I'm not familiar with either app, so perhaps I'm missing something. However, how can they get all stirred up over it? Can ONLY "Remember The Milk" do to-do lists on line? Can ONLY Amazon do sales online? Can ONLY Google do spreadsheets on line?
Seriously, unless the Google version clearly took a trademark or other creative content from them *or* literally took actual CODE from them, then who the hell cares?
Unfortunately, you have a very long wait ahead of you. Television technology is not the same as it was a couple decades ago. There's not just one standard technology that was released a few years ago that is getting progressively cheaper. Just like you can't go to the store and buy a Pentium 2 system that might have been $3,000 a few years ago and get it for $100 today (because they don't produce, stock or sell them), you can't buy the TV that was out four years ago for far less today.
New technology comes out. They sell those televisions for a lot of money. Within a couple years, that technology is no longer used and they've moved to something else. So if you want the top television sets today, you have to pay the same amount you would have paid a few years ago. Granted, the technology is better, but you're not getting it for *cheaper*.
I bought my television for $4,000 18 months ago. You can get it for about half that today, but it's very difficult to find it being sold anywhere. You can spend another $4,000 to get today's new tech, sure, but they're not going to keep the old stuff on hand that they don't make as much money on.
Another problem is that sets are not very reliable. Consumer Reports claims that the failure rate / service rate on flat panel LCD and plasma televisions is very low (between 3 percent and 12 percent depending on the brand). However, my television started getting a horribly disruptive greenish yellow stain after only a year of infrequent use. Fortunately, I spent the money to buy a five year service contract, but if I hadn't, I'd have just spent a ton of money for a whole one year of television watching.
If you do a lot of research on the internet, you'll see forum after forum filled with people complaining about chronic problems with modern HD sets. Sony's, for example, seem to have a lot of failing optical blocks on their XBR and SXRD models. If you don't have a service contact, you can expect to spend about $1,200 to get your set fixed (unless it's within the one year default warrant).
The days of having a a television - whether you spend $100 or $10,000 on it - for a decade or a couple decades is well over by now.
Agreed. I have owned a bluray player for over a year now and there just isn't much of a selection. Amazon's entire bluray selection contains about three pages of movies. And most of them are garbage like "beautiful sceneries set to the sound of guitar music" or lame movies from the 80s.
I wanted to buy The Mist. Can't.
I wanted to buy Battlestar Galactica. Can't. (There's not even a Season 2 on bluray).
Have wanted to buy some other stuff, but either the movie doesn't exist on bluray or it's an edition with limited content. For example, why would I want to spend $30 to get Fifth Element with no extras or other special content when I could wait a year or two and buy the full ultimate type version for much less money?
After a year of owning my bluray, I own Planet Earth, Apocolypto, 300 and the special five disc edition of Blade Runner. That's it. Four movies in a year. They're losing a lot of money by having nothing but crap out there.
And all the versions of the show were fucking horrid. They had a bunch of douche bag comedians and third rate television personalities hosting them and the focus was on all the wrong aspects. If they were to approach it in more of a NOVA style than a WWF/Arena Football League style, it might be worth setting the tivo for. As it is, I will never *ever* give these idiots my eyeballs.
I'm sorry, but if this is what Sweeney really said, he needs a swift kick to the head. PCs are not made for gaming? Really?! Is that why I've been thoroughly enjoying the best MMORPG's on the console? Is that why I have been playing Civilization IV on the console? Will be be playing Spore on the console?
I've switched largely to console-only gaming recently (simply because gaming on linux is tough at best), but some of the most fantastic games out there have been and are for PC. The PC simply offers greater accuracy in controlling and more control functions/options than console controllers do. Period. Not to mention, greater resolution and potential screen real-estate. Sorry, but gaming on my 65" widescreen HDTV still is not even close to the resolution of my 2560x1600 monitor. Important for MMORPGs and RTS games.
Now, I will grant them that Unreal Tournament III on the PS3 is actually pretty fantastic. It's the first time I've played an FPS on a console where I did not feel that I was simply making a compromise. I felt like I was enjoying the full experience and things controlled pretty wonderfully.
I don't know where the console can go form here with controls, but something needs to be done. I'd like to think just throwing keyboards and mice on the consoles (please stop making me buy a separate keyboard and mouse for each of my three systems that already crowd my home entertainment center!) was the solution, but I don't think it is because you have to sit at a coffee table or something... and it would have to be at appropriate height to be comfortable to use.. and then your neck would get sore craning upward at the television at the same time.
But.. something along those lines needs to be done. The same controller I use for Burnout Paradise is simply not cut out for playing Civilization IV, Age of Conan MMORPG or most multiplayer FPS games.
PS: I do not really want to kick Sweeney in the head.
I bought mine the same time, via Amazon and downloaded it within about five minutes.
Not only that, but I discovered at the same time that Amazon's MP3 Downloader is available for linux from their site. In fact, I just downloaded the *.deb, right clicked to install and sucked down my 36 files. That was the last thing I expected to see from Amazon, but I suspect they realized that a large portion of the people who would find DRM-free music to be appealing are my fellow linux users... and like Trent, they are catering to us.
It's really shaping up to be a fantastic time for information and entertainment. Imagine how much more interesting it would be without the ignorant corporates and government types (the ones who just don't get it that is) in the way.
Um. Reznor is an established artist and he's making huge amounts of money from his music without charging huge amounts of money for it. You misrepresent what is going on. THE MUSIC is $5 for 36 tracks. He is charging decidedly SMALL amounts for the music. What he's charging "huge" amounts of money for is a collector's item that includes high quality copies of the music, PLUS a bunch of video and audio content on bluray and some other miscellaneous stuff... SIGNED (there's a chunk of the value right there).
Yes, he maid $750k from 2,500 fans who willingly handed it over for the special item. He'll make FAR more than that in the long run if even only a fraction of the fans pony up the $5 for the music alone. And of course, since he's distributing it himself (via amazon, etc) he'll be pulling down far more cash than with a couple of points to his contract with a major label distribution.
Well, having also used firefox on Windows frequently, I can confirm that "100-150mb" on Windows is unlikely. I've never heard of anyone having such a light memory footprint. In my experience across many installations over the last couple years is that 400 to 600mb on Windows is the norm.
I suppose consumption on linux is a little more iffy since it perhaps will consume as much memory as is available, but even then it should not regularly consume 1gb, 2gb or more and then require you to kill the pid and restart.
I frankly don't think the average firefox users buys the idea that memory issues are due to the history page caching functionality and for all of the people of similar experiences who have posted to related firefox articles over the last couple years, I've almost never seen anyone posting to say "My firefox is just dandy and pretty much only consumes about 150mb!".
Don't misunderstand me. I've been a firefox fanboy since day one (I was an engineer at Netscape back in the 90s, until just after the code was opensourced). I also admit that my experience with several gigs of memory the last couple months or so is an abnormal experience (for me, at least) but that aside I can never recall a time when Firefox consumed less than many hundreds of megabytes with anymore more than a couple tabs open.
Why reappraise your lifestyle? Maybe your lifestyle doesn't include a solid work ethic, but others build their lives firmly on upholding one. I don't want to spend less time working. I want to find ways to be less physiologically dependent on sleep and suffer less long-term damage by sacrificing the sleep.
I am very suspicious of people who are always going on about trying to fit more vacations/sleep/personal-time/etc into their lives "instead of working so long/hard". Not suggesting at all that you don't work hard or care about your work. But most people make it sound like work is a big suck and they're stuck back in highschool having to attend some shitty class.
Anyway, mankind can only be bettered by the increase of time spent engaged in life as opposed to time spent sleeping. Perhaps if we all lived 300 years, we wouldn't care. But with a 60, 70 or 80 year life span should you be lucky, recovering a little of those 20+ years spent snoring could really be valuable.
So I repeat that I don't want science trying to help me sleep better. I want them figuring out how to save me the bother altogether.
I'm not the one complaining about lack of sleep, am I?
My point was simple and non-flame-bait-ish. If your sleep and personal time and interest are that important to you, then don't have children. You aren't a saint for having children and nobody wants to hear parents whine about their lack of sleep or time. You didn't contract malaria saving orphans in the third world. You screwed yourself out of solid sleep by spreading your seed. There's nothing wrong with that. More power to you. But if it really mattered, you would have made other choices.
However, if you've already made that choice and then decided that you really would love to have some time to yourself, then obviously make the time. Change the offspring's schedules or have someone babysit them or... whatever. Obviously the choices are limited.
God damn, breeders are sensitive. You guys should get some more sleep so you won't be so testy.
I haven't kept up with NIN/Reznor much in a number of years, so I'd never heard of "Ghost". I just saw an article in my feed reader 24 to 48 hours ago and immediately hopped on Amazon to drop my $5 on it. I mean, come on.. it's $5 for 36 tracks. Even if it isn't the best stuff ever (and it is just instrumentals, of course), it's still not a rip off.
The thing is, if it was $10 or $15 or $20 for an album, I would have just looked around on bittorrent and downloaded it. I'm not willing to pay a dollar a song for 99% of the things I'm interested in and I'm sure not interested in paying $20 for a CD (I haven't bought a CD other than via cdbaby or a band directly in a decade). HOWEVER, I was more than happy to put my $5 up. And I would have possibly been interested in buying the signed limited edition kit with the bluray content and everything. Of course, that sold out before I could get around to it... but the point is that Trent got $5 from me versus $0. And he got it from me more than eagerly. And almost got me to spend another $300 just to add to my collection.
Granted, big names can afford to do such things, but their venturing out into these different methods of distribution and marketing and fan orientation opens up doors for new guys and smaller guys who, even if they could have done this on their own five years ago, will be taken more seriously if multi-platinum money-machines are doing it, too.
I have no idea how they'd get it to run well on mobile devices unless they also seriously cripple it. There's nothing special about my firefox install on kde here, but if I go to bed with the browser open, it'll be closed when I wake up. It consumes a couple gigs of ram and then just craps out on its own.
It's only consuming 400mb right now, but then again it was only relaunched about fifteen minutes ago. And of course, as they say, the problem is all because of that "back button feature". You know, the one where it caches two or three gigabytes of web pages in memory so you can have an uber fast back button or whatever.
Hell if I know. All I know is that it's a lot of wasted effort to "get kids to read".
You know how you get kids to read? You start reading to them when they're very young. Then they'll want to start reading on their own. And if your home is full of books and the adults in it are always reading, the kids will naturally tend to have a passion for it as well.
Otherwise... I don't know... send them to a vocational school so they can clean pools or something.
Well, the first solution would be not to screw up your life by having kids... obviously. But the second solution would be to do like most families did when I was a kid (though not mine) and put the kids to bed by about 8pm.
Also, I don't know what Death Note is, but your kids are going to be fine regardless of what they watch. I watched Nightmare on Elmstreet and Poltergeist at four years old and I haven't killed anyone.
Sleeping on a schedule seems like kind of a waste.
I treat sleeping like I treat eating or going to the bathroom. When I'm hungry, I eat. When I need to take a dump, I take a dump. When I can't keep my eyes open, I sleep. I might not be exhausted until 6am one day. It might be noon the next day (I mostly spend my "office hours" overnight). In one or two weeks i could find myself mostly sleeping at night to mostly sleeping during the day. And back again. It just depends. And the best thing of all? By sleeping only when I can't stay awake anymore, I'm out the instant I hop in bed.
First, sleep is overrated. Those are pointless hours of your life that are only necessary because of the weak composition of the human body. I can't imagine anyone would not prefer to keep all those hours for various other enjoyments or projects if they could.
Second, it's a necessity of modern society *unless* people don't give a shit about doing anything for themselves. If you spend twelve hours at the office and three hours a day communiting, that's 15 hours. Throw in an hour getting ready and *maybe* having a bite for breakfast and that's 16 hours a day before you've even tackled having your dinner. Then throw in three or four hours a day on your own personal projects -- whether they're writing your own software, learning a language, reading books, painting, building something.. whatever... you are only left with maybe four hours to sleep (if you are out like a light the moment your head hits the pillow, of course).
Instead of trying to help people get more sleep or better sleep, we need to be focusing resoruces on discovering ways that we can help people survive on as little sleep as possible. If we could cut down our sleeping by 50% that's an extra decade of living within our grasp.
I remember reading an old set of Time Life books about the solar system from about 20 years ago that said said this, too. I didn't know there was any sort of debate over it. The only question I'd ever seen was whether it would be closer to six billion years form now or twelve billion years from now.
Anyway, it's not that big of a deal. If mankind hasn't gotten over religion and ignorance long before this is a concern and then moved on and out into the rest of the galaxy, then he deserves the same fate as his home planet.
I think games should come with such a warning only if all religious doctrine (bibles, church programs, curch shows, church signs, etc) must carry the same.
It seems rather redundant for them to demand it be called a theory, since all of science consists of hypothesis and theories. The important thing to take out of this is that our country always has and always will cater to the ignorant religious sect, because they control everything. As long as they make up some 90% of the population, you can't expect common sense or rationality to rule. After all, these are the idiots who are counted in surveys like the one we just saw today where 66% of Americans think that nanotech is immoral.
It's time to replace democracy with meritocracy. We've suffered the rule of the stupid for too long.
Including global warming is science curriculum is a very good idea. Including a lot of things in the science curriculum is a very good idea, but mandating it as a piece of legislation by a bunch of idiots who don't know the difference between nanoscience and witchcraft is a terrible idea. There is no point behind this other than a political maneuver.
As much as I detest the idiots out there trying to hush-hush climate change significance, I also detest this idea that we must mandate "global warming" be taught in school. What about we just teach a well-rounded science curriculum? Why not mandate nano-science as part of the curriculum while we're at it?
The fundamental problem I have with this whole thing is that it would seem to be teaching an element of valid science for a political cause rather than for educational merit alone.
The guy was a rich douche playing with his toys, which wound up costing a lot of people a lot of time and money and concern. Well, except for the cable news outlets. If he had been young, pretty, blond and female, he'd be the subject of hourly updates and investigations on cable news for the next four years.
Good for him, doing stuff he wanted to do, but he wasn't Louis Pascal or anything and I'm not going to have any particular sympathy for the guy.
Slashdot Mirror
The perceptible scent of flowers drifted well over half a mile back in the day when the thick scent of horse shit and outhouses drowned the streets.
Agreed. I can't wait to log back in so I can download all those legal creative commons files and open source linux distro ISOs again!
I'm not familiar with either app, so perhaps I'm missing something. However, how can they get all stirred up over it? Can ONLY "Remember The Milk" do to-do lists on line? Can ONLY Amazon do sales online? Can ONLY Google do spreadsheets on line?
Seriously, unless the Google version clearly took a trademark or other creative content from them *or* literally took actual CODE from them, then who the hell cares?
Whiney Ruby bastards.
Unfortunately, you have a very long wait ahead of you. Television technology is not the same as it was a couple decades ago. There's not just one standard technology that was released a few years ago that is getting progressively cheaper. Just like you can't go to the store and buy a Pentium 2 system that might have been $3,000 a few years ago and get it for $100 today (because they don't produce, stock or sell them), you can't buy the TV that was out four years ago for far less today.
New technology comes out. They sell those televisions for a lot of money. Within a couple years, that technology is no longer used and they've moved to something else. So if you want the top television sets today, you have to pay the same amount you would have paid a few years ago. Granted, the technology is better, but you're not getting it for *cheaper*.
I bought my television for $4,000 18 months ago. You can get it for about half that today, but it's very difficult to find it being sold anywhere. You can spend another $4,000 to get today's new tech, sure, but they're not going to keep the old stuff on hand that they don't make as much money on.
Another problem is that sets are not very reliable. Consumer Reports claims that the failure rate / service rate on flat panel LCD and plasma televisions is very low (between 3 percent and 12 percent depending on the brand). However, my television started getting a horribly disruptive greenish yellow stain after only a year of infrequent use. Fortunately, I spent the money to buy a five year service contract, but if I hadn't, I'd have just spent a ton of money for a whole one year of television watching.
If you do a lot of research on the internet, you'll see forum after forum filled with people complaining about chronic problems with modern HD sets. Sony's, for example, seem to have a lot of failing optical blocks on their XBR and SXRD models. If you don't have a service contact, you can expect to spend about $1,200 to get your set fixed (unless it's within the one year default warrant).
The days of having a a television - whether you spend $100 or $10,000 on it - for a decade or a couple decades is well over by now.
Agreed. I have owned a bluray player for over a year now and there just isn't much of a selection. Amazon's entire bluray selection contains about three pages of movies. And most of them are garbage like "beautiful sceneries set to the sound of guitar music" or lame movies from the 80s.
I wanted to buy The Mist. Can't.
I wanted to buy Battlestar Galactica. Can't.
(There's not even a Season 2 on bluray).
Have wanted to buy some other stuff, but either the movie doesn't exist on bluray or it's an edition with limited content. For example, why would I want to spend $30 to get Fifth Element with no extras or other special content when I could wait a year or two and buy the full ultimate type version for much less money?
After a year of owning my bluray, I own Planet Earth, Apocolypto, 300 and the special five disc edition of Blade Runner. That's it. Four movies in a year. They're losing a lot of money by having nothing but crap out there.
And all the versions of the show were fucking horrid. They had a bunch of douche bag comedians and third rate television personalities hosting them and the focus was on all the wrong aspects. If they were to approach it in more of a NOVA style than a WWF/Arena Football League style, it might be worth setting the tivo for. As it is, I will never *ever* give these idiots my eyeballs.
I'm sorry, but if this is what Sweeney really said, he needs a swift kick to the head. PCs are not made for gaming? Really?! Is that why I've been thoroughly enjoying the best MMORPG's on the console? Is that why I have been playing Civilization IV on the console? Will be be playing Spore on the console?
I've switched largely to console-only gaming recently (simply because gaming on linux is tough at best), but some of the most fantastic games out there have been and are for PC. The PC simply offers greater accuracy in controlling and more control functions/options than console controllers do. Period. Not to mention, greater resolution and potential screen real-estate. Sorry, but gaming on my 65" widescreen HDTV still is not even close to the resolution of my 2560x1600 monitor. Important for MMORPGs and RTS games.
Now, I will grant them that Unreal Tournament III on the PS3 is actually pretty fantastic. It's the first time I've played an FPS on a console where I did not feel that I was simply making a compromise. I felt like I was enjoying the full experience and things controlled pretty wonderfully.
I don't know where the console can go form here with controls, but something needs to be done. I'd like to think just throwing keyboards and mice on the consoles (please stop making me buy a separate keyboard and mouse for each of my three systems that already crowd my home entertainment center!) was the solution, but I don't think it is because you have to sit at a coffee table or something... and it would have to be at appropriate height to be comfortable to use.. and then your neck would get sore craning upward at the television at the same time.
But.. something along those lines needs to be done. The same controller I use for Burnout Paradise is simply not cut out for playing Civilization IV, Age of Conan MMORPG or most multiplayer FPS games.
PS: I do not really want to kick Sweeney in the head.
I bought mine the same time, via Amazon and downloaded it within about five minutes.
Not only that, but I discovered at the same time that Amazon's MP3 Downloader is available for linux from their site. In fact, I just downloaded the *.deb, right clicked to install and sucked down my 36 files. That was the last thing I expected to see from Amazon, but I suspect they realized that a large portion of the people who would find DRM-free music to be appealing are my fellow linux users... and like Trent, they are catering to us.
It's really shaping up to be a fantastic time for information and entertainment. Imagine how much more interesting it would be without the ignorant corporates and government types (the ones who just don't get it that is) in the way.
Um. Reznor is an established artist and he's making huge amounts of money from his music without charging huge amounts of money for it. You misrepresent what is going on. THE MUSIC is $5 for 36 tracks. He is charging decidedly SMALL amounts for the music. What he's charging "huge" amounts of money for is a collector's item that includes high quality copies of the music, PLUS a bunch of video and audio content on bluray and some other miscellaneous stuff... SIGNED (there's a chunk of the value right there).
Yes, he maid $750k from 2,500 fans who willingly handed it over for the special item. He'll make FAR more than that in the long run if even only a fraction of the fans pony up the $5 for the music alone. And of course, since he's distributing it himself (via amazon, etc) he'll be pulling down far more cash than with a couple of points to his contract with a major label distribution.
Well, having also used firefox on Windows frequently, I can confirm that "100-150mb" on Windows is unlikely. I've never heard of anyone having such a light memory footprint. In my experience across many installations over the last couple years is that 400 to 600mb on Windows is the norm.
I suppose consumption on linux is a little more iffy since it perhaps will consume as much memory as is available, but even then it should not regularly consume 1gb, 2gb or more and then require you to kill the pid and restart.
I frankly don't think the average firefox users buys the idea that memory issues are due to the history page caching functionality and for all of the people of similar experiences who have posted to related firefox articles over the last couple years, I've almost never seen anyone posting to say "My firefox is just dandy and pretty much only consumes about 150mb!".
Don't misunderstand me. I've been a firefox fanboy since day one (I was an engineer at Netscape back in the 90s, until just after the code was opensourced). I also admit that my experience with several gigs of memory the last couple months or so is an abnormal experience (for me, at least) but that aside I can never recall a time when Firefox consumed less than many hundreds of megabytes with anymore more than a couple tabs open.
Why reappraise your lifestyle? Maybe your lifestyle doesn't include a solid work ethic, but others build their lives firmly on upholding one. I don't want to spend less time working. I want to find ways to be less physiologically dependent on sleep and suffer less long-term damage by sacrificing the sleep.
I am very suspicious of people who are always going on about trying to fit more vacations/sleep/personal-time/etc into their lives "instead of working so long/hard". Not suggesting at all that you don't work hard or care about your work. But most people make it sound like work is a big suck and they're stuck back in highschool having to attend some shitty class.
Anyway, mankind can only be bettered by the increase of time spent engaged in life as opposed to time spent sleeping. Perhaps if we all lived 300 years, we wouldn't care. But with a 60, 70 or 80 year life span should you be lucky, recovering a little of those 20+ years spent snoring could really be valuable.
So I repeat that I don't want science trying to help me sleep better. I want them figuring out how to save me the bother altogether.
I'm not the one complaining about lack of sleep, am I?
My point was simple and non-flame-bait-ish. If your sleep and personal time and interest are that important to you, then don't have children. You aren't a saint for having children and nobody wants to hear parents whine about their lack of sleep or time. You didn't contract malaria saving orphans in the third world. You screwed yourself out of solid sleep by spreading your seed. There's nothing wrong with that. More power to you. But if it really mattered, you would have made other choices.
However, if you've already made that choice and then decided that you really would love to have some time to yourself, then obviously make the time. Change the offspring's schedules or have someone babysit them or... whatever. Obviously the choices are limited.
God damn, breeders are sensitive. You guys should get some more sleep so you won't be so testy.
I haven't kept up with NIN/Reznor much in a number of years, so I'd never heard of "Ghost". I just saw an article in my feed reader 24 to 48 hours ago and immediately hopped on Amazon to drop my $5 on it. I mean, come on.. it's $5 for 36 tracks. Even if it isn't the best stuff ever (and it is just instrumentals, of course), it's still not a rip off.
The thing is, if it was $10 or $15 or $20 for an album, I would have just looked around on bittorrent and downloaded it. I'm not willing to pay a dollar a song for 99% of the things I'm interested in and I'm sure not interested in paying $20 for a CD (I haven't bought a CD other than via cdbaby or a band directly in a decade). HOWEVER, I was more than happy to put my $5 up. And I would have possibly been interested in buying the signed limited edition kit with the bluray content and everything. Of course, that sold out before I could get around to it... but the point is that Trent got $5 from me versus $0. And he got it from me more than eagerly. And almost got me to spend another $300 just to add to my collection.
Granted, big names can afford to do such things, but their venturing out into these different methods of distribution and marketing and fan orientation opens up doors for new guys and smaller guys who, even if they could have done this on their own five years ago, will be taken more seriously if multi-platinum money-machines are doing it, too.
I have no idea how they'd get it to run well on mobile devices unless they also seriously cripple it. There's nothing special about my firefox install on kde here, but if I go to bed with the browser open, it'll be closed when I wake up. It consumes a couple gigs of ram and then just craps out on its own.
It's only consuming 400mb right now, but then again it was only relaunched about fifteen minutes ago. And of course, as they say, the problem is all because of that "back button feature". You know, the one where it caches two or three gigabytes of web pages in memory so you can have an uber fast back button or whatever.
Hell if I know. All I know is that it's a lot of wasted effort to "get kids to read".
You know how you get kids to read? You start reading to them when they're very young. Then they'll want to start reading on their own. And if your home is full of books and the adults in it are always reading, the kids will naturally tend to have a passion for it as well.
Otherwise... I don't know... send them to a vocational school so they can clean pools or something.
Well, the first solution would be not to screw up your life by having kids... obviously. But the second solution would be to do like most families did when I was a kid (though not mine) and put the kids to bed by about 8pm.
Also, I don't know what Death Note is, but your kids are going to be fine regardless of what they watch. I watched Nightmare on Elmstreet and Poltergeist at four years old and I haven't killed anyone.
Sleeping on a schedule seems like kind of a waste.
I treat sleeping like I treat eating or going to the bathroom. When I'm hungry, I eat. When I need to take a dump, I take a dump. When I can't keep my eyes open, I sleep. I might not be exhausted until 6am one day. It might be noon the next day (I mostly spend my "office hours" overnight). In one or two weeks i could find myself mostly sleeping at night to mostly sleeping during the day. And back again. It just depends. And the best thing of all? By sleeping only when I can't stay awake anymore, I'm out the instant I hop in bed.
First, sleep is overrated. Those are pointless hours of your life that are only necessary because of the weak composition of the human body. I can't imagine anyone would not prefer to keep all those hours for various other enjoyments or projects if they could.
Second, it's a necessity of modern society *unless* people don't give a shit about doing anything for themselves. If you spend twelve hours at the office and three hours a day communiting, that's 15 hours. Throw in an hour getting ready and *maybe* having a bite for breakfast and that's 16 hours a day before you've even tackled having your dinner. Then throw in three or four hours a day on your own personal projects -- whether they're writing your own software, learning a language, reading books, painting, building something.. whatever... you are only left with maybe four hours to sleep (if you are out like a light the moment your head hits the pillow, of course).
Instead of trying to help people get more sleep or better sleep, we need to be focusing resoruces on discovering ways that we can help people survive on as little sleep as possible. If we could cut down our sleeping by 50% that's an extra decade of living within our grasp.
I remember reading an old set of Time Life books about the solar system from about 20 years ago that said said this, too. I didn't know there was any sort of debate over it. The only question I'd ever seen was whether it would be closer to six billion years form now or twelve billion years from now.
Anyway, it's not that big of a deal. If mankind hasn't gotten over religion and ignorance long before this is a concern and then moved on and out into the rest of the galaxy, then he deserves the same fate as his home planet.
I think games should come with such a warning only if all religious doctrine (bibles, church programs, curch shows, church signs, etc) must carry the same.
It seems rather redundant for them to demand it be called a theory, since all of science consists of hypothesis and theories. The important thing to take out of this is that our country always has and always will cater to the ignorant religious sect, because they control everything. As long as they make up some 90% of the population, you can't expect common sense or rationality to rule. After all, these are the idiots who are counted in surveys like the one we just saw today where 66% of Americans think that nanotech is immoral.
It's time to replace democracy with meritocracy. We've suffered the rule of the stupid for too long.
Unfortunately, you and I are also paying a stupidity tax, because our tax dollars subsidize this tax exempt company (Co$).
As much as I detest the idiots out there trying to hush-hush climate change significance, I also detest this idea that we must mandate "global warming" be taught in school. What about we just teach a well-rounded science curriculum? Why not mandate nano-science as part of the curriculum while we're at it?
The fundamental problem I have with this whole thing is that it would seem to be teaching an element of valid science for a political cause rather than for educational merit alone.
The guy was a rich douche playing with his toys, which wound up costing a lot of people a lot of time and money and concern. Well, except for the cable news outlets. If he had been young, pretty, blond and female, he'd be the subject of hourly updates and investigations on cable news for the next four years.
Good for him, doing stuff he wanted to do, but he wasn't Louis Pascal or anything and I'm not going to have any particular sympathy for the guy.