You've just made a 'no true Scotsman' argument without actually citing anything to back it up. Perhaps you're in the education industry and you 'know of' the inner workings of multiple universities? But if so, you didn't say as much.
My point is not my happy ending, but that in some cases the professors, even in light of overwhelming evidence of cheating, refuse to admit that it's going on and may even encourage it by covering it up.
The reasoning behind this point would revealed in the 'not so happy ending' enjoyed by the professor. He opted to try and protect his career at the expense of your grade. Due only to the Dean's intervention, he made the wrong choice. Had the Dean not sided with you, he would have been wrong to expose the scandal, and may have been fired due to THAT embarrassment alone.
What is needed is a drastic change, one in which the people reassert their control over the government that purports to serve them. I doubt this will happen, but nevertheless it is the only viable solution.
Personally, I think any dishonesty that can be proven in court should disqualify one from public service permanently. It would take an amendment to the Constitution to do it, but I think it would be worthwhile. Those agents of our government serve voluntarily. They need not have much if any right to privacy, and should they desire more they could always go back to the private sector.
Anyway, obvious lies like the one told by Clinton, for example, should end your political career on the spot. I'd advocate the right to remain silent, but otherwise see public officials as under oath within each and every interaction with the public that they serve. Perjury should attach.
Spend more than five seconds looking and maybe you'll see more. That video only exists because dad recorded it. And because dad works for the local news station, changes are being made to accommodate his wishes.
Maybe he isn't bringing a suit, but he's doing a hell of a lot more than implicitly supporting anything. And due to his position, he's accomplished more than most would ever be able to.
It's sadder when a company which has done such crappy deeds and released such crappy products continues to exist in the first place.
No, in fact it is not, and that would be my point. So long as the crappy-ness stopped, there really ought not be any issue with them existing or not existing.
How long until they start making your TV non-functional if the camera doesm't detect you?
lol
Honestly I had that thought, and I'll even go so far as to doom us all by suggesting it here...
What if they ditched the remote control and replaced it with a Kinect-style gesture system? Then they would only be able to peer into your livingroom if and when you wanted to change the channel, adjust the volume, etc. They'd sell it as 'better' because you'll never be able to lose the remote. Further they can integrate identity by allowing you to restrict your childrens' gestures, and indirectly accusing you of letting them watch porn if you don't use that feature.
Deep inside my mind lurks an evil dictator. Sometimes I scare myself.
While Microsoft is chided for creating more insecurity than security, it is worth noting that no organization in the world has spent more on training its staff and developers on security than Microsoft.
Is it worth noting that? To me, that just reads as "Microsoft is a very big company".
It could well be the case that no organization in the world has spent more on cheese than the U.S. government. That wouldn't make me want to eat it.
While true, I am sure, both of the above comments reflect your own biases.
A) It is entirely possible that Microsoft could have spent less than every company on security training. They did not. Whether or not this is noteworthy is up to the reader, but unless Microsoft is in fact larger than every other 'very big company', then it stands to reason that they did something different. You're not arguing the effectiveness, the commonality, or any other point. You're just somehow equating 'big' with 'most security training' - likely out of distaste for that particular company. Which is fine, but please feel free to say so.
B) Cheese is awesome and delicious. That being said, your leaving more cheese for those of us sane and rational to eat it is appreciated greatly...
'A' is not necessarily any more or less valid there than it is here. There may not presently be any Canadians on Mars, but as soon as there are we enter into the exact same political scenarios.
'B' assumes that Earth is already lost. That's an enormous gamble to take as an individual, let alone as an entire civilization.
'C' is only relevant for the survivors. Those rest of us don't necessarily need to buy in to any scenarios that involve our deaths. Call it selfish, but if we're all dead, why do we care that 'our civilization' lives on?
It's possible to colonize Mars the same way you'd colonize Luna: airtight domes, hydroponics, etc. There's no return on investment, but it's certainly physically possible even if it's not economically possible.
Not to mention the enormous tracts of Earth that have yet to be colonized in this way.
... nor are there any economically exploitable resources.
Living space is an economically exploitable resource. Earth is running out of it.
Can you think of any more-readily available, but less hazardous locations to live that are a little closer to home? Because I can:
The ocean surface.
The ocean floor.
The Sahara.
Antartica.
Pretty much any place on Earth that we're not currently occupying is better than Mars, and there's quite a bit of those left. Barring those, there's still the Moon. Now, if you had said desirable living space, then you might have a point. There is, however, none of that on Mars, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.
No innovation. This is just MS taking existing technology and hyping it up beyond belief again, and the technology isn't even that impressive to begin with.
I own an EyeToy and I'm here to tell you you're vastly overestimating what it can do. Saying that it and the Kinect are the same thing is either intellectually dishonest or vastly uninformed. It is, at a minimum, an EyeToy that can do depth and body tracking. These alone are significant enough to put it in a new class of device.
It's laggy, imprecise and horrible for any real application, just like the EyeToy, the Wiimote, and Sony's wand-thing.
On the first point, control with your body actually will always be more difficult than control with your thumbs. So 'horrible for any real application' is a completely false standard. Imagine a lag free, completely precise Street Fighter clone. You'll be whining that you can't actually kick as fast and high as Chun Lee, and it would therefore be a 'horrible application'. Therefore all you really NEEDED to do was say 'I prefer buttons'. Because that's all there really seems to be in here once you strip away the crap.
As to the list, Kinect has depth, with the others don't have, and Wii/Move require handheld devices which require power and wireless setup.
But you're absolutely right, none of these have buttons as a primary mode of play, so in that manner they're 'all the same'...
Get back to me when you can actually run an Iron Man Triathalon in one of these. Until then, please refer to it as a powered exoskeleton, not an "Iron Man suit"!
I do so hate pendantry...
1) You're spelling it wrong. Ironman, all one word, unlike the comic hero, which uses a space.
2) The first triathlon was held in 1978. The comic coined this phrase fifteen years earlier, in 1963.
Chronologically speaking, and according to the spelling, the exoskeletal use of the term 'Iron Man' is correct.
Maybe punching through those boards the way he does in the video requires a 17-fold increase in strength, but you could just teach a guy proper board-breaking alignment and get the same result. Make him punch a hole in a telephone pole or a sidewalk or something.
Bruce Lee was never a fan of board breaking for exactly this reason. Yes, if you line them up perfectly you can do this without the suit. However, as you can plainly see in the video, these were not lined up in this way, and were in fact compressed together in a vice. Maybe your suggestion is correct - they would have done well to stay away from the showmanship employed by 'martial artists' to break boards. But it seems to me that it wasn't necessarily intended to draw those comparisons.
Yeah, I had this same thought as well. I hadn't heard of the game until today, and while the trailer tells you about the setting and the cutscenes, it tells you absolutely nothing about how to play the game. Do you sit there and press 'X' to advance from one cutscene to the next, like a movie? Maybe with options, like one of those DVD games? The game is from Rockstar, so do you spend the time in between cutscenes stealing 40's era cars and beating up classy Betty Grable-style hookers? I'm confused.
Oh, wait - it goes to Facebook. Who has already demonstrated that it doesn't really care about this issue... and successfully so, since most people are happily continuing to use Facebook in spite of it .
Basically it comes down to whether Zuckerberg decides if he cares about the bad PR. If he doesn't, too bad -- unless you and a couple hundred million others are going to stop using Facebook in protest.
I think the underlying assumption is that most/many people believe that Facebook would act in good faith if they genuinely saw a problem. If such a problem-action gap became undeniable, then I think yes, people would in fact leave.
Google's spotlight on the issue should help eliminate any deniability, plausible or otherwise.
I'm not sure what the Parent meant, exactly, but I'd assume that they simply lack the available bandwidth to do so in the magnitude necessary to glean what Facebook requires your friends to do in order for their site to have any use at all.
Humans that interact more have more sex. Since sex is interaction and relies on successful social queues that can only be learned through interaction, I'm not sure I'm all that impressed by the findings.
Likewise, if you wanted to cut your kid off from sex, alienating them from their culture would likely do it. Why do you think they invented Dungeons and Dragons??
If you look at the other date, the NOTAM was created a couple hours before the launch.
The timing is suspicious, but bizarre.
Even if it were created a couple hours before, why bother at all? There may not have been time enough to get everyone safely out of the area with that small of a window. Is there a minimum?
News media said there was no such thing filed. Haven't checked myself, but I think they thought of that possibility already. They specifically quoted the FAA as having no knowledge of it.
Slashdot Mirror
You've just made a 'no true Scotsman' argument without actually citing anything to back it up. Perhaps you're in the education industry and you 'know of' the inner workings of multiple universities? But if so, you didn't say as much.
My point is not my happy ending, but that in some cases the professors, even in light of overwhelming evidence of cheating, refuse to admit that it's going on and may even encourage it by covering it up.
The reasoning behind this point would revealed in the 'not so happy ending' enjoyed by the professor. He opted to try and protect his career at the expense of your grade. Due only to the Dean's intervention, he made the wrong choice. Had the Dean not sided with you, he would have been wrong to expose the scandal, and may have been fired due to THAT embarrassment alone.
What is needed is a drastic change, one in which the people reassert their control over the government that purports to serve them. I doubt this will happen, but nevertheless it is the only viable solution.
Personally, I think any dishonesty that can be proven in court should disqualify one from public service permanently. It would take an amendment to the Constitution to do it, but I think it would be worthwhile. Those agents of our government serve voluntarily. They need not have much if any right to privacy, and should they desire more they could always go back to the private sector.
Anyway, obvious lies like the one told by Clinton, for example, should end your political career on the spot. I'd advocate the right to remain silent, but otherwise see public officials as under oath within each and every interaction with the public that they serve. Perjury should attach.
Spend more than five seconds looking and maybe you'll see more. That video only exists because dad recorded it. And because dad works for the local news station, changes are being made to accommodate his wishes.
Maybe he isn't bringing a suit, but he's doing a hell of a lot more than implicitly supporting anything. And due to his position, he's accomplished more than most would ever be able to.
This argument splits hairs over the technical history of the hardware in order to prop up the original statement. I'm not compelled.
Parent stated, roughly, that 'EyeToy == Kinect' and therefore 'no innovation'.
It's sadder when a company which has done such crappy deeds and released such crappy products continues to exist in the first place.
No, in fact it is not, and that would be my point. So long as the crappy-ness stopped, there really ought not be any issue with them existing or not existing.
How long until they start making your TV non-functional if the camera doesm't detect you?
lol
Honestly I had that thought, and I'll even go so far as to doom us all by suggesting it here...
What if they ditched the remote control and replaced it with a Kinect-style gesture system? Then they would only be able to peer into your livingroom if and when you wanted to change the channel, adjust the volume, etc. They'd sell it as 'better' because you'll never be able to lose the remote. Further they can integrate identity by allowing you to restrict your childrens' gestures, and indirectly accusing you of letting them watch porn if you don't use that feature.
Deep inside my mind lurks an evil dictator. Sometimes I scare myself.
Surely, but even when they try harder, they get negativity for that, too.
It's a sad state of humanity where even if MS fixed everything and was the single greatest product ever, slashdot would still trash them for it.
Is it worth noting that? To me, that just reads as "Microsoft is a very big company".
It could well be the case that no organization in the world has spent more on cheese than the U.S. government. That wouldn't make me want to eat it.
While true, I am sure, both of the above comments reflect your own biases.
A) It is entirely possible that Microsoft could have spent less than every company on security training. They did not. Whether or not this is noteworthy is up to the reader, but unless Microsoft is in fact larger than every other 'very big company', then it stands to reason that they did something different. You're not arguing the effectiveness, the commonality, or any other point. You're just somehow equating 'big' with 'most security training' - likely out of distaste for that particular company. Which is fine, but please feel free to say so.
B) Cheese is awesome and delicious. That being said, your leaving more cheese for those of us sane and rational to eat it is appreciated greatly...
'A' is not necessarily any more or less valid there than it is here. There may not presently be any Canadians on Mars, but as soon as there are we enter into the exact same political scenarios.
'B' assumes that Earth is already lost. That's an enormous gamble to take as an individual, let alone as an entire civilization.
'C' is only relevant for the survivors. Those rest of us don't necessarily need to buy in to any scenarios that involve our deaths. Call it selfish, but if we're all dead, why do we care that 'our civilization' lives on?
It's possible to colonize Mars the same way you'd colonize Luna: airtight domes, hydroponics, etc. There's no return on investment, but it's certainly physically possible even if it's not economically possible.
Not to mention the enormous tracts of Earth that have yet to be colonized in this way.
... nor are there any economically exploitable resources.
Living space is an economically exploitable resource. Earth is running out of it.
Can you think of any more-readily available, but less hazardous locations to live that are a little closer to home? Because I can:
The ocean surface.
The ocean floor.
The Sahara.
Antartica.
Pretty much any place on Earth that we're not currently occupying is better than Mars, and there's quite a bit of those left. Barring those, there's still the Moon. Now, if you had said desirable living space, then you might have a point. There is, however, none of that on Mars, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.
How long it will be till TVs come with Kinects built in, and can't be turned off.
I dunno, how long until they outlaw electrical tape?
Oh, and I forgot the most important part: FEET!
Wii and PS3 lack those appendages, for the most part.
One word: EyeToy.
No innovation. This is just MS taking existing technology and hyping it up beyond belief again, and the technology isn't even that impressive to begin with.
I own an EyeToy and I'm here to tell you you're vastly overestimating what it can do. Saying that it and the Kinect are the same thing is either intellectually dishonest or vastly uninformed. It is, at a minimum, an EyeToy that can do depth and body tracking. These alone are significant enough to put it in a new class of device.
It's laggy, imprecise and horrible for any real application, just like the EyeToy, the Wiimote, and Sony's wand-thing.
On the first point, control with your body actually will always be more difficult than control with your thumbs. So 'horrible for any real application' is a completely false standard. Imagine a lag free, completely precise Street Fighter clone. You'll be whining that you can't actually kick as fast and high as Chun Lee, and it would therefore be a 'horrible application'. Therefore all you really NEEDED to do was say 'I prefer buttons'. Because that's all there really seems to be in here once you strip away the crap.
As to the list, Kinect has depth, with the others don't have, and Wii/Move require handheld devices which require power and wireless setup.
But you're absolutely right, none of these have buttons as a primary mode of play, so in that manner they're 'all the same'...
I bet a pair of brass knuckles would do the same thing.
-Taylor
I'd bet not. Youtube it and I'll paypal you a beer.
Get back to me when you can actually run an Iron Man Triathalon in one of these. Until then, please refer to it as a powered exoskeleton, not an "Iron Man suit"!
I do so hate pendantry...
1) You're spelling it wrong. Ironman, all one word, unlike the comic hero, which uses a space.
2) The first triathlon was held in 1978. The comic coined this phrase fifteen years earlier, in 1963.
Chronologically speaking, and according to the spelling, the exoskeletal use of the term 'Iron Man' is correct.
DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DOOOOOOOOO?????
Maybe punching through those boards the way he does in the video requires a 17-fold increase in strength, but you could just teach a guy proper board-breaking alignment and get the same result. Make him punch a hole in a telephone pole or a sidewalk or something.
Bruce Lee was never a fan of board breaking for exactly this reason. Yes, if you line them up perfectly you can do this without the suit. However, as you can plainly see in the video, these were not lined up in this way, and were in fact compressed together in a vice. Maybe your suggestion is correct - they would have done well to stay away from the showmanship employed by 'martial artists' to break boards. But it seems to me that it wasn't necessarily intended to draw those comparisons.
Yeah, I had this same thought as well. I hadn't heard of the game until today, and while the trailer tells you about the setting and the cutscenes, it tells you absolutely nothing about how to play the game. Do you sit there and press 'X' to advance from one cutscene to the next, like a movie? Maybe with options, like one of those DVD games? The game is from Rockstar, so do you spend the time in between cutscenes stealing 40's era cars and beating up classy Betty Grable-style hookers? I'm confused.
Oh, wait - it goes to Facebook. Who has already demonstrated that it doesn't really care about this issue... and successfully so, since most people are happily continuing to use Facebook in spite of it .
Basically it comes down to whether Zuckerberg decides if he cares about the bad PR. If he doesn't, too bad -- unless you and a couple hundred million others are going to stop using Facebook in protest.
I think the underlying assumption is that most/many people believe that Facebook would act in good faith if they genuinely saw a problem. If such a problem-action gap became undeniable, then I think yes, people would in fact leave.
Google's spotlight on the issue should help eliminate any deniability, plausible or otherwise.
I'm not sure what the Parent meant, exactly, but I'd assume that they simply lack the available bandwidth to do so in the magnitude necessary to glean what Facebook requires your friends to do in order for their site to have any use at all.
Humans that interact more have more sex. Since sex is interaction and relies on successful social queues that can only be learned through interaction, I'm not sure I'm all that impressed by the findings.
Likewise, if you wanted to cut your kid off from sex, alienating them from their culture would likely do it. Why do you think they invented Dungeons and Dragons??
If you look at the other date, the NOTAM was created a couple hours before the launch.
The timing is suspicious, but bizarre.
Even if it were created a couple hours before, why bother at all? There may not have been time enough to get everyone safely out of the area with that small of a window. Is there a minimum?
News media said there was no such thing filed. Haven't checked myself, but I think they thought of that possibility already. They specifically quoted the FAA as having no knowledge of it.
Not to mention the thing likely costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace...