Ha ha now it's high time this happened to all those Apple people. The X86 platform has had to put up with a string of idiotic processor names, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, P3, P4, etc.
I can see it now : GPUL, GPUL Pro, GPUL2, GPUL3, etc. and you can't pronounce any of them!
Next up : Microsoft releases their own version of Logo, called Logo#, and they are paying elementary schools thousands of dollars to use it in their computer classes.
Well we could built an anti-computer out of anti-silicon, run anti-windows98 on it, then laugh when the whole thing explodes and blame it on microsoft:)
...but why is it that every Linux Desktop Environment invariably looks like Windows 98?
Because if you show people an OS with a more efficient interface AND it doesn't crash, they will just freak out. That's why Macs have such a low market share, as soon as people see one, they go running out the door screaming for help.
I'm sure someone can do something good with THAT...
Actually it isn't. The CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) has managed the enviable (for the RIAA) task of charging you for nothing. The copyright law in Canada was only recently ammended to allow copying "for personal use". Previously, this was appearently illegal. In ammending the act, the government placed a levy on all blank media to compensate the recording industry or "unauthorized copies", which includes EVERYTHING, not just actual music piracy.
Now, the CPCC is trying to extend this welfare project to flash memory (for MP3 players), DVD-R (HA!), and small removable and non-removable hard drives - by the megabyte (seriously!). It doesn't take a genius to see that they are pushing for a levy on all digital storage.
In a related issue, a different copyright welfare lobby is pushing for a levy on all internet access. Seriously. These crooks make the RIAA and MPAA look stupid by comparison. While the XXIA's are buying laws that nobody can enforce, the CPCC has been raking in the dough. Myself, I'd prefer the bullshit law (since I can ignore it).
Yeah, true to Hollywood form we'll see Cameron Diaz as the sweet girl who is lusted after by some wretched film school loser, Clint Eastwood as some retired guy who gives up Viagra to save the world from a foriegn terrorist and/or asteroid, and the whole thing is set in motion by an evil corporate executive, which dispite striking similarities to Hollywood's own executives, is never actually a movie executive.
In short, the movie we'll see could just have well been based off of Oliver Twist, Dr. Seuss, or the Bible, it wouldn't really have affected the end product now, would it ?
I'd like to point out one thing which definitely has changed in video games over the years, the amount of handholding players get while playing the game. At the beginning of The Legend of Zelda, if you didn't walk into that cave and get the wood sword, you were DEAD MEAT. And never mind that you had to find most of the dungeons yourself. Contrast this to modern games, where everything you need to survive and succeed is handed to you, or some unavoidable NPC tells you exactly what to do.
For me, playing a game like Zelda was exciting precisely because it was merciless. Finishing a game like that (and finding everything, of course) left you with a sense of accomplishment. It's a huge contrast to the modern RPGs which anyone can beat without ever even running from an enemy. Games today offer little challenge to their patrons. When they do, it's always buried in a side-quest, or some other optional crap. There's never a moment when the player has to think for themself, the game tells you what to do so no moron out there gets "frustrated". It's totally pathetic.
No, the poster is thinking about a "hotspot", which I personally think is as bad a name as "WiFi".
Let's face it, if it can't be reduced to a two syllable sound byte, people aren't going to remember it. If the syllables happen to rhyme, it's a huge bonus. Maybe this will give us all hope that DRM won't catch on, unless they change the name to you-screw or something:)
Three times as much as what? Unethical hackers? I didn't know there were a lot of positions for offensive hackers.
The RIAA and MPAA will have plenty of openings for unscrupulous people if the Berman bill gets passed:) Oddly enough, these "unethical hackers" might feel right at home.
Re-read the first 10 words of my post. I certainly wouldn't be so naive as to think this hasn't been done before, or as you point out, all along. As for the Clinton thing, I admit to not giving him as much attention as I do Bush. Mostly I was younger at the time and less of a scientist. Also, I'm not an American, and during the decade of Amy Fisher, OJ Simpson, and Monica Lewinsky, I pretty much gave up on American media. I'd have been equally dismayed to have read about Clinton stacking "science review boards" with a bunch of Greenpeace lemmings.
I like your line about the only good opinion being a conservative opinion. In a way, it demonstrates the philosophy in a nutshell. My own inferior take on this would be, "the only good opinion is a liberal opinion and the explanation never ends. Blah blah blah":)
Forget the separation of church and state, how about the separation of corporation and state ?
When you think about it, it's really the same thing, with the minor addition of money to the equation.
Re:In the short run, this will make for bad policy
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 1
My point was that with Bush's track record to date, it won't matter if he stacks the review boards or not. People have their own ideas about things, and when either a "scientifically sound" Bush policy fails, or some unacceptable policy is suggested, whatever authority these review boards are presumed to have is going out the window.
Ultimately, democracy requires a lot of faith in the individual. That a single person can decide for him/herself what is good and bad. The average person may not understand science, but they can understand that when a "scientific review board" advocates more greenhouse gasses to improve the economy, and their house ends up underwater, that something went wrong. The only question here is how much damage can be done in the time it takes for people to recognize it.
Re:Do you trust your politicians ?
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I agree with your point that everything is essentially politicized, however the main concern here is that the people appointed to these boards will replace scientific objectivity with their own personal views. That is not the purpose of a scientific board. If the Bush administration wants to create "policy review boards", and stack them full of these people, so be it. They did that with the Energy Review Board (=Oil, Gas and Coal industry), and everyone knew it was a sham. The problem here is that by using scientific panels for this purpose, they will decrease the amount of real information available to people. The net effect is the same as if they had simply eliminated scientific review boards altogether.
The Bush administration has used this same tactic over and over again. They create an information vacuum, and then implement whatever policy they want, under the pretext that "nobody knows any better". If they're going to do that, I'd prefer they just eliminate the scientific review boards altogether and save money. Then they can tell the public that "we just do whatever the hell we want, and we won't pay for some egghead to tell us any different". For one, it'd be the truth, but I'm just a little worried that Bush would be more popular for saying something like that.
In the short run, this will make for bad policies
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But in the long run, it will make no difference at all. Think about it, will the public really trust these stacked "review" boards anyway. Appearently, the general public is mostly ignorant of their existence to begin with. People are beginning to see that everything is just "spin". Anyone with enough money/power/influence can produce any study to show anything, this is hardly new, and I doubt anyone is really fooled. They can destroy the legitimacy of their own processes as much as they want, but ultimately the government "of the people, by the people, for the people" will answer to the people, if they piss everyone off.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha now it's high time this happened to all those Apple people. The X86 platform has had to put up with a string of idiotic processor names, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, P3, P4, etc.
I can see it now : GPUL, GPUL Pro, GPUL2, GPUL3, etc. and you can't pronounce any of them!
This game will end up just like "The Tick", with thousands of superheroes, all with useless abilities. Me, I'm SlugMan, oh no ! Salt ! AARRGGHH....
I have received my papers and they are simply dragonian!
Thou require'th a knight to slay these beasts of oppression.
Next up : Microsoft releases their own version of Logo, called Logo#, and they are paying elementary schools thousands of dollars to use it in their computer classes.
Where possible, you should re-shoot some of your homemade porn with a digital camera...
If they move on to anti-trolls, I don't think 50,000 is going to cut it anymore. At least not for this site.
Actually if you're looking for anti-microsoft it's right here at slashdot
Well we could built an anti-computer out of anti-silicon, run anti-windows98 on it, then laugh when the whole thing explodes and blame it on microsoft :)
insert Lame Star Trek Joke Here
As far as i'm concerned, that would would be dope!
Except for the nerdy guy they locked in the bathroom !!!
Shut up, you goddamn vanilla eating, butterscoth hating terrorist!
Someone modded this a TROLL?! Geesh, some of these moderators and their vanilla, man...
Now that I've given it more thought, with the 10 million dollars I would have left over, I could get two chicks at once !
Heck, if I had a billion dollars I'd launch 66 !
Oh my god, someone else actually reads Groo ?!?! He reminds me of Bush...
...but why is it that every Linux Desktop Environment invariably looks like Windows 98?
Because if you show people an OS with a more efficient interface AND it doesn't crash, they will just freak out. That's why Macs have such a low market share, as soon as people see one, they go running out the door screaming for help.
I'm sure someone can do something good with THAT...
Actually it isn't. The CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) has managed the enviable (for the RIAA) task of charging you for nothing. The copyright law in Canada was only recently ammended to allow copying "for personal use". Previously, this was appearently illegal. In ammending the act, the government placed a levy on all blank media to compensate the recording industry or "unauthorized copies", which includes EVERYTHING, not just actual music piracy.
Now, the CPCC is trying to extend this welfare project to flash memory (for MP3 players), DVD-R (HA!), and small removable and non-removable hard drives - by the megabyte (seriously!). It doesn't take a genius to see that they are pushing for a levy on all digital storage.
In a related issue, a different copyright welfare lobby is pushing for a levy on all internet access. Seriously. These crooks make the RIAA and MPAA look stupid by comparison. While the XXIA's are buying laws that nobody can enforce, the CPCC has been raking in the dough. Myself, I'd prefer the bullshit law (since I can ignore it).
Yeah, true to Hollywood form we'll see Cameron Diaz as the sweet girl who is lusted after by some wretched film school loser, Clint Eastwood as some retired guy who gives up Viagra to save the world from a foriegn terrorist and/or asteroid, and the whole thing is set in motion by an evil corporate executive, which dispite striking similarities to Hollywood's own executives, is never actually a movie executive.
In short, the movie we'll see could just have well been based off of Oliver Twist, Dr. Seuss, or the Bible, it wouldn't really have affected the end product now, would it ?
I'd like to point out one thing which definitely has changed in video games over the years, the amount of handholding players get while playing the game. At the beginning of The Legend of Zelda, if you didn't walk into that cave and get the wood sword, you were DEAD MEAT. And never mind that you had to find most of the dungeons yourself. Contrast this to modern games, where everything you need to survive and succeed is handed to you, or some unavoidable NPC tells you exactly what to do.
For me, playing a game like Zelda was exciting precisely because it was merciless. Finishing a game like that (and finding everything, of course) left you with a sense of accomplishment. It's a huge contrast to the modern RPGs which anyone can beat without ever even running from an enemy. Games today offer little challenge to their patrons. When they do, it's always buried in a side-quest, or some other optional crap. There's never a moment when the player has to think for themself, the game tells you what to do so no moron out there gets "frustrated". It's totally pathetic.
No, the poster is thinking about a "hotspot", which I personally think is as bad a name as "WiFi".
:)
Let's face it, if it can't be reduced to a two syllable sound byte, people aren't going to remember it. If the syllables happen to rhyme, it's a huge bonus. Maybe this will give us all hope that DRM won't catch on, unless they change the name to you-screw or something
Three times as much as what? Unethical hackers? I didn't know there were a lot of positions for offensive hackers.
:) Oddly enough, these "unethical hackers" might feel right at home.
The RIAA and MPAA will have plenty of openings for unscrupulous people if the Berman bill gets passed
Re-read the first 10 words of my post. I certainly wouldn't be so naive as to think this hasn't been done before, or as you point out, all along. As for the Clinton thing, I admit to not giving him as much attention as I do Bush. Mostly I was younger at the time and less of a scientist. Also, I'm not an American, and during the decade of Amy Fisher, OJ Simpson, and Monica Lewinsky, I pretty much gave up on American media. I'd have been equally dismayed to have read about Clinton stacking "science review boards" with a bunch of Greenpeace lemmings.
:)
I like your line about the only good opinion being a conservative opinion. In a way, it demonstrates the philosophy in a nutshell. My own inferior take on this would be, "the only good opinion is a liberal opinion and the explanation never ends. Blah blah blah"
Forget the separation of church and state, how about the separation of corporation and state ?
When you think about it, it's really the same thing, with the minor addition of money to the equation.
My point was that with Bush's track record to date, it won't matter if he stacks the review boards or not. People have their own ideas about things, and when either a "scientifically sound" Bush policy fails, or some unacceptable policy is suggested, whatever authority these review boards are presumed to have is going out the window.
Ultimately, democracy requires a lot of faith in the individual. That a single person can decide for him/herself what is good and bad. The average person may not understand science, but they can understand that when a "scientific review board" advocates more greenhouse gasses to improve the economy, and their house ends up underwater, that something went wrong. The only question here is how much damage can be done in the time it takes for people to recognize it.
I agree with your point that everything is essentially politicized, however the main concern here is that the people appointed to these boards will replace scientific objectivity with their own personal views. That is not the purpose of a scientific board. If the Bush administration wants to create "policy review boards", and stack them full of these people, so be it. They did that with the Energy Review Board (=Oil, Gas and Coal industry), and everyone knew it was a sham. The problem here is that by using scientific panels for this purpose, they will decrease the amount of real information available to people. The net effect is the same as if they had simply eliminated scientific review boards altogether.
The Bush administration has used this same tactic over and over again. They create an information vacuum, and then implement whatever policy they want, under the pretext that "nobody knows any better". If they're going to do that, I'd prefer they just eliminate the scientific review boards altogether and save money. Then they can tell the public that "we just do whatever the hell we want, and we won't pay for some egghead to tell us any different". For one, it'd be the truth, but I'm just a little worried that Bush would be more popular for saying something like that.
But in the long run, it will make no difference at all. Think about it, will the public really trust these stacked "review" boards anyway. Appearently, the general public is mostly ignorant of their existence to begin with. People are beginning to see that everything is just "spin". Anyone with enough money/power/influence can produce any study to show anything, this is hardly new, and I doubt anyone is really fooled. They can destroy the legitimacy of their own processes as much as they want, but ultimately the government "of the people, by the people, for the people" will answer to the people, if they piss everyone off.