True, "web pages" are 2D, but "hypertext" as a medium is multi-dimensional.
No more so than a book. I cannot get to the next page of a book by simply continuing to read the page I'm on. I must navigate to the next page by turning the page over. I can also skip forward to any page I want - a Choose Your Own Adventure book is a perfect example. Is a 150-page CYOA book a 150-dimensional text presentation? If so, what is a "dimension" because I don't know how we can interact with a 150D object in 3D space. I think it's clearly not, but if you think it is then I can see why you consider hypertext multi-dimensional. BTW video is presented on a plane, which is a 2D shape, not 1D. Also there's nothing about a MMORPG that must be 3D - it could be presented in pure text. All the popular ones we have now happen to be 3D though.
As I said, you're free to think of it that way, but then it is not a dimension of space, and has nothing to do with dimensions in the context of 3D virtual reality. It's just a coincidence that you're using the same word.
Hypertext is effectively omni-dimensional, limited only by the number of links the author chooses to put in the document
Hypertext (as any text) is non-dimensional. The presentation of hypertext is currently done in a 2D fashion. I assume this will continue since I don't see a reason to present text in three dimensions. But my point is that the number of dimensions doesn't depend on the content, it depends on the presentation. The fact that there are 18 links on a page doesn't make that page 18-dimensional; it's still 2D: up-down, and left-right. Navigating a hyperlink doesn't move in another axis, it simply displays a different 2D page. We will always have this 2D presentation for things it's suited for, such as text. We also have 3D presentation for things that's suited for such as WoW and Halo. Maybe there will be a mainstream application for 3D presentation for something other than CAD and gaming; we'll find out.
Because we can't understand or perceive more spatial dimensions than that. You can "think of it as" more dimensions if you want to, but then it's some other kind of dimension and a different subject.
It's always about profit, though. Would it be profitable for the credit card companies to enable a duress code? If they didn't think about it when building their systems to begin with, it could be very expensive to add it now. In any case, they have apparently decided that no, it would not be profitable. Especially since you and the others like you would probably not be willing to pay a monthly fee for the privilege of having a duress code. I know I wouldn't.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: duress code
Duress code for a home security system is one thing, but how many people would remember those codes for their credit cards, especially when they're, well, under duress? Two codes for the ATM/debit card (one regular and one duress), two for each of two or three credit cards... there will be a lot of people who don't realize they can change their PINs and so will go with whatever the banks issue. Technically a great idea, but I think it fails the human factor.
He has stated that he will not allow the movie to go forward without a great script. Weta is already working on designs for props. Either he's lying, or he's deeply involved with the movie.
You're making two assumptions. The first is that the only way to make a movie based on a video game is to directly take the game and plop it onto the screen. Clearly this makes a bad movie, but it is not the only option. The second assumption is that video game-based movies must be crappy. I don't think Doom was crappy, but 1) I'm a Doom fan so perhaps don't have a good perspective on it and 2) I don't think it was so good that it should be obvious to everyone that it's not crappy. HOWEVER, the fact that the best video game movie to date is not clearly good doesn't mean all of them in the future must suck. I believe Halo will be made, and with Peter Jackson on board I believe it will be an excellent movie. He has stated that he and Fran will not allow the movie to go forward without a great script, which is good enough for me.
Well, since you said please... numerous other people have said the same thing and been corrected in the same way, but it wouldn't be/. without a bunch of repetitive redundancy. This "something special" that you would have to employ is one or two very small holes in the cloak. If your adversary can see two dark 3-5mm holes at a distance, you're probably spying on the wrong people to begin with.
Actually there's one other option besides leaving the Earth. We can cover the near side of the Moon with lights to make it a Sun substitute and push ourselves out of the Sun's orbit before it blows up. I actually read an article about this somewhere. The author made some assumptions about our technological advances, but nothing unreasonable considering we're talking about billions of years in the future.
Perhaps, but it still sounds like a rather callous thing for the company to say, especially if it's in their power to improve their emissions controls.
It's easy to say that, but you really must look at the consequences. Say it's a power company, and they can improve emissions so that only 1 in 10 million will get cancer. But to pay for that, they have to increase their rates 15%. Sounds great, right? Well now you have a few more poor elderly people who can't afford to run their air conditioner during the hot summer and die in their homes. This happens every summer. So now you've saved somebody from death by cancer in your city, at the the expense of some other lives. I'm not saying this would definitely happen, but we cannot just say "1 in a million is too many! You must do better!" without understanding the implications of doing better.
There's a very similar situation in medicine. We must do everything possible to keep this patient alive on the slim chance that they might survive and even lesser chance they could lead a normal life afterwards. Even if those millions of dollars we're spending on that person could save 10 other lives somewhere else.
I would have second thoughts about hiring any lawyer that can't distinguish between two entirely different sets of laws.
Normally I'm in favor of attributing such things to ignorance rather than malice, but in this case I would tend to think that the lawyer knows perfectly well that what he is talking about is not theft, that most of the people who will read/hear him will not know that it is not theft, and that "stealing" has much greater emotional impact than "violating copyright".
Seems to me this is very similar to a car company discovering there's something wrong with a part in a car and issuing a recall. I'm no Apple fanboi, but why are we so much harder on them? I'm sure you can name a few times a car company's reputation has taken a hit from a recall incident, which is notable because of the millions of recalls that happen without any such problems. Everyone knows that when you make a bunch of something, some of them will go wrong, and what we expect is for the manufacturer to set it right. Is this fundamentally different? Do we expect them to be perfect because they're Apple, because they're making electronics, because we hate viruses so much? What is it?
Slashdot Mirror
As I said, you're free to think of it that way, but then it is not a dimension of space, and has nothing to do with dimensions in the context of 3D virtual reality. It's just a coincidence that you're using the same word.
It's always about profit, though. Would it be profitable for the credit card companies to enable a duress code? If they didn't think about it when building their systems to begin with, it could be very expensive to add it now. In any case, they have apparently decided that no, it would not be profitable. Especially since you and the others like you would probably not be willing to pay a monthly fee for the privilege of having a duress code. I know I wouldn't.
How are you going to enter the passcode while wearing heavy gloves?
I fear you may be correct.
He has stated that he will not allow the movie to go forward without a great script. Weta is already working on designs for props. Either he's lying, or he's deeply involved with the movie.
Argh, why not StarCraft?? So much material there to make a movie from!
You're making two assumptions. The first is that the only way to make a movie based on a video game is to directly take the game and plop it onto the screen. Clearly this makes a bad movie, but it is not the only option. The second assumption is that video game-based movies must be crappy. I don't think Doom was crappy, but 1) I'm a Doom fan so perhaps don't have a good perspective on it and 2) I don't think it was so good that it should be obvious to everyone that it's not crappy. HOWEVER, the fact that the best video game movie to date is not clearly good doesn't mean all of them in the future must suck. I believe Halo will be made, and with Peter Jackson on board I believe it will be an excellent movie. He has stated that he and Fran will not allow the movie to go forward without a great script, which is good enough for me.
Lazy /.er asks, "does Splenda contain aspartame?"
Ah, so I fulfilled both the useless repetition and inappropriate criticism requirements of /. all with one comment!
Actually there's one other option besides leaving the Earth. We can cover the near side of the Moon with lights to make it a Sun substitute and push ourselves out of the Sun's orbit before it blows up. I actually read an article about this somewhere. The author made some assumptions about our technological advances, but nothing unreasonable considering we're talking about billions of years in the future.
There's a very similar situation in medicine. We must do everything possible to keep this patient alive on the slim chance that they might survive and even lesser chance they could lead a normal life afterwards. Even if those millions of dollars we're spending on that person could save 10 other lives somewhere else.
I agree that you're the one with a strange definition of "value". Why does something have to be used to have value?
Seems to me this is very similar to a car company discovering there's something wrong with a part in a car and issuing a recall. I'm no Apple fanboi, but why are we so much harder on them? I'm sure you can name a few times a car company's reputation has taken a hit from a recall incident, which is notable because of the millions of recalls that happen without any such problems. Everyone knows that when you make a bunch of something, some of them will go wrong, and what we expect is for the manufacturer to set it right. Is this fundamentally different? Do we expect them to be perfect because they're Apple, because they're making electronics, because we hate viruses so much? What is it?