Star Trek IV was on CBS on Saturday night. I stayed up to watch the transparent aluminum scene -- who knew the real thing was coming just 2 days later?
I don't understand the question exactly -- are you saying that if the GameCube was locked in to a closed "Nintendo Live!" system for all online play, what would I think? I would think it was crap and likely say so.
The voicechat, friends list, no cheating -- great stuff! But imagine if XBox Live! had competition from something like EA Live! on the XBox.
Oh, I've listened to speeches and read websites. Those tell me what he currently claims to stand for. That doesn't necessarily tell me anything about what he actually stands for in reality.
you know, I was going to use some mod points on this discussion, but I had to take notice to your comment.
All the patents go to the guys with the weakest online system.
The Cube has the fewest number of online titles, to be sure. But the system itself? It is at least orders of magnitude better than the XBox, which requires going through XBox Live! to play online (legally speaking of course). The Cube online system is actually the most open system available, the lack of publisher support for it may make it appear that the system itself is weak -- support from publishers in the form of compelling titles is what is really lacking.
For example: if a large number of XBox developers wanted to provide their own gaming network... guess what -- they can't. XBox Live! only.
There's actually nothing stopping you or me from developing our own Cube online gaming network and working with publishers to use this network.
the only reason I have a GBA is because with the GBA player I can play games on the TV also. Having the GBA is an added bonus (added to the fact that they actually still make interesting gameplay games on GBA) to just being a GBA Player gamer, because I can now take the same save game with me on a plane, train, bus, whatever.
so this begs the question: will there be a GBA DS to TV player? as these portable "consoles" keep getting more powerful, why aren't there better ways of docking them and using them on the TV screen?
[Halo is] almost as fun to watch as it is to play.
Disagree very, very strongly.
[Halo] definately requires a good amount of skill.
Agree.
There are already some video games that are fun to watch. the Grand Theft Auto series is one of them - the reason is because you can see all sorts of entertaining things and there is generally nonstop action.
Personally I cannot stand to watch someone play video games -- and GTA is one of the worst to watch.
In the next decade, at least, I assure everyone that you'll be hearing about and following champion game players and teams in the same manner we do today with football, baseball etc.
I assure you that is a very far-fetched notion. Do you have any idea how many people follow football, baseball, "etc"? Personally (see my user name) I play video games more than the average bloke, but even I can't stand watching people play video games, if for no other reason than -- heck, I could be playing video games! But I watch a lot of hockey, football, baseball, and college basketball, if for no other reason than -- damn, they are pretty good!
Even the best Quake player is absolutely zero fun to watch. But hey, in today's era of a thousand digital channels, many dedicated to even smaller niche clientelle, why not some video game coverage? Obviously there is some small market for it.
But putting it on the level of football, baseball? The next time you see 50,000 people paying an average of $50 to sit in the cold and watch someone play video games, let me know! 10 years? Maybe -- maybe -- 100 years. It would take such a monumental shift in American culture that I just can't see it -ever- happening. We enjoy -real- violence and -real- sport, it is nearly instinctive.
Reminds me of a quote which I'll have to paraphrase since I can't remember it fully: "Hey, there's this new video game, with unbelievable resolution, perfect frames per second, no lag! It's called real life."
Video games are something fun to do when it's too dark/cold/rainy to go outside.
If you think Kerry is for the "common man", you've got serious delusional problems.
Where did I say I thought he was for the common man? I said I had no idea what he was for.
He is fabulously wealthy.
Actually, his wife is fabulously wealthy. Kerry himself was living in various friends and acquaintances houses and apartments in DC for several years because he was unable to afford his own place.
Kerry talks about outsourcing when Heinz is a massive outsourcing company.
What in the world does Kerry have to do with the management at Heinz? He's married to Heinz' heiress but he can't walk into the boardroom and have them change what they are doing.
Man, this comes off like I'm defending Kerry, but I'm really not trying to do so. Like I said, after speeches and debates I still don't have much of an idea of what he's about.
Bush stands for the rich getting richer, corporations becoming more powerful, and government having more control of our daily lives. That said, Kerry doesn't seem to stand for much of anything, so... yeah it's still unclear. Do you vote for the guy whose policies you abhor, or vote for the guy whose policies you can't be sure of?
Let's say that burning a gallon of gasoline in a hummer produces N cubic meters of carbon monoxide. We don't even have an idea how to undo this in large quantities, let alone an idea of how much it might cost.
We are like the snake who ate all the rabbits in the area, and only when the snake began to starve did he wonder "where did all the rabbits go".
also... knowledge and wisdom do not necessarily always coexist. there are 6-year-old girls who have memorized all the presidents, state capitals, world capitals, and world leaders. I wouldn't necessarily want her writing energy policy!
While I agree with your problems, I don't think "drown them in yet more red tape" is a viable solution.
Yeah, it's a problem: "Who's going to Watch the Watchers?"
That's why simply publishing the budget and expenditures in a transparent way is a good idea: there are people with time on their hands (see/.) who will look over this data -- for free -- and find the waste.
Let's say you get an allowance of $20 a week from your mom. You buy some clothes, games, etc.
At the end of the year, your mom notes that you have like $200 still sitting around that you apparently didn't need. So she decides to set your next year's allowance lower, to something like $15 a week.
To prevent this, at the end of the year, even if you don't particularly want anything, you buy a few games or something, just to make sure you've spent your money. You've kind of wasted the $200 for this year, but hey, you never know, you may want that extra $200 next year, right?
Replace "you" with "a government department" and "your mom" with "a government agency", and the "$200" with "$200,000".
He doesn't have to read it (but I'll bet he's at least been briefed on it). He doesn't even have to understand all of it -- that is what delegation is all about. Since we use the democratic method to elect leaders, not their cabinets, we might as well elect people who are good leaders and who we think will select and lead a good cabinet. After that, governors and presidents are mostly figureheads, not policy or decision makers. If we could find someone who could completely understand health care, welfare reform, social security, taxation, the military, space research, etc, I'd be all for electing them. But such a person doesn't exist, and if they do likely they have incredible social problems from having spent all their time in the library learning all this stuff.
But I think you grossly underestimate Arnold if you don't think he has some sense of policy, especially this one. He's been talking about the waste in the government for quite some time now, and ran on a platform of getting rid of the waste -- not the programs.
arnold is one of the few people who could afford it, even if the actual cost of driving such a vehicle were actually paid by the person driving it. (e.g. pollution, war for oil, etc).
you burn a gallon of fuel, you've only paid $2 or whatever it is in your area. the cost to clean up the air (if even possible) is going to be much, much higher, not to mention the human cost in the present and future of securing oil fields.
there is such an incredible inefficiency in large corporations, especially governments. there are so many causes of this, it is hard to pick them, but here are just a few:
1. "tenure". once you're on the job a few years, it's very hard to fire people. people realise this and slack off.
2. "gotta spend my budget". if you don't spend this year's budget on something, somewhere, next year's budget will be less than this year's budget, regardless of what next year's budget actually needs to be. people realise this and spend money on non-essential things, to preserve their budget slice for next year.
3. "follow procedure". often large places will have massive procedures for procurement, which end up doing things like making a hammer cost $100 to acquire, desktop computer costs skyrocket, etc.
4. "workplace as a supply depot for employees". people take reams of printer paper home. it happens. ditto blank CD's, pens, you-name-it. computer monitors, desk chairs, all these things go home with people.
5. "croneyism and nepotism". similar to situation #1, you have people who retain their jobs when they are not operating at a good personal efficiency -- or are even downright awful performers.
To fix these things in government, all that is required is (1) absolute transparency of budgets. Every $1 which is collected from taxpayers must be accounted for somewhere. Hundreds of eyes seeing these budgets will find the waste very, very, very quickly. And (2) impartial performance review of employees. Get rid of or "fix" the lazy and inefficient employees -- they are destroying the system in ways that simple material waste cannot even come close to in comparison.
If no one is out there supporting the gay movement in your county, city, state, and governement elections, then I guess the majority has voted against your beliefs. Just keep voting for change, that is whay this country is about. We may disagree at the polls, but there should never be personal hate...
missed this one the first time around. given this level of democratic control which you appear to espouse, people who don't fall into the category of "white male landowning prodestants" would likely not even have the right to vote. a bit of a stretch, but it is certainly in living memory that minority groups have been denied even basic voting rights, simply because of this foolish notion of "living in a democracy -- majority rules". This is not the case, this is a constitutional republic.
sorry about the vitriol in my comment. you are dead on that there are a lot of good Christian people out there who don't go around moralising and pointing fingers, and I don't mean to go around saying this is not the case. But in my opinion, you can either believe the bible or not believe it, and there is not much gray area in "if a man lies with a man he should be put to death".
but on the topic of gay marriage -- I don't see why a gay couple should have to suffer tax penalities from the government. Imagine if a wife in a "normal" marriage had to pay a massive tax when her husband passes on. a gay couple would have to set up some kind of tax shelter umbrella corporation to own their assets to prevent massive taxation, not to mention they would have to draw up a legal will to direct their possessions to their partner, otherwise the state would simply be looking for next of kin, etc.
I was specifically speaking to your statement: They are there to provide me with a service. They can judge how much that will cost me by how much I cost them in the past, not how much I might cost them in the future.
They are not there to provide you with a service. They are there to ensure that should you be found responsible for an accident, reparations will be made to those who are injured thereby. And the second part of your statement -- the only reason at all that they care about how much you cost them in the past is because that is one of the better indicators for how much it will cost them in the future. The only thing an insurance company cares about is future risk.
somehow my rates increase on older cars
Perhaps these older cars lack some of the safety features of newer cars, resulting in greater risk.
I also believe that the bible exists. But I don't necessarily believe every word in it to be the 'word of god' or something.
I don't remember seeing any gay people in the bible.
Either you haven't read the bible (which I have) or you have a poor memory. Genesis 19 (the story of Sodom), Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and in the "new testament" I Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27.
This is why Christians are either bigots or hypocrites. They would be bigots (in my opinion) to hate someone because of whom that person is attracted to; and they would be hypocrites not to.
Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek IV was on CBS on Saturday night. I stayed up to watch the transparent aluminum scene -- who knew the real thing was coming just 2 days later?
I don't understand the question exactly -- are you saying that if the GameCube was locked in to a closed "Nintendo Live!" system for all online play, what would I think? I would think it was crap and likely say so.
The voicechat, friends list, no cheating -- great stuff! But imagine if XBox Live! had competition from something like EA Live! on the XBox.
Oh, I've listened to speeches and read websites. Those tell me what he currently claims to stand for. That doesn't necessarily tell me anything about what he actually stands for in reality.
you know, I was going to use some mod points on this discussion, but I had to take notice to your comment.
All the patents go to the guys with the weakest online system.
The Cube has the fewest number of online titles, to be sure. But the system itself? It is at least orders of magnitude better than the XBox, which requires going through XBox Live! to play online (legally speaking of course). The Cube online system is actually the most open system available, the lack of publisher support for it may make it appear that the system itself is weak -- support from publishers in the form of compelling titles is what is really lacking.
For example: if a large number of XBox developers wanted to provide their own gaming network... guess what -- they can't. XBox Live! only.
There's actually nothing stopping you or me from developing our own Cube online gaming network and working with publishers to use this network.
the only reason I have a GBA is because with the GBA player I can play games on the TV also. Having the GBA is an added bonus (added to the fact that they actually still make interesting gameplay games on GBA) to just being a GBA Player gamer, because I can now take the same save game with me on a plane, train, bus, whatever.
so this begs the question: will there be a GBA DS to TV player? as these portable "consoles" keep getting more powerful, why aren't there better ways of docking them and using them on the TV screen?
[Halo is] almost as fun to watch as it is to play.
Disagree very, very strongly.
[Halo] definately requires a good amount of skill.
Agree.
There are already some video games that are fun to watch. the Grand Theft Auto series is one of them - the reason is because you can see all sorts of entertaining things and there is generally nonstop action.
Personally I cannot stand to watch someone play video games -- and GTA is one of the worst to watch.
In the next decade, at least, I assure everyone that you'll be hearing about and following champion game players and teams in the same manner we do today with football, baseball etc.
I assure you that is a very far-fetched notion. Do you have any idea how many people follow football, baseball, "etc"? Personally (see my user name) I play video games more than the average bloke, but even I can't stand watching people play video games, if for no other reason than -- heck, I could be playing video games! But I watch a lot of hockey, football, baseball, and college basketball, if for no other reason than -- damn, they are pretty good!
Even the best Quake player is absolutely zero fun to watch. But hey, in today's era of a thousand digital channels, many dedicated to even smaller niche clientelle, why not some video game coverage? Obviously there is some small market for it.
But putting it on the level of football, baseball? The next time you see 50,000 people paying an average of $50 to sit in the cold and watch someone play video games, let me know! 10 years? Maybe -- maybe -- 100 years. It would take such a monumental shift in American culture that I just can't see it -ever- happening. We enjoy -real- violence and -real- sport, it is nearly instinctive.
Reminds me of a quote which I'll have to paraphrase since I can't remember it fully: "Hey, there's this new video game, with unbelievable resolution, perfect frames per second, no lag! It's called real life."
Video games are something fun to do when it's too dark/cold/rainy to go outside.
If you think Kerry is for the "common man", you've got serious delusional problems.
Where did I say I thought he was for the common man? I said I had no idea what he was for.
He is fabulously wealthy.
Actually, his wife is fabulously wealthy. Kerry himself was living in various friends and acquaintances houses and apartments in DC for several years because he was unable to afford his own place.
Kerry talks about outsourcing when Heinz is a massive outsourcing company.
What in the world does Kerry have to do with the management at Heinz? He's married to Heinz' heiress but he can't walk into the boardroom and have them change what they are doing.
Man, this comes off like I'm defending Kerry, but I'm really not trying to do so. Like I said, after speeches and debates I still don't have much of an idea of what he's about.
"better" depends on "better for whom"
Bush stands for the rich getting richer, corporations becoming more powerful, and government having more control of our daily lives. That said, Kerry doesn't seem to stand for much of anything, so... yeah it's still unclear. Do you vote for the guy whose policies you abhor, or vote for the guy whose policies you can't be sure of?
CERN doesn't have some spare room in Switzerland to do this? Nobody seems to mind when these things are located in neutral countries like Switzerland.
My wife works for a state agency, and I work at a very large company. I feel fairly comfortable with my list of 5 things.
I'll bet I get a better price on office supplies and computers than you do.
Kinda doubt it... I work for a computer manufacturer (well that's one thing they do).
Let's say that burning a gallon of gasoline in a hummer produces N cubic meters of carbon monoxide. We don't even have an idea how to undo this in large quantities, let alone an idea of how much it might cost.
We are like the snake who ate all the rabbits in the area, and only when the snake began to starve did he wonder "where did all the rabbits go".
see my comment on having social problems :)
also... knowledge and wisdom do not necessarily always coexist. there are 6-year-old girls who have memorized all the presidents, state capitals, world capitals, and world leaders. I wouldn't necessarily want her writing energy policy!
While I agree with your problems, I don't think "drown them in yet more red tape" is a viable solution.
/.) who will look over this data -- for free -- and find the waste.
Yeah, it's a problem: "Who's going to Watch the Watchers?"
That's why simply publishing the budget and expenditures in a transparent way is a good idea: there are people with time on their hands (see
Apply this to your own home.
Let's say you get an allowance of $20 a week from your mom. You buy some clothes, games, etc.
At the end of the year, your mom notes that you have like $200 still sitting around that you apparently didn't need. So she decides to set your next year's allowance lower, to something like $15 a week.
To prevent this, at the end of the year, even if you don't particularly want anything, you buy a few games or something, just to make sure you've spent your money. You've kind of wasted the $200 for this year, but hey, you never know, you may want that extra $200 next year, right?
Replace "you" with "a government department" and "your mom" with "a government agency", and the "$200" with "$200,000".
He doesn't have to read it (but I'll bet he's at least been briefed on it). He doesn't even have to understand all of it -- that is what delegation is all about. Since we use the democratic method to elect leaders, not their cabinets, we might as well elect people who are good leaders and who we think will select and lead a good cabinet. After that, governors and presidents are mostly figureheads, not policy or decision makers. If we could find someone who could completely understand health care, welfare reform, social security, taxation, the military, space research, etc, I'd be all for electing them. But such a person doesn't exist, and if they do likely they have incredible social problems from having spent all their time in the library learning all this stuff.
But I think you grossly underestimate Arnold if you don't think he has some sense of policy, especially this one. He's been talking about the waste in the government for quite some time now, and ran on a platform of getting rid of the waste -- not the programs.
arnold is one of the few people who could afford it, even if the actual cost of driving such a vehicle were actually paid by the person driving it. (e.g. pollution, war for oil, etc).
you burn a gallon of fuel, you've only paid $2 or whatever it is in your area. the cost to clean up the air (if even possible) is going to be much, much higher, not to mention the human cost in the present and future of securing oil fields.
there is such an incredible inefficiency in large corporations, especially governments. there are so many causes of this, it is hard to pick them, but here are just a few:
1. "tenure". once you're on the job a few years, it's very hard to fire people. people realise this and slack off.
2. "gotta spend my budget". if you don't spend this year's budget on something, somewhere, next year's budget will be less than this year's budget, regardless of what next year's budget actually needs to be. people realise this and spend money on non-essential things, to preserve their budget slice for next year.
3. "follow procedure". often large places will have massive procedures for procurement, which end up doing things like making a hammer cost $100 to acquire, desktop computer costs skyrocket, etc.
4. "workplace as a supply depot for employees". people take reams of printer paper home. it happens. ditto blank CD's, pens, you-name-it. computer monitors, desk chairs, all these things go home with people.
5. "croneyism and nepotism". similar to situation #1, you have people who retain their jobs when they are not operating at a good personal efficiency -- or are even downright awful performers.
To fix these things in government, all that is required is (1) absolute transparency of budgets. Every $1 which is collected from taxpayers must be accounted for somewhere. Hundreds of eyes seeing these budgets will find the waste very, very, very quickly. And (2) impartial performance review of employees. Get rid of or "fix" the lazy and inefficient employees -- they are destroying the system in ways that simple material waste cannot even come close to in comparison.
as much as I personally detest the GTA games...
"Art imitates Life."
Advocating anything else is against the will of god.
Exactly. Advocate what you want, just stop calling yourselves by a religion you obvoiusly don't agree with -- choose another religion!
If no one is out there supporting the gay movement in your county, city, state, and governement elections, then I guess the majority has voted against your beliefs. Just keep voting for change, that is whay this country is about. We may disagree at the polls, but there should never be personal hate...
missed this one the first time around. given this level of democratic control which you appear to espouse, people who don't fall into the category of "white male landowning prodestants" would likely not even have the right to vote. a bit of a stretch, but it is certainly in living memory that minority groups have been denied even basic voting rights, simply because of this foolish notion of "living in a democracy -- majority rules". This is not the case, this is a constitutional republic.
sorry about the vitriol in my comment. you are dead on that there are a lot of good Christian people out there who don't go around moralising and pointing fingers, and I don't mean to go around saying this is not the case. But in my opinion, you can either believe the bible or not believe it, and there is not much gray area in "if a man lies with a man he should be put to death".
but on the topic of gay marriage -- I don't see why a gay couple should have to suffer tax penalities from the government. Imagine if a wife in a "normal" marriage had to pay a massive tax when her husband passes on. a gay couple would have to set up some kind of tax shelter umbrella corporation to own their assets to prevent massive taxation, not to mention they would have to draw up a legal will to direct their possessions to their partner, otherwise the state would simply be looking for next of kin, etc.
how are the recent x86 builds of Apple's Darwin?
I was specifically speaking to your statement: They are there to provide me with a service. They can judge how much that will cost me by how much I cost them in the past, not how much I might cost them in the future.
They are not there to provide you with a service. They are there to ensure that should you be found responsible for an accident, reparations will be made to those who are injured thereby. And the second part of your statement -- the only reason at all that they care about how much you cost them in the past is because that is one of the better indicators for how much it will cost them in the future. The only thing an insurance company cares about is future risk.
somehow my rates increase on older cars
Perhaps these older cars lack some of the safety features of newer cars, resulting in greater risk.
I believe in the bible.
I also believe that the bible exists. But I don't necessarily believe every word in it to be the 'word of god' or something.
I don't remember seeing any gay people in the bible.
Either you haven't read the bible (which I have) or you have a poor memory. Genesis 19 (the story of Sodom), Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and in the "new testament" I Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27.
This is why Christians are either bigots or hypocrites. They would be bigots (in my opinion) to hate someone because of whom that person is attracted to; and they would be hypocrites not to.