...demand that Pac-Man, especially Super Pac-Man, be banned from retro-arcades. Also on the hook are Burgertime and Jawbreaker. A world-champion eater has gone on record to say, "the day before a big competition, I engross myself in literally hours of Pac-Man. I find deep inspiration in his unabashed gobbling of dots and bonus items. If the dots were hot dogs, I would probably do even better as I wouldn't have to imagine so much!"
Stupid politicians and parents indicted Ms. Pac-Man's "beauty mark" as giving a false sense of beauty to girls and young women with facial imperfections and deformations. Fundamentalists charge that Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man had Baby Pac-Man, or Pac-Man Jr., outside of wedlock, as indicated by the fact that she never took the title "Mrs. Pac-Man." Even though the Saturday morning cartoon presents against this notion, certain children never saw it since television is one of the Great Evils, right next to comic books, the Internet, and free thinking.
One parent stood up to say, "It is just outrageous to think that people are screwed up BEFORE they get a hold of things like video games, movies, and comic books! Obviously these things are made from pure evil and must be destroyed!"
Another member of the mob noted that, while modern games such as "first person shooters" far exceed older games in terms of realism, he blames Pong for his child's inability to play a proper game of tennis. "Seemed real enough to him!" he shouted. "And don't get me started on Mortal Kombat. He tried to lance me twice in the throat yelling 'Get over here!' after playing THAT nightmare of a game!"
Members of the band "Motley Crue" were asked for comment, but did not reply in time for this rant.
In a related note, the NHTSA released data today which clearly shows the number of traffic violations and certain types of accidents skyrocketed after the release of a "Looney Toons" racing game on the Dreamcast, and saw another identical trend after the release of "Mario Kart."
Call it limited perspective, but my point remains. There are legal alternate distribution channels in most free countries which directly challenge the traditional TV schedule, and it is high time these morons pick up on that.
Ultimately, the only real WTF about this article is the belief that someone who really wants to kill you won't just drive to your house/school/church and use his eyes to make sure he's bombing/shooting/flying airplanes/melting/flooding the right place.
Obviously you do not have a clue, otherwise you would be a politician. Sheesh.
But seriously. I follow the same logic as you. But politician logic would follow your statement by "we should also put barriers around schools, churches, and government buildings, through which you may pass only after showing your RealID and subjecting yourself to DNA testing, Breathalizer, cavity search, and/or drug testing, and said barrier must be outside visual range."
Even without eyes, any terrorist organization worth its pillar of salt would already have access to intelligence on such buildings. The Internet just makes it more convenient. There really is no stopping a dedicated terrorist, Evil Villain(tm), or common stalker.
I wish I had not missed this article this morning. My question is simply, in the world of Tivo and Hulu, how much longer will TV schedules remain relevant?
I could probably answer that, for as long as there are masses of people still relying upon the old-days of racing home to watch a favorite show, rather than watching shows when and where the user wants.
Maybe what is happening to Boxee should give me an idea of the fight still left in these people.
Seconded. I started downloading movies so I did not have to listen to Manny talk about why downloading movies is bad. Aside from that, I am not thrilled at all to pay $9.25 to watch 10 minutes of commercials.
Actually, this was discussed on amiga.org in response to -- or concurrently with, I am not sure -- the amibe and a1k threads. H2O2 was discussed as a way to make this work, and several of us tried it and were pleasantly surprised with the results. I am not convinced this was a "whoops," but the result of many many years of listening and reading. Without having read the site yet, I have to imagine there is more to the story than straight H2O2. The gel idea is really nice, as it would eliminate a "bath."
Companies no longer give references in many cases. All they do is record years of service and pay. They have enormous legal exposure for doing otherwise.
That is not necessarily true. In some states, if you do not give a proper reference for someone who steals from you and that person steals from his or her new employer, that employer has grounds to sue you.
I did a bit of my own research on this several times over the past several years. This included state employment websites and a number of lawyers.
The bottom line is simple: ANYONE can sue you for ANYTHING, but your defense is the truth. So long as you stick to the facts, your ass is legally safe. Many companies, however, have adopted policies to reduce risk of lawsuits which limits information provided to work dates and if the employee qualifies for rehire. In some cases, the last bit is not allowed, but again, only by policy.
The problem is no one has spine enough to stand up to worthless fucks. Some places will not prosecute theft because of the trouble involved. Screw that. You steal from me, your ass is going up in front of a judge. If you have a legal record, then I do not have to give you a negative reference, anyway. Problem solved.
I have seen too many cases where an employee is fired for theft, but not prosecuted or even noted in employee files, and then qualifies for unemployment. We let too many bad people get away with too many bad things.
Six years to prepare, advertisements all over TV; if these old codgers are too "set in their ways," then I suppose a rude awakening is in order.
Of course, there is always the old Victrola (you know, the old Talking Machine,) or RCA set which could still bring hours of enjoyment.
I do agree, however, that it is sad that there are some out there who are disparate from reality and do not have anyone to take care of them. They will get lost in the TV transition, but the world will not end.
Actually, it would be more like a sign on the McDonald's door saying, "By entering this door, you agree to any terms posted within."
Or better yet, "By parking in our parking lot, you agree to be bound to any terms presented."
I have always wanted to put a sign on my front door which says, "By ringing my door bell, you agree to be squirted with a fully-loaded SuperSoaker, confronted by an angry naked man, or some combination thereof."
"I'd be very surprised if the US is not already doing this, and just not making a point to let anyone know."
Except that such actions would run afoul of the database provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.
Not that the government might not withhold information for the sake of "national security," but there is little reason for it to do so in this case. The Act does not require a public consensus on a database's introduction, only that its existence be publicly known and that a person can issue a correction to any data about him or her contained within. That being said, there is no apparent requirement that this process be easy or expedient, AFAIK.
Seconded. When you have mainstream applications like Peachtree, QuickBooks, Timberline, and even some of Microsoft's own products, requiring administrator access to a workstation, limiting rights is difficult.
(Mind you, I speak from a purely XP-standpoint. We have had so many problems with Vista at sites which have tried to implement it that we do not use it. And others do not have the hardware to run Vista.)
IIRC, I have also run into issues with AutoCAD, some network scanner drivers, and the like.
Mostly, the ways around these requirements are convoluted or require in-house admin staff to handle minor requests which need immediate attention.
The cloned animal, which was genetically identical to the original, had deformed lungs. This particular problem apparently presents in other cloning processes. Can we conclude that either the process is flawed or the DNA collected is damaged?
Not to say that we cannot get there eventually using recently acquired DNA. I notice other issues of concern. In particular that DNA degrades over time, even when frozen. That would mean that simply collecting and storing DNA is not enough. We would have to find some way to make a "backup" of the DNA, and then synthesize, perfectly, a new set or repair breaks in the old set in order to have a perfectly viable clone source.
And then the "nearly complete" genome of the woolly mammoth. What then happens when we attempt to resurrect the poor dead beast? We clone an incomplete animal, or perhaps merge it with a pachyderm because we believe it was related, even though the evidence which might form, or break, that relation is missing. While trying to interpolate the animals true design, we either create an entirely different animal or end up with something the resembles a transporter accident.
Point being, we do not know enough about how these intricate building blocks work. I see DNA as a kind-of programming language, and most of us know what happens when you try to inject code which was not part of the original: something breaks or crashes.
I also think about how many domestic animal breeds have been brutalized by selective breeding, to the point that some prized show animals have demeanor issues or can barely breathe because of facial distortions.
Mind you, that seems to focus on the failures. There are plenty of examples of successes. And considering the myriad examples of successful selective breeding, cloning just might one day step to the level of reviving animals recently and properly preserved, but species of which we hold an incomplete genome? While study of the genome will be interesting and possibly reveal some unimaginable secrets, I believe the cloning of such species will be a dead-end.
I have complained about this crap for years to my credit card companies, phone companies, mortgage company, and even my college. How can they claim to protect your account information when their verification questions are all publicly available information? (In the case of the colleges, students are often asked to sign in for roll or exams using a social security number, and that sheet is either passed around or otherwise completely viewable.)
At least some allow you to select a special pass phrase. Only one of my vendors will not allow me access to the account if I do not provide the pass phrase. Every one else has a way around that.
And just who will decide what is "relevant," and to what it is relevant.
My problem at this point is the apparent "need to know" basis by which the administration will run, and has run since the campaign. There has been a cycle of deflection and disinformation already which does not inspire a lot of Hope(tm) for Change(tm).
And will this be another hard and fast rule against which exceptions will be made for no other reason than being the "best option?"
But then, why not? We are already fostering a culture of entitlement to do whatever you want to do, anyway. "You have to work hard to succeed! Well, unless you don't want to work hard, then we'll legislate your success for you."
I rather enjoyed train simulator when I worked ISP support years ago. I do not know why, but it seemed to take the edge off of the work day.
I also fall into your later categories, but I believe that MS was working on Microsoft Sex Simulator before the economy fell out. Now with no one working, we might have a second Baby Boom since there is little else for people to do.
I was told that, for the time, SubLogic's flight sim was better than sliced bread. I believe Jet was theirs as well, and maybe a couple of others. (I think I still have some original SubLogic-branded sim software laying around in some boxes.)
Another flight sim product I remember was Gunship by Microprose. They manual says they spent time with the ship and pilots to develop what was the most realistic simulation of piloting the Apache AH-64A. I used to love that game on the C64.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I ask the Hypnotoad for guidance in my life.
...demand that Pac-Man, especially Super Pac-Man, be banned from retro-arcades. Also on the hook are Burgertime and Jawbreaker. A world-champion eater has gone on record to say, "the day before a big competition, I engross myself in literally hours of Pac-Man. I find deep inspiration in his unabashed gobbling of dots and bonus items. If the dots were hot dogs, I would probably do even better as I wouldn't have to imagine so much!"
Stupid politicians and parents indicted Ms. Pac-Man's "beauty mark" as giving a false sense of beauty to girls and young women with facial imperfections and deformations. Fundamentalists charge that Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man had Baby Pac-Man, or Pac-Man Jr., outside of wedlock, as indicated by the fact that she never took the title "Mrs. Pac-Man." Even though the Saturday morning cartoon presents against this notion, certain children never saw it since television is one of the Great Evils, right next to comic books, the Internet, and free thinking.
One parent stood up to say, "It is just outrageous to think that people are screwed up BEFORE they get a hold of things like video games, movies, and comic books! Obviously these things are made from pure evil and must be destroyed!"
Another member of the mob noted that, while modern games such as "first person shooters" far exceed older games in terms of realism, he blames Pong for his child's inability to play a proper game of tennis. "Seemed real enough to him!" he shouted. "And don't get me started on Mortal Kombat. He tried to lance me twice in the throat yelling 'Get over here!' after playing THAT nightmare of a game!"
Members of the band "Motley Crue" were asked for comment, but did not reply in time for this rant.
In a related note, the NHTSA released data today which clearly shows the number of traffic violations and certain types of accidents skyrocketed after the release of a "Looney Toons" racing game on the Dreamcast, and saw another identical trend after the release of "Mario Kart."
(okay, I am done.)
Call it limited perspective, but my point remains. There are legal alternate distribution channels in most free countries which directly challenge the traditional TV schedule, and it is high time these morons pick up on that.
Ultimately, the only real WTF about this article is the belief that someone who really wants to kill you won't just drive to your house/school/church and use his eyes to make sure he's bombing/shooting/flying airplanes/melting/flooding the right place.
Obviously you do not have a clue, otherwise you would be a politician. Sheesh.
But seriously. I follow the same logic as you. But politician logic would follow your statement by "we should also put barriers around schools, churches, and government buildings, through which you may pass only after showing your RealID and subjecting yourself to DNA testing, Breathalizer, cavity search, and/or drug testing, and said barrier must be outside visual range."
Even without eyes, any terrorist organization worth its pillar of salt would already have access to intelligence on such buildings. The Internet just makes it more convenient. There really is no stopping a dedicated terrorist, Evil Villain(tm), or common stalker.
I wish I had not missed this article this morning. My question is simply, in the world of Tivo and Hulu, how much longer will TV schedules remain relevant?
I could probably answer that, for as long as there are masses of people still relying upon the old-days of racing home to watch a favorite show, rather than watching shows when and where the user wants.
Maybe what is happening to Boxee should give me an idea of the fight still left in these people.
Seconded. I started downloading movies so I did not have to listen to Manny talk about why downloading movies is bad. Aside from that, I am not thrilled at all to pay $9.25 to watch 10 minutes of commercials.
Actually, this was discussed on amiga.org in response to -- or concurrently with, I am not sure -- the amibe and a1k threads. H2O2 was discussed as a way to make this work, and several of us tried it and were pleasantly surprised with the results. I am not convinced this was a "whoops," but the result of many many years of listening and reading. Without having read the site yet, I have to imagine there is more to the story than straight H2O2. The gel idea is really nice, as it would eliminate a "bath."
Companies no longer give references in many cases. All they do is record years of service and pay. They have enormous legal exposure for doing otherwise.
That is not necessarily true. In some states, if you do not give a proper reference for someone who steals from you and that person steals from his or her new employer, that employer has grounds to sue you.
I did a bit of my own research on this several times over the past several years. This included state employment websites and a number of lawyers.
The bottom line is simple: ANYONE can sue you for ANYTHING, but your defense is the truth. So long as you stick to the facts, your ass is legally safe. Many companies, however, have adopted policies to reduce risk of lawsuits which limits information provided to work dates and if the employee qualifies for rehire. In some cases, the last bit is not allowed, but again, only by policy.
The problem is no one has spine enough to stand up to worthless fucks. Some places will not prosecute theft because of the trouble involved. Screw that. You steal from me, your ass is going up in front of a judge. If you have a legal record, then I do not have to give you a negative reference, anyway. Problem solved.
I have seen too many cases where an employee is fired for theft, but not prosecuted or even noted in employee files, and then qualifies for unemployment. We let too many bad people get away with too many bad things.
Ugh.
I am immortalized! That's awesome!
Six years to prepare, advertisements all over TV; if these old codgers are too "set in their ways," then I suppose a rude awakening is in order.
Of course, there is always the old Victrola (you know, the old Talking Machine,) or RCA set which could still bring hours of enjoyment.
I do agree, however, that it is sad that there are some out there who are disparate from reality and do not have anyone to take care of them. They will get lost in the TV transition, but the world will not end.
Actually, it would be more like a sign on the McDonald's door saying, "By entering this door, you agree to any terms posted within."
Or better yet, "By parking in our parking lot, you agree to be bound to any terms presented."
I have always wanted to put a sign on my front door which says, "By ringing my door bell, you agree to be squirted with a fully-loaded SuperSoaker, confronted by an angry naked man, or some combination thereof."
"I'd be very surprised if the US is not already doing this, and just not making a point to let anyone know."
Except that such actions would run afoul of the database provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.
Not that the government might not withhold information for the sake of "national security," but there is little reason for it to do so in this case. The Act does not require a public consensus on a database's introduction, only that its existence be publicly known and that a person can issue a correction to any data about him or her contained within. That being said, there is no apparent requirement that this process be easy or expedient, AFAIK.
But technically correct. :)
Seconded. When you have mainstream applications like Peachtree, QuickBooks, Timberline, and even some of Microsoft's own products, requiring administrator access to a workstation, limiting rights is difficult.
(Mind you, I speak from a purely XP-standpoint. We have had so many problems with Vista at sites which have tried to implement it that we do not use it. And others do not have the hardware to run Vista.)
IIRC, I have also run into issues with AutoCAD, some network scanner drivers, and the like.
Mostly, the ways around these requirements are convoluted or require in-house admin staff to handle minor requests which need immediate attention.
With an monogrammed bowling ball in the hatch.
That is pitiful. Why remove it?
(insert another dickhead buzz-kill reference...)
Just some mindless rambling...
The cloned animal, which was genetically identical to the original, had deformed lungs. This particular problem apparently presents in other cloning processes. Can we conclude that either the process is flawed or the DNA collected is damaged?
Not to say that we cannot get there eventually using recently acquired DNA. I notice other issues of concern. In particular that DNA degrades over time, even when frozen. That would mean that simply collecting and storing DNA is not enough. We would have to find some way to make a "backup" of the DNA, and then synthesize, perfectly, a new set or repair breaks in the old set in order to have a perfectly viable clone source.
And then the "nearly complete" genome of the woolly mammoth. What then happens when we attempt to resurrect the poor dead beast? We clone an incomplete animal, or perhaps merge it with a pachyderm because we believe it was related, even though the evidence which might form, or break, that relation is missing. While trying to interpolate the animals true design, we either create an entirely different animal or end up with something the resembles a transporter accident.
Point being, we do not know enough about how these intricate building blocks work. I see DNA as a kind-of programming language, and most of us know what happens when you try to inject code which was not part of the original: something breaks or crashes.
I also think about how many domestic animal breeds have been brutalized by selective breeding, to the point that some prized show animals have demeanor issues or can barely breathe because of facial distortions.
Mind you, that seems to focus on the failures. There are plenty of examples of successes. And considering the myriad examples of successful selective breeding, cloning just might one day step to the level of reviving animals recently and properly preserved, but species of which we hold an incomplete genome? While study of the genome will be interesting and possibly reveal some unimaginable secrets, I believe the cloning of such species will be a dead-end.
I have complained about this crap for years to my credit card companies, phone companies, mortgage company, and even my college. How can they claim to protect your account information when their verification questions are all publicly available information? (In the case of the colleges, students are often asked to sign in for roll or exams using a social security number, and that sheet is either passed around or otherwise completely viewable.)
At least some allow you to select a special pass phrase. Only one of my vendors will not allow me access to the account if I do not provide the pass phrase. Every one else has a way around that.
Security. Pfah.
Normally I would produce a long-winded dissertation on this kind of thing. But all I can come up with right now is "Are you fucking kidding me?"
And just who will decide what is "relevant," and to what it is relevant.
My problem at this point is the apparent "need to know" basis by which the administration will run, and has run since the campaign. There has been a cycle of deflection and disinformation already which does not inspire a lot of Hope(tm) for Change(tm).
And will this be another hard and fast rule against which exceptions will be made for no other reason than being the "best option?"
But then, why not? We are already fostering a culture of entitlement to do whatever you want to do, anyway. "You have to work hard to succeed! Well, unless you don't want to work hard, then we'll legislate your success for you."
I consider myself a conspiracy theory generator. It makes for a lot of fun with my tin-foil hat friends and colleagues.
I rather enjoyed train simulator when I worked ISP support years ago. I do not know why, but it seemed to take the edge off of the work day.
I also fall into your later categories, but I believe that MS was working on Microsoft Sex Simulator before the economy fell out. Now with no one working, we might have a second Baby Boom since there is little else for people to do.
I was told that, for the time, SubLogic's flight sim was better than sliced bread. I believe Jet was theirs as well, and maybe a couple of others. (I think I still have some original SubLogic-branded sim software laying around in some boxes.)
Another flight sim product I remember was Gunship by Microprose. They manual says they spent time with the ship and pilots to develop what was the most realistic simulation of piloting the Apache AH-64A. I used to love that game on the C64.
Of course... because everything Google is beta :P