OMFG! A Talking Goat. Like there are not enough human idiots here on Slashdot. Read your own quote, stupid! "...trademarks used... in this site... are owned by Hormel Foods:... any... SPAM-derived terms...". So if you see SPAMWHORE on Hormel's site, be advised that this is most probably their trademark. The reason is that they are talking about THEIR PRODUCTS on this site, and I guess they would register a trademark before introducing the product on the market and discussing it on the site.
So if you make up the word SPAMSTUPIDTALKINGGOAT, it is unlikely to be used on spam.com.
When does thinking before posting ever come to the mind of an average Slashdot reader?
The Brain was innovative when it was first created. They have added practically nothing since then and the functionality is still too weak to make it useful. Add to this that it uses proprietary format, has no plug-in architecture, no compatibility with anything else and you see that it's nothing more than a curiosity.
Yes they are. Bits per second (bauds) for connection speed and bytes (mega- and giga-) for filesizes. I think I wrote it correctly.
Unfortunately, I am not in Australia. I doubt traffic would cost that much even there. The price is for cable access in St. Petersburg, Russia, but since the traffic costs ISPs at least 2-3 cents per Mb, practically everyone pays around that. Of course, dial-up users pay +0.5$ per hour.
And the second price (17 euro/month) was for a neighbouring Finland. Sweet!:)
DEGENATRON - The arcade comes to your living room!
on
Pac-Man Reloaded
·
· Score: 1
DEGENATRON*
The arcade comes to your living room! Only without the creepy guys offering to show you puppies
PLAYS THREE EXCITING GAMES!!!
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH - "Save the green dots with your fantastic flying red square!"
MONKEY'S PARADISE - "Swing from green dot to green dot with your red square monkey!"
PENETRATOR - "Smash the green dots deep inside the mysterious red square!"
That was actually pretty stupid. I wonder why moderators like that so much...
Is the gameplay in old games simple? Absolutely. Is it good? Not necessarily. There is something ingenious in the arrival of the train, but over time viewers developed certain sofistication and demanded richer films. There is something really great about Pong, but how many people play it today, despite there being hundreds of versions including many online Flash and Java versions? Simple gameplay is appealing to simple and unsophisticated gamers or in situations where you don't have enough time (playing in subway on your handheld).
People played Asteroids because there was nothing better to play, that's all. Any gamer would kill for a playable copy of Half-Life then.
When you claim that many games today renounce gameplay in favour of graphics, what do you mean by "many"? How many recent games can you actually name that had both great graphics and boring gameplay? Unreal2 certainly comes to mind, but what else? I think that poor gameplay usually comes together with shoddy graphics, but then this is indicative of poor overall quality and not some distrurbing graphics-over-gameplay trends.
When you claim that Doom 3 has the gameplay similar to Doom 2, you prove that you either never played the original game or don't know anything at all about the sequel. I suggest you download a year old "Doom III Legacy" clip (7 min) with first Doom 3 footage (and some Doom 2 also) and brief interviews with Kevin Clowd, Trent Reznor, Robert Duffy, John Carmack and others. Or how about downloading the alpha and checking the gameplay for yourself?
I know it is considered 1337 to praise the gameplay and diss graphics, but to do so is to greatly oversimplify the situation.
There are generally two distinct categories of games:
those where you play with something and
those where you play as somebody
First category is akin to playing with toys, second to "role-playing" (not necessarily in the RPG-ish sense) where you assume a role of a certain character in a certain world. For the first category gameplay is essential, for the second realism is.
Games in the first category may evolve in unpredictable ways, but not the games in the second category. Those will steadily improve with the emphasis on visual realism. Simultaneously the audio-quality, screen size, etc. will improve. Eventually (probably at some moment in the next decade) first advanced control systems will be developed (computer-to-brain interface) and the emphasis will shift on the overall realism (including tactile images, smells, etc.).
So don't think that by paying attention to graphics developers take something away from the gameplay. They don't, it's just a different direction they are taking. Games with simplier graphics that concentrate on providing quality gameplay will continue to be made. Of course, even Pac-Man can't be released today with bad graphics (remember, original graphics are simple because of hardware limitations, not because it is cool to use only one colour for the main protagonist), but not all games need HL2-level graphics either.
Well, I have cable access (128Kbps) and I pay 5-7 cents per Mb. That is 50$ for 1Gb. 1Gb of disk space costs me less than 1$. So if there is a 2% chance of watching some movie (listening to music), it's worth to have it stored locally.
On the other hand, when I am on 1Mbps connection with unlimited traffic and flat 17/month rate, I don't have the same pressure to store files locally. On the other hand, if I am pretty sure I will watch (listen it) it in the foreseeable future, it is still worthwhile.
Ultimately we do. The Moore Law is essential to the development of strong AI and uploading, to genetics and proteinomics, to nanotechnologies and future science in general. And that means that ever faster processors are absolutely necessary if we want human immortality and other posthuman powers.
To think that faster computers are something optional is to make a very serious mistake.
P.S. To make faster computers practical for scientific research and technological development we need to drive prices down with a mass consumer market for CPUs.
But the "unreasonable effectiveness" of fast food chains in feeding the hungry, as the clown Ronald McDonalds once put it, is a minor motivation at best for those immersed in the field. Most employees say they are in it for the money itself, for the delirious quest for salary, the thrill of the paycheck and the lure of beautiful green backs.
Does that mean we should fire everyone working for McDonalds and start looking for people who are really interested in how hungry their next client is and what is his favourite food?
Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Isn't that odd that you have to explain to a clueless person your answers on the Mensa entrance test?:)
Even better, you have do discount the future payments. If we assume an interest (discount) rate of 5%, all his future payments are worth only 120 grands today. So basically he just has to pay a fine of 120000$, which sounds a lot better.
This problem seems to be peculiar to English (or American English). In Russian, for example, there is no such problem. So the reasons, whatever they are, must be country-specific.
There are several important points here. One, in early XX century most of the property owned by capitalists was basically "stolen". That's where the slogan "steal the stolen" comes from. And if you read any history textbook, you will understand that it was to a large extent true. We may bash Nike and Microsoft for unethical business practices today, but compared to capitalists of the XIX century, they are saints. I can almost see the halo above Gates' head. And knowing labour theory of value, you might understand what was the mechanism for this first theft. So, stealing from capitalists wasn't necessarily an immoral thing to do. Second, this violence was a temporarily thing. Once the means of productions are safe in the hands of the people, no more stealing is needed. And three, as I say below, other property (not plants and factories) was OK.
Until very recently you (assuming you are American) lived under a regime that would not allow people to exercise their freedoms to fuck other consenting adults in the ass. Not really a "free" country, is it? But seriously, communism allowed private property for things other than means of production (although excessive material wealth was frowned upon). Right to own clothes might be a basic right, right to own a nuclear power plant or a railroad is not. Different societies recognise different sets of freedoms. That doesn't make communism evil, does it?
Your last paragraph is a good example of FUD spread by American government for decades. It's not your fault that you succumbed to it. Marxism was (and still is) one of the greatest socio-economic theories explaining human history. It provided a very accurate explanation for the economic situation of the XIX-early XX century. Your comments only serve to show your ignorance.
Just today I was thinking that there is supposedly a tree of life (not the one Adam and Eve ate from, the 2nd "uber-tree") still growing in the heaven. Why not make a futuristic shooter with Deus Ex-style nanotech and cool weapons? In it you will go to the heaven to take the tree of life by force from God, fighting all sorts of scary angelic creatures (seraphims, cherubs, etc.). Sounds like a winning idea to me...
Yep, you are right. My point was that Gates today IS rich (50+ bn $) and he gives a very small amount to charity (1% probably). That he might lose all that overnight doesn't change the fact that he is not giving much today while he still can.
Re:Orwell's vision was true!
on
Gates and Security
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Social equality should have come because control over means of production is eliminated. The government that was built over 1917-1920s - the Soviets - was actually democractic. Unfortunately for us all, Stalin came to power (despite Lenin's repeated warnings) and basically murdered everybody (or at least everybody who could potentially have been a threat to him). Thus a totalitarian and authoritarian state was developed. At the same time, nomenclatura emerged, which was basically a new class of government workers. A really unfortunate and unintended result.
Social equality can work to some extent in truly democratic countries (where you don't have oligarchy, families and even dynasties of politicians, legalised bribes, etc.). So we cannot be sure at this stage that it can't work in communism.
As per your next comment about communism's poor track record, the main problem is that it wasn't tried that much. There have been only a couple examples of governments really taking the ideology seriously (only to some extent) and they all have achieved surprisingly good results, given the conditions in which they started.
Speaking specifically of the problems that they faced, the biggest one, I believe, was the lack of feedback and freedom. And that wasn't a failure of communism, but a characteristic result of Stalin's dictatorship.
Please also note that the prerequisites to the communism are advanced science and technology, and well educated and well brought up population. Advanced management information systems also come handy. Today we would have much better chances if we try communism once again.
That's nothing more than some creationism "science". Check this and this or some real hardcore science instead. If you want more, just google for "sun radius annual shrinkage" or smth like that. Talk.Origins is also a good source of information.
I personally think that the Pope doesn't believe in God at all. He's too smart for that and he surely must know that there is nothing special about himself.
I wonder how blimps can still be cost-effective with the prices for helium being as high as they are (and apparently increasing, because the helium is a non-renewable resource that we are losing into space at the alarming rate)...
Of course, he doesn't have a lot of cash, it's not profitable to keep it. But I don't think most of his wealth is in assets like a car either. Most of it is probably stock, mostly MS shares. Stock is pretty liquid and he doesn't need it to drive to work. He can give MS shares to charity and everyone would be happy.
Re:Orwell's vision was true!
on
Gates and Security
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As another poster already suggested, you probably, "don't know what you're talking about". Here is just a brief summary of what communism actually is:
Next social formation after capitalism
Social equality (no classes)
Means of production belong to the public
Thanks to the development of science and technology, the production capacities will greatly increase
The work will become the first necessity for the people, not by force, but voluntary
"Communism is an advanced society of free and conscientious workers" (KPSS programme, 1972)
You might be very frightened of communism, but it might actually happen in the US (and in other countries) in several decades simply because of scientific and technological development. That would be the best outcome, however it is possible the the society will jump straight to the individualistic post-human world.
It's not the repressions that we are talking about, it's the mechanisms that are used by governments. Strange that no one mentioned rewriting history as one of the tools. It's true that many photos were re-edited in 1930s in USSR to remove people who were considered "enemies of the people" and executed. It did happen that a 30+ people photo gradually changed to Stalin and just a couple of others. That's exactly what Orwell was writing about in 1984.
But even if USA doesn't stick to 1984 to the letter, it does things in the same spirit. Just consider USA friendship (and sponsoring) with Taliban and Saddam. Does the White House admit it? No, they behave just like the USA have always been at war with Oceania^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Iraq. I bet that if the government could re-edit old newspapers, they would do it happily.
Yep. It seems that we mostly agree regarding this issue. We both understand that ethically there is nothing wrong with my position (as long as I am honest, and the availability of free films doesn't reinforce my belief that they are worthless). Economically there is also no problem (again, with the same assumption).
The only problem is legal. How to design a law that would not unnecesarily limit the propagation of creative works, but at the same time support a free market where consumers and suppliers interact to finance the development of new creative works.
My point is that while copyright (without modern additions like permanent extentions, DMCA, NET, etc.) might do an acceptable job of directing money from customers to producers in order to finance new creative works, we also need a counter-balance that would maintain the availability of these works.
Currently "fair use" and piracy mechanisms serve as some form of counter-balance and it is very important that these mechanisms remain in place.
We must also understand that there can be no perfect laws and people need some amount of 'wiggle room'. People can make their ethical choices and don't need their whole life legislated. Of course, the availability of free movies will have negative effect on DVD purchases, but they will not drop to zero (possible, but extremely unlikely). There will be a new equilibrium where studios will be perfectly capable of producing a new amount of movies. But I believe that this negative effect will be offset by a greater availability of the films. For example, it might be that there are 10% less movies made, but each movie is watched by twice as many people.
Finally, I must add that I actually do think that consumers should have the right to set their own prices. People are the ultimate masters (should be in a democracy). And in the unlikely case they decide that movies should be still made, but they should all cost 0$, it would be the job of public sector to finance the production. Just like it happens with other public goods.
Slashdot Mirror
OMFG! A Talking Goat. Like there are not enough human idiots here on Slashdot. Read your own quote, stupid! "...trademarks used... in this site... are owned by Hormel Foods: ... any... SPAM-derived terms...". So if you see SPAMWHORE on Hormel's site, be advised that this is most probably their trademark. The reason is that they are talking about THEIR PRODUCTS on this site, and I guess they would register a trademark before introducing the product on the market and discussing it on the site.
So if you make up the word SPAMSTUPIDTALKINGGOAT, it is unlikely to be used on spam.com.
When does thinking before posting ever come to the mind of an average Slashdot reader?
The Brain was innovative when it was first created. They have added practically nothing since then and the functionality is still too weak to make it useful. Add to this that it uses proprietary format, has no plug-in architecture, no compatibility with anything else and you see that it's nothing more than a curiosity.
Yes they are. Bits per second (bauds) for connection speed and bytes (mega- and giga-) for filesizes. I think I wrote it correctly.
:)
Unfortunately, I am not in Australia. I doubt traffic would cost that much even there. The price is for cable access in St. Petersburg, Russia, but since the traffic costs ISPs at least 2-3 cents per Mb, practically everyone pays around that. Of course, dial-up users pay +0.5$ per hour.
And the second price (17 euro/month) was for a neighbouring Finland. Sweet!
DEGENATRON*
The arcade comes to your living room!
Only without the creepy guys offering to show you puppies
PLAYS THREE EXCITING GAMES!!!
Degenatron on the Web - www.degenatron.com
* - of course, as featured in this classic 80s-style game.Or "Duke Nukem If Ever".
That was actually pretty stupid. I wonder why moderators like that so much...
Is the gameplay in old games simple? Absolutely. Is it good? Not necessarily. There is something ingenious in the arrival of the train, but over time viewers developed certain sofistication and demanded richer films. There is something really great about Pong, but how many people play it today, despite there being hundreds of versions including many online Flash and Java versions? Simple gameplay is appealing to simple and unsophisticated gamers or in situations where you don't have enough time (playing in subway on your handheld).
People played Asteroids because there was nothing better to play, that's all. Any gamer would kill for a playable copy of Half-Life then.
When you claim that many games today renounce gameplay in favour of graphics, what do you mean by "many"? How many recent games can you actually name that had both great graphics and boring gameplay? Unreal2 certainly comes to mind, but what else? I think that poor gameplay usually comes together with shoddy graphics, but then this is indicative of poor overall quality and not some distrurbing graphics-over-gameplay trends.
When you claim that Doom 3 has the gameplay similar to Doom 2, you prove that you either never played the original game or don't know anything at all about the sequel. I suggest you download a year old "Doom III Legacy" clip (7 min) with first Doom 3 footage (and some Doom 2 also) and brief interviews with Kevin Clowd, Trent Reznor, Robert Duffy, John Carmack and others. Or how about downloading the alpha and checking the gameplay for yourself?
I know it is considered 1337 to praise the gameplay and diss graphics, but to do so is to greatly oversimplify the situation.
There are generally two distinct categories of games:
First category is akin to playing with toys, second to "role-playing" (not necessarily in the RPG-ish sense) where you assume a role of a certain character in a certain world. For the first category gameplay is essential, for the second realism is.
Games in the first category may evolve in unpredictable ways, but not the games in the second category. Those will steadily improve with the emphasis on visual realism. Simultaneously the audio-quality, screen size, etc. will improve. Eventually (probably at some moment in the next decade) first advanced control systems will be developed (computer-to-brain interface) and the emphasis will shift on the overall realism (including tactile images, smells, etc.).
So don't think that by paying attention to graphics developers take something away from the gameplay. They don't, it's just a different direction they are taking. Games with simplier graphics that concentrate on providing quality gameplay will continue to be made. Of course, even Pac-Man can't be released today with bad graphics (remember, original graphics are simple because of hardware limitations, not because it is cool to use only one colour for the main protagonist), but not all games need HL2-level graphics either.
Well, I have cable access (128Kbps) and I pay 5-7 cents per Mb. That is 50$ for 1Gb. 1Gb of disk space costs me less than 1$. So if there is a 2% chance of watching some movie (listening to music), it's worth to have it stored locally.
On the other hand, when I am on 1Mbps connection with unlimited traffic and flat 17/month rate, I don't have the same pressure to store files locally. On the other hand, if I am pretty sure I will watch (listen it) it in the foreseeable future, it is still worthwhile.
Ultimately we do. The Moore Law is essential to the development of strong AI and uploading, to genetics and proteinomics, to nanotechnologies and future science in general. And that means that ever faster processors are absolutely necessary if we want human immortality and other posthuman powers.
To think that faster computers are something optional is to make a very serious mistake.
P.S. To make faster computers practical for scientific research and technological development we need to drive prices down with a mass consumer market for CPUs.
But the "unreasonable effectiveness" of fast food chains in feeding the hungry, as the clown Ronald McDonalds once put it, is a minor motivation at best for those immersed in the field. Most employees say they are in it for the money itself, for the delirious quest for salary, the thrill of the paycheck and the lure of beautiful green backs.
Does that mean we should fire everyone working for McDonalds and start looking for people who are really interested in how hungry their next client is and what is his favourite food?
Isn't that odd that you have to explain to a clueless person your answers on the Mensa entrance test? :)
Even better, you have do discount the future payments. If we assume an interest (discount) rate of 5%, all his future payments are worth only 120 grands today. So basically he just has to pay a fine of 120000$, which sounds a lot better.
This problem seems to be peculiar to English (or American English). In Russian, for example, there is no such problem. So the reasons, whatever they are, must be country-specific.
Disclaimer: this is not ironic.
There are several important points here. One, in early XX century most of the property owned by capitalists was basically "stolen". That's where the slogan "steal the stolen" comes from. And if you read any history textbook, you will understand that it was to a large extent true. We may bash Nike and Microsoft for unethical business practices today, but compared to capitalists of the XIX century, they are saints. I can almost see the halo above Gates' head. And knowing labour theory of value, you might understand what was the mechanism for this first theft. So, stealing from capitalists wasn't necessarily an immoral thing to do.
Second, this violence was a temporarily thing. Once the means of productions are safe in the hands of the people, no more stealing is needed.
And three, as I say below, other property (not plants and factories) was OK.
Until very recently you (assuming you are American) lived under a regime that would not allow people to exercise their freedoms to fuck other consenting adults in the ass. Not really a "free" country, is it? But seriously, communism allowed private property for things other than means of production (although excessive material wealth was frowned upon). Right to own clothes might be a basic right, right to own a nuclear power plant or a railroad is not. Different societies recognise different sets of freedoms. That doesn't make communism evil, does it?
Your last paragraph is a good example of FUD spread by American government for decades. It's not your fault that you succumbed to it. Marxism was (and still is) one of the greatest socio-economic theories explaining human history. It provided a very accurate explanation for the economic situation of the XIX-early XX century. Your comments only serve to show your ignorance.
Just today I was thinking that there is supposedly a tree of life (not the one Adam and Eve ate from, the 2nd "uber-tree") still growing in the heaven. Why not make a futuristic shooter with Deus Ex-style nanotech and cool weapons? In it you will go to the heaven to take the tree of life by force from God, fighting all sorts of scary angelic creatures (seraphims, cherubs, etc.). Sounds like a winning idea to me...
Yep, you are right. My point was that Gates today IS rich (50+ bn $) and he gives a very small amount to charity (1% probably). That he might lose all that overnight doesn't change the fact that he is not giving much today while he still can.
Social equality should have come because control over means of production is eliminated. The government that was built over 1917-1920s - the Soviets - was actually democractic. Unfortunately for us all, Stalin came to power (despite Lenin's repeated warnings) and basically murdered everybody (or at least everybody who could potentially have been a threat to him). Thus a totalitarian and authoritarian state was developed. At the same time, nomenclatura emerged, which was basically a new class of government workers. A really unfortunate and unintended result.
Social equality can work to some extent in truly democratic countries (where you don't have oligarchy, families and even dynasties of politicians, legalised bribes, etc.). So we cannot be sure at this stage that it can't work in communism.
As per your next comment about communism's poor track record, the main problem is that it wasn't tried that much. There have been only a couple examples of governments really taking the ideology seriously (only to some extent) and they all have achieved surprisingly good results, given the conditions in which they started.
Speaking specifically of the problems that they faced, the biggest one, I believe, was the lack of feedback and freedom. And that wasn't a failure of communism, but a characteristic result of Stalin's dictatorship.
Please also note that the prerequisites to the communism are advanced science and technology, and well educated and well brought up population. Advanced management information systems also come handy. Today we would have much better chances if we try communism once again.
That's nothing more than some creationism "science".
Check this and this or some real hardcore science instead. If you want more, just google for "sun radius annual shrinkage" or smth like that. Talk.Origins is also a good source of information.
Evolution is not a model, it is a fact. The Evolution Theory is a model that explains in details how evolution works.
It is the same as confusing gravity and Theory of Gravity. The former is an observable fact, the latter is a theory that explains it.
I personally think that the Pope doesn't believe in God at all. He's too smart for that and he surely must know that there is nothing special about himself.
I wonder how blimps can still be cost-effective with the prices for helium being as high as they are (and apparently increasing, because the helium is a non-renewable resource that we are losing into space at the alarming rate)...
Of course, he doesn't have a lot of cash, it's not profitable to keep it. But I don't think most of his wealth is in assets like a car either. Most of it is probably stock, mostly MS shares. Stock is pretty liquid and he doesn't need it to drive to work. He can give MS shares to charity and everyone would be happy.
Next social formation after capitalism
Social equality (no classes)
Means of production belong to the public
Thanks to the development of science and technology, the production capacities will greatly increase
The work will become the first necessity for the people, not by force, but voluntary
"Communism is an advanced society of free and conscientious workers" (KPSS programme, 1972)
You might be very frightened of communism, but it might actually happen in the US (and in other countries) in several decades simply because of scientific and technological development. That would be the best outcome, however it is possible the the society will jump straight to the individualistic post-human world.
It's not the repressions that we are talking about, it's the mechanisms that are used by governments. Strange that no one mentioned rewriting history as one of the tools. It's true that many photos were re-edited in 1930s in USSR to remove people who were considered "enemies of the people" and executed. It did happen that a 30+ people photo gradually changed to Stalin and just a couple of others. That's exactly what Orwell was writing about in 1984.
But even if USA doesn't stick to 1984 to the letter, it does things in the same spirit. Just consider USA friendship (and sponsoring) with Taliban and Saddam. Does the White House admit it? No, they behave just like the USA have always been at war with Oceania^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Iraq. I bet that if the government could re-edit old newspapers, they would do it happily.
Yep. It seems that we mostly agree regarding this issue. We both understand that ethically there is nothing wrong with my position (as long as I am honest, and the availability of free films doesn't reinforce my belief that they are worthless). Economically there is also no problem (again, with the same assumption).
The only problem is legal. How to design a law that would not unnecesarily limit the propagation of creative works, but at the same time support a free market where consumers and suppliers interact to finance the development of new creative works.
My point is that while copyright (without modern additions like permanent extentions, DMCA, NET, etc.) might do an acceptable job of directing money from customers to producers in order to finance new creative works, we also need a counter-balance that would maintain the availability of these works.
Currently "fair use" and piracy mechanisms serve as some form of counter-balance and it is very important that these mechanisms remain in place.
We must also understand that there can be no perfect laws and people need some amount of 'wiggle room'. People can make their ethical choices and don't need their whole life legislated. Of course, the availability of free movies will have negative effect on DVD purchases, but they will not drop to zero (possible, but extremely unlikely). There will be a new equilibrium where studios will be perfectly capable of producing a new amount of movies. But I believe that this negative effect will be offset by a greater availability of the films. For example, it might be that there are 10% less movies made, but each movie is watched by twice as many people.
Finally, I must add that I actually do think that consumers should have the right to set their own prices. People are the ultimate masters (should be in a democracy). And in the unlikely case they decide that movies should be still made, but they should all cost 0$, it would be the job of public sector to finance the production. Just like it happens with other public goods.