I work for a company that produces software for radiation simulation for oncology. We need as much power as possible for our apps. Right now we run our systems on dual-package dual-core AMD systems. Laptop solutions are important because many of our users work at multiple clinics and have to take their planning solutions on the road.
So we'll be buying some of these just about the instant they come out.
Kong's copy prevention?
on
Kong Lives!
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I downloaded the demo to try the game, but it installed Starforce. That's right, the demo installed copy prevention (and pretty nefarious stuff at that).
I don't care about the game because I won't buy it when it comes encumbered with that crap.
by factoring in its rating by censors (e.g. G, PG, R)
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Censoring a movie would be an accurate description if the MPAA actually edited the movie. They rate the movie which allows consumers to make an educated decision about seeing the movie.
I don't think that assessment is correct. For instance this blog (from last week) says precisely the opposite:
Even from a pure CLR standpoint, C++/CLI has some distinct advantages over other C# and VB.NET, such as deterministic destruction, stack semantics for managed classes, and superior optimizations.
What I don't understand is why they couldn't have written Java (and.NET) so we could have our cake and eat it too.
They have. Visual Studio 2005 adds syntax to Managed C++ (C++/CLI) to allow you to manage your lifetime and memory separately. Herb Sutter has been talking about this for at least a year IIRC. Dinkumware even made the STL work with it.
See for instance this article. I'm not currently developing on.Net, but I'm hoping that these extensions can be considered at sometime for standard C++. I'm no MS apologist, but it really does seem to be the best of both worlds.
Of course, they knew they would be pushing the schedule out a quarter sooner than this week. The problem with Valve is that they wait to push their schedules until the current published schedule. Why don't they learn not to do this?
Re:I'll probably get modded down for this..
on
Master Chief Revisited
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How about the simple fact that the theory of evolution is taught as fact in many, many schools from elementary to the university level (this is certainly true in the schools in my neck of the woods). In fact it appears that in every post regarding evolution that appears here in/., many people are constantly posting about just how factual evolution is.
That's because the overwhelming scientific evidence is in favor of evolution. Judging solely from this post, you appear to be an anti-science theist. Whenever I see people say "it's a theory not a fact" (such as the Dover, PA school district) it drives me nuts because of the error of the statement. Facts are measurable events or states (the ball took 1 second to fall to the ground). Theories are coherent models whose predictions agree with facts (t = sqrt(2h/g)).
The theory of evolution has predicted irrefutable facts. For instance, when searching in areas where the rocks are very old (millions of years) humanoid skeletons were found which were between ancient apes and modern humans. The older the rocks, the more ape-like the features. Which pretty solidly backs up an evolutionary history of man.
Give some logical, scientific explanation as to why a theory is taught as fact, and it is rare that any opposing theory is taught in parallel. In addition, explain why it is that when someone just mentions "intelligent design", they are immediately labeled as a radical, or anti-science, or with some other derogatory label.
There is no scientific alternative to evolution. ID claims to be such, but after reading a 30-page essay on the topic by ID luminaries (found here as the essay written by Calvert and Harris) and about 1/3 of "Of Pandas and People" (I haven't stopped reading it, I just haven't finished), I'm confident that ID is simply a screed against evolution. It basically says, "thus and such doesn't makes sense so God (well, an Intelligent Agent, nudge, nudge) did it". It makes no predictions, it makes no attempt to explain anything.
Since you're so concerned about providing data to backup claims...how about pointing me to these "anti-religion atheists" that are saying science has disproved God.
You'll note that I didn't make the same kind of assertion. I presented what I've seen from my own experience--that's anecdotal evidence, which isn't sufficient for a general claim. So strictly speaking my claim wasn't any more demonstrable than the parent post, but it wasn't any less demonstrable either.
The only significant cases of atheists fighting against God is over the Pledge of Allegiance, and that has nothing to do with evolution.
Perhaps in an organized sense. However, my undergraduate experience (at UC Berkeley) was filled with atheists whose attitude was that religion was stupid and unscientific. Ironically I typically had more formal scientific training then these people did (my major was in Computer Science, but I studied quite a bit of math and physics--far more than required by my major since I originally intended a degree in physics).
These people routinely claimed that science had disproved God, or that it had made God irrelevant. I knew they were wrong and their logic fallacious, but many people I've known who don't have as much scientific training respond emotionally with backlash instead of working hard to understand why the claims are problematic. It's not that surprising. People tend not to question their treasured beliefs (religious or not). That's where flamewars come from.
God is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, but by the criteria of science, that makes God a bad theory.
False. God (at least in Christian theology--I can't speak for all religions) is not falisifiable, but he is verifiable. Scientific theories are inherently falsifiable but not verifiable. Yes, religion is not a good scientific theory, but that's fine--God isn't interested in proving himself to us in a laboratory, but rather in giving us the choice of choosing to be like him or not. Also, science has nothing to say about the soul, our eternal destination, morals, etc. And that is fine too. Science is a collection of ideas and methods that attempt to model our world and how it works. It's a powerful tool. But only a fool believes it to be the only usable epistemology.
Religion now discourages the entire scientific enterprise, and has done so ever since it became abundantly clear that science provides physical explanations with no need of the divine.
Again, false. My faith encourages academics, and I know quite a number of people with advanced degrees. I personally see science as a wonderful tool for understanding how our world works. I use theoretical models of radiation all the time in the work I do (software simulation of radiation for oncology). Mendel was a monk who did ground-breaking work in genetics. Many scientists have felt that their work was inspired by God to give them a better glimpse of creation.
The purpose of ID isn't just to challenge evolution, but to initiate a campaign to undermine the materialistic worldview and replace it with a magical worldview. ID proponents call this strategy "The Wedge."
ID (Intelligent Design) is (IMO) a fraudulent attempt to weaken evolutionary theory to protect certain people's belief which is contrary to scientific theory. It will eventually fail.
The consequences of this flight into fantasy will be the deaths of billions of people, and quite possibly, the extinction of humanity. This attempted retreat into a childlike world of magic and supersition is nothing less than a wholesale attack on truth, and upon the very means by which truth may be discovered.
Morality is not fantasy. You cannot claim that my belief of an afterlife is fantasy, or you exceed the boundaries of science and you are just as guilty as the ID proponents. To the degree that religions make scientifically testable claims, they should be tested scientifically. However, to assert that all religions are fantasy is just as bad science as ID.
Part of their hypocrisy is that they do not attack all science, but only certain parts that they disagree with.
You'll support this now with some scientific data that proves they're the same people, right?
From what I've seen, those opposing evolution are mostly responding to strident atheists who are using evolution to attempt to claim that science has disproved God. Those anti-religion atheists belong in the same category as the anti-science theists. Science doesn't prove or disprove God. Good scientists and good theists know that.
The most fundamental purpose of a government is to manage the country for the benefit of the people.
Spoken like one truly ignorant of history.
The fundamental purpose of government is to protect the rights of citizens. And if you think life is more important than rights, you're outvoted daily by the thousands who risk their lives to leave governments who don't protect their rights.
Read the introduction. He expanded it into a book to prepare for "Speaker for the Dead" -- to write about a child hero who has grown up. I like both the short story and the full book (of course, I read the book when I was younger and didn't expect the ending--later I read the short story).
Should we believe it's okay to not compensate John Carmack for his years of work on Doom 3 because he's rich enough to drive a Ferrari and id made millions off the game?
Imagine being able to access to full text of any book anywhere. The possibilities are tremendous. We'll have to figure out a way to deal with copyright (or whatever we come up with), so that great work is still produced, but it will be tremendous.
Though I'm a bit concerned about the tainting of Google's business by political bias, and by silencing outlets who don't kowtow to their demands.
Slashdot Mirror
So we'll be buying some of these just about the instant they come out.
I don't care about the game because I won't buy it when it comes encumbered with that crap.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Censoring a movie would be an accurate description if the MPAA actually edited the movie. They rate the movie which allows consumers to make an educated decision about seeing the movie.
In fact, see Ebert's review of The Polar Express which talks about the effects, etc.
See for instance this article. I'm not currently developing on .Net, but I'm hoping that these extensions can be considered at sometime for standard C++. I'm no MS apologist, but it really does seem to be the best of both worlds.
Ironically, the McDonald's case is an example of a reasonable lawsuit. Read the the full story and stop citing it as an example of a frivilous suit.
Ze goggles! Zey do nuzing!
Of course, they knew they would be pushing the schedule out a quarter sooner than this week. The problem with Valve is that they wait to push their schedules until the current published schedule. Why don't they learn not to do this?
Last time I checked, $50 is still $50.
Quick! If you live in WA:
1. Buy spyware CD
2. Sue Sony Corp. for $100,000
3. Profit!
That's because the overwhelming scientific evidence is in favor of evolution. Judging solely from this post, you appear to be an anti-science theist. Whenever I see people say "it's a theory not a fact" (such as the Dover, PA school district) it drives me nuts because of the error of the statement. Facts are measurable events or states (the ball took 1 second to fall to the ground). Theories are coherent models whose predictions agree with facts (t = sqrt(2h/g)).
The theory of evolution has predicted irrefutable facts. For instance, when searching in areas where the rocks are very old (millions of years) humanoid skeletons were found which were between ancient apes and modern humans. The older the rocks, the more ape-like the features. Which pretty solidly backs up an evolutionary history of man.
There is no scientific alternative to evolution. ID claims to be such, but after reading a 30-page essay on the topic by ID luminaries (found here as the essay written by Calvert and Harris) and about 1/3 of "Of Pandas and People" (I haven't stopped reading it, I just haven't finished), I'm confident that ID is simply a screed against evolution. It basically says, "thus and such doesn't makes sense so God (well, an Intelligent Agent, nudge, nudge) did it". It makes no predictions, it makes no attempt to explain anything.
You'll note that I didn't make the same kind of assertion. I presented what I've seen from my own experience--that's anecdotal evidence, which isn't sufficient for a general claim. So strictly speaking my claim wasn't any more demonstrable than the parent post, but it wasn't any less demonstrable either.
Perhaps in an organized sense. However, my undergraduate experience (at UC Berkeley) was filled with atheists whose attitude was that religion was stupid and unscientific. Ironically I typically had more formal scientific training then these people did (my major was in Computer Science, but I studied quite a bit of math and physics--far more than required by my major since I originally intended a degree in physics).These people routinely claimed that science had disproved God, or that it had made God irrelevant. I knew they were wrong and their logic fallacious, but many people I've known who don't have as much scientific training respond emotionally with backlash instead of working hard to understand why the claims are problematic. It's not that surprising. People tend not to question their treasured beliefs (religious or not). That's where flamewars come from.
False. God (at least in Christian theology--I can't speak for all religions) is not falisifiable, but he is verifiable. Scientific theories are inherently falsifiable but not verifiable. Yes, religion is not a good scientific theory, but that's fine--God isn't interested in proving himself to us in a laboratory, but rather in giving us the choice of choosing to be like him or not. Also, science has nothing to say about the soul, our eternal destination, morals, etc. And that is fine too. Science is a collection of ideas and methods that attempt to model our world and how it works. It's a powerful tool. But only a fool believes it to be the only usable epistemology.
Again, false. My faith encourages academics, and I know quite a number of people with advanced degrees. I personally see science as a wonderful tool for understanding how our world works. I use theoretical models of radiation all the time in the work I do (software simulation of radiation for oncology). Mendel was a monk who did ground-breaking work in genetics. Many scientists have felt that their work was inspired by God to give them a better glimpse of creation.
ID (Intelligent Design) is (IMO) a fraudulent attempt to weaken evolutionary theory to protect certain people's belief which is contrary to scientific theory. It will eventually fail.
Morality is not fantasy. You cannot claim that my belief of an afterlife is fantasy, or you exceed the boundaries of science and you are just as guilty as the ID proponents. To the degree that religions make scientifically testable claims, they should be tested scientifically. However, to assert that all religions are fantasy is just as bad science as ID.
You'll support this now with some scientific data that proves they're the same people, right?
From what I've seen, those opposing evolution are mostly responding to strident atheists who are using evolution to attempt to claim that science has disproved God. Those anti-religion atheists belong in the same category as the anti-science theists. Science doesn't prove or disprove God. Good scientists and good theists know that.
Spoken like one truly ignorant of history.
The fundamental purpose of government is to protect the rights of citizens. And if you think life is more important than rights, you're outvoted daily by the thousands who risk their lives to leave governments who don't protect their rights.
Read his political page here.
Read the introduction. He expanded it into a book to prepare for "Speaker for the Dead" -- to write about a child hero who has grown up. I like both the short story and the full book (of course, I read the book when I was younger and didn't expect the ending--later I read the short story).
</offtopic>
Imagine being able to access to full text of any book anywhere. The possibilities are tremendous. We'll have to figure out a way to deal with copyright (or whatever we come up with), so that great work is still produced, but it will be tremendous.
Though I'm a bit concerned about the tainting of Google's business by political bias, and by silencing outlets who don't kowtow to their demands.
Right. So instead of trying to get a chip manufacturer to bend to their product plans, they picked a manufacturer whose plans matched their own.
And a simple cast list is a fact.