The Air Guitar Championship is a very real contest. This invention just cheapens the craft, the artistry, the beauty, of air guitar. Check out the video on that link, btw.
This seriously is one of the most inane comments I've read on Slashdot in a long time, and the only reason it's modded so high is that vitriol speaks louder than rationality. I mean, your contention is that Hollywood wants to destroy the game industry because it is a "threat to their business"? Is that why the number of movie tie-in licenses is on the rise in the game industry (a recent Wired article talked about this)? Is that why Warner Bros has started forcing game publishers to meet certain quality standards on their movie tie-in games, because WB really wants to fuck up the game industry?
Please.
Hollywood isn't stupid. That's why these licenses exist. It's another source of revenue right now due to licensing agreements, especially for the blockbuster films that make so much money for Hollywood anyways. In fact, I can't remember the last "blockbuster movie" that DIDN'T have a movie tie-in. What, you think EA unilaterally makes the game without the movie studios' permission? Your only "proof" of this is that Hollywood failed at the gaming music business. I'm not sure what you mean since: a) Music and its associated licenses are the RIAA's domain, not the MPAA. b) Game music is a small industry. And by small I mean infinitesimal. c) Hollywood composers who compose for games are not owned by any Hollywood studio. This isn't 40's Hollywood. They're approached individually. That's why composers can also work for competing studios on different films.
You mentioned they "see games and 'pirates as their enemy." That statement makes two very different claims. Pirates are an enemy to any industry, even gaming. They take material and illegitimately reproduce it. It's not like the gaming industry hasn't used questionable tactics before (like StarForce). So, sure, Hollywood is probably attacking P2P in very illegitimate and unjustified ways. No one is going to argue that the MPAA is not idiotic, but making the claim that Hollywood is out to "get" the gaming industry is inaccurate, and more importantly, irrational.
So if we can use Google Base for free, does that mean we can free base? Far out, man.
Re:Trip down memory lane
on
20 Years of NES
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
This gets brought up all the time, and it's an incredibly myopic statement to make. I mean, you have this horribly inaccurate view of NES as this rosy, wonderful system that didn't have any crap on there. Like with most things, time has filtered most of the shit out of memory. Here are some horrible games that are off the top of my head: Adventures of Lolo, Kid Niki: Radical Warrior, Bayou Billy, Commando, Trojan Warrior, Snake's Revenge, TMNT 1, Baseball Stars 2, Mach Rider, Athena, Bobsled, Any sports game that was "Pro [x]", x being a sport, X-Men.
Are there more games that realistically depict blood today? Yes, of course. Welcome to technology and the lack of censorship. You know, plenty of game makers wanted blood in those old NES games, it's just that Nintendo censored them or the tech limited them. That was almost worse. Instead of seeing an enemy bleed and die gruesomely in Bayou Billy, he just hopped back, made a "bloop!" and vanished. Hey, guns make people invisible, kids! In the Nintendo era you had the violence without the bloodshed, the real crime without the real result. Of course, this also makes the assumption that a game which features blood is inherently bad. If, for example, you are playing a murder mystery game like Indigo Prophecy, would you not expect to see blood when your character has stabbed a guy? I'm guessing from your post that these aren't your type of game, which doesn't mean that games are worse now, just that you have a particular taste.
Now, to counter the argument that there are no longer any quality, "fun" games since the NES era...Here are some off the top of my head, none of which feature a shred of blood or gore beyond what could be found in the NES era: Mario 64, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Katamari Damacy, Smash Bros Melee, Super Monkey Ball, Final Fantasy V/VI/VIII/IX, Final Fantasy Tactics (not Advance, though), DDR, Donkey Konga, NFL2Kwhatever, Advance Wars, Marvel v. Capcom and its variants, Worms, Megaman 8, Ico, Beyond Good and Evil, Animal Crossing, Harvest Moon, the list goes on. And on.
So, in conclusion, get off the nostalgia train, man! The next stop isn't "reality", it's "middle-aged curmudgeon-ville." You're one cane and rocking chair away from being Crazy Ol' Man Pete at the corner that the kids are told to avoid. The games aren't any less or more fun, it's just that we have a lot more options. In fact, go ahead and go through the list of all 576 NES games or whatever and write which ones are great and truly "fun" to you. I'll bet there have been way more in the current generation, let alone the SNES and PSX generations.
Re:15 Reasons to boycott IMDb
on
IMDb Turns 15
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If it helps, there is also AllMovie which is pretty decent. It's not a bad alternative, I suppose, but it's not nearly as complete as imdb. I still use imdb, but at least if you're going to list 15 bitches about imdb (which, for the record, you only list 7), might as well list an alternative.
As a sidenote, AllMusic is bad fucking ass. Completely OT, but I thought I'd mention it as a sidenote for any readers who've never been there.
#2 Kids who aren't in school to learn need to be removed. Yeah, so be it, some kids don't get schooled. If they nor their parents can put forth the effort, then that's too bad. Sure, we'll hear sob stories about how some are going to get left behind. Let me clue you in to a little secret. If you hold back our best and brightest to make sure no one is "left behind" then you're going to DESTROY the best and brightest. Or at least you'll have managed to severely inhibit their potential.
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Educational opportunity should be viewed as a right, not a privilege, in my opinion. Besides, usually the kids that "don't want to learn" are not in the same classes as "the best and brightest," e.g. AP classes and other honors type courses. The US doesn't implement that whole "ginormous super test after 8th grade" thing that India, China, Japan, the Netherlands, and other countries do. I'm sure that would help improve the US ranking, but just keep in mind that while the brightest of those other countries may end up brighter than our best students, their worst students are way way worse than ours. It's all a big tradeoff, and I for one somewhat support the US system. It has its flaws, but again I view access to education as a right, not a privilege. I suppose that's a buzz phrase, though, the kind you rile against in point #1:) I guess I'm being silly - I'm one of those nuts that likes the Robin Hood law in Texas even though I grew up in a rich suburban city (Plano, near Dallas) that had the most to lose from such policies.
GBPVR, found here. It's great, free, and does some really cool features. It's definitely worth checking. I was actually prepared to drop money on a Windows software if I liked it. I don't give two craps about viewing photos, and I don't really listen to much music that isn't in the car or on my own computer. All I looked for was a good PVR that also lets me play downloaded videos/movies/ripped DVDs. I'll give the quick take on the ones I've tried: 1) Meedio/MeedioTV - buggy as hell. And slow. It's also very new, as in a few months (MeedioTV is, at least). Looks nice, though. 2) SageTV - the built-in video browser/viewer isn't that good. I found setting up plugins sort of a pain, and I could never easily get ComSkip to work well. Maybe it was just me. It's also kind of pricey. 3) BeyondTV - no videomedia component at all; you have to separately purchase BeyondMedia. Other than that, I like this one the best. Never really tried messing with any plugins. 4) GBPVR - pretty good as is, much better with the MyVideos plugin and some other plugins that are very painless to install. Downside is none of the skins, even the MCE port, are attractive at all. Also, sometimes there's a lag between hitting a key and getting a response. Few crashes, less than Meedio but more than Sage/BeyondTV (I have roughly one crash every 3 weeks, running 24/7). Have to renew your Zap2It profile every three months to get an EPG, which is kind of annoying. Installing ComSkip a breeze, and it will auto-ship commercials (BTV and Sage require you to press some button during commercials to skip them, presumably for legal reasons; I'm not sure with Meedio).
There you go. There are plenty of other ones, like Media Portal or Myth. I've never tried MCE, though, and most people I talk to like that best if for no other reason than the WAF (wife acceptance factor). Likely, my gf prefers software she's used to, and since I already showed her how GBPVR works, she's happy with it. As long as Desperate Housewives and The Daily Show are recorded, the GBP-vo stays.
Did Grokster matter to you? Guess who decided that? It rhymes with "Mupreme Mort". The people who comprise that court have a very important influence on your rights, even online. Child Online Protection Act, Grokster, inevitable decisions on the Patriot Act and the DMCA, to name a few. So, yes, his death is important to your rights online. Sorry for the condescending rant. Well, not really.
So what this guy is saying is that America's lead in science isn't because America is slipping, but because the rest of the world is catching up. Am I supposed to be alarmed by this?
Yes. One would assume that as countries are gaining on us quite rapidly, they would pass us. That is important for the US's scientifici stature. In more mundane terms, a countries scientific output is related to its ability to exert soft power influence, or hegemony. Also, since you are a Bush supporter and thus probably support an expanded and properly equipped military judging from your War on Terror remarks, it might be worth noting that an overwhelming portion of scientific funding is done towards defense-related projects. How do you think America won that war in Iraq so easily? Just brute force? No, we have much better technology and equipment, and that stuff didn't fall from the sky. Go to your university, and I guarantee that every active researcher in the natural sciences has, at some time, operated under a grant from DARPA, the DOD, or some other defense-oriented funding agency.
...but I think - and most reasonable people agree - that funding the war against terrorism takes precedent to the ability of masturbating rodents to breathe.
What an excellent, well thought-out, and completely reasonable point. What your saying is what's generally referred to as a "straw man" argument, and it's popular with politicians (of all parties, especially extremes of both major parties like Santorum and Nader). That is, you're arguing against a point that wasn't really made (you might say you are hitting a fake man, a "straw man", if you will). No one is writing anything saying "Hey, sexual practices of gerbils was ignored by the USFG!" No, they're saying, "Hey! Scientific funding is ignored!" By picking a particular avenue of science funding (and I'm guessing your example is apochryphal) and insulting that, you aren't making a constructive point. If anything, it highlights your general idiocy. It's also worth noting that scientists don't operate on "handouts" as you note. They're grants. Big difference between the two. "Handouts" implies that the science researchers have a source of funding outside the government that they're too lazy to get (welfare recipients can be described as receiving "handouts" since they could potentially find an alternate source of income, in this case a normal job instead of sitting at home). The fact of the matter is that there are limited private research supporters such as companies or benefactors because it is not profitable and thus not worth the investment. The government has no such shareholder obligation so, unlike say HP or Lucent, and can thus afford to invest in the betterment of science and thus fund grants for research. In fact, that lack of a financial profiteering obligation is what uniquely situates the government as a primary funder of scientific research, since not all research produces a buck. Besides that, see the above on DOD research. The USFG, NSF, DARPA, DOD, etc generally fund projects towards a future application. Not exclusively, but in general the seemingly trivial science they fund is for a broader goal. That's why particle physics and cosmology research receive fewer funds than, say, novel materials.
Let me be up front: I don't play any MMORPG's...probably never will. I'm sure WOW is fantastic, but I generally stick to console games.
Which sort of leads to my question. How in the world did the decision for a Warcraft MMORPG get made? I mean, I know it seems like a great idea now but at the time that idea represented a huge amount of money to invest in a new area of gaming Blizzard had limited experience with via Battlenet. The new game also faced the once (and possibly still) formidable Everquest juggernaut. When I first heard about WOW, the general rumors going around were that it'd be an action adventure title about a single Orc in the style of say, God of War or Prince of Persia. I'm just curious who first said at the weekly staff meeting, "Uh...dudes? Like, let's totally go all MMORPG with this biatch and like stuff!" and what was the reaction of the staff and Blizzard overlords.
It's also worth remembering that the Weekly Standard is a conservative rag. Not to say the author is right or wrong, just that the article has a built-in bias in favor of certain views of foreign policy. An FYI.
On a side note, perhaps the worst implication of the a-bomb dropping was what's called the "genocidal mentality." The idea is that now that the idea of an ultimate weapon to wipe out so many people at once has entered our consciousness, humans have developed an inherent mental threshold that is much lower than that of leaders in previous centuries, termed "psychic numbing." A good article on the subject is here. Here's a choice quote: "Nuclearism does not remain confined to the nuclear establishment or the nuclear community. It introduces other psychopathologies in a society. For instance, as it seeps into public consciousness, it creates a new awareness of the transience of life. It forces people to live with the constant fear that, one day, a sudden war or accident might kill not only them, but also their children and grandchildren, and everybody they love. This awareness gradually creates a sense of the hollowness of life. For many, life is denuded of substantive meaning. The psychological numbing I have mentioned completes the picture. While the ordinary citizen leads an apparently normal life, he or she is constantly aware of the transience of such life and the risk of mega-death for the entire society. Often this finds expression in unnecessary or inexplicable violence in social life or in a more general, high state of anxiety and a variety of psychosomatic ailments. In other words, nuclearism begins to brutalise ordinary people and vitiates everyday life."
So whether or not the bomb was good at ending the war, it may have had more deadly consequences decades later. It's something worth thinking about that isn't typically brought up in pragmatic discussions about war-termination scenarios for the pacific theater in WWII.
Re:I had a friend that did that. Not my friend any
on
Retail Fraud on the Rise
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As soon as I heard that he did this (about 3 weeks after he did it) I went and reported him to the retail store he did it to
You didn't try talking to him first? No offense, actually, I take that back, I mean a lot of offense, but you were a total dick of a friend. What kind of person potentially fucks up a kid's life and permanent record without at least trying to get him straightened out first? I bet you're the kind of douchebag who thinks all druggies should just be shot instead of treated.
How does having a "commision" who oversees when content is "undisputed" work? Do they rely on an expert in a subject area? If so, isn't that pretty much like most encyclopedias such as, say, the Britannica? You know, the ones/.ers refer to as antiquated or obsolete relative to Wikipedia? I think they should just make people log in to edit entries, so anyone can still edit stuff, they just need to make an account (i.e., give enough of a damn to create an account), and let it be. If you get pics of Palpatine as Pope for a few minutes then so be it, Jedi. Price you pay for a democratic info source, that's what I say.
That's a legitimate question, since there was that Voltron CG series in the late 90's that, honestly, I thought had much much better storylines than the original series. Granted, the CG made Voltron look like a toy and not a force to be reckoned with.
There was a much better class than this directed at students at Rice called Nanotechnology: Content and Context. I never took the class (I'm a grad student, not an undergrad), but from the syllabus it seems like a great course idea.
Now, the poster says nanotech seems like a good career path. Here are some things I can tell you right now that I never did as an undergrad that I should have: 1) Take chemistry. Lots of it. Even if you do physics, take at least up through organic, if not physical chem. 2) Take solid state physics. And no, solid state electronics is not the same thing. This isn't necessary, but it's helpful. 3) Do some reading. Start with Small Times and work up from there. I came to Rice without really knowing what "nano" area I wanted to go into. There are a million nano areas out there and different schools do lots of different things. For example, Rice is very very good at nano chem, especially nanotubes and nanoshells and molecular electronics, and quite good in a lot of nanoscale physics studies, such as nanoscale plasmonics and whatnot. Its nano engineering work leaves much to be desired, though, and there's no nano robotics work and very few surface scientists. Knowing things like that about a school are important. 4) Do an REU (NSF research experience for undergrads) one summer. That's invaluable. Seriously. If I'd known about the program I would have done that. As it were, I volunteered at UTD one summer working for some PhD guy. A more structured program would have been cool. Your department/physics/chem counselor can guide you towards these things. 5) Beware of hype. We're in a time of an impending "nano tech bubble," so beware. Try not to read Wired for views on nanotech. Hell, try not to read Wired period. There's one mag subscription I won't renew!
Are they doing any more preview screenings in the states? I missed the last, um, 3...or was it 4, and don't want to miss the 5th screening if there is one.
Just open up about 10 important sites on different tabs (in my case, PDF's of different Phys Rev or Nano Letters papers), open whatever you're surfing on the 11th tab, say arstechnica^H^H^Hslashdot. Boss comes by, just flick your mouse to the tab bar and quickly scroll the mouse wheel some. You have a 10/11 chance of landing on a work-related site. It's like playing Russian Roulette, sort of, except in the US. OTOH, in Soviet Russia, Russian Roulette plays...never mind.
The parent wanted to trade the extra 9 iPods for more songs, not replace the 10000-song gift card. I'm saying you can just sell the iPods on eBay and use the money towards at least 2700 more songs. Seeing as you obviously didn't read or understand the parent, I'd wager your "work" is, in fact, not done.
10 iPods aren't $1000, it's more like $3000. But I'm just being a nitpicking prick, or nitprick, if you will. Also, saying "teh suck" is truly "teh suck." Besides, everyone here knows "teh" is spelled "t3h"
This reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is debating between taking $20 or a bag of peanuts. His brain tells him he can buy plenty of peanuts for $20, and he concurs. However, I think the $20 bill gets blown away by wind or something. Anyways, just sell the 9 iPods and buy something like 2700 songs. I doubt they'd give you that many.
Because it's Peter Jackson people are modding down all the "he earned enough, dammit!" comments and defending his contract. If it wasn't Peter Jackson, people would be raising all sorts of "greedy pig" ruckus.
By the way, the King Kong trailer is up. It looks like ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't we stop for a second and consider the negative impact this sort of things could have on our world?
I heard that Ug-ug said that to Gok-nok when they were co-discovered fire.
The Air Guitar Championship is a very real contest. This invention just cheapens the craft, the artistry, the beauty, of air guitar. Check out the video on that link, btw.
Please.
Hollywood isn't stupid. That's why these licenses exist. It's another source of revenue right now due to licensing agreements, especially for the blockbuster films that make so much money for Hollywood anyways. In fact, I can't remember the last "blockbuster movie" that DIDN'T have a movie tie-in. What, you think EA unilaterally makes the game without the movie studios' permission? Your only "proof" of this is that Hollywood failed at the gaming music business. I'm not sure what you mean since:
a) Music and its associated licenses are the RIAA's domain, not the MPAA.
b) Game music is a small industry. And by small I mean infinitesimal.
c) Hollywood composers who compose for games are not owned by any Hollywood studio. This isn't 40's Hollywood. They're approached individually. That's why composers can also work for competing studios on different films.
You mentioned they "see games and 'pirates as their enemy." That statement makes two very different claims. Pirates are an enemy to any industry, even gaming. They take material and illegitimately reproduce it. It's not like the gaming industry hasn't used questionable tactics before (like StarForce). So, sure, Hollywood is probably attacking P2P in very illegitimate and unjustified ways. No one is going to argue that the MPAA is not idiotic, but making the claim that Hollywood is out to "get" the gaming industry is inaccurate, and more importantly, irrational.
So if we can use Google Base for free, does that mean we can free base? Far out, man.
This gets brought up all the time, and it's an incredibly myopic statement to make. I mean, you have this horribly inaccurate view of NES as this rosy, wonderful system that didn't have any crap on there. Like with most things, time has filtered most of the shit out of memory. Here are some horrible games that are off the top of my head: Adventures of Lolo, Kid Niki: Radical Warrior, Bayou Billy, Commando, Trojan Warrior, Snake's Revenge, TMNT 1, Baseball Stars 2, Mach Rider, Athena, Bobsled, Any sports game that was "Pro [x]", x being a sport, X-Men. Are there more games that realistically depict blood today? Yes, of course. Welcome to technology and the lack of censorship. You know, plenty of game makers wanted blood in those old NES games, it's just that Nintendo censored them or the tech limited them. That was almost worse. Instead of seeing an enemy bleed and die gruesomely in Bayou Billy, he just hopped back, made a "bloop!" and vanished. Hey, guns make people invisible, kids! In the Nintendo era you had the violence without the bloodshed, the real crime without the real result. Of course, this also makes the assumption that a game which features blood is inherently bad. If, for example, you are playing a murder mystery game like Indigo Prophecy, would you not expect to see blood when your character has stabbed a guy? I'm guessing from your post that these aren't your type of game, which doesn't mean that games are worse now, just that you have a particular taste. Now, to counter the argument that there are no longer any quality, "fun" games since the NES era...Here are some off the top of my head, none of which feature a shred of blood or gore beyond what could be found in the NES era: Mario 64, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Katamari Damacy, Smash Bros Melee, Super Monkey Ball, Final Fantasy V/VI/VIII/IX, Final Fantasy Tactics (not Advance, though), DDR, Donkey Konga, NFL2Kwhatever, Advance Wars, Marvel v. Capcom and its variants, Worms, Megaman 8, Ico, Beyond Good and Evil, Animal Crossing, Harvest Moon, the list goes on. And on. So, in conclusion, get off the nostalgia train, man! The next stop isn't "reality", it's "middle-aged curmudgeon-ville." You're one cane and rocking chair away from being Crazy Ol' Man Pete at the corner that the kids are told to avoid. The games aren't any less or more fun, it's just that we have a lot more options. In fact, go ahead and go through the list of all 576 NES games or whatever and write which ones are great and truly "fun" to you. I'll bet there have been way more in the current generation, let alone the SNES and PSX generations.
If it helps, there is also AllMovie which is pretty decent. It's not a bad alternative, I suppose, but it's not nearly as complete as imdb. I still use imdb, but at least if you're going to list 15 bitches about imdb (which, for the record, you only list 7), might as well list an alternative.
As a sidenote, AllMusic is bad fucking ass. Completely OT, but I thought I'd mention it as a sidenote for any readers who've never been there.
#2 Kids who aren't in school to learn need to be removed. Yeah, so be it, some kids don't get schooled. If they nor their parents can put forth the effort, then that's too bad. Sure, we'll hear sob stories about how some are going to get left behind. Let me clue you in to a little secret. If you hold back our best and brightest to make sure no one is "left behind" then you're going to DESTROY the best and brightest. Or at least you'll have managed to severely inhibit their potential.
:) I guess I'm being silly - I'm one of those nuts that likes the Robin Hood law in Texas even though I grew up in a rich suburban city (Plano, near Dallas) that had the most to lose from such policies.
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Educational opportunity should be viewed as a right, not a privilege, in my opinion. Besides, usually the kids that "don't want to learn" are not in the same classes as "the best and brightest," e.g. AP classes and other honors type courses. The US doesn't implement that whole "ginormous super test after 8th grade" thing that India, China, Japan, the Netherlands, and other countries do. I'm sure that would help improve the US ranking, but just keep in mind that while the brightest of those other countries may end up brighter than our best students, their worst students are way way worse than ours. It's all a big tradeoff, and I for one somewhat support the US system. It has its flaws, but again I view access to education as a right, not a privilege. I suppose that's a buzz phrase, though, the kind you rile against in point #1
That's actually really good to know. Thanks. That takes away a critical flaw of BTV, IMO.
GBPVR, found here. It's great, free, and does some really cool features. It's definitely worth checking. I was actually prepared to drop money on a Windows software if I liked it. I don't give two craps about viewing photos, and I don't really listen to much music that isn't in the car or on my own computer. All I looked for was a good PVR that also lets me play downloaded videos/movies/ripped DVDs. I'll give the quick take on the ones I've tried:
1) Meedio/MeedioTV - buggy as hell. And slow. It's also very new, as in a few months (MeedioTV is, at least). Looks nice, though.
2) SageTV - the built-in video browser/viewer isn't that good. I found setting up plugins sort of a pain, and I could never easily get ComSkip to work well. Maybe it was just me. It's also kind of pricey.
3) BeyondTV - no videomedia component at all; you have to separately purchase BeyondMedia. Other than that, I like this one the best. Never really tried messing with any plugins.
4) GBPVR - pretty good as is, much better with the MyVideos plugin and some other plugins that are very painless to install. Downside is none of the skins, even the MCE port, are attractive at all. Also, sometimes there's a lag between hitting a key and getting a response. Few crashes, less than Meedio but more than Sage/BeyondTV (I have roughly one crash every 3 weeks, running 24/7). Have to renew your Zap2It profile every three months to get an EPG, which is kind of annoying. Installing ComSkip a breeze, and it will auto-ship commercials (BTV and Sage require you to press some button during commercials to skip them, presumably for legal reasons; I'm not sure with Meedio).
There you go. There are plenty of other ones, like Media Portal or Myth. I've never tried MCE, though, and most people I talk to like that best if for no other reason than the WAF (wife acceptance factor). Likely, my gf prefers software she's used to, and since I already showed her how GBPVR works, she's happy with it. As long as Desperate Housewives and The Daily Show are recorded, the GBP-vo stays.
But on the downside, you have to be careful in case a dingo eats your baby.
Obviously important, but your rights online??!?
Did Grokster matter to you? Guess who decided that? It rhymes with "Mupreme Mort". The people who comprise that court have a very important influence on your rights, even online. Child Online Protection Act, Grokster, inevitable decisions on the Patriot Act and the DMCA, to name a few. So, yes, his death is important to your rights online. Sorry for the condescending rant. Well, not really.
So what this guy is saying is that America's lead in science isn't because America is slipping, but because the rest of the world is catching up. Am I supposed to be alarmed by this?
...but I think - and most reasonable people agree - that funding the war against terrorism takes precedent to the ability of masturbating rodents to breathe.
Yes. One would assume that as countries are gaining on us quite rapidly, they would pass us. That is important for the US's scientifici stature. In more mundane terms, a countries scientific output is related to its ability to exert soft power influence, or hegemony. Also, since you are a Bush supporter and thus probably support an expanded and properly equipped military judging from your War on Terror remarks, it might be worth noting that an overwhelming portion of scientific funding is done towards defense-related projects. How do you think America won that war in Iraq so easily? Just brute force? No, we have much better technology and equipment, and that stuff didn't fall from the sky. Go to your university, and I guarantee that every active researcher in the natural sciences has, at some time, operated under a grant from DARPA, the DOD, or some other defense-oriented funding agency.
What an excellent, well thought-out, and completely reasonable point. What your saying is what's generally referred to as a "straw man" argument, and it's popular with politicians (of all parties, especially extremes of both major parties like Santorum and Nader). That is, you're arguing against a point that wasn't really made (you might say you are hitting a fake man, a "straw man", if you will). No one is writing anything saying "Hey, sexual practices of gerbils was ignored by the USFG!" No, they're saying, "Hey! Scientific funding is ignored!" By picking a particular avenue of science funding (and I'm guessing your example is apochryphal) and insulting that, you aren't making a constructive point. If anything, it highlights your general idiocy. It's also worth noting that scientists don't operate on "handouts" as you note. They're grants. Big difference between the two. "Handouts" implies that the science researchers have a source of funding outside the government that they're too lazy to get (welfare recipients can be described as receiving "handouts" since they could potentially find an alternate source of income, in this case a normal job instead of sitting at home). The fact of the matter is that there are limited private research supporters such as companies or benefactors because it is not profitable and thus not worth the investment. The government has no such shareholder obligation so, unlike say HP or Lucent, and can thus afford to invest in the betterment of science and thus fund grants for research. In fact, that lack of a financial profiteering obligation is what uniquely situates the government as a primary funder of scientific research, since not all research produces a buck. Besides that, see the above on DOD research. The USFG, NSF, DARPA, DOD, etc generally fund projects towards a future application. Not exclusively, but in general the seemingly trivial science they fund is for a broader goal. That's why particle physics and cosmology research receive fewer funds than, say, novel materials.
Let me be up front: I don't play any MMORPG's...probably never will. I'm sure WOW is fantastic, but I generally stick to console games.
Which sort of leads to my question. How in the world did the decision for a Warcraft MMORPG get made? I mean, I know it seems like a great idea now but at the time that idea represented a huge amount of money to invest in a new area of gaming Blizzard had limited experience with via Battlenet. The new game also faced the once (and possibly still) formidable Everquest juggernaut. When I first heard about WOW, the general rumors going around were that it'd be an action adventure title about a single Orc in the style of say, God of War or Prince of Persia. I'm just curious who first said at the weekly staff meeting, "Uh...dudes? Like, let's totally go all MMORPG with this biatch and like stuff!" and what was the reaction of the staff and Blizzard overlords.
It's also worth remembering that the Weekly Standard is a conservative rag. Not to say the author is right or wrong, just that the article has a built-in bias in favor of certain views of foreign policy. An FYI.
On a side note, perhaps the worst implication of the a-bomb dropping was what's called the "genocidal mentality." The idea is that now that the idea of an ultimate weapon to wipe out so many people at once has entered our consciousness, humans have developed an inherent mental threshold that is much lower than that of leaders in previous centuries, termed "psychic numbing." A good article on the subject is here. Here's a choice quote: "Nuclearism does not remain confined to the nuclear establishment or the nuclear community. It introduces other psychopathologies in a society. For instance, as it seeps into public consciousness, it creates a new awareness of the transience of life. It forces people to live with the constant fear that, one day, a sudden war or accident might kill not only them, but also their children and grandchildren, and everybody they love. This awareness gradually creates a sense of the hollowness of life. For many, life is denuded of substantive meaning. The psychological numbing I have mentioned completes the picture. While the ordinary citizen leads an apparently normal life, he or she is constantly aware of the transience of such life and the risk of mega-death for the entire society. Often this finds expression in unnecessary or inexplicable violence in social life or in a more general, high state of anxiety and a variety of psychosomatic ailments. In other words, nuclearism begins to brutalise ordinary people and vitiates everyday life."
So whether or not the bomb was good at ending the war, it may have had more deadly consequences decades later. It's something worth thinking about that isn't typically brought up in pragmatic discussions about war-termination scenarios for the pacific theater in WWII.
As soon as I heard that he did this (about 3 weeks after he did it) I went and reported him to the retail store he did it to
You didn't try talking to him first? No offense, actually, I take that back, I mean a lot of offense, but you were a total dick of a friend. What kind of person potentially fucks up a kid's life and permanent record without at least trying to get him straightened out first? I bet you're the kind of douchebag who thinks all druggies should just be shot instead of treated.
How does having a "commision" who oversees when content is "undisputed" work? Do they rely on an expert in a subject area? If so, isn't that pretty much like most encyclopedias such as, say, the Britannica? You know, the ones /.ers refer to as antiquated or obsolete relative to Wikipedia? I think they should just make people log in to edit entries, so anyone can still edit stuff, they just need to make an account (i.e., give enough of a damn to create an account), and let it be. If you get pics of Palpatine as Pope for a few minutes then so be it, Jedi. Price you pay for a democratic info source, that's what I say.
No. That's like saying why should they make a new Transformers movie when they already made "GoBots meet the Rock Lords."
That's a legitimate question, since there was that Voltron CG series in the late 90's that, honestly, I thought had much much better storylines than the original series. Granted, the CG made Voltron look like a toy and not a force to be reckoned with.
There was a much better class than this directed at students at Rice called Nanotechnology: Content and Context. I never took the class (I'm a grad student, not an undergrad), but from the syllabus it seems like a great course idea.
Now, the poster says nanotech seems like a good career path. Here are some things I can tell you right now that I never did as an undergrad that I should have:
1) Take chemistry. Lots of it. Even if you do physics, take at least up through organic, if not physical chem.
2) Take solid state physics. And no, solid state electronics is not the same thing. This isn't necessary, but it's helpful.
3) Do some reading. Start with Small Times and work up from there. I came to Rice without really knowing what "nano" area I wanted to go into. There are a million nano areas out there and different schools do lots of different things. For example, Rice is very very good at nano chem, especially nanotubes and nanoshells and molecular electronics, and quite good in a lot of nanoscale physics studies, such as nanoscale plasmonics and whatnot. Its nano engineering work leaves much to be desired, though, and there's no nano robotics work and very few surface scientists. Knowing things like that about a school are important.
4) Do an REU (NSF research experience for undergrads) one summer. That's invaluable. Seriously. If I'd known about the program I would have done that. As it were, I volunteered at UTD one summer working for some PhD guy. A more structured program would have been cool. Your department/physics/chem counselor can guide you towards these things.
5) Beware of hype. We're in a time of an impending "nano tech bubble," so beware. Try not to read Wired for views on nanotech. Hell, try not to read Wired period. There's one mag subscription I won't renew!
Okay, done ranting. Mods, do your worst!
Are they doing any more preview screenings in the states? I missed the last, um, 3...or was it 4, and don't want to miss the 5th screening if there is one.
Just open up about 10 important sites on different tabs (in my case, PDF's of different Phys Rev or Nano Letters papers), open whatever you're surfing on the 11th tab, say arstechnica^H^H^Hslashdot. Boss comes by, just flick your mouse to the tab bar and quickly scroll the mouse wheel some. You have a 10/11 chance of landing on a work-related site. It's like playing Russian Roulette, sort of, except in the US. OTOH, in Soviet Russia, Russian Roulette plays...never mind.
The parent wanted to trade the extra 9 iPods for more songs, not replace the 10000-song gift card. I'm saying you can just sell the iPods on eBay and use the money towards at least 2700 more songs. Seeing as you obviously didn't read or understand the parent, I'd wager your "work" is, in fact, not done.
10 iPods aren't $1000, it's more like $3000. But I'm just being a nitpicking prick, or nitprick, if you will. Also, saying "teh suck" is truly "teh suck." Besides, everyone here knows "teh" is spelled "t3h"
This reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is debating between taking $20 or a bag of peanuts. His brain tells him he can buy plenty of peanuts for $20, and he concurs. However, I think the $20 bill gets blown away by wind or something. Anyways, just sell the 9 iPods and buy something like 2700 songs. I doubt they'd give you that many.
Because it's Peter Jackson people are modding down all the "he earned enough, dammit!" comments and defending his contract. If it wasn't Peter Jackson, people would be raising all sorts of "greedy pig" ruckus. By the way, the King Kong trailer is up. It looks like ass.