games ever.
But wait, maybe Nethack IS one of the worst games ever and your system is fine. Let's look at a different game. How about Monkey Island? Involved plot, adventure game, several hours of play. But wait, pressing CTRL+W wins the game. Whoops. One of the worst games ever.
So maybe we'll redefine "initial play-through" to mean 'beating' the game without any workarounds, seeing a large percentage of the contents of the game, and reaching some sort of conclusion. By that logic, "Heroin Hero" is an infinitely good game.
But wait, why am I ever arguing about this? Surely a 500-hour boring game isn't nearly as good as a 100-hour awesome game, is it?
Slander is saying harmful, untrue stuff about someone. It may do harm, and when it does, it's just like vandalism, only harder to clean up. If an AC eggs my house, it's a crime. Why not if he eggs my reputation?
Yeah! And why not if he eggs my feelings? That's hard to clean up, too!
So, what you're saying is that if it were any more expensive or had fewer features, you would no longer subscribe? Sounds like you're in the sweet spot of exactly how capitalism is supposed to work. If the deal isn't good enough, you should not accept the deal. If the deal is good enough, you should accept the deal. You accepted the deal. Of course you'd like to get more stuff and like to pay less for it. That's true for any industry.
That being said, my god, who do I have to fellate in Congress to pay per channel?
Oh, and while I'm on the subject, I almost feel sorry for Putin. If I had to pick an archnemesis, I think probably close to the last one I'd pick would be a chess grandmaster.
While Kasparov isn't a US citizen, and while he does have great love and patriotism for his homeland, I feel that calling him a US citizen isn't that big a lie. He speaks fluent English, appears on US talkshows, and his family lives in a residence he maintains in New York city. Throw in his love of democracy and freedom and you've got somebody I'd be happy to call a citizen of the United States. Heck, I'd vote for him for President. But your point is taken.
Wait a second, this introduces an interesting chicken and egg problem. If the phones are made from the tears of those who are upset about the price drop, what are the phones those original zealots overpaid for glued together with?
It is because they picked that key before F5 meant refresh for everybody else, and they don't want to change it and confuse all the experienced Notes users just because some newfangled (read: after 1990 or so) products do it differently.
You'll probably feel equally angry when you try out Notes 8 and realize that CTRL+tab doesn't take you between tabs because they decided to update themselves to use the same shortcut keys Eclipse uses for that operation, but you can't be angry at BOTH decisions and maintain internal rational consistency.
Please tell me the name of the state where you cannot be elected to public office if you are an atheist, and provide a reference to the relevant law.
That or go home.
Yes, but not always. Look at CSPAN. They film the senate proceedings in the senate hall, generally without moving the camera. There's no art, no originality, no commentary, just video of the senate proceedings. It's copyrighted. This might be because CSPAN's not technically part of the government, but there are lots of ways to make things not technically part of the government. Maybe a company is paid to issue state IDs.
I like copyright, too, but I'm not willing to be amazed at the people who don't. Copyright is a nice thing to have, and it feels like being given additional freedoms if you're the copyrighter, but it's really the government stepping in and saying "we like a particular business model, but it could never possibly exist without heavy government interference. So we will remove your right to take a document and make a copy of it if you didn't write it, and if you do make a copy of a document you didn't write, we reserve the right to put you in prison and take away all your other freedoms. That's how much we like like this business model."
That's a really big leap to take. I don't like legislating failed business models into continued existence. I don't like farm subsidies, I don't like corporate handouts, and I don't like arguments like "but that'll put the X dealers out of business." I like it a heck of a lot less when it involves removing freedoms and obvious liberties from other people "Wait, it's a CRIME to learn a tune and perform it without paying someone else?"
Copyright gets even scarier when you watch the pattern of its extensions, especially the retroactive ones. The point of copyright is to encourage new works, so when you see copyrights extended on existing works, that's scary. When you see stuff that's about to finally enter the private domain after decades and lifetimes past the death of its creator, that's scary. Do you know where copyright started and stayed for the longest time? 14 years.
You can't notice that we don't have the rights to put video of a senate session on our website and not be at least a little bit concerned about whether or not copyright's such a great idea anymore. I'd quote a relevant Robert Frost poem to you, but that'd be a crime.
Conveniently, I also have an MSCS, so I think I also know what it is, and I suspect you may not. I suspect this from your line:
this Computer Scientist had never taken a CS class! He was just good at algorithms.
Algorithms are a fundamental part of computer science. They're so fundamental that computer science was a discipline before there actually were computers. I'll bet you Ada herself would be an awful programmer today (until she got the hang of it), but don't you dare say she didn't know computer science. Computer science is 50% automata theory, 20% algorithms, and 30% softer sciences, like HCI and cognitive science. What you're thinking of is software engineering, which is often what computer scientists end up doing, and because of that they usually offer many, many classes on it, but don't you dare say that you're not good at computer science just because you're not a software engineer.
That's as stupid as saying that Turing was a hack because he wasn't MSDN certified (and dude didn't even know C++!)
http://www.lessig.org/blog/
Y'know, that's funny and all, but from the limited sample of people I know, the health freaks tend to know about way more kinds of foods than the overweight ones.
I'm sure the phones will work at more or less any height - the higher the better.
Not to be a sarcastic, literal-taking idiot, but I bet if I were, say, 0.5 AU high, my phone wouldn't work. Heck, I bet the lousy thing wouldn't even work from the moon's surface, especially if I was in a tunnel.
Not that he's purposefully trying to build a mystique of genius, but if he were, this is the way he'd do it.
I agree. A good way to build a mystique of genius WOULD be to solve a very old, nigh-unsolvable, famous math problem. Why didn't I think of that?!
But Disney isn't going to "accidentally" include a sequence where you murder prostitutes and bathe in their blood in the next "Learning With Nemo" title
No, you're right. They're going to "accidentally" include photographs of naked women in their animated movies:
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/rescuers.htm
So it's good to give Disney the benefit of the doubt and not Rockstar.
I counsel my kids that it's usually their fault when they are the victims. They are responsible for themselves and their own well being, and they are the ones who suffer when they don't ensure this.
Man, see, that's EXACTLY why I feel that when a woman is raped, we should stone her to death. Usually she was totally asking for it. Women are responsible for themselves and their own well being, and they are the ones who suffer when they don't ensure this.
You are wrong. A victim is a victim. Sure a victim could probably take steps to prevent being victimized, but a victim is never guilty because they didn't take those steps. If I leave my wallet on my front porch, if I put my social security number on the Internet, if I wear sleazy clothes into a bad kind of bar in a bad kind of neighborhood and flirt with bad, drunk people, I am putting myself in a bad situation. That does not, however, mean that I have done something wrong.
Look, if I'm a wussy, 98-pound weakling with no self-confidence, and I get beat up by some kid who is confused because his dad beat him too many times, it is NOT my fault, and I should NOT be punished. Punishing everybody involved, be they victim or criminal, is the opposite of a justice system. It will probably keep the peace, but it's not justice, it's not right, and it's about 1000 years of backwards.
Forget "fair". Life isn't fair, and law is just a set of consequences that only take effect when you get caught.
Do you know who think this way? Psychopaths. Life's not fair, but that doesn't mean we should abandon fairness as a goal. You're wrong about laws, too. They're not a set of consequences--they're a set of guidelines. The consequences are there to provide teeth so people like you will at least consider following some of them.
Jerk.
Yes, I agree. When you cannot prove a case, you should default to the defendant.
Oh, wait, you said victim. So, if I sued you, but I couldn't prove my case because government won't tell if spying is going on, we should presume I'm right? You'll shortly be receiving notification of my intent to sue you for violating my privacy while spying on me for the government.
It's always been Eastasia. Eurasia is our friend. Best keep that in mind for the two minute hate.
Wait, wait, wait, Sandeep Gupta testified for SCO? But he got an IBM Graduate Fellowship (September '88 -- May '91). Irony!
A minimum unit of distance, and a finite number of states for a minimum particle to exist in, would indeed mean that there's a finite number of states for an area of any particular size, but if the universe has no bounds, it is still not finite.
Plus, they didn't usually guard them too well. They'd put them up on trade routes and such outside of town as a warning, and from time to time some friends would be able to save them.