I'm not saying that the US can't use a revolution of its own (preferably bloodless), but a revolution in China would have ripples across the rest of the world, some good, some bad.
Prices of manufactured goods would shoot up because many of the plants in China would likely slow down or halt entirely, but it also means that the debt would start flowing the other way, which is good since China owns most of the U.S. debt. (I have no idea how much, if any, debt they own over other nations, but I imagine it's decent.)
I hope everyone in the U.S. makes sure to wave to China as they fly by us in nearly every aspect in the near future. They may lack human rights, but technological freedom will only enhance that in the future.
With everything going on, we better hope they have a revolution sooner than latter.
The problem isn't having someone in a high position who knows little about much under their control; do you honestly expect the CEO of each and every company to know how to patch cables and manage a website?
The problem is when you get someone like that and they *think* they know everything, or think they don't need to know anything. So long as someone in a high-up position recognizes the fact that s/he does not know everything, and makes sure to surround him/herself with individuals who do (or at least have contacts who can answer questions), then that won't be a problem so long as s/he has good critical thinking skills and is willing to not only listen but discuss with those advise him/her. You could argue that CTO is a bit more specialized, and thus should have leeway; my response is that even within IT there's such a vast array of knowledge and positions that someone at that level can't be expected to know half of that. Having more tech experience is better than less, but if Obama's CTO can make good decisions and listen to good people, I'm not concerned.
I certainly don't expect my Iowa senators to know about life in "the hood"; what I do expect is that they seek out and listen to those who do when votes arise that effect those kinds of areas. Same for areas of technology. I don't fret about politicians and technology votes because the politicians don't have tech experience, I fret because politicians are generally self-centered idiots.
I have no knowledge about taxi systems outside of what's related through movies and television (and from that I take it that taxis should be used as tanks).
But why aren't there booths set up for people who need a taxi, like bus stops? Only the people in the taxi booths don't wait for an exact schedule with a specific route. People could still do "free grabs", but this would give people a place to go where they'd be easier to notice and taxi drivers a place to look on every pass.
It's not that user generated content can't be good, it's that the majority isn't. Before the birth of sites like YouTube there have been lots of sites that relied on user generated content, but the users didn't have direct access to the audience. Instead, they'd upload/mail/send their content to someone at a website, and that someone would choose whether or not to put it up.
Youtube et al. said "to hell with that" and gave immediate and direct connections between uploaders and users. So the internet now has a deluge of worthless crap that anyone who had watched MySpace's evolution could see coming from a mile away. Now the internet is saturated, and those that provided its saturation can't sustain themselves. Facebook is constantly running in the red (so I've heard), Twitter has no business model what-so-ever, and now we have YouTube sucking money from Google.
This is the "Web 2.0" bubble, where everything is flashy and spinny and user-generated. When that implodes, Web 2.5 will go back to sites being selective about what they post, but now there will be more input from users (along the lines of/.'s Firehose). And we'll probably be better for it.
A lack of innovation does not mean something is dull. If it's entertaining, I'll happily play 40 hours (or at least as much of that as I care to) even if I'd used the same mechanics time and again.
And you're right about Valve's recent games, but I'm also not paying $50/game for such short playtimes (with single player content).
I like to start off at moderate or so in order to spend more time exploring the game and the story and less worrying about dying because my health was in just the right spot. If I enjoyed my run I'll go to difficult to get more of a challenge, but I'm still just playing the same game over.
Sometimes I'll play on easy if there are a lot of game mechanics I'm unfamiliar with.
However, I don't think difficulty can make up for a short game. Even if I'm having a ton of enemies thrown at me and am dying left and right, it still wouldn't add more than another hour or two over a normal game.
Innovation and the damndest graphics mean squat when I'm only getting 7-10 hours out of a game, with maybe an extra five if I try to be a "completionist". I'd much rather have well-designed but standard mechanics with decent graphics and have a 20-40 hour game.
So much focus is given to presentation now with less and less to content. If this keeps up, I'm just going to stick with older consoles because I'll get tired of playing movies. (Incidentally, movie length keeps getting longer and longer.)
Likely, both companies believe that if they allow cross-platform gaming, it means that less people will buy their respective console just to play the game with friends. If so, they're missing the point that it means more people will buy the game for the console they already own, which is a huge thing for publishers.
It would gain software units on both systems, likely at a ratio comparable to console sales. Hardware units might also see a small jump; consider a person who wants to play Rock Band with a friend in another state, but has neither a PS3 nor 360. The friend has a PS3, but the person doesn't want any other game on the PS3, but does want a handful of games on the 360. With no cross-console gaming, it's highly likely that the person won't buy squat. But with cross-console gaming, the person is much more motivated to buy the 360 in order to play with his friend as well as play other games on the system.
Which was a fair trial and worked exactly the way the civil law system should. A quick scan of the Wiki article seems to have most of the facts in place; I'll try to sum it up:
McDonald's keeps (yes, it still does) it's coffee at a much higher temperature than most other restaurants do. (From Wiki: During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180â"190 ÂF (82â"88 ÂC). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.)
Liebeck initially requested only $20K to cover medical fees($11K)+some emotional distress and lost income; McDonald's offered her $800 and refused to budge
It was two years between the injury and the start of the trial, so Liebeck didn't just rush to the courthouse shouting MONEY MONEY MONEY
The initial amount sought in the suit looks to be around $300K, but it was the jury, not Liebeck, who came at the $2.7MM figure (though the number was through a suggestion of Liebeck's attorney)...
...and the judge nicked that down to just $640,000...
...and before an appeal process finished, Liebeck and McDonald's settled out of court (presumably for less than that final number)
This wasn't some ambulance chaser or a woman suing her neighbor for playing basketball on the street, it was a proper chain of advancement for a lawsuit and restitution. Liebeck certainly shared some of the blame for placing the coffee in her own lap and driving like that (Wiki states the jury felt the same), but McDonald's wasn't an innocent party here. Furthermore, McDonald's had the power as well as many chances to pay less money, keep it out of court, and not do any of the changes that came as a result. Their corporate stupidity and greed caused the initial incident, and they stuck with that mantra all the way to the final verdict.
Now, I believe that there is a large amount that is wrong with the American civil law system, and it does need an overhaul, but the McDonald's coffee case is not a proper example of abuses.
(Disclaimer: I still enjoy a McDouble on occasion.)
I agree, but the lack of the third wheel can probably help in adapting it for an automated-rental style system, as well as extra parking room (a big deal in places like NYC). They have such rental systems in other countries, where you rent a bike/mini car from an automated machine, and I imagine such a thing would be useful in large American cities.
It would certainly save money, but then so would just adapting a golf cart.
I rarely touch caffeine, as well, but it's not really for the same reason. I've found that drinking caffeine-laden drinks actually has the reverse effect on me than most people, in that I become groggy if not sleepy after drinking it. (I think it also affects my digestive system in a nasty way.)
Now, I don't drink coffee (can't stand the stuff), so my main caffeine intake has always been through soda, so there's a chance it could be the sugar rush that drains me. I do get an initial pep, but it lasts a half-hour at best; subsequent drinks make it worse.
When I was in high school, I had a bad Mountain Dew habit. I routinely had 24 oz. six-packs of Dew in my car, and my daily routine was to wake up, quickly shower, grab my stuff and two granola bars, then on the drive to school eat those and chug one of the bottles. I would then consume another after school, though not necessarily as quickly. Two years of this (even a time when I switched to Diet Mt. Dew) is, I believe, a large cause of issues I deal with today.
I still love many sodas and will drink something caffeinated if it's the only option I like amongst others (I also sometimes experiment using it as a sleep aid). I constantly have Sprite Zero on hand, for instance.
Well, at least we don't need to worry about this/.er. He had some kind soul close enough to help him, and was even thoughtful enough to hit submit before calling the ambulance.
Until the early 90s (I'm sketchy on the time), there was a federal law that banned the direct advertisement of prescription medication. So you'd see commercials for things like Allivert or whatever that would be extremely vague and mention the general areas it might cover. [*]
These days, the commercials are out in the open about what it treats and the side-effects it has. Despite the fact that this isn't some sort of impulse purchase, and that ordinary citizens can't even get any without taking many steps, it's advertised on an everyday level. This affects the small group of hypochondriacs or easily misled/worried who think they have need for whatever was advertised, or if someone does have what the Rx covers then they are more likely to demand that exact Rx, even if there's a better or cheaper alternative for them to use.
American doctors, being American doctors, are often willing to just write the prescription that the patient can't afford rather than get into a conflict and hold other custom...patients up. If you've been in an American doctor office, you'll see all sorts of junk from med companies, ranging from fake plants to wall clocks plastered with logos. Free samples abound. These are not only to entice the docs to prescribe, but also to give citizens one last reminder that X CAN CURE YOU.
Prescription drugs are prescription because of the idea that they have enough bad side effects and are limited enough in treatment that a person should not be able to get them without a doctor's direct recommendation. Why, then, are they marketed to the populace at large? This only adds to the costs of Rx and causes paranoia and worry amongst Americans. In my opinion, advertising of Rx medication should be illegal except in extremely narrow cases (perhaps like allergy meds in an outdoor's magazine or something) if that.
This is a case where the state/feds need to step in because a drug company never will; even if there is still a somewhat-ethical drug company out there (ha!), they won't stop advertising because that means parents will start to demand SSRI A--that has bad side effects and won't do shit for most people--more than their own SSRI--which has bad side effects and won't do shit for most people. And then kids get all doped up because parents these days are lazy fucks...
uh... Sorry, I think I went on a tangent somewhere up there. Anyway, tl;dr, there is nothing positive about advertising Rx drugs, it decreases health-care quality in America, and should be made illegal.
[*] I don't remember the exact law, so I may be confused about details or this all may be my imagination.
Then, due to all that, you end up with people who are uninsured or otherwise unable to afford health care ending up with emergency conditions, receiving expensive treatment, and being forced into bankruptcy. This also drives up cost (as the hospitals are forced to absorb the cost of treatment) and harms society (a financially ruined citizen accomplishes less and pays less tax).
In America, by a federal (I believe) law, every hospital must treat an emergency patient regardless of ability to pay; part of that law states that if the patient can't pay, then Uncle Sam will pick up the bill.
We're already a socialist country (to a point), except we try to hide it and the benefits of a socialist system are only experienced by the few (the extremely rich or the extremely poor). I often wonder how many tax dollars and lives could be saved/improved if we had a system where everyone could get free, regular check-ups, so problems could be identified earlier and avoided.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm neither socialist nor capitalist--I just think our current system is broken.)
Since they had a screen over the second part, if this was by deduction then the chicks were keeping track of something in their head. It could have been just "more", but without being able to see both groups at once this would still require some sort of math to compare the groups from memory.
This was my thought (except I doubt they used the actual chocolate containers). The smell of plastic is probably overwhelming in a lab, though, so more likely than not their own smell(s) were all over the containers due to spending so much time around them, and they just followed whichever smell was stronger.
The way to test for this would be to secretly replace the containers with 'placebo' ones that have no smell, and then see if the pattern repeats. That would control for the possibility of them sniffing their way over.
It's still an interesting conclusion (seeking out their own smell), but not one with the same implications if true.
Grad students often move on or will eventually die. Sure, they're replaced, but each replacement has to start fresh. With something like Adam, it can continually go back to previous results and not miss a single detail. Future upgrades could give it better analysis methods so it can do better hypotheses, but still retain all previous data.
Honestly, I'm not aware of the full scope, but for something like this $1MM seems like a bargain.
Bingo. Services like Hulu have to serve two masters, and there's a constant juggle to make sure the content providers are happy in their diluted little world, while ensuring that the "honest" users can still access content with no problem. Considering alternative offerings, Hulu is still aces, far above anything else on the internet, even things like Youtube.
Likely, someone at NBC/Fox went "YEEEAARRRRGGG PIRATES" and some intern at Hulu said "Well, we can do X, bu-" "DO IT NOW." And so it will go.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying that the US can't use a revolution of its own (preferably bloodless), but a revolution in China would have ripples across the rest of the world, some good, some bad.
Prices of manufactured goods would shoot up because many of the plants in China would likely slow down or halt entirely, but it also means that the debt would start flowing the other way, which is good since China owns most of the U.S. debt. (I have no idea how much, if any, debt they own over other nations, but I imagine it's decent.)
I hope everyone in the U.S. makes sure to wave to China as they fly by us in nearly every aspect in the near future. They may lack human rights, but technological freedom will only enhance that in the future.
With everything going on, we better hope they have a revolution sooner than latter.
The problem isn't having someone in a high position who knows little about much under their control; do you honestly expect the CEO of each and every company to know how to patch cables and manage a website?
The problem is when you get someone like that and they *think* they know everything, or think they don't need to know anything. So long as someone in a high-up position recognizes the fact that s/he does not know everything, and makes sure to surround him/herself with individuals who do (or at least have contacts who can answer questions), then that won't be a problem so long as s/he has good critical thinking skills and is willing to not only listen but discuss with those advise him/her. You could argue that CTO is a bit more specialized, and thus should have leeway; my response is that even within IT there's such a vast array of knowledge and positions that someone at that level can't be expected to know half of that. Having more tech experience is better than less, but if Obama's CTO can make good decisions and listen to good people, I'm not concerned.
I certainly don't expect my Iowa senators to know about life in "the hood"; what I do expect is that they seek out and listen to those who do when votes arise that effect those kinds of areas. Same for areas of technology. I don't fret about politicians and technology votes because the politicians don't have tech experience, I fret because politicians are generally self-centered idiots.
A miserable little pile of secrets.
This is New York City we're talking about. They can just legislate that away.
I have no knowledge about taxi systems outside of what's related through movies and television (and from that I take it that taxis should be used as tanks).
But why aren't there booths set up for people who need a taxi, like bus stops? Only the people in the taxi booths don't wait for an exact schedule with a specific route. People could still do "free grabs", but this would give people a place to go where they'd be easier to notice and taxi drivers a place to look on every pass.
It's not that user generated content can't be good, it's that the majority isn't. Before the birth of sites like YouTube there have been lots of sites that relied on user generated content, but the users didn't have direct access to the audience. Instead, they'd upload/mail/send their content to someone at a website, and that someone would choose whether or not to put it up.
Youtube et al. said "to hell with that" and gave immediate and direct connections between uploaders and users. So the internet now has a deluge of worthless crap that anyone who had watched MySpace's evolution could see coming from a mile away. Now the internet is saturated, and those that provided its saturation can't sustain themselves. Facebook is constantly running in the red (so I've heard), Twitter has no business model what-so-ever, and now we have YouTube sucking money from Google.
This is the "Web 2.0" bubble, where everything is flashy and spinny and user-generated. When that implodes, Web 2.5 will go back to sites being selective about what they post, but now there will be more input from users (along the lines of /.'s Firehose). And we'll probably be better for it.
A lack of innovation does not mean something is dull. If it's entertaining, I'll happily play 40 hours (or at least as much of that as I care to) even if I'd used the same mechanics time and again.
And you're right about Valve's recent games, but I'm also not paying $50/game for such short playtimes (with single player content).
I like to start off at moderate or so in order to spend more time exploring the game and the story and less worrying about dying because my health was in just the right spot. If I enjoyed my run I'll go to difficult to get more of a challenge, but I'm still just playing the same game over.
Sometimes I'll play on easy if there are a lot of game mechanics I'm unfamiliar with.
However, I don't think difficulty can make up for a short game. Even if I'm having a ton of enemies thrown at me and am dying left and right, it still wouldn't add more than another hour or two over a normal game.
Innovation and the damndest graphics mean squat when I'm only getting 7-10 hours out of a game, with maybe an extra five if I try to be a "completionist". I'd much rather have well-designed but standard mechanics with decent graphics and have a 20-40 hour game.
So much focus is given to presentation now with less and less to content. If this keeps up, I'm just going to stick with older consoles because I'll get tired of playing movies. (Incidentally, movie length keeps getting longer and longer.)
Likely, both companies believe that if they allow cross-platform gaming, it means that less people will buy their respective console just to play the game with friends. If so, they're missing the point that it means more people will buy the game for the console they already own, which is a huge thing for publishers.
It would gain software units on both systems, likely at a ratio comparable to console sales. Hardware units might also see a small jump; consider a person who wants to play Rock Band with a friend in another state, but has neither a PS3 nor 360. The friend has a PS3, but the person doesn't want any other game on the PS3, but does want a handful of games on the 360. With no cross-console gaming, it's highly likely that the person won't buy squat. But with cross-console gaming, the person is much more motivated to buy the 360 in order to play with his friend as well as play other games on the system.
Which was a fair trial and worked exactly the way the civil law system should. A quick scan of the Wiki article seems to have most of the facts in place; I'll try to sum it up:
This wasn't some ambulance chaser or a woman suing her neighbor for playing basketball on the street, it was a proper chain of advancement for a lawsuit and restitution. Liebeck certainly shared some of the blame for placing the coffee in her own lap and driving like that (Wiki states the jury felt the same), but McDonald's wasn't an innocent party here. Furthermore, McDonald's had the power as well as many chances to pay less money, keep it out of court, and not do any of the changes that came as a result. Their corporate stupidity and greed caused the initial incident, and they stuck with that mantra all the way to the final verdict.
Now, I believe that there is a large amount that is wrong with the American civil law system, and it does need an overhaul, but the McDonald's coffee case is not a proper example of abuses.
(Disclaimer: I still enjoy a McDouble on occasion.)
"Men go to prison. Dogs get put down."
I agree, but the lack of the third wheel can probably help in adapting it for an automated-rental style system, as well as extra parking room (a big deal in places like NYC). They have such rental systems in other countries, where you rent a bike/mini car from an automated machine, and I imagine such a thing would be useful in large American cities.
It would certainly save money, but then so would just adapting a golf cart.
I rarely touch caffeine, as well, but it's not really for the same reason. I've found that drinking caffeine-laden drinks actually has the reverse effect on me than most people, in that I become groggy if not sleepy after drinking it. (I think it also affects my digestive system in a nasty way.)
Now, I don't drink coffee (can't stand the stuff), so my main caffeine intake has always been through soda, so there's a chance it could be the sugar rush that drains me. I do get an initial pep, but it lasts a half-hour at best; subsequent drinks make it worse.
When I was in high school, I had a bad Mountain Dew habit. I routinely had 24 oz. six-packs of Dew in my car, and my daily routine was to wake up, quickly shower, grab my stuff and two granola bars, then on the drive to school eat those and chug one of the bottles. I would then consume another after school, though not necessarily as quickly. Two years of this (even a time when I switched to Diet Mt. Dew) is, I believe, a large cause of issues I deal with today.
I still love many sodas and will drink something caffeinated if it's the only option I like amongst others (I also sometimes experiment using it as a sleep aid). I constantly have Sprite Zero on hand, for instance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ARM chips also used within the Nintendo DS(i) and the GameBoy (Advance)?
Well, at least we don't need to worry about this /.er. He had some kind soul close enough to help him, and was even thoughtful enough to hit submit before calling the ambulance.
Get better soon, man of men!
I blame advertising, at least for part of it.
Until the early 90s (I'm sketchy on the time), there was a federal law that banned the direct advertisement of prescription medication. So you'd see commercials for things like Allivert or whatever that would be extremely vague and mention the general areas it might cover. [*]
These days, the commercials are out in the open about what it treats and the side-effects it has. Despite the fact that this isn't some sort of impulse purchase, and that ordinary citizens can't even get any without taking many steps, it's advertised on an everyday level. This affects the small group of hypochondriacs or easily misled/worried who think they have need for whatever was advertised, or if someone does have what the Rx covers then they are more likely to demand that exact Rx, even if there's a better or cheaper alternative for them to use.
American doctors, being American doctors, are often willing to just write the prescription that the patient can't afford rather than get into a conflict and hold other custom...patients up. If you've been in an American doctor office, you'll see all sorts of junk from med companies, ranging from fake plants to wall clocks plastered with logos. Free samples abound. These are not only to entice the docs to prescribe, but also to give citizens one last reminder that X CAN CURE YOU.
Prescription drugs are prescription because of the idea that they have enough bad side effects and are limited enough in treatment that a person should not be able to get them without a doctor's direct recommendation. Why, then, are they marketed to the populace at large? This only adds to the costs of Rx and causes paranoia and worry amongst Americans. In my opinion, advertising of Rx medication should be illegal except in extremely narrow cases (perhaps like allergy meds in an outdoor's magazine or something) if that.
This is a case where the state/feds need to step in because a drug company never will; even if there is still a somewhat-ethical drug company out there (ha!), they won't stop advertising because that means parents will start to demand SSRI A--that has bad side effects and won't do shit for most people--more than their own SSRI--which has bad side effects and won't do shit for most people. And then kids get all doped up because parents these days are lazy fucks...
uh... Sorry, I think I went on a tangent somewhere up there. Anyway, tl;dr, there is nothing positive about advertising Rx drugs, it decreases health-care quality in America, and should be made illegal.
[*] I don't remember the exact law, so I may be confused about details or this all may be my imagination.
In America, by a federal (I believe) law, every hospital must treat an emergency patient regardless of ability to pay; part of that law states that if the patient can't pay, then Uncle Sam will pick up the bill.
We're already a socialist country (to a point), except we try to hide it and the benefits of a socialist system are only experienced by the few (the extremely rich or the extremely poor). I often wonder how many tax dollars and lives could be saved/improved if we had a system where everyone could get free, regular check-ups, so problems could be identified earlier and avoided.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm neither socialist nor capitalist--I just think our current system is broken.)
Since they had a screen over the second part, if this was by deduction then the chicks were keeping track of something in their head. It could have been just "more", but without being able to see both groups at once this would still require some sort of math to compare the groups from memory.
This was my thought (except I doubt they used the actual chocolate containers). The smell of plastic is probably overwhelming in a lab, though, so more likely than not their own smell(s) were all over the containers due to spending so much time around them, and they just followed whichever smell was stronger.
The way to test for this would be to secretly replace the containers with 'placebo' ones that have no smell, and then see if the pattern repeats. That would control for the possibility of them sniffing their way over.
It's still an interesting conclusion (seeking out their own smell), but not one with the same implications if true.
Grad students often move on or will eventually die. Sure, they're replaced, but each replacement has to start fresh. With something like Adam, it can continually go back to previous results and not miss a single detail. Future upgrades could give it better analysis methods so it can do better hypotheses, but still retain all previous data.
Honestly, I'm not aware of the full scope, but for something like this $1MM seems like a bargain.
Bingo. Services like Hulu have to serve two masters, and there's a constant juggle to make sure the content providers are happy in their diluted little world, while ensuring that the "honest" users can still access content with no problem. Considering alternative offerings, Hulu is still aces, far above anything else on the internet, even things like Youtube.
Likely, someone at NBC/Fox went "YEEEAARRRRGGG PIRATES" and some intern at Hulu said "Well, we can do X, bu-" "DO IT NOW." And so it will go.
Aww, common. If you're going to do something, do it all the way!
You could have always just sto... er, borrowed icons from Valve itself, or just random clipart. I'm sure no one would sue. :)
Congratulations, you've created the /. April Fool's Day joke for next year: all new mod options!
-1 Missed April Fool's Joke
-1 Didn't Pay Taxes
+1 Smells Nice
+1 Types Well
-1 Virgin