Most people playing sports go with soccer, football, basketball, or tennis. There's hardly innovation in the rules of these games; why would there be?
Movies, which are devoted exclusively to plot and have NO gameplay, also reiterate the same plots. There just aren't that many plots human beings actually care about. Finding love, being special, being powerful, preserving your offspring. That's mostly it.
Wait, when did we switch from "idea guys" to artists? Artists make the appearance of the game - it's concrete, and right in the player's face. On AAA titles I think there are more artists than developers.
Idea guys, on the other hand, not so much. Even John Romero couldn't make a living at it, so...
The NIMBY folks who snivel about wind turbines are welcome to a deep draught of "Deepwater Horizon" (or Exxon Valdez, or to go way back, Torrey Canyon) to go with their oily fish dinner.
Another huge advantage, wind power is reversible. Once you burn coal or oil and release it into the atmosphere, it's pretty hard to get back.
If the wind farm off Nantucket or whatever really proved to be horribly ugly, it could be moved.
Sure, it would cost a few bucks, but it's doable.
Go to Salt Lake sometime and look to the west. What you will see is a decapitated mountain; the world's largest copper mine (Bingham County mine) It sure looks bad, and it will never be fixed.
You have to be careful with 'green' or 'renewable', because there's a certain amount of FUD out there.
Recycling programs that don't actually recycle. Recycling programs that create more pollution than they prevent. Lost a bit of my innocence when I found that out.
You have to be careful with green debunkers too, because many of them have an axe to grind and make mountains out of molehills. Heck, you have people out there trying to argue that the Prius is worse than the H2 (and don't take my word for it, "many scientists" said so!) Just because somebody takes a Freakonomics-style approach and calls themself a debunker doesn't mean they're the final authority on anything.
It's nice they've developed a way to transfer data at ridiculous speeds, but it does the average user no good as long as we're using mechanical hard drives.
If we get to where most client computers have super-fast networks, why store any data on them at all? OK, a little bit of your data is private, proprietary, etc... but the vast majority of it (by file size) is just other peoples' IP (games, OS, media, music)... why store it locally?
The law states that the number of transistors on a chip that you can buy for a fixed investment doubles every 18 months. CPUs remaining the same speed but dropping in price would continue to match this prediction
That is not sustainable at all. Let's say we reach the magic number of 1e10 transistors and nobody can figure out how to get performance gains from more transistors. If the price dropped 50% every 18 months, after 10 years CPU costs will drop by 99.1%.
Intel's flagship processor would be about $20, but most of the CPUs they sell (nice workaday CPUs) about $1.50. There's no way they can live on that.
A fee per address would create an incentive to replace addresses with NAT now and then prolong this deplorable state of affairs because it would slow down IPv4 address depletion.
Why don't you think it would spur migration to IPv6?
A market based solution would be good if IP addresses were leased instead of (permanently) given away in the first place. Curently, even a charge of e.g. $1/address/year would free up millions of addresses given away in huge blocks in the early days to a small number of businesses and universities.
They'd prefer some "benevolent" agency to dole out the limited amount, nevermind that a few organizations are holding massive amounts of unused IP ranges.
Not "nevermind" - that's exactly why the IP addresses should be doled out by a regulator and NOT resold. Just because some chain of company buyouts leads back from you to somebody that requested a/8 when they were given away for free, does NOT mean you have somehow "earned" millions of dollars in any meaningful sense. There is NO reason to financially reward such behavior.
The free-market-true-believers-under-all-circumstances crowd is correct that markets always find some solution, but why can't they see that sometimes it's a bad one?
Dang, have your high expectations come from using any distro other than previous versions of Ubuntu itself? The ONLY distro I've ever used that didn't get wadded up in dependency problems now and then was probably Debian Stable, and that always ends badly when I lose the discipline to stick with the ancient packages and start mixing in new packages that inevitably poison the system. Same for RHEL.
I can't even run emacs on my gentoo system anymore ("emacs: error while loading shared libraries: libXm.so.3")
I really think the linux tradition of zillions of interdependent packages is misguided. What is it we think we are optimizing for? Disk space? It's not worth it. The most reliable packages, such as mplayer, are that way because they just bundle all their dependencies, and don't try to use any versions of the libraries you might already have lying around.
Would it be offtopic to mention the nationalized healthcare debate at this point?
No, because a) individuals don't bear the full brunt whether the payer is the govt. or a private insurer, it makes little difference to them ; b) consumers don't know enough to make informed cost/benefit tradeoffs with health care (frankly, even doctors often don't know because we don't collect that information); c) nationalized health care is off the table in the US now anyways; d) all the nations with nationalized health care pay much less for it than the US does.
Oh man, I'm still a sucker for health care debate...
This seems like a natural progression down the line of diminishing trust between countries.
I could just as well see it as a progression reflecting increasing levels of economic interdependence. Granted, economic interdependence isn't quite the same thing as trust - it's more substantial; it's trust expressed through actions.
I'm not sure how its "conspiracy theory" when the plan is literally in their own words? Pay attention around 2:30 seconds.
Good. I'm all for putting an end to cost externalities. 100 years ago companies disputed government forcing them to pay the costs of proper disposal for the chemicals they had simply dumped into rivers. It's the same thing. Coal is horrible.
Funny enough the only way to put the coal plants out of business is to simply bankrupt 75% of the US and drive the "masses" into life styles similar to sub Sahara Africa.
Wow, that came out of nowhere. No, closing coal plants doesn't require destroying America. Coal plants will go out of business as soon as they're a few cents per kilowatt more expensive than the next alternative. If nothing else, public support for nuclear power would rise enough to make it a viable option LONG before that happened. Life As We Know It is not going to end.
By the way, the opening quote of the video you posted is laughable. They could at least post the whole sentence: "The only thing that I've said with respect to coal -- I haven't been some coal booster," Obama said. "What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."
Obama is saying to environmentalists that we should not take coal off the table as an ideological matter; that it still might be made acceptable if new technology allows it to be used in a clean way.
I am not sure what this law does and does not allow, but it appears restaurants can still freely market unhealthy kids meals, and there is no prohibition on selling toys either.
So if McDonald's simply made the toy a separate menu item, that cost the same whether also ordering healthy food, unhealthy food, or no food at all, then I think they would be OK. If so, it doesn't restrict the availability of anything, it just restricts bundling. Is that SO horrible?
Since they didn't even respond to radio calls, my guess is they were asleep... if so, they likely would have performed better with a little minimally-distracting mental stimulation - such as solitaire. Seriously, I think it should be looked into.
If someone is bored to sleep by this, they have no business piloting jumbo jets.
I agree that pilots, as individuals, are paid to do a job and are obliged to follow the rules and do whatever they are told to enhance safety.
On the other hand, as a matter of policy, we are better off changing the nature of the task to be compatible with human nature. Sitting and supervising a robot for years on end, waiting to take over if it fails - which is probably never will - is a situation ripe for human error. How can we fix it?
you feel entitled to detain me because of the failings of the government system?
Yes they do. The Tea Party is a States Rights' revival movement. This law is a vehicle for them to vent frustration about the failure of the federal government to seal the borders.
Too bad you have to be caught in the middle, but hey, you're just a foreigner. And we don't do body counts.
they are not allowed to "suspect" you do to skin color, race, or country of origin...
Driving While Black isn't a crime either, so I'm SURE minorities aren't subject to any extra traffic enforcement either... right?
The law carefully avoids requiring a "REALLY good reason" by avoiding the words "probable cause."
If it isn't based on skin color, what will it be based on? English competency? Off-brand tennis shoes? We already have Tom Tancredo calling for poll tests! Wow, next week it will be "separate but equal."
"Free market" is an oxymoron in the first place (when taken to the logical extreme of "totally unregulated", anyways). It's like asking what basketball would be like without any rules; it wouldn't be basketball. Without property rights, and contract enforcement, and currency, the forces of supply and demand still exist but can't develop into anything like the byzantine sophistication of Wall Street. So you can't just wish all the complexities away. This case is ultimately about a conflict of property rights - ownership of intellectual property vs ownership of the media holding copies of the intellectual property.
I was wondering if you had some interesting experiences to share, or were expressing an ideological conviction based on thought experiments. So far it sounds more like the latter.
Yeah, I've seen a lot of lives destroyed too via addiction to government handouts ^W^W state welfare.
You've seen it? Or you've driven through poor neighborhoods and thought, "I bet I'm supporting all these losers, and I bet it's not even good for them!"
If nothing else, jobless benefits have a limited duration, so I would like to hear more about how you are establishing cause & effect here.
Slashdot Mirror
Movies, which are devoted exclusively to plot and have NO gameplay, also reiterate the same plots. There just aren't that many plots human beings actually care about. Finding love, being special, being powerful, preserving your offspring. That's mostly it.
Idea guys, on the other hand, not so much. Even John Romero couldn't make a living at it, so...
Another huge advantage, wind power is reversible. Once you burn coal or oil and release it into the atmosphere, it's pretty hard to get back.
If the wind farm off Nantucket or whatever really proved to be horribly ugly, it could be moved.
Sure, it would cost a few bucks, but it's doable.
Go to Salt Lake sometime and look to the west. What you will see is a decapitated mountain; the world's largest copper mine (Bingham County mine) It sure looks bad, and it will never be fixed.
You have to be careful with green debunkers too, because many of them have an axe to grind and make mountains out of molehills. Heck, you have people out there trying to argue that the Prius is worse than the H2 (and don't take my word for it, "many scientists" said so!) Just because somebody takes a Freakonomics-style approach and calls themself a debunker doesn't mean they're the final authority on anything.
If we get to where most client computers have super-fast networks, why store any data on them at all? OK, a little bit of your data is private, proprietary, etc... but the vast majority of it (by file size) is just other peoples' IP (games, OS, media, music)... why store it locally?
Seek times from SSDs are hardly on the same chart as any hard drive, almost irrespective of RPM.
That is not sustainable at all. Let's say we reach the magic number of 1e10 transistors and nobody can figure out how to get performance gains from more transistors. If the price dropped 50% every 18 months, after 10 years CPU costs will drop by 99.1%. Intel's flagship processor would be about $20, but most of the CPUs they sell (nice workaday CPUs) about $1.50. There's no way they can live on that.
Why don't you think it would spur migration to IPv6?
A market based solution would be good if IP addresses were leased instead of (permanently) given away in the first place. Curently, even a charge of e.g. $1/address/year would free up millions of addresses given away in huge blocks in the early days to a small number of businesses and universities.
Not "nevermind" - that's exactly why the IP addresses should be doled out by a regulator and NOT resold. Just because some chain of company buyouts leads back from you to somebody that requested a /8 when they were given away for free, does NOT mean you have somehow "earned" millions of dollars in any meaningful sense. There is NO reason to financially reward such behavior.
The free-market-true-believers-under-all-circumstances crowd is correct that markets always find some solution, but why can't they see that sometimes it's a bad one?
I can't even run emacs on my gentoo system anymore ("emacs: error while loading shared libraries: libXm.so.3")
I really think the linux tradition of zillions of interdependent packages is misguided. What is it we think we are optimizing for? Disk space? It's not worth it. The most reliable packages, such as mplayer, are that way because they just bundle all their dependencies, and don't try to use any versions of the libraries you might already have lying around.
How important are quick reflexes to performing surgery? Not that important, as far as I know.
No, because a) individuals don't bear the full brunt whether the payer is the govt. or a private insurer, it makes little difference to them ; b) consumers don't know enough to make informed cost/benefit tradeoffs with health care (frankly, even doctors often don't know because we don't collect that information); c) nationalized health care is off the table in the US now anyways; d) all the nations with nationalized health care pay much less for it than the US does.
Oh man, I'm still a sucker for health care debate...
I could just as well see it as a progression reflecting increasing levels of economic interdependence. Granted, economic interdependence isn't quite the same thing as trust - it's more substantial; it's trust expressed through actions.
Good. I'm all for putting an end to cost externalities. 100 years ago companies disputed government forcing them to pay the costs of proper disposal for the chemicals they had simply dumped into rivers. It's the same thing. Coal is horrible.
Wow, that came out of nowhere. No, closing coal plants doesn't require destroying America. Coal plants will go out of business as soon as they're a few cents per kilowatt more expensive than the next alternative. If nothing else, public support for nuclear power would rise enough to make it a viable option LONG before that happened. Life As We Know It is not going to end.
By the way, the opening quote of the video you posted is laughable. They could at least post the whole sentence: "The only thing that I've said with respect to coal -- I haven't been some coal booster," Obama said. "What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."
Obama is saying to environmentalists that we should not take coal off the table as an ideological matter; that it still might be made acceptable if new technology allows it to be used in a clean way.
So if McDonald's simply made the toy a separate menu item, that cost the same whether also ordering healthy food, unhealthy food, or no food at all, then I think they would be OK. If so, it doesn't restrict the availability of anything, it just restricts bundling. Is that SO horrible?
IANAL.
Since they didn't even respond to radio calls, my guess is they were asleep... if so, they likely would have performed better with a little minimally-distracting mental stimulation - such as solitaire. Seriously, I think it should be looked into.
I agree that pilots, as individuals, are paid to do a job and are obliged to follow the rules and do whatever they are told to enhance safety.
On the other hand, as a matter of policy, we are better off changing the nature of the task to be compatible with human nature. Sitting and supervising a robot for years on end, waiting to take over if it fails - which is probably never will - is a situation ripe for human error. How can we fix it?
Yes they do. The Tea Party is a States Rights' revival movement. This law is a vehicle for them to vent frustration about the failure of the federal government to seal the borders.
Too bad you have to be caught in the middle, but hey, you're just a foreigner. And we don't do body counts.
Driving While Black isn't a crime either, so I'm SURE minorities aren't subject to any extra traffic enforcement either... right?
The law carefully avoids requiring a "REALLY good reason" by avoiding the words "probable cause."
If it isn't based on skin color, what will it be based on? English competency? Off-brand tennis shoes? We already have Tom Tancredo calling for poll tests! Wow, next week it will be "separate but equal."
"Free market" is an oxymoron in the first place (when taken to the logical extreme of "totally unregulated", anyways). It's like asking what basketball would be like without any rules; it wouldn't be basketball. Without property rights, and contract enforcement, and currency, the forces of supply and demand still exist but can't develop into anything like the byzantine sophistication of Wall Street. So you can't just wish all the complexities away. This case is ultimately about a conflict of property rights - ownership of intellectual property vs ownership of the media holding copies of the intellectual property.
s/proactive/provocative/
You said "I have seen a lot of lives destroyed," which sounds very empirical. It's a proactive statement that piqued my interest.
I was wondering if you had some interesting experiences to share, or were expressing an ideological conviction based on thought experiments. So far it sounds more like the latter.
You've seen it? Or you've driven through poor neighborhoods and thought, "I bet I'm supporting all these losers, and I bet it's not even good for them!"
If nothing else, jobless benefits have a limited duration, so I would like to hear more about how you are establishing cause & effect here.