> Yes, most certainly, especially the violent kind (outright theft etc).
Seriously? Violent crimes on the Internet? I do hope this is a big woosh, otherwise I'll have to consider despairing, if such nonsense is said even on slashdot. I wonder if with the invention of the phone people were afraid of "telephone robbery" (no, not robbery of telephones, that would actually make sense).
There is "telephone robbery" (although it's not named that way). It consists of tricking people into calling expensive numbers without recognizing (or even the computer to do so, at the time when modems were common). There are ways to fight this (like the regulation that all those numbers start with a common prefix, and software to detect diallers), but it definitively exists.
However, it didn't exist at the time the telephone was invented.
Well, people who can't see 3D wouldn't buy a console whose main selling point is 3D anyway. What's wrong with different people buying different products? Maybe Nintendo shouldn't depend on graphics so much, because after all, there are blind people?
Sell a 3D console to people who can see 3D, and a 2D console to the others (as a bonus, if the 2D console is better at displaying 2D games, some people might even buy both a 2D and a 3D console, in order to play 2D games on the 2D console, and 3D games on the 3D console).
But... a white iPhone makes a whole lot of difference! After all, think of the change in the reflective properties! Your room will get brighter! OK, only a very little bit which you'll not notice anyway, and only as long as the phone isn't in your pocket, but hey, don't be so critical! A white iPhone... is white! Yes, really! You surely didn't think of that! You know, it's something you don't get with any other iPhone but with a white one! That's big news!
Not trolling, I really want to know... How do you make a game that requires 3D?
A simple example could be getting points for clicking things apparently in front of the screen, and losing points for clicking things behind it. If there are no additional hints about the position, you'll not succeed without 3D.
You already won, stop making me feel bad! There's something about App Store that seems worse than SQL Server, but that is probably, as you pointed out, specific to me in that I prefer the terms database, Non-relational database and RDBMS over SQL server.
Well, an "SQL server" is a bit more specific than a "database server" because it specifically refers to a database using SQL.
Who is glad? who are you helping? are you helping yourself?
No, it is some person named "Glad I" who could help.
I'm pretty sure Glad I is dead by now, otherwise he would be known simply as "Glad". The reason they call him Glad I is to differentiate him from his successor, Glad II.
Regulation Number 1. He who owns the fiber/copper may not provide service over it.
Evasion Strategy Number 1: Make two companies, owned both by you (through sufficient indirections through holdings etc. to make this non-obvious). One holds the fiber/copper, one provides the service.
Regulation Number 2. He who owns the fiber/copper must sell access to all comers for the same price.
Evasion Strategy Number 2: Have that equal price so high that nobody will be interested, except for your service company (which is always on the edge of bancruptcy, which doesn't hurt, because you get your money from that other company; indeed, being at the edge of bancruptcy may even help in exploiting the workers, not to mention that it's probably useful for tax reasons, too).
Regulation Number 3. He who provides the service may not own media companies.
See Evasion Strategy Number 1.
Regulation Number 4. If anyone gains more than 51% of the market, split the company in two.
OK, then have several companies "competing" with each other, both owned by you (see Evasion Strategy Number 1).
The only way companies will truly reform is when they risk losing customers. Stop complaining but cancel your contract and tell them (and the rest of the world) why.
Well, if you are without internet connection, it's a bit harder to tell the world why.:-)
Also, when Einstein published his theory of general relativity, nobody expected this to ever become relevant for anything beyond pure curiosity.
Sure. It also served to explain some of the huge problems that held up progress in physics of that time.
No. You are thinking of special relativity.
When Kepler thought about the movement of celestial bodies, he would never have guessed that his insights would one day help with weather forecast.
But that did have obvious applications to navigation and time keeping.
No. The existing epicycle theory was unsatisfactory as explanation, but hugely successful as description. Besides the fact that I strongly doubt that the planets ever served a big role in navigation. But since you claim obvious applications, you surely can explain them, right?
When Heisenberg and SchrÃdinger formulated the equations of quantum mechanics, they didn't think of TV sets, computers, or the internet.
But that did have obvious applications such as basic electronic components (such as vacuum tubes), medicine (X-rays, fluorescent dyes), and more powerful microscopes.
Vacuum tubes don't need any quantum mechanics. They can completely be described with classical electrodynamics. X-rays were found before even the old quantum mechanics of Planck, Bohr and Sommerfeld was formulated, much less the modern quantum mechanics by Heisenberg and Schrödinger. Indeed, even the first medical applications of X rays was before 1900, long before Schrödinger's and Heisenberg's formulation of quantum mechanics.
The inventors of the particle accelerator thought about studying particles, not about cancer therapy.
Maybe. That was a pretty near future application of the technology. Besides testing fundamental physical theories is rather important, don't you think?
Of course I consider testing fundamental physical theories rather important. It doesn't however give the immediate, obvious payoff for humanity which is demanded
I see the usual flaw, blatant mischaracterization of the past in order to rationalize poor science practices in the present.
I don't think I mis-characterize the past, and definitely not intentionally. And I didn't mention at all any science practices in the present, poor or other, so you'd better speak abou which poor science practices you accuse me to rationalize/I'm not aware of rationalizing any; I wasn't speaking about science practices at all, but only on the wrongness of the concept that every research must have obvious applications).
I just have two questions to ask you. First, is there a way to distinguish the quality of research as in its benefit to humanity or particular subgroups? Second, if there is, then why not fund the better quality at the expense of the poor quality research?
First: There is a way to distinguish quality research from non-quality research, but that is not about "its benefits to humanity or particular subgroups". Quality research is research which is likely to lead to new insights (which may or may not turn out to be useful for something), while non-quality research doesn't deliver much insight. Second, I'm all for funding better quality research. I'm not for making the funding dependent solely on the expected usefulness of the results. Not that I'm against funding research for things which have immediate use; that would be silly. But something not having immediate or obvious use should not be a reason to not fund it.
from here "The data for the study came from the PsycINFO database, which provides more than 3 million references to the psychological literature from the 1800s to the present, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters or essays, and books."
Something's wrong, I think. 3 million references is a lot!
I wonder what the violent video games from the 1800s looked like.
Actually I can prove that video games are completely harmless. It's easy: There are far more Slashdot comments saying that video games are harmless than comments saying they are harmful. And I'm pretty sure that the number of Slashdot comments is larger than the number of studies on this subject, therefore Slashdot comments clearly take priority.
What? Peer reviewed? Yes, we have that on Slashdot, too. It's called moderation.
Also, when Einstein published his theory of general relativity, nobody expected this to ever become relevant for anything beyond pure curiosity. Well, that's because nobody thought of GPS back than.
And when he was arguing against completeness of quantum mechanics, there's no way he could have imagined that his thoughts would one day lead to quantum cryptography.
When Kepler thought about the movement of celestial bodies, he would never have guessed that his insights would one day help with weather forecast.
When Heisenberg and Schrödinger formulated the equations of quantum mechanics, they didn't think of TV sets, computers, or the internet.
The inventors of the particle accelerator thought about studying particles, not about cancer therapy.
But 86400 is neither pure 12, nor pure 60, but a mix of both. It's therefore more arbitrary that 1/10000 (or 1/12^3, or 1/24^3, or 1/60^3, or any other 1/n^k). There's always some arbitrariness, because the choice of base is somewhat arbitrary (and there's of course also a certain arbitrariness of the physical phenomenon you base your unit on). However there's more arbitrariness in the number of seconds in the day because it's not just one base, but a mixture of two bases.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you mean record employment. Record unemployment isn't something to be proud of.
> Yes, most certainly, especially the violent kind (outright theft etc).
Seriously? Violent crimes on the Internet? I do hope this is a big woosh, otherwise I'll have to consider despairing, if such nonsense is said even on slashdot.
I wonder if with the invention of the phone people were afraid of "telephone robbery" (no, not robbery of telephones, that would actually make sense).
There is "telephone robbery" (although it's not named that way). It consists of tricking people into calling expensive numbers without recognizing (or even the computer to do so, at the time when modems were common). There are ways to fight this (like the regulation that all those numbers start with a common prefix, and software to detect diallers), but it definitively exists.
However, it didn't exist at the time the telephone was invented.
Well, people who can't see 3D wouldn't buy a console whose main selling point is 3D anyway. What's wrong with different people buying different products? Maybe Nintendo shouldn't depend on graphics so much, because after all, there are blind people?
Sell a 3D console to people who can see 3D, and a 2D console to the others (as a bonus, if the 2D console is better at displaying 2D games, some people might even buy both a 2D and a 3D console, in order to play 2D games on the 2D console, and 3D games on the 3D console).
But ... a white iPhone makes a whole lot of difference! After all, think of the change in the reflective properties! Your room will get brighter! OK, only a very little bit which you'll not notice anyway, and only as long as the phone isn't in your pocket, but hey, don't be so critical! A white iPhone ... is white! Yes, really! You surely didn't think of that! You know, it's something you don't get with any other iPhone but with a white one! That's big news!
SCNR :-)
In a cave? Are you crazy? Do you know any study on the effects of living in a cave?
A simple example could be getting points for clicking things apparently in front of the screen, and losing points for clicking things behind it. If there are no additional hints about the position, you'll not succeed without 3D.
I've yet to see anyone who tries the 3ds and ISN'T immediately impressed with it.
Well I wasn't.
Maybe. But he can't see you.
Well, an "SQL server" is a bit more specific than a "database server" because it specifically refers to a database using SQL.
App Amazon. Or maybe even Appazon.
they're going to send a email, right? Click this link to authorize the FBI to remove an infection from your computer?
Oh, and give your local login/password on that site (the admin account, of course). After all, the FBI needs that to access your computer ...
You call that a sentence?
Who is glad? who are you helping? are you helping yourself?
No, it is some person named "Glad I" who could help.
I'm pretty sure Glad I is dead by now, otherwise he would be known simply as "Glad". The reason they call him Glad I is to differentiate him from his successor, Glad II.
Glad I isn't dead. He just abdicated.
You call that a sentence?
Who is glad? who are you helping? are you helping yourself?
No, it is some person named "Glad I" who could help.
Evasion Strategy Number 1: Make two companies, owned both by you (through sufficient indirections through holdings etc. to make this non-obvious). One holds the fiber/copper, one provides the service.
Evasion Strategy Number 2: Have that equal price so high that nobody will be interested, except for your service company (which is always on the edge of bancruptcy, which doesn't hurt, because you get your money from that other company; indeed, being at the edge of bancruptcy may even help in exploiting the workers, not to mention that it's probably useful for tax reasons, too).
See Evasion Strategy Number 1.
OK, then have several companies "competing" with each other, both owned by you (see Evasion Strategy Number 1).
The only way companies will truly reform is when they risk losing customers. Stop complaining but cancel your contract and tell them (and the rest of the world) why.
Well, if you are without internet connection, it's a bit harder to tell the world why. :-)
There are definitely rights you cannot sell (such as the right to live). Therefore it's not a given that you can sell a given right.
Nobody knows, much less cares, what "roguelikes" are.
Well, obviously "roguelike" means like a rogue. :-)
Of course a "roguelike game" might also be a game acting like this.
Also, when Einstein published his theory of general relativity, nobody expected this to ever become relevant for anything beyond pure curiosity.
Sure. It also served to explain some of the huge problems that held up progress in physics of that time.
No. You are thinking of special relativity.
When Kepler thought about the movement of celestial bodies, he would never have guessed that his insights would one day help with weather forecast.
But that did have obvious applications to navigation and time keeping.
No. The existing epicycle theory was unsatisfactory as explanation, but hugely successful as description. Besides the fact that I strongly doubt that the planets ever served a big role in navigation. But since you claim obvious applications, you surely can explain them, right?
When Heisenberg and SchrÃdinger formulated the equations of quantum mechanics, they didn't think of TV sets, computers, or the internet.
But that did have obvious applications such as basic electronic components (such as vacuum tubes), medicine (X-rays, fluorescent dyes), and more powerful microscopes.
Vacuum tubes don't need any quantum mechanics. They can completely be described with classical electrodynamics.
X-rays were found before even the old quantum mechanics of Planck, Bohr and Sommerfeld was formulated, much less the modern quantum mechanics by Heisenberg and Schrödinger. Indeed, even the first medical applications of X rays was before 1900, long before Schrödinger's and Heisenberg's formulation of quantum mechanics.
The inventors of the particle accelerator thought about studying particles, not about cancer therapy.
Maybe. That was a pretty near future application of the technology. Besides testing fundamental physical theories is rather important, don't you think?
Of course I consider testing fundamental physical theories rather important. It doesn't however give the immediate, obvious payoff for humanity which is demanded
I see the usual flaw, blatant mischaracterization of the past in order to rationalize poor science practices in the present.
I don't think I mis-characterize the past, and definitely not intentionally. And I didn't mention at all any science practices in the present, poor or other, so you'd better speak abou which poor science practices you accuse me to rationalize /I'm not aware of rationalizing any; I wasn't speaking about science practices at all, but only on the wrongness of the concept that every research must have obvious applications).
I just have two questions to ask you. First, is there a way to distinguish the quality of research as in its benefit to humanity or particular subgroups? Second, if there is, then why not fund the better quality at the expense of the poor quality research?
First: There is a way to distinguish quality research from non-quality research, but that is not about "its benefits to humanity or particular subgroups". Quality research is research which is likely to lead to new insights (which may or may not turn out to be useful for something), while non-quality research doesn't deliver much insight.
Second, I'm all for funding better quality research. I'm not for making the funding dependent solely on the expected usefulness of the results. Not that I'm against funding research for things which have immediate use; that would be silly. But something not having immediate or obvious use should not be a reason to not fund it.
from here
"The data for the study came from the PsycINFO database, which provides more than 3 million references to the psychological literature from the 1800s to the present, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters or essays, and books."
Something's wrong, I think. 3 million references is a lot!
I wonder what the violent video games from the 1800s looked like.
Actually I can prove that video games are completely harmless. It's easy: There are far more Slashdot comments saying that video games are harmless than comments saying they are harmful. And I'm pretty sure that the number of Slashdot comments is larger than the number of studies on this subject, therefore Slashdot comments clearly take priority.
What? Peer reviewed? Yes, we have that on Slashdot, too. It's called moderation.
That may just mean that there are too few positions available.
Also, when Einstein published his theory of general relativity, nobody expected this to ever become relevant for anything beyond pure curiosity. Well, that's because nobody thought of GPS back than.
And when he was arguing against completeness of quantum mechanics, there's no way he could have imagined that his thoughts would one day lead to quantum cryptography.
When Kepler thought about the movement of celestial bodies, he would never have guessed that his insights would one day help with weather forecast.
When Heisenberg and Schrödinger formulated the equations of quantum mechanics, they didn't think of TV sets, computers, or the internet.
The inventors of the particle accelerator thought about studying particles, not about cancer therapy.
Because he hopes that future submitters read it, think about it and write better summaries.
You've paid $60 for a game where the only winning move is not to play?
But 86400 is neither pure 12, nor pure 60, but a mix of both. It's therefore more arbitrary that 1/10000 (or 1/12^3, or 1/24^3, or 1/60^3, or any other 1/n^k). There's always some arbitrariness, because the choice of base is somewhat arbitrary (and there's of course also a certain arbitrariness of the physical phenomenon you base your unit on). However there's more arbitrariness in the number of seconds in the day because it's not just one base, but a mixture of two bases.
It would be more rational to have days of 60 hours, or alternatively to have hours of 24 minutes of 24 seconds each.