Sony is pulling it to avoid offending anyone who would not like phrases from the Qur'an used in association with such a game.
In my mind Sony is actually going above and beyond to do the correct thing here. (Never thought that I would find myself typing those words.) I still believe they have a long way to go to make up for all of the DRM crap that they have pulled in the past though.
That site is real, isn't it? For the first few minutes of reading I convinced myself that it was just a funny hoax site, but the deeper I went into it the more scared I became...
Would it be irony if I prayed to God to free us from religion? I still don't have that whole irony thing down yet.
'All your years' are not very significant, youngster.
All of the first cordless mice used IR technology to transmit data back to a host adapter attached to the PC. It wasn't until the early 90's that RF started to supplant IR as the preferred communications technology.
Issues like needing line of sight, and a hot cup of coffee in the middle causing interference eventually spelled the end for IR in these devices.
In the UK, they have TV detector vans that drive around to find unlicensed televisions, and the detectors locate unlicensed TV receivers from the RF they produce.
The vans are a hoax. Even the bbc describes them as 'a deterrent'.
As far as I could find, evidence from a 'detector van' has NEVER been used in court.
Don't stress so much. You don't have to worry unless you see a phrase like E.L.E. or Planet Killer attached. And probably not even then. Don't you watch any movies at all?
It should be taken as a sign of our improving detection ability that we were able to see this one before it hit at all.
Detecting and mapping the orbits of all of these near earth asteroids is one of the purposes behind the LSST project that we have been hearing so much about lately.
They are not retailing a bare laser, they are (well, someday) selling a drive. How is that any different than selling a microwave? Do you know what parts they use in those?
arrrg, should have been a car analogy. -slaps head-
Story states that the drives are 1 to 2 years away. Translation, they have no idea when drives might be on sale, or when 4-layer discs might be available.
For my comments to have been an ad hominem attack would require that you had made a factual argument at some point. While you can apparently handle sophistry, honest facts are not to be found among your comments.
Specifically in this thread; you stated the costs per Kg to orbit for the Falcon 1, using in your calculations only the test mass that was lifted into orbit on this flight, not the obviously correct value of the available payload.
You then embarked upon yet another vulgar tirade using these fabricated numbers as the basis of your attack.
I was curious, watching all of your hatred spew forth around this story, and wondered if I might be able strike to the heart of it. Evidently I came close.
This study does NOT specifically address or study AMD or NVidia's Chips.
It does not specifically address or test the exact chemical makeup of chips belonging to AMD or NVidia.
The conclusions being drawn as to the relative life spans of those manufacturer's chips appear to strictly belong to the bloggers who want a big headline, and not to the authors of the study. The study authors specifically note that in order to determine the life span of real chips, the real chips in question should be studied. Quote:
"For life-time prediction, the real microstructure of these two kinds of flip chip solder joint should be studied and actual failure rate should be measured. "
The study states that they are ignoring various factors that would come into play in the real world in order to simplify the study, and that they are making a number of assumptions about various testing conditions and about the makeup of the materials themselves.
From reading the study linked, it's not even clear to me that they actually tested anything, and it appears from their wording to be only a theoretical exercise.
In no way should the results of this study be used to state that brand X's chips will have a longer lifespan than brand Z's chips.
You sure have been working overtime to dismiss this achievement any way you can; now resorting to lying about costs to orbit. This must be, what, 10 or more flaming attacks by you just in this one story?
I have been reading through your posts trying to guess why SpaceX disturbs you so much. At first I thought that you probably worked for one of the competing US aerospace companies, but you seem much to childish for that. If I were to guess I would say that you are a kid in Europe somewhere, (hmm, fluent in English, UK then), and that you dream of working for ESA someday. How did I do?
This is the longest, paved, straight, flat stretch of road that the organizers are aware of, in the US. Also, Nevada lets them shut it down for certain time windows for the race.
If you do the race on a banked racetrack you can get an advantage from the wind where you use the bike fairing as a sail. That wind assist is hard to calculate and factor out of the final time, while a small headwind or tailwind on a straight course is easily mathematically removed to be able to equalize the results.
"The result is an autonomous helicopter than can perform a complete airshow of complex tricks on its own."
From kdawson's summary:
"The title of the linked article uses the term "autonomous," but that's somewhat misleading. The copters can't fly on their own, but rather can duplicate complex maneuvers learned from a human pilot."
How in any way do you come to that conclusion based upon the data in the story?
They CAN and DO fly by themselves. Out of the lab. In varying weather conditions. Constantly making adjustments for wind gusts, etc., none of which is being controlled by a human.
And then the wisecrack about their AI? It uses an algorithm to study commands sent to another helicopter, studies the results, figures out what the goal of the commands was, and is able to implement those goals, on its own, more accurately than the original human pilot. That's not a strong AI?
Can we please get some editors that understand what they are reading?
*From The Not What You Would Call Brilliant Editing Department
They don't use eyeballs to watch and learn, they apparently receive the r/c commands being sent to the 'teaching' helicopter and the position data from its onboard sensors.
I had a Linksys that I used at home, had to reboot once a week or more. Replaced it with a Netgear that cost three times as much, but its been rock solid going on several years. No more reboots.
Due to my sample size however, this has zero statistical significance.
What is theft? It is taking something from someone without their permission.
I understand that the act of illegally copying the program/movie/song whatever, in itself, is not theft but is copyright infringement. My argument is that the 'infringer', when they utilize the copy, is utilizing my work without compensating me for my time. They have taken a fraction, large or small, of my effort, my time, the energy that it took to create it. They have taken it without my permission, and deprived me of the compensation which they should have paid me. It is not theft of a physical object, but it sure as hell is theft of my time. It may not be theft in a physical sense, but it sure as hell is theft in a moral sense.
Copyright Infringement is a type of theft, and nothing less. Infringers are thieves, and nothing more.
"It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything."
Why do people keep making this asinine argument? Because they feel they need to justify their THEFT of other people's work.
When I make a program, be it a game or utility or whatever, I am making an investment of my time believing that I can sell a certain number of copies of the finished program if it performs well at the desired function. I am allocating units of my work against future sales of the program. I can choose to make a shoddy program and only invest a little time, or I can choose to hopefully make a great program that will attract a much larger customer base and invest a lot of time. There is a fixed (not infinite) market for a given program. If you steal a copy of the program, you are utilizing the fruits of my labour without compensating me for it. You have STOLEN some of my time, and deprived me of income that I should have recieved for creating a program that you have found usefull.
Look at it another way; the cost to create a program is amortized over a certain number of copies. If I write a program for only one customer, that copy will be very expensive. If that customer uses it, but decides not to pay me, are they depriving me of income? Of course! What if a program is written for a group of four customers? The price to each will be less, but if one of the four decides to use it without paying me anything, they are still depriving me of income. Just because a program is given a wider distribution that 1 or 4 or 100, and has a correspondingly lower price, it does NOT mean that you are not depriving me of income when you use a copy without compensating me for it!
I know that it is legally "copyright infringement", but morally, it is THEFT.
It's just like anything else for sale in our world; if you think the price it too high, fine, don't buy it. Just because you think you can steal it without getting caught and you attempt some specious argument to absolve yourself doesn't make it right.
A properly functioning gutter system will greatly reduce the amount of water that reaches the foundation of the house, thus avoiding more serious issues. Keeping the walkways clear is mostly cosmetic.
1) The whole point of recycling is to keep from having to drive stuff way out to a landfill. It gets, you know, recycled instead. I believe that Portland has over %50 less waste going into their 'distant landfills' since they have started recycling.
2) If the garbage was not being separated then the one garbage truck would fill up faster and have to make more trips back and forth between the 'distant landfill' and the pickup route.
Think about it. The total amount of garbage didn't magically triple overnight. They didn't suddenly have to purchase and run three times the number of garbage trucks; the existing trucks are just used for different tasks now. I bet the total fuel consumption won't be all that different.
3) Where Portland wastes diesel fuel in the garbage industry is that they have multiple companies serving the same routes which is less efficient than it could be. This would be true whether they are recycling or not.
4) You are seriously underestimating the energy saved by recycling. The energy saved by recycling aluminum cans alone will probably cover all the fuel costs for the whole garbage truck fleet. A can manufacturing industry website states that for every 40 aluminum cans recycled the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline is saved.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony is pulling it to avoid offending anyone who would not like phrases from the Qur'an used in association with such a game.
In my mind Sony is actually going above and beyond to do the correct thing here. (Never thought that I would find myself typing those words.) I still believe they have a long way to go to make up for all of the DRM crap that they have pulled in the past though.
That site is real, isn't it? For the first few minutes of reading I convinced myself that it was just a funny hoax site, but the deeper I went into it the more scared I became...
Would it be irony if I prayed to God to free us from religion? I still don't have that whole irony thing down yet.
Someone having Pluto separation anxiety?
'All your years' are not very significant, youngster.
All of the first cordless mice used IR technology to transmit data back to a host adapter attached to the PC. It wasn't until the early 90's that RF started to supplant IR as the preferred communications technology.
Issues like needing line of sight, and a hot cup of coffee in the middle causing interference eventually spelled the end for IR in these devices.
In the UK, they have TV detector vans that drive around to find unlicensed televisions, and the detectors locate unlicensed TV receivers from the RF they produce.
The vans are a hoax. Even the bbc describes them as 'a deterrent'.
As far as I could find, evidence from a 'detector van' has NEVER been used in court.
GM beat you to it. Check out the 'power key' used on the 1990 Corvette ZR1.
Don't stress so much. You don't have to worry unless you see a phrase like E.L.E. or Planet Killer attached. And probably not even then. Don't you watch any movies at all?
Really small rocks are hard to see.
Especially really small dark colored ones.
It should be taken as a sign of our improving detection ability that we were able to see this one before it hit at all.
Detecting and mapping the orbits of all of these near earth asteroids is one of the purposes behind the LSST project that we have been hearing so much about lately.
http://www.lsst.org/lsst_home.shtml
They are not retailing a bare laser, they are (well, someday) selling a drive. How is that any different than selling a microwave? Do you know what parts they use in those?
arrrg, should have been a car analogy. -slaps head-
Story states that the drives are 1 to 2 years away. Translation, they have no idea when drives might be on sale, or when 4-layer discs might be available.
I don't think "seemed broken" and "they gave it to her free" equals scamming anyone?
Someone's a little grumpy this morning...
My first laugh of the day!
thanks
For my comments to have been an ad hominem attack would require that you had made a factual argument at some point. While you can apparently handle sophistry, honest facts are not to be found among your comments.
Specifically in this thread; you stated the costs per Kg to orbit for the Falcon 1, using in your calculations only the test mass that was lifted into orbit on this flight, not the obviously correct value of the available payload.
You then embarked upon yet another vulgar tirade using these fabricated numbers as the basis of your attack.
I was curious, watching all of your hatred spew forth around this story, and wondered if I might be able strike to the heart of it. Evidently I came close.
Cheers.
This study does NOT specifically address or study AMD or NVidia's Chips.
It does not specifically address or test the exact chemical makeup of chips belonging to AMD or NVidia.
The conclusions being drawn as to the relative life spans of those manufacturer's chips appear to strictly belong to the bloggers who want a big headline, and not to the authors of the study. The study authors specifically note that in order to determine the life span of real chips, the real chips in question should be studied. Quote:
"For life-time prediction, the real microstructure of these two kinds of flip chip solder joint should be studied and actual failure rate should be measured. "
The study states that they are ignoring various factors that would come into play in the real world in order to simplify the study, and that they are making a number of assumptions about various testing conditions and about the makeup of the materials themselves.
From reading the study linked, it's not even clear to me that they actually tested anything, and it appears from their wording to be only a theoretical exercise.
In no way should the results of this study be used to state that brand X's chips will have a longer lifespan than brand Z's chips.
Wow.
You sure have been working overtime to dismiss this achievement any way you can; now resorting to lying about costs to orbit. This must be, what, 10 or more flaming attacks by you just in this one story?
I have been reading through your posts trying to guess why SpaceX disturbs you so much. At first I thought that you probably worked for one of the competing US aerospace companies, but you seem much to childish for that. If I were to guess I would say that you are a kid in Europe somewhere, (hmm, fluent in English, UK then), and that you dream of working for ESA someday. How did I do?
This is the longest, paved, straight, flat stretch of road that the organizers are aware of, in the US. Also, Nevada lets them shut it down for certain time windows for the race.
If you do the race on a banked racetrack you can get an advantage from the wind where you use the bike fairing as a sail. That wind assist is hard to calculate and factor out of the final time, while a small headwind or tailwind on a straight course is easily mathematically removed to be able to equalize the results.
From the 2nd paragraph of the article:
"The result is an autonomous helicopter than can perform a complete airshow of complex tricks on its own."
From kdawson's summary:
"The title of the linked article uses the term "autonomous," but that's somewhat misleading. The copters can't fly on their own, but rather can duplicate complex maneuvers learned from a human pilot."
How in any way do you come to that conclusion based upon the data in the story?
They CAN and DO fly by themselves. Out of the lab. In varying weather conditions. Constantly making adjustments for wind gusts, etc., none of which is being controlled by a human.
And then the wisecrack about their AI? It uses an algorithm to study commands sent to another helicopter, studies the results, figures out what the goal of the commands was, and is able to implement those goals, on its own, more accurately than the original human pilot. That's not a strong AI?
Can we please get some editors that understand what they are reading?
*From The Not What You Would Call Brilliant Editing Department
They don't use eyeballs to watch and learn, they apparently receive the r/c commands being sent to the 'teaching' helicopter and the position data from its onboard sensors.
I had a Linksys that I used at home, had to reboot once a week or more. Replaced it with a Netgear that cost three times as much, but its been rock solid going on several years. No more reboots.
Due to my sample size however, this has zero statistical significance.
If a client is able to cause a router to crash then there is something wrong with the router design.
What is theft? It is taking something from someone without their permission.
I understand that the act of illegally copying the program/movie/song whatever, in itself, is not theft but is copyright infringement. My argument is that the 'infringer', when they utilize the copy, is utilizing my work without compensating me for my time. They have taken a fraction, large or small, of my effort, my time, the energy that it took to create it. They have taken it without my permission, and deprived me of the compensation which they should have paid me. It is not theft of a physical object, but it sure as hell is theft of my time. It may not be theft in a physical sense, but it sure as hell is theft in a moral sense.
Copyright Infringement is a type of theft, and nothing less. Infringers are thieves, and nothing more.
Quoth Spun:
"It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything."
Why do people keep making this asinine argument? Because they feel they need to justify their THEFT of other people's work.
When I make a program, be it a game or utility or whatever, I am making an investment of my time believing that I can sell a certain number of copies of the finished program if it performs well at the desired function. I am allocating units of my work against future sales of the program. I can choose to make a shoddy program and only invest a little time, or I can choose to hopefully make a great program that will attract a much larger customer base and invest a lot of time. There is a fixed (not infinite) market for a given program. If you steal a copy of the program, you are utilizing the fruits of my labour without compensating me for it. You have STOLEN some of my time, and deprived me of income that I should have recieved for creating a program that you have found usefull.
Look at it another way; the cost to create a program is amortized over a certain number of copies. If I write a program for only one customer, that copy will be very expensive. If that customer uses it, but decides not to pay me, are they depriving me of income? Of course! What if a program is written for a group of four customers? The price to each will be less, but if one of the four decides to use it without paying me anything, they are still depriving me of income. Just because a program is given a wider distribution that 1 or 4 or 100, and has a correspondingly lower price, it does NOT mean that you are not depriving me of income when you use a copy without compensating me for it!
I know that it is legally "copyright infringement", but morally, it is THEFT.
It's just like anything else for sale in our world; if you think the price it too high, fine, don't buy it. Just because you think you can steal it without getting caught and you attempt some specious argument to absolve yourself doesn't make it right.
A properly functioning gutter system will greatly reduce the amount of water that reaches the foundation of the house, thus avoiding more serious issues. Keeping the walkways clear is mostly cosmetic.
BadAnalogyGuy, is that you?
1) The whole point of recycling is to keep from having to drive stuff way out to a landfill. It gets, you know, recycled instead. I believe that Portland has over %50 less waste going into their 'distant landfills' since they have started recycling.
2) If the garbage was not being separated then the one garbage truck would fill up faster and have to make more trips back and forth between the 'distant landfill' and the pickup route.
Think about it. The total amount of garbage didn't magically triple overnight. They didn't suddenly have to purchase and run three times the number of garbage trucks; the existing trucks are just used for different tasks now. I bet the total fuel consumption won't be all that different.
3) Where Portland wastes diesel fuel in the garbage industry is that they have multiple companies serving the same routes which is less efficient than it could be. This would be true whether they are recycling or not.
4) You are seriously underestimating the energy saved by recycling. The energy saved by recycling aluminum cans alone will probably cover all the fuel costs for the whole garbage truck fleet. A can manufacturing industry website states that for every 40 aluminum cans recycled the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline is saved.
http://www.cancentral.com/recFAQ.cfm
Please find something more constructive to bitch about.