I concur with many people that this has some pretty obvious drawbacks. But on the other hand, I (and, I believe, a lot of other/.ers) are equally against the new TLDs like.biz and.info and.name and all that other rubbish, because they merely serve to provide still more domain names that small companies need to buy in advance just to be safe when they get the.com to use. There are too many TLDs already.
I would be in favour of freezing the number of TLDs as it currently is and reducing that number wherever possible (although of course a reduction of any kind is unlikely to ever happen). If a TLD-less situation like the one presented here could be used worldwide with all.coms,.nets etc. instantly retired, and no harm done to anybody: sure, I say go for it. As it currently stands, however, this is just making the problem worse - because it's another domain name you gotta buy.
Just because the Earth is naturally getting warmer doesn't mean this is necessarily good for us. It goes like this:
Is the Earth getting warmer?
No: Stop here.
Yes: Keep going. (Most people agree with this answer.)
Is this a bad thing for us?
No: Stop here.
Yes: Keep going. (This is much more contentious. Many would argue we have nothing to worry about. Many suggest Hurricane Katrina et al are examples of why we do need to worry.)
Can we stop the Earth getting warmer?
This is where it gets really complicated. Many people are subconsciously assuming that "if we are causing global warming, then we can stop causing it, but if we aren't, we can't", but this is a far-from-trivial deduction, and in any case, figuring out what is responsible for global warming is wholly secondary to figuring out what we do about it. If we can't stop global warming then the best we can do is prepare for the changes that we know are coming. If we CAN do something about it, then what we do next is a question of deciding what balance we need to strike between 1) preparing for the changes and 2) fighting them.
there's no reason to claim extraterrestrial life is intelligent either
I'm reminded of something Arthur C. Clarke once said. Either 1) there is intelligent life out there, or 2) there isn't. In either case, the notion is absolutely staggering.
Actually the surface area of the sphere increases with the square of distance. Sorry to pick nits, but I'm tired of people using "exponentially" as a synonym for "really darn fast". It has a definite mathematical meaning and that ain't it.
Also, introducing a single point of failure is 100% completely and utterly contrary to the entire point of the Borg. They are huge, faceless, very very tough and when you do damage them, the absolute critical point is that they are multiply redundant.
You know what I'd like to see? Mirror Universe Borg. They must be absolute charmers.
Erm, it says "Best space movies", that is, movies involving space. That's whether fiction or fact, science or fantasy. It's right there in the story title...
I have a pair of friends that aren't into sci-fi at all.... they borrowed my DVD set and watched all of Firefly for the next week
You know the real reason for this, right? Firefly isn't actually science fiction.
"Wait," you'll say, "it has spaceships and brain experimentation and a futuristic setting and all sorts of cool future stuff!" But I say "No!". Because I am of the opinion that in order to be truly science fiction, the science has to be important. The science has to take the centre stage. Star Trek falls under this category. Stargate does too. I don't know if Battlestar Galactica does. Futurama? Most definitely! But Star Wars doesn't - the technology you see in Star Wars is the backdrop to a story which is actually about glowing swords, magic and redemption. And Firefly isn't science fiction either ("If you start asking me science questions, I'm going to cry." - Joss Whedon). It's about people and their interactions. When Serenity breaks down, the story is not about why it broke down and how the characters go about fixing it. It's about how the characters deal with the reality of being stranded in deep space with negligible hope of rescue.
Does this make it a bad show? No. It succeeds on its own terms. Its lack of hard science doesn't endear itself to those of us who enjoy hard science fiction, but we are a niche market - this lack is precisely what makes the show so appealing to the mainstream.
Nor does science automatically make a show good. I hate it more than anything else when shows TRY to get some accurate scientific content into them and fail miserably, because the writers arbitrarily change reality to suit their plot. Much more important in a sci-fi kind of show is is to lay down ground rules and stick to them; to have a consistent universe. In the case of Firefly, the rules are highly non-scientific - "We have a ship and a universe to trade in. We have to earn money and stay alive". In Futurama, the rules are, "It's a comedy show, basically anything goes within reason". These are flimsy rules in the case of Futurama, but they work! Star Trek, on the other hand, seemingly creates a new rule every episode, every time they create a new particle beam or a new chemical for a cure. They discover a way to travel a billion times faster than before, but they forget about it by the next episode. Inconsistent - unsatisfactory.
So I like Firefly, really. But while it has science (if you equate "spaceships" with "science"), it's not science fiction. More like... futuristic fiction. Space fiction.
I don't believe that site examines all the data. It goes back seven days but only lists a fraction of the stories which both sites have in common. Also, Digg lists a whole bundle of stories which never even show up on/., and vice-versa.
Frankly I think it's ridiculous to judge the sites on what they do the same, instead of what they do differently.
Hohoho! You really think that Rare is going to finish Perfect Dark Zero in time for the Xbox 360's launch? Are you aware that Perfect Dark's sequel was originally announced as a GameCube launch title?:)
I think additional processing power isn't necessarily a good thing. Yes, you get better graphics - but game development times increase, so you get fewer and shorter games. Also, smaller software houses which can't make full use of the technology get left behind.
Check out the review policy of whatever publication you're reading and you'll generally find that 10/10 does not necessarily mean "perfection" or "no improvement is possible". For example: Edge magazine, for most of its history, listed "Ten out of ten" as broadly symbolising the sentiment "Revolutionary". A sequel with improvements would certainly not be worthy of an identical or higher score in this situation.
I found it horrifyingly counter-intuitive. Why, for example, is it that on your default journal page, right after you create it, there is no link which allows you to write a new post?
Games like, say, Halo aren't more "mature," they're more violent.
Quite right. Consider Ikaruga and Super Monkey Ball; the former just has lots of ships exploding, the latter is monkeys in balls. But both of these are very much adult games. Why? Because they're too hard for kids.
Slashdot comment #2,000,000 - 1st March 1999. It's unknown why the date of this comment is earlier than the previous one. My guess is the comments weren't numbered sequentially this early on in Slashdot's history and were renumbered at some later date.
As you can see, the rate of posting has been almost perfectly constant for several years now, but comment #14,000,000 was due to occur on 23rd October 2005 and is over two weeks late. Regardless, at the current rate, comment #15,000,000 should occur on or about 1st March 2006. See you all then!
Slashdot comment #2,000,000 - 1st March 1999. It's unknown why the date of this comment is earlier than the previous one. My guess is the comments weren't numbered sequentially this early on in Slashdot's history and were renumbered at some later date.
As you can see, the rate of posting has been almost perfectly constant for several years now, but comment #14,000,000 was due to occur on 23rd October 2005 and is over two weeks late. Regardless, at the current rate, comment #15,000,000 should occur on or about 1st March 2006. See you all then!
Slashdot Mirror
You might find ColorZilla vaguely useful. It's not designed primarily for zooming in and out per se, but it does zoom in the way you describe.
I concur with many people that this has some pretty obvious drawbacks. But on the other hand, I (and, I believe, a lot of other /.ers) are equally against the new TLDs like .biz and .info and .name and all that other rubbish, because they merely serve to provide still more domain names that small companies need to buy in advance just to be safe when they get the .com to use. There are too many TLDs already.
I would be in favour of freezing the number of TLDs as it currently is and reducing that number wherever possible (although of course a reduction of any kind is unlikely to ever happen). If a TLD-less situation like the one presented here could be used worldwide with all .coms, .nets etc. instantly retired, and no harm done to anybody: sure, I say go for it. As it currently stands, however, this is just making the problem worse - because it's another domain name you gotta buy.
One step ahead of you, buddy! I already have http://localhost/ registered!
Just because the Earth is naturally getting warmer doesn't mean this is necessarily good for us. It goes like this:
Is the Earth getting warmer?
No: Stop here.
Yes: Keep going. (Most people agree with this answer.)
Is this a bad thing for us?
No: Stop here.
Yes: Keep going. (This is much more contentious. Many would argue we have nothing to worry about. Many suggest Hurricane Katrina et al are examples of why we do need to worry.)
Can we stop the Earth getting warmer?
This is where it gets really complicated. Many people are subconsciously assuming that "if we are causing global warming, then we can stop causing it, but if we aren't, we can't", but this is a far-from-trivial deduction, and in any case, figuring out what is responsible for global warming is wholly secondary to figuring out what we do about it. If we can't stop global warming then the best we can do is prepare for the changes that we know are coming. If we CAN do something about it, then what we do next is a question of deciding what balance we need to strike between 1) preparing for the changes and 2) fighting them.
I think that sums up the issue.
I'm reminded of something Arthur C. Clarke once said. Either 1) there is intelligent life out there, or 2) there isn't. In either case, the notion is absolutely staggering.
Actually the surface area of the sphere increases with the square of distance. Sorry to pick nits, but I'm tired of people using "exponentially" as a synonym for "really darn fast". It has a definite mathematical meaning and that ain't it.
There are 18 games in the Xbox 360 launch catalogue. 14 of them are sequels. (11 of them are sports/racing games!)
Also, introducing a single point of failure is 100% completely and utterly contrary to the entire point of the Borg. They are huge, faceless, very very tough and when you do damage them, the absolute critical point is that they are multiply redundant.
You know what I'd like to see? Mirror Universe Borg. They must be absolute charmers.
Erm, it says "Best space movies", that is, movies involving space. That's whether fiction or fact, science or fantasy. It's right there in the story title...
You know the real reason for this, right? Firefly isn't actually science fiction.
"Wait," you'll say, "it has spaceships and brain experimentation and a futuristic setting and all sorts of cool future stuff!" But I say "No!". Because I am of the opinion that in order to be truly science fiction, the science has to be important. The science has to take the centre stage. Star Trek falls under this category. Stargate does too. I don't know if Battlestar Galactica does. Futurama? Most definitely! But Star Wars doesn't - the technology you see in Star Wars is the backdrop to a story which is actually about glowing swords, magic and redemption. And Firefly isn't science fiction either ("If you start asking me science questions, I'm going to cry." - Joss Whedon). It's about people and their interactions. When Serenity breaks down, the story is not about why it broke down and how the characters go about fixing it. It's about how the characters deal with the reality of being stranded in deep space with negligible hope of rescue.
Does this make it a bad show? No. It succeeds on its own terms. Its lack of hard science doesn't endear itself to those of us who enjoy hard science fiction, but we are a niche market - this lack is precisely what makes the show so appealing to the mainstream.
Nor does science automatically make a show good. I hate it more than anything else when shows TRY to get some accurate scientific content into them and fail miserably, because the writers arbitrarily change reality to suit their plot. Much more important in a sci-fi kind of show is is to lay down ground rules and stick to them; to have a consistent universe. In the case of Firefly, the rules are highly non-scientific - "We have a ship and a universe to trade in. We have to earn money and stay alive". In Futurama, the rules are, "It's a comedy show, basically anything goes within reason". These are flimsy rules in the case of Futurama, but they work! Star Trek, on the other hand, seemingly creates a new rule every episode, every time they create a new particle beam or a new chemical for a cure. They discover a way to travel a billion times faster than before, but they forget about it by the next episode. Inconsistent - unsatisfactory.
So I like Firefly, really. But while it has science (if you equate "spaceships" with "science"), it's not science fiction. More like... futuristic fiction. Space fiction.
math is for losers.
I don't believe that site examines all the data. It goes back seven days but only lists a fraction of the stories which both sites have in common. Also, Digg lists a whole bundle of stories which never even show up on /., and vice-versa.
Frankly I think it's ridiculous to judge the sites on what they do the same, instead of what they do differently.
Hohoho! You really think that Rare is going to finish Perfect Dark Zero in time for the Xbox 360's launch? Are you aware that Perfect Dark's sequel was originally announced as a GameCube launch title? :)
I think additional processing power isn't necessarily a good thing. Yes, you get better graphics - but game development times increase, so you get fewer and shorter games. Also, smaller software houses which can't make full use of the technology get left behind.
Posting to Slashdot?
Check out the review policy of whatever publication you're reading and you'll generally find that 10/10 does not necessarily mean "perfection" or "no improvement is possible". For example: Edge magazine, for most of its history, listed "Ten out of ten" as broadly symbolising the sentiment "Revolutionary". A sequel with improvements would certainly not be worthy of an identical or higher score in this situation.
Quite right. In my experience, any number of people can be wrong about anything.
I found it horrifyingly counter-intuitive. Why, for example, is it that on your default journal page, right after you create it, there is no link which allows you to write a new post?
To be fair, Lucas's remaster of Solaris is pretty dire.
Quite right. Consider Ikaruga and Super Monkey Ball; the former just has lots of ships exploding, the latter is monkeys in balls. But both of these are very much adult games. Why? Because they're too hard for kids.
For the incurably curious:
Slashdot comment #1,000,000 - 15th June 2000
Slashdot comment #2,000,000 - 1st March 1999. It's unknown why the date of this comment is earlier than the previous one. My guess is the comments weren't numbered sequentially this early on in Slashdot's history and were renumbered at some later date.
Slashdot comment #3,000,000 - 13th February 2002
Slashdot comment #4,000,000 - 2nd August 2002
Slashdot comment #5,000,000 - 2nd January 2003
Slashdot comment #6,000,000 - 20th May 2003
Slashdot comment #7,000,000 - 19th September 2003
Slashdot comment #8,000,000 - 16th January 2004
Slashdot comment #9,000,000 - 28th April 2004
Slashdot comment #10,000,000 - 18th August 2004
Slashdot comment #11,000,000 - 5th December 2004. My hat is off to evilmrhenry (542138) for finding this for me.
Slashdot comment #12,000,000 - 21st March 2005
Slashdot comment #13,000,000 - 7th July 2005
Slashdot comment #14,000,000 - 10th November 2005
A graph of these values can be found here.As you can see, the rate of posting has been almost perfectly constant for several years now, but comment #14,000,000 was due to occur on 23rd October 2005 and is over two weeks late. Regardless, at the current rate, comment #15,000,000 should occur on or about 1st March 2006. See you all then!
(PS: cuuuurses)
For the incurably curious:
Slashdot comment #1,000,000 - 15th June 2000
Slashdot comment #2,000,000 - 1st March 1999. It's unknown why the date of this comment is earlier than the previous one. My guess is the comments weren't numbered sequentially this early on in Slashdot's history and were renumbered at some later date.
Slashdot comment #3,000,000 - 13th February 2002
Slashdot comment #4,000,000 - 2nd August 2002
Slashdot comment #5,000,000 - 2nd January 2003
Slashdot comment #6,000,000 - 20th May 2003
Slashdot comment #7,000,000 - 19th September 2003
Slashdot comment #8,000,000 - 16th January 2004
Slashdot comment #9,000,000 - 28th April 2004
Slashdot comment #10,000,000 - 18th August 2004
Slashdot comment #11,000,000 - 5th December 2004. My hat is off to evilmrhenry (542138) for finding this for me.
Slashdot comment #12,000,000 - 21st March 2005
Slashdot comment #13,000,000 - 7th July 2005
Slashdot comment #14,000,000 - 10th November 2005
A graph of these values can be found here.As you can see, the rate of posting has been almost perfectly constant for several years now, but comment #14,000,000 was due to occur on 23rd October 2005 and is over two weeks late. Regardless, at the current rate, comment #15,000,000 should occur on or about 1st March 2006. See you all then!
I gotta say, those horizontal-axis wind turbines are HAWT.
I drove all the way up there hoping to buy some fish!
They're too big to be space stations!