Not obtuse, I was just posting from a palm device and it's kinda hard to carefully peruse the post you're responding to as you post. My bad.:)
Anyway, I'd have to read the rules of the competition carefully to see if that would make any sense. If having two programs running means consuming more resources, then it may decrease the effectiveness of each program. Basically, by the time you figure out which one works "better" you may have already shot yourself in the foot through poor positioning by the "inferior" program, or hindering the "superior" program by having to share resources with the other.
because then their entry into the contest would have been the GA, not the most-fit GA product. in the actual competition environment, the GA would probably be very ill-suited. evolution takes a long time, and most changes don't yield a better solution. the overhead of running the GA and the other offspring just would have crippled nasa's entry.
i don't necessarily view it as craft vs sophistication. the sophisticated thing was the genetic algorithm, not the resulting program. that GA was competing in the contest with another GA -- the one that produced the Russian programmer. that second GA could be considered vastly more sophisticated than the first. it produced a general purpose intelligence that could defeat the first GA at what it was specifically designed to do. go nature!:D
no one, really. maybe i was just imagining all the "that's why gpl is evil" comments that follow neutral ones like the one I responded to and was pre-emptively mocking them. dunno, I really did need coffee.:)
"pull the sheet up" was never presented as a solution to the problem, so the fact that it isn't a solution is irrelevent. the first person I responded to said "inverse curvature", hence anti-gravity, is impossible. i'm saying GR says no such thing, and trying to explain how such a thing could be possible, NOT how you'd do it. it may -be- impossible, but not because "inverse curvature" makes no sense, or because GR says so.
no theory says how it -works-. WHY are oppositely charged particles attracted to each other? the electromagnetic force. what is that? why does it exist? like any 5 year old or watcher thereof knows, you can go on like this forever. that doesn't stop us from using these theories to make predictions.
P.s. now that you know what i'm saying, try searching google (or space.com) for "dark energy" to see how astronomers suspect that not only is anti-gravity possible, it may be dominate in the expansion of the universe.
Sorry, what I meant to say was "People's use of the rubber sheet analogy in the context of 'what is gravity' has always puzzled me."
Well, since Einstein says that gravity "is" the curvature of space-time, I don't think it is all that bad. See my other reply.
This is true. I was merely pointing out that saying "hey, why don't we just pull the sheet UP to get antigravity" is as inane a statement as standing up in a board of directors meeting and saying "I've got it! If we reduce costs and increase productivity, we'll make more money!" (apologies to Scott Adams)
Of course. It is useless from a practical standpoint. But which is more insane -- the clueless manager who stands up and says "we should cut costs and increase productivity", or the clueless manager who stands up and says that isn't possible and makes no sense?:)
Hmm... I was just thinking some more about the rubber sheet.
Assume an infinite, frictionless rubber sheet. If you only consider the 2-dimensional position of objects on the sheet, then I'd intuitively wager that the objects would behave exactly as Relativity predicts, only restricted to two dimension. The constants used in the equations would be different, and would be an expression of how flexible the rubber sheet was.
Now consider the residents of Flatland. They are living on the sheet. The sheet actually exists in 3 dimensions, but the Flatlandians are only aware of 2. They would experience that 3rd dimension and the curvature of the sheet as a tendency to be drawn towards large objects. They might call it "gravity". But gravity is actually working in the 3rd dimension, pulling the sheet and the objects on it down. The Flatlandian version of Einstein might theorize that this was the case, and draw up a theory of how space-time bends.
Now consider a 3-dimensional infinite and frictionless "sheet" in a 4-D universe. The Cubelandians living there are only aware of 3 dimensions, and experience the curvature of the sheet in the 4th dimension as a tendency to be drawn toward other objects in 3-D space, even though gravity is a 4th dimensional force pulling on the sheet. Like the Flatlandians, the Cubelandians are stuck on the sheet. However they are aware of and can measure the 4th dimension as "gravitational potential". Cubic Einstein develops a theory to express this...
I could keep going like this -- imagine a 4-D sheet and a 5-D universe and a Hypercubelandian Einstein, etc. I could also theorize that motion in the 4th dimension alone is possible, i.e. leaving the sheet. But I'm not a theoretical physicist, so I'll just be happy with being able to better understand what "curvy space-time" means or might mean. I still can't conceptualize the 4-D universe and 3-D sheet we live on directly, but the 2-D one does the job.
Awww... A large corporation can't use work developed by volunteers in their spare time for free in their own non-free product! It's so tragic, like a sick puppy!
A sick, demented puppy.
With a heart full of evil. That wants to eat your children and steal your source code. Or something.
You could exercise them and realize a taxable gain of $2million but still be under contract not to sell the stock for quite a while.
That would suck. If the contract does specify a lengthy delay (say, the amount of time SCO thinks they can continue to snow the market + 1 day) Sun would be smarter to just wait and see if this comes to anything. I wonder if Sun would have negotiated a shorter term realizing this possibility. I don't think SCO would mind, since they seem happy to deal with anyone who can lend them credibility, and their own over-inflated stock is the best thing to bribe people with right now.
Current profit: $9.3/share x 210,000 shares = $1,953,000.
Obviously it depends on the specific terms of the trade, such as when they are allowed to actually purchase the shares, any limitations on selling, etc. Still, a couple million in profit doesn't sound bad to me, and probably doesn't sound bad to Sun either.
If Sun was smart, they'd buy then sell as quickly as possible. Who knows how long SCO can keep the FUD train rolling?
The things tend to ionize the air and create a lot of ozone and there's no way that sort of approach could be healthy for people in the long run if it was actually implemented on a large scale.
The same could be said for burning fossil fuels, but we do that. Other criticisms duly noted and accepted. The point wasn't really that we should all be using Tesla Coils, but that "beaming power" isn't as ridiculous as was implied.
This sort of approach is at least feasible, but there are a lot of details that have yet to be worked out.
You say that, I hear "engineering work that needs to be done". Being an engineer, I don't consider that a problem.:)
The Martian atmosphere is much thinner and of a very different composition than the Earth's. How do we know that this sort of technology would be nearly as effective there as it is on Earth?
Good point.
If you're just going to beam energy to your craft anyway, why not just use that energy to power a more conventional drive? What is the real advantage of this approach?
Flight, VTOL capability, and no moving parts. That basically expresses the advantages over all other methods I'm familiar with. If that doesn't cover one, please mention it.
Oh, and I just thought of another advantage: It would look like a Flying Saucer to any Martians that happen to be there.:)
The rubber sheet analogy has always puzzled me. What force is causing objects to be "drawn into the hole"? Gravity? The analogy does nothing to explain why gravity works-- it just illustrates the mechanics in a way that's easier to understand.
That's perfectly true, but Relativity doesn't say -why- gravity works, just -how-. The rubber sheet simply analogizes the "how" into the world we know. 4D space-time is converted into a 2D sheet whose deformation makes sense to us. Can you really conceptualize curvy space-time? If so, you're a fucking genius and should go into physics right fucking now. Anyway, the deformation of space time by a mass is analogized to the deformation of the sheet by a mass (and gravity), and the tendency of objects to follow the curvature of space-time is analogized to the tendency of objects to follow the contours of the sheet. Since the tendency of objects to follow the contours of the sheet stems directly from the curvature of space-time caused by the large mass sitting below the sheet, the analogy actually works fairly well.
The point is that if you can accept that space-time can be bent by masses, there is nothing that conceptually prevents space-time from being bent the other direction by something else.
Saying "if we could pull the rubber sheet up" is just a different way of saying "if we could create antigravity".
Well, yes. The parent was saying that anti-gravity would be "inverse curvature", which makes no sense. However, "curvature in the opposite direction from normal" does, and while not something we know how to do, is not necessarily impossible. My understanding is that Relativity actually includes the possibility of such a thing, but Einstein (et al) didn't really think it could exist. Yet astrological observations of the expansion of the universe suggest that it may, and that's where "Dark Energy" theories come from.
Just because the technology isn't common today doesn't mean it isn't feasible. There are many unusual technologies involved in a mission to Mars that aren't attracting your derision.
Haven't you heard of microwave power satellites? The biggest problem with them is the environmental and safety issues. Or using lasers, as is proposed for the Orbital Elevator that has appeared on/. before.
Tesla demonstrated "beaming power" at the beginning of the last century. If things had turned out slightly differently for him, we might all be receiving our electricity wirelessly, and you wouldn't be making snide remarks about it.:)
That's very interesting. Not knowing about lifters, I couldn't have made the connection, and they never mentioned how the hovercrafts worked in the movie. Yet it does seem possible that they were intended to be stylized lifters. A lot of research went into that movie and the technology involved, as opposed to, say, the "rail guns" in Eraser.
If you view gravity as nothing more than the curvature of space-time (as opposed to a "force") caused by the presence of mass, then there's no way to obtain an "inverse curvature" at a given point in space.
Why not? It isn't an "inverse curvature", it's just a curvature in the direction opposite to what you would expect. To use the old rubber-sheet analogy: if a mass is a weight that pulls the sheet down causing objects to be drawn into the hole, then anti-gravity would be something that pulls the sheet up.
Remember, before Einstein gravity -was- a force. Newton's theory yielded very good predictions even to the point of (low speed) inter-planetary travel. General Relativity provides great predictions for a broader set of circumstances, but Einstein is not the last word.
Forget the getting to mars part (the article didn't say it'd be used to -get- to mars)... It would be used on Mars, with an orbital power station beaming it power. That would actually be useful, because the extremely heavy/difficult part (the power collection/generation) could stay in orbit.
Striding back and forth with an SMG all day might make tourists feel like they've got powerful protectors, but it just ensures the attackers will be careful to kill that guard in the first volley.
Oh, is that what that's supposed to make me feel? At AUS (Austin Intl. Airport) for about six months after 9/11 there was a soldier (NG, most likely) carrying an M-16 standing in front of the security checkpoint. A god-damned M-16. That didn't make me feel safe. It scared the piss out of me. First, there was the thought that a jittery Weekend Warrior who was out to Fight Terrorism would panic if I dropped my Leatherman as I went to put it in my checked baggage and fill me with lead. Second, there was the thought that all I'd have to do is walk in with an easily concealable Saturday Night Special (this was outside security, remember), shoot that soldier in the head, and then I'd have a nice M-16 to play with in a now under-guarded airport.
The fact that the soldier was a short non-scary woman probably didn't help. And yes, I know that's somewhat sexist, but sorry she didn't look threatening. I've known lots of women that could look threatening, but she wasn't one. If I saw me at my overwhelming 5'6" and 150 lbs standing there, I'd have been thinking the same thing: "If anything happens, this guy is going to be killed and his weapon stolen and used on me."
If fighting kittens and avoiding eating bad corpses (as opposed to delicious fresh corpses... Mmmm... Dwarves...) sounds like fun to you, and you have any responsibilities at all (job, school, children, pets) then do not go to nethack.org. Seriously. While not as time-consuming as, say, Diablo, it can demand your attention in a way that nothing else can ("Oh, but I'm just about to reach the Castle, and I need to rust-proof my Snickersnee!")
Or use the simulated violence to release agression?
Everyone has aggression, and releasing it in a non-harmful way is a very good thing. Not releasing aggression is how perfetly sane people end up snapping and doing something destructive, either to themselves or others. People who don't release their aggression end up in therapy, where the therapist will make them release it.
I often use video games to release aggression. My game is Street Fighter 2 Turbo. I play lots of other games, but for some reason I always feel better after busting out the SNES, loading up SF2T, picking M. Bison, and kicking Ryu's big, stupid head in.
Bison is my therapist, and he'll kick the shit out of yours.:)
What happens when life becomes too much and they SNAP and decide to do something about their situation - get revenge on all those motherfuckers in the coolest way you know, bust into school in trenchcoats with semi automatics and spray it with bullets - fantasy becomes reality.
Okay, and here you have both exposed and ignored the fundamental problem with the "games cause violence" argument. If they have already SNAPPED, who gives a flying fuck if they kill people while wearing trenchcoats and calling themselves "Morpheus" or buck fucking naked calling themselves "Napoleon"?
The problem is kids SNAPPING and deciding that killing is not only okay, but their only option. NOT what movie or video game or book they immitate while butchering people.
The fantasy that becomes reality is the fantasy of having control of their life, of making their enemies pay, or whatever is their actual motivation. If they also fantasize that they are Jet Li, who really cares?
Should we start -constantly- portraying killing and violence as negative, highlighting the consequences and making these actions TABOO in our society, rather than revering them on Screen and in Play?
You mean they're not? I was pretty sure there was a strong taboo against killing people. I know most people are pretty offended when it happens in real life.
Now, I'm all for showing more real consequences for actions in film. But I don't think the problem is that we aren't showing them -enough-. If a teenager is not aware that killing is bad and has bad consequences, then the least of your worries is what video games he plays.
I have always mourned the fact that a roll of duct tape is too large to fit into the pocket of my cargo pantss. I do keep a roll of electrical tape, but when what you need is duct tape, which is constantly, electrical tape is a poor substitute. I'm not the only one who has made this observation, but nobody had thought to put the duct tape onto a small foldable backing. This is a true innovation, that will benefit all of the engineers/Eagle Scouts/geeks like me out there.
This is absolutely news for nerds. I'd buy this stuff by the crate. Seriously.
No, of course they could have fixed it with a really good roll of duct tape. The real problem is that a NASA rookie had stocked Columbia with one of those shoddy Wal-Mart brands that are practically transparent. That crap can't fix anything!
You have to wonder if Tylenol would have been so willing to sink money into R&D for acetaminophen if they knew that Kroeger could exploit their work within a matter of months instead of years.
Of course. A shit-ton (like a ton, only... uh... shitty?) of money is still a shit-ton of money, even if it's a smaller shit-ton than some other hypothetical shit-ton.
And would they still have a dominant market position if they didn't have their period of exclusivity to establish themselves?
You can't bring a plant up to full production capacity for a new chemical in months, even if you not only had the chemical formula but the process for synthesizing it. Add in the time and expense it takes to reverse-engineer the original compound and then develop the process, and the equation doesn't look so unequal -- the knock-offs have non-zero R&D costs themselves, and the original does get years of exclusive access to the market, just by virtue of being first.
Slashdot Mirror
Not obtuse, I was just posting from a palm device and it's kinda hard to carefully peruse the post you're responding to as you post. My bad. :)
Anyway, I'd have to read the rules of the competition carefully to see if that would make any sense. If having two programs running means consuming more resources, then it may decrease the effectiveness of each program. Basically, by the time you figure out which one works "better" you may have already shot yourself in the foot through poor positioning by the "inferior" program, or hindering the "superior" program by having to share resources with the other.
because then their entry into the contest would have been the GA, not the most-fit GA product. in the actual competition environment, the GA would probably be very ill-suited. evolution takes a long time, and most changes don't yield a better solution. the overhead of running the GA and the other offspring just would have crippled nasa's entry.
i don't necessarily view it as craft vs sophistication. the sophisticated thing was the genetic algorithm, not the resulting program. that GA was competing in the contest with another GA -- the one that produced the Russian programmer. that second GA could be considered vastly more sophisticated than the first. it produced a general purpose intelligence that could defeat the first GA at what it was specifically designed to do. :D
go nature!
no one, really. maybe i was just imagining all the "that's why gpl is evil" comments that follow neutral ones like the one I responded to and was pre-emptively mocking them. dunno, I really did need coffee. :)
"pull the sheet up" was never presented as a solution to the problem, so the fact that it isn't a solution is irrelevent. the first person I responded to said "inverse curvature", hence anti-gravity, is impossible. i'm saying GR says no such thing, and trying to explain how such a thing could be possible, NOT how you'd do it. it may -be- impossible, but not because "inverse curvature" makes no sense, or because GR says so.
no theory says how it -works-. WHY are oppositely charged particles attracted to each other? the electromagnetic force. what is that? why does it exist? like any 5 year old or watcher thereof knows, you can go on like this forever. that doesn't stop us from using these theories to make predictions.
P.s. now that you know what i'm saying, try searching google (or space.com) for "dark energy" to see how astronomers suspect that not only is anti-gravity possible, it may be dominate in the expansion of the universe.
Because market cap != profits. Sun would own SCO shares, and could sell them to add $2mil to their bottom line. It's pretty simple.
Sorry, what I meant to say was "People's use of the rubber sheet analogy in the context of 'what is gravity' has always puzzled me."
:)
Well, since Einstein says that gravity "is" the curvature of space-time, I don't think it is all that bad. See my other reply.
This is true. I was merely pointing out that saying "hey, why don't we just pull the sheet UP to get antigravity" is as inane a statement as standing up in a board of directors meeting and saying "I've got it! If we reduce costs and increase productivity, we'll make more money!" (apologies to Scott Adams)
Of course. It is useless from a practical standpoint. But which is more insane -- the clueless manager who stands up and says "we should cut costs and increase productivity", or the clueless manager who stands up and says that isn't possible and makes no sense?
Hmm... I was just thinking some more about the rubber sheet.
Assume an infinite, frictionless rubber sheet. If you only consider the 2-dimensional position of objects on the sheet, then I'd intuitively wager that the objects would behave exactly as Relativity predicts, only restricted to two dimension. The constants used in the equations would be different, and would be an expression of how flexible the rubber sheet was.
Now consider the residents of Flatland. They are living on the sheet. The sheet actually exists in 3 dimensions, but the Flatlandians are only aware of 2. They would experience that 3rd dimension and the curvature of the sheet as a tendency to be drawn towards large objects. They might call it "gravity". But gravity is actually working in the 3rd dimension, pulling the sheet and the objects on it down. The Flatlandian version of Einstein might theorize that this was the case, and draw up a theory of how space-time bends.
Now consider a 3-dimensional infinite and frictionless "sheet" in a 4-D universe. The Cubelandians living there are only aware of 3 dimensions, and experience the curvature of the sheet in the 4th dimension as a tendency to be drawn toward other objects in 3-D space, even though gravity is a 4th dimensional force pulling on the sheet. Like the Flatlandians, the Cubelandians are stuck on the sheet. However they are aware of and can measure the 4th dimension as "gravitational potential". Cubic Einstein develops a theory to express this...
I could keep going like this -- imagine a 4-D sheet and a 5-D universe and a Hypercubelandian Einstein, etc. I could also theorize that motion in the 4th dimension alone is possible, i.e. leaving the sheet. But I'm not a theoretical physicist, so I'll just be happy with being able to better understand what "curvy space-time" means or might mean. I still can't conceptualize the 4-D universe and 3-D sheet we live on directly, but the 2-D one does the job.
as business have been tough lately, their net income was "only" 4 million. 2 million is a lot for you and me, but not for a company like Sun
That's funny... I would think a 50% increase on net income would be considered a lot by the corporate bean counters. And the stock holders.
Granted, you have to feed the ravenous tax-beast from that $2mil, but still.
What a surprise, what three companies have the most to gain from ruining Linux?
Umm... Is BSDI (aquired by Windriver) one of them?
Heh.
Awww... A large corporation can't use work developed by volunteers in their spare time for free in their own non-free product! It's so tragic, like a sick puppy!
A sick, demented puppy.
With a heart full of evil. That wants to eat your children and steal your source code. Or something.
I need coffee.
You could exercise them and realize a taxable gain of $2million but still be under contract not to sell the stock for quite a while.
That would suck. If the contract does specify a lengthy delay (say, the amount of time SCO thinks they can continue to snow the market + 1 day) Sun would be smarter to just wait and see if this comes to anything. I wonder if Sun would have negotiated a shorter term realizing this possibility. I don't think SCO would mind, since they seem happy to deal with anyone who can lend them credibility, and their own over-inflated stock is the best thing to bribe people with right now.
+1, Informative.
Um...
SCO price as of this moment: $11.16.
Warrant price: $1.86.
Current profit: $9.3/share x 210,000 shares = $1,953,000.
Obviously it depends on the specific terms of the trade, such as when they are allowed to actually purchase the shares, any limitations on selling, etc. Still, a couple million in profit doesn't sound bad to me, and probably doesn't sound bad to Sun either.
If Sun was smart, they'd buy then sell as quickly as possible. Who knows how long SCO can keep the FUD train rolling?
The things tend to ionize the air and create a lot of ozone and there's no way that sort of approach could be healthy for people in the long run if it was actually implemented on a large scale.
:)
:)
The same could be said for burning fossil fuels, but we do that. Other criticisms duly noted and accepted. The point wasn't really that we should all be using Tesla Coils, but that "beaming power" isn't as ridiculous as was implied.
This sort of approach is at least feasible, but there are a lot of details that have yet to be worked out.
You say that, I hear "engineering work that needs to be done". Being an engineer, I don't consider that a problem.
The Martian atmosphere is much thinner and of a very different composition than the Earth's. How do we know that this sort of technology would be nearly as effective there as it is on Earth?
Good point.
If you're just going to beam energy to your craft anyway, why not just use that energy to power a more conventional drive? What is the real advantage of this approach?
Flight, VTOL capability, and no moving parts. That basically expresses the advantages over all other methods I'm familiar with. If that doesn't cover one, please mention it.
Oh, and I just thought of another advantage: It would look like a Flying Saucer to any Martians that happen to be there.
The rubber sheet analogy has always puzzled me. What force is causing objects to be "drawn into the hole"? Gravity? The analogy does nothing to explain why gravity works-- it just illustrates the mechanics in a way that's easier to understand.
That's perfectly true, but Relativity doesn't say -why- gravity works, just -how-. The rubber sheet simply analogizes the "how" into the world we know. 4D space-time is converted into a 2D sheet whose deformation makes sense to us. Can you really conceptualize curvy space-time? If so, you're a fucking genius and should go into physics right fucking now. Anyway, the deformation of space time by a mass is analogized to the deformation of the sheet by a mass (and gravity), and the tendency of objects to follow the curvature of space-time is analogized to the tendency of objects to follow the contours of the sheet. Since the tendency of objects to follow the contours of the sheet stems directly from the curvature of space-time caused by the large mass sitting below the sheet, the analogy actually works fairly well.
The point is that if you can accept that space-time can be bent by masses, there is nothing that conceptually prevents space-time from being bent the other direction by something else.
Saying "if we could pull the rubber sheet up" is just a different way of saying "if we could create antigravity".
Well, yes. The parent was saying that anti-gravity would be "inverse curvature", which makes no sense. However, "curvature in the opposite direction from normal" does, and while not something we know how to do, is not necessarily impossible. My understanding is that Relativity actually includes the possibility of such a thing, but Einstein (et al) didn't really think it could exist. Yet astrological observations of the expansion of the universe suggest that it may, and that's where "Dark Energy" theories come from.
Just because the technology isn't common today doesn't mean it isn't feasible. There are many unusual technologies involved in a mission to Mars that aren't attracting your derision.
/. before.
:)
Haven't you heard of microwave power satellites? The biggest problem with them is the environmental and safety issues. Or using lasers, as is proposed for the Orbital Elevator that has appeared on
Tesla demonstrated "beaming power" at the beginning of the last century. If things had turned out slightly differently for him, we might all be receiving our electricity wirelessly, and you wouldn't be making snide remarks about it.
That's very interesting. Not knowing about lifters, I couldn't have made the connection, and they never mentioned how the hovercrafts worked in the movie. Yet it does seem possible that they were intended to be stylized lifters. A lot of research went into that movie and the technology involved, as opposed to, say, the "rail guns" in Eraser.
If you view gravity as nothing more than the curvature of space-time (as opposed to a "force") caused by the presence of mass, then there's no way to obtain an "inverse curvature" at a given point in space.
Why not? It isn't an "inverse curvature", it's just a curvature in the direction opposite to what you would expect. To use the old rubber-sheet analogy: if a mass is a weight that pulls the sheet down causing objects to be drawn into the hole, then anti-gravity would be something that pulls the sheet up.
Remember, before Einstein gravity -was- a force. Newton's theory yielded very good predictions even to the point of (low speed) inter-planetary travel. General Relativity provides great predictions for a broader set of circumstances, but Einstein is not the last word.
Forget the getting to mars part (the article didn't say it'd be used to -get- to mars)... It would be used on Mars, with an orbital power station beaming it power. That would actually be useful, because the extremely heavy/difficult part (the power collection/generation) could stay in orbit.
Striding back and forth with an SMG all day might make tourists feel like they've got powerful protectors, but it just ensures the attackers will be careful to kill that guard in the first volley.
Oh, is that what that's supposed to make me feel? At AUS (Austin Intl. Airport) for about six months after 9/11 there was a soldier (NG, most likely) carrying an M-16 standing in front of the security checkpoint. A god-damned M-16. That didn't make me feel safe. It scared the piss out of me. First, there was the thought that a jittery Weekend Warrior who was out to Fight Terrorism would panic if I dropped my Leatherman as I went to put it in my checked baggage and fill me with lead. Second, there was the thought that all I'd have to do is walk in with an easily concealable Saturday Night Special (this was outside security, remember), shoot that soldier in the head, and then I'd have a nice M-16 to play with in a now under-guarded airport.
The fact that the soldier was a short non-scary woman probably didn't help. And yes, I know that's somewhat sexist, but sorry she didn't look threatening. I've known lots of women that could look threatening, but she wasn't one. If I saw me at my overwhelming 5'6" and 150 lbs standing there, I'd have been thinking the same thing: "If anything happens, this guy is going to be killed and his weapon stolen and used on me."
If fighting kittens and avoiding eating bad corpses (as opposed to delicious fresh corpses... Mmmm... Dwarves...) sounds like fun to you, and you have any responsibilities at all (job, school, children, pets) then do not go to nethack.org. Seriously. While not as time-consuming as, say, Diablo, it can demand your attention in a way that nothing else can ("Oh, but I'm just about to reach the Castle, and I need to rust-proof my Snickersnee!")
Or use the simulated violence to release agression?
:)
Everyone has aggression, and releasing it in a non-harmful way is a very good thing. Not releasing aggression is how perfetly sane people end up snapping and doing something destructive, either to themselves or others. People who don't release their aggression end up in therapy, where the therapist will make them release it.
I often use video games to release aggression. My game is Street Fighter 2 Turbo. I play lots of other games, but for some reason I always feel better after busting out the SNES, loading up SF2T, picking M. Bison, and kicking Ryu's big, stupid head in.
Bison is my therapist, and he'll kick the shit out of yours.
What happens when life becomes too much and they SNAP and decide to do something about their situation - get revenge on all those motherfuckers in the coolest way you know, bust into school in trenchcoats with semi automatics and spray it with bullets - fantasy becomes reality.
Okay, and here you have both exposed and ignored the fundamental problem with the "games cause violence" argument. If they have already SNAPPED, who gives a flying fuck if they kill people while wearing trenchcoats and calling themselves "Morpheus" or buck fucking naked calling themselves "Napoleon"?
The problem is kids SNAPPING and deciding that killing is not only okay, but their only option. NOT what movie or video game or book they immitate while butchering people.
The fantasy that becomes reality is the fantasy of having control of their life, of making their enemies pay, or whatever is their actual motivation. If they also fantasize that they are Jet Li, who really cares?
Should we start -constantly- portraying killing and violence as negative, highlighting the consequences and making these actions TABOO in our society, rather than revering them on Screen and in Play?
You mean they're not? I was pretty sure there was a strong taboo against killing people. I know most people are pretty offended when it happens in real life.
Now, I'm all for showing more real consequences for actions in film. But I don't think the problem is that we aren't showing them -enough-. If a teenager is not aware that killing is bad and has bad consequences, then the least of your worries is what video games he plays.
I have always mourned the fact that a roll of duct tape is too large to fit into the pocket of my cargo pantss. I do keep a roll of electrical tape, but when what you need is duct tape, which is constantly, electrical tape is a poor substitute. I'm not the only one who has made this observation, but nobody had thought to put the duct tape onto a small foldable backing. This is a true innovation, that will benefit all of the engineers/Eagle Scouts/geeks like me out there.
This is absolutely news for nerds. I'd buy this stuff by the crate. Seriously.
No, of course they could have fixed it with a really good roll of duct tape. The real problem is that a NASA rookie had stocked Columbia with one of those shoddy Wal-Mart brands that are practically transparent. That crap can't fix anything!
You have to wonder if Tylenol would have been so willing to sink money into R&D for acetaminophen if they knew that Kroeger could exploit their work within a matter of months instead of years.
Of course. A shit-ton (like a ton, only... uh... shitty?) of money is still a shit-ton of money, even if it's a smaller shit-ton than some other hypothetical shit-ton.
And would they still have a dominant market position if they didn't have their period of exclusivity to establish themselves?
You can't bring a plant up to full production capacity for a new chemical in months, even if you not only had the chemical formula but the process for synthesizing it. Add in the time and expense it takes to reverse-engineer the original compound and then develop the process, and the equation doesn't look so unequal -- the knock-offs have non-zero R&D costs themselves, and the original does get years of exclusive access to the market, just by virtue of being first.