It's not that kind of farm, stupid. It's more like a rich landowner owns hundreds of small farms, where poor farmers work hard day and night to make a living. That rich sonofabitch dies and lives his estate (which, need I remind you, consists of hundreds of farms) to his son, who doesn't have to do jack shit. Meanwhile the lower class gets to work even harder.
That's the kind of farming that uppity bitch Rosen is talking about, not the farming where you actually work (what does that word mean?).
Let's look at this from the eyes of the kid. There are plenty of children who are smart, grown-up and developed enough at 6 years already to be able to play GTA without suffering permanent brain damage. Why shouldn't these kids be able to buy and play it?
There is nothing wrong with picking up prostitutes (sex industry workers), it certainly isn't much worse than flirting and making out with a maid in Sims 2, not to mention adultery and other stuff, there is nothing wrong with sex, car theft is on par with carjacking in Halo, and massacre is only marginally worse than nuking a city in Civilization.
I really don't understand why it should be sold under the counter, it's nothing special, really. If anything, I'd rather have NFS: Undeground banned, as gangstas listening to cool radio stations are infinitely better than retarded street racers.
I didn't mean my definition to be end it all, just better than a completely unclear one the parent was using. In regards to the probabilities, the fact is that all modern reactors are designed in a way that makes it impossible to them to explode like the 4th block of ChAES did. So even if everything goes wrong, the ejection of radioactive materials into the atmosphere would be negligible. I am really tired of people who talk about reactors exploding. This is as stupid as talking about the ISS running out of fuel and suddenly falling down on my house (ignoring for the moment the atmospheric effects on its orbit).
So even if a serious catastrophe happens, the damage will be relatively minor. Most likely less than the damage from an oil tanker wreck. Thus the main argument against nuclear power is just that some people are scared and some people (some "environmental" organisations) use this to get money/power/influence/PR.
Sorry, I don't have a backyard. And not sure if I have the money to build a nuclear power plant.:) But there already is one about 90 km from where I live and I don't particularly mind. In fact, I don't mind at all.
As for the backyards, people will complain about anything - nuclear power plants, wind turbines, anything. The only thing they don't seem to mind is miles and miles of suburban sprawl...
The fear is ridiculous because nuclear plants have an excellent track records, because modern designs are inherently safe, because nuclear waste is compact and relatively easy to store. You counter this with some generic arguments about "cutting corners". Yeah, I am not afraid of building libraries per se, but rather of idiots who build them using a lot of asbestos and poor materials so that they make every reader sick and then eventually collapse, burying hundreds of people underneath the ruins. So let's not build libraries, right?
You completely fail to grasp the real picture, as if you don't understand a definition of risk. Let me clarify - risk is not that the sky is falling, it's that there is a certain measurable uncertanty over the sky's future position, which we must take into account.
In real world the risks related to nuclear energy are small. Contrary to what you and your alarmist friends may believe, building a new nuclear reactor doesn't mean a Chernobyl and Hiroshima combined for everyone in 1000 km radius.
P.S. If you think only technocrats know basic math and are rational, that's rather sad.
The question is not whether AI can accidentally kill good guys, it's whether it can do it less often than a comparable human-based system. My guess would be that existing computer-based systems are generally safer or they wouldn't have been deployed.
www.apple.ru and the prices are almost 50% higher, while the models are much older... The iBook G4 1GHz 12" is $1400+, while the 1.2GHz is $1000 at apple.com.:(
Why is it that the most annoyng copy-restriction is found on the most popular titles? Why did Sims 2 have a multi-layer copy-restriction that took a week or so to correctly crack and made me return my copy (for a free replacement) to the pirate who sold me it in the first place? Why does Half-Life 2 need to have Steam activation of single-player game? I can understand all the "you have no right to play games for free" or "copying is theft" (even though I understand that it's bullshit), but wouldn't it be more correct at this point to simply say "give them a finger and they will bite your whole fucking hand". This is greed, pure and simple. Valve programmers don't have to worry about not getting paid, Valve itself (and even their poor publisher) don't have to worry about not selling enough copies. There is simply no reason for strong copy-restriction on hit titles except for the unadulterated greed.
I might feel some pity towards small developers who put out great titles (People can Fly with Painkiller, Crytek with Far Cry), but I simply refuse to care about monsters like Valve, id or 3D Realms. The big ones deserve no pity and if they annoy users with copy-restriction methods, they don't deserve any money either.
Here is a bunch of computers starting from 50$. Sadly, the components aren't new and are likely refurbished, but the computers are sold in stores and most even include the mouse and keyboard. But you have to be in Russia to get them.
The prices are absurd for the simple reason that the market is small. How many people really need data recovery software? But you need to spread your development costs between them. This doesn't explain prices for all products, however, I'd think that Nero should be rather cheap, as well as WinDVD.
OK, I'll be frank. We eagerly await this movie, because it is built on some of the hottest IP in the industry. The id Software has created a strong brand that has a significant loyal following of computer game fans. In our risk-averse times, the film industry can't afford to embark on too many risky projects and needs to balance creativity and exploration with more predictable projects. This movie also has an excellent potential for merchandising, with action figures and stuff. All this has absolutely nothing to do with any "ideas" that id Software created for the Doom universe and the need to "develop" them further. Fortunately, the viewers/gamers/customers don't need philosophy, art or originality from the film, they want scary monsters, cool special effects, lots of explosions, some catchy oneliners and action.
And of course we will continue bitching about Hollywood putting out mindless drivel, unless we are the target demographics.
To a person who never played a FF game nothing in that "report" makes sense, spoilers or no spoilers. What the hell is the following supposed to mean?
As
Tifa says that, the shot switches to Cloud, in a desolate field, sitting on Fenrir, listening to his messages on a cell phone.
I am not exaggerating - to someone who never played those games, the spoilers are a load of gibberish, just some random people doing some random things. The big question, of course, is why such a person would bother to read this report... May be to avoid doing work or something.:)
Having a site is just common courtesy. Imagine that you are a French film director who is trying to sell the idea of restoring one of the his early films to a studio exec. It's a pain in the ass to explain who are those Lowry guys. Imagine that you are their customer, but lost your PDA with their contact details, but you need to talk with them about something urgent. Pain in the ass again. Imagine that you are a journalist, a scientist, a military officer, or anyone else wanting to do anything with those guys. Again, it's a pain in the ass and it can backfire. And it will backfire eventually.
P.S. Also, if they hope that being good means being good forever, with a fat project pipeline, then they are wrong. Not even being farsighted enough to spend 500 bucks on a most basic Internet introduction to Lowry is really stupid.
OK, let's have a though experiment. Imagine that we come to see Sphinx and I climb on it. While climbing, I accidentally push some piece of stone and it falls down. Now, according to your understanding of art, history and its value, would it be better to quickly place the stone where it was or just leave it where it now is?
Paintings are renovated all the time, statues and buildings are too and noone (not even the die-hard purist art historians) seem to object when the work is done well.
I think the example of Sphinx is too special, because one of the points is precisely that Sphinx survived all those millenias without any kind of restoration. So whatever we conclusions we come to with regards to Sphinx (and the Piramids) should not be generalised.
We can also grow arbitrarily large brains constructed on many interconnected thin layers as opposed to one big blob of neural matter. This way it would be easiler to connect electrodes, microscopes and other sensors to each and every neuron to have a more complete picture of how a brain develops and works.
It looked like you are just repeating the 3rd wheel joke, sorry. The main benefit of Segway is that by being dynamically balanced it's much more mobile and manoeuvrable. 3-wheeled and 4-wheeled platforms will be unable to quickly accelerate/decelerate (without toppling over) and turning around (without either requiring a lot of space or doing it in many steps). You can solve these two problems, but you are bound to spend more resources on that than was spent on Segway's dynamic balancing. So even though 2 wheels look like a gimmick, they are not, just like 2 legs that we humans have are not a gimmick, but a nearly perfect design uniquely suited to our environment and our daily tasks.
Of course, there are other advantages the Segway has, not just the 2-wheeled design. It has amazing wheels with excellent traction on any surface, it has a great battery that recharges when the Segway is breaking, it has brillianly designed interiors - few moving parts, brushless design for the generators/motors, isolation from the environment and resistance to bad weather, water, etc.
It's not an exaggeration to call Segway the perfect robotic mobility platform, because it really is. For a vast majority of robotic projects and for many real robots there is no better way to solve the mobility problem with our existing technologies.
Possibly because so far noone has demonstrated a practical transportation device based on 3 or more wheels that would have all benefits of a Segway. You've seen the modern robots, haven't you? Some of them have 3 wheels, some have legs, but in the best case they move at 3km/h on a perfectly flat surface. You can badmouth Segway as much as you want, and be a smartass about the third wheel, that doesn't change the fact that Segways are revolutionary, cool and useful. And you know what, after all these years the jokes are kinda old. Why don't you go bother Ford about a fifth wheel they are missing?
Probably they need some "not-so-smart" people with the IQ of 95 and slow-witted to go through all the design docs and calculations line by line, methodically and carefully, because otherwise they won't understand anything.:)
Check out The Columbia Tragedy: System Level Issues for Engineering, a free video from MIT World. In this video Sheila Widnall, MIT Institute Professor (Engineering Systems Division, Aeronautics) talks about her work on the investigation board. She talks about NASAs "culture of invincibility" where well-intentioned people became "desensitized to deviations from the norm". That is not only something often goes wrong as the Murphy's Law says, but people learn to ignore this until the disaster strikes.
As Sheila noted, if an engine fell off from the shuttle, people tended to notice, act and do something about it, but when it was something small, like foam, they ignored the issue, even though it was clear that this anomaly warranted investgation, testing, etc.
Interesting presentation that shows not only NASA sometimes ignores the potential for human error, but ignores the actual errors when they happen.
It makes the difference, because, reportedly, Windows Media Player sometimes enabled DRM for your own CD-rips by default. That meant your ripped "MP3s" would not play on your MP3 player or on another computer.
Disclaimer: I don't know what I am talking about, because I stopped using WMP after version 6. You repeating some rumours.
You don't understand what I mean. I am saying (though I am hardly the only one) that there is a basic right to copy data. I don't need a reason to have this right, instead there must be a pretty good and convincing reason why not before I would even listen.:)
You reasoning is faulty. I can also say "You should not say anything about a company unless it is something good, because if you said something bad, that would harm their image". It's the same logic as you use, implying this false dichotomy. It is perfectly right to use the product and still not pay. It doesn't follow that I must pay for it, just as it doesn't follow that everything you say about a corporation must be good.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are some options:
It's technically a dog, but some really look more like cats, Kitty, Meow Chi and more at Yenra.com.
It's not that kind of farm, stupid. It's more like a rich landowner owns hundreds of small farms, where poor farmers work hard day and night to make a living. That rich sonofabitch dies and lives his estate (which, need I remind you, consists of hundreds of farms) to his son, who doesn't have to do jack shit. Meanwhile the lower class gets to work even harder.
That's the kind of farming that uppity bitch Rosen is talking about, not the farming where you actually work (what does that word mean?).
Let's look at this from the eyes of the kid. There are plenty of children who are smart, grown-up and developed enough at 6 years already to be able to play GTA without suffering permanent brain damage. Why shouldn't these kids be able to buy and play it?
There is nothing wrong with picking up prostitutes (sex industry workers), it certainly isn't much worse than flirting and making out with a maid in Sims 2, not to mention adultery and other stuff, there is nothing wrong with sex, car theft is on par with carjacking in Halo, and massacre is only marginally worse than nuking a city in Civilization.
I really don't understand why it should be sold under the counter, it's nothing special, really. If anything, I'd rather have NFS: Undeground banned, as gangstas listening to cool radio stations are infinitely better than retarded street racers.
I didn't mean my definition to be end it all, just better than a completely unclear one the parent was using. In regards to the probabilities, the fact is that all modern reactors are designed in a way that makes it impossible to them to explode like the 4th block of ChAES did. So even if everything goes wrong, the ejection of radioactive materials into the atmosphere would be negligible. I am really tired of people who talk about reactors exploding. This is as stupid as talking about the ISS running out of fuel and suddenly falling down on my house (ignoring for the moment the atmospheric effects on its orbit).
So even if a serious catastrophe happens, the damage will be relatively minor. Most likely less than the damage from an oil tanker wreck. Thus the main argument against nuclear power is just that some people are scared and some people (some "environmental" organisations) use this to get money/power/influence/PR.
Sorry, I don't have a backyard. And not sure if I have the money to build a nuclear power plant. :) But there already is one about 90 km from where I live and I don't particularly mind. In fact, I don't mind at all.
As for the backyards, people will complain about anything - nuclear power plants, wind turbines, anything. The only thing they don't seem to mind is miles and miles of suburban sprawl...
The fear is ridiculous because nuclear plants have an excellent track records, because modern designs are inherently safe, because nuclear waste is compact and relatively easy to store. You counter this with some generic arguments about "cutting corners". Yeah, I am not afraid of building libraries per se, but rather of idiots who build them using a lot of asbestos and poor materials so that they make every reader sick and then eventually collapse, burying hundreds of people underneath the ruins. So let's not build libraries, right?
You completely fail to grasp the real picture, as if you don't understand a definition of risk. Let me clarify - risk is not that the sky is falling, it's that there is a certain measurable uncertanty over the sky's future position, which we must take into account.
In real world the risks related to nuclear energy are small. Contrary to what you and your alarmist friends may believe, building a new nuclear reactor doesn't mean a Chernobyl and Hiroshima combined for everyone in 1000 km radius.
P.S. If you think only technocrats know basic math and are rational, that's rather sad.
The question is not whether AI can accidentally kill good guys, it's whether it can do it less often than a comparable human-based system. My guess would be that existing computer-based systems are generally safer or they wouldn't have been deployed.
www.apple.ru and the prices are almost 50% higher, while the models are much older... The iBook G4 1GHz 12" is $1400+, while the 1.2GHz is $1000 at apple.com. :(
Why is it that the most annoyng copy-restriction is found on the most popular titles? Why did Sims 2 have a multi-layer copy-restriction that took a week or so to correctly crack and made me return my copy (for a free replacement) to the pirate who sold me it in the first place? Why does Half-Life 2 need to have Steam activation of single-player game? I can understand all the "you have no right to play games for free" or "copying is theft" (even though I understand that it's bullshit), but wouldn't it be more correct at this point to simply say "give them a finger and they will bite your whole fucking hand". This is greed, pure and simple. Valve programmers don't have to worry about not getting paid, Valve itself (and even their poor publisher) don't have to worry about not selling enough copies. There is simply no reason for strong copy-restriction on hit titles except for the unadulterated greed.
I might feel some pity towards small developers who put out great titles (People can Fly with Painkiller, Crytek with Far Cry), but I simply refuse to care about monsters like Valve, id or 3D Realms. The big ones deserve no pity and if they annoy users with copy-restriction methods, they don't deserve any money either.
Here is a bunch of computers starting from 50$. Sadly, the components aren't new and are likely refurbished, but the computers are sold in stores and most even include the mouse and keyboard. But you have to be in Russia to get them.
one link and another
Now if anyone would explain me how I can buy a new Apple here under 1500$, that would be great...
The prices are absurd for the simple reason that the market is small. How many people really need data recovery software? But you need to spread your development costs between them. This doesn't explain prices for all products, however, I'd think that Nero should be rather cheap, as well as WinDVD.
OK, I'll be frank. We eagerly await this movie, because it is built on some of the hottest IP in the industry. The id Software has created a strong brand that has a significant loyal following of computer game fans. In our risk-averse times, the film industry can't afford to embark on too many risky projects and needs to balance creativity and exploration with more predictable projects. This movie also has an excellent potential for merchandising, with action figures and stuff. All this has absolutely nothing to do with any "ideas" that id Software created for the Doom universe and the need to "develop" them further. Fortunately, the viewers/gamers/customers don't need philosophy, art or originality from the film, they want scary monsters, cool special effects, lots of explosions, some catchy oneliners and action.
And of course we will continue bitching about Hollywood putting out mindless drivel, unless we are the target demographics.
I am not exaggerating - to someone who never played those games, the spoilers are a load of gibberish, just some random people doing some random things. The big question, of course, is why such a person would bother to read this report... May be to avoid doing work or something.
Having a site is just common courtesy. Imagine that you are a French film director who is trying to sell the idea of restoring one of the his early films to a studio exec. It's a pain in the ass to explain who are those Lowry guys. Imagine that you are their customer, but lost your PDA with their contact details, but you need to talk with them about something urgent. Pain in the ass again. Imagine that you are a journalist, a scientist, a military officer, or anyone else wanting to do anything with those guys. Again, it's a pain in the ass and it can backfire. And it will backfire eventually.
P.S. Also, if they hope that being good means being good forever, with a fat project pipeline, then they are wrong. Not even being farsighted enough to spend 500 bucks on a most basic Internet introduction to Lowry is really stupid.
OK, let's have a though experiment. Imagine that we come to see Sphinx and I climb on it. While climbing, I accidentally push some piece of stone and it falls down. Now, according to your understanding of art, history and its value, would it be better to quickly place the stone where it was or just leave it where it now is?
Paintings are renovated all the time, statues and buildings are too and noone (not even the die-hard purist art historians) seem to object when the work is done well.
I think the example of Sphinx is too special, because one of the points is precisely that Sphinx survived all those millenias without any kind of restoration. So whatever we conclusions we come to with regards to Sphinx (and the Piramids) should not be generalised.
We can also grow arbitrarily large brains constructed on many interconnected thin layers as opposed to one big blob of neural matter. This way it would be easiler to connect electrodes, microscopes and other sensors to each and every neuron to have a more complete picture of how a brain develops and works.
It looked like you are just repeating the 3rd wheel joke, sorry. The main benefit of Segway is that by being dynamically balanced it's much more mobile and manoeuvrable. 3-wheeled and 4-wheeled platforms will be unable to quickly accelerate/decelerate (without toppling over) and turning around (without either requiring a lot of space or doing it in many steps). You can solve these two problems, but you are bound to spend more resources on that than was spent on Segway's dynamic balancing. So even though 2 wheels look like a gimmick, they are not, just like 2 legs that we humans have are not a gimmick, but a nearly perfect design uniquely suited to our environment and our daily tasks.
Of course, there are other advantages the Segway has, not just the 2-wheeled design. It has amazing wheels with excellent traction on any surface, it has a great battery that recharges when the Segway is breaking, it has brillianly designed interiors - few moving parts, brushless design for the generators/motors, isolation from the environment and resistance to bad weather, water, etc.
It's not an exaggeration to call Segway the perfect robotic mobility platform, because it really is. For a vast majority of robotic projects and for many real robots there is no better way to solve the mobility problem with our existing technologies.
No, you silly, we saw it here first! Roland forever!
Possibly because so far noone has demonstrated a practical transportation device based on 3 or more wheels that would have all benefits of a Segway. You've seen the modern robots, haven't you? Some of them have 3 wheels, some have legs, but in the best case they move at 3km/h on a perfectly flat surface. You can badmouth Segway as much as you want, and be a smartass about the third wheel, that doesn't change the fact that Segways are revolutionary, cool and useful. And you know what, after all these years the jokes are kinda old. Why don't you go bother Ford about a fifth wheel they are missing?
RIAN reports (Russian) that in 2006 Italian passports will have RFIDs too.
Probably they need some "not-so-smart" people with the IQ of 95 and slow-witted to go through all the design docs and calculations line by line, methodically and carefully, because otherwise they won't understand anything. :)
Check out The Columbia Tragedy: System Level Issues for Engineering, a free video from MIT World. In this video Sheila Widnall, MIT Institute Professor (Engineering Systems Division, Aeronautics) talks about her work on the investigation board. She talks about NASAs "culture of invincibility" where well-intentioned people became "desensitized to deviations from the norm". That is not only something often goes wrong as the Murphy's Law says, but people learn to ignore this until the disaster strikes.
As Sheila noted, if an engine fell off from the shuttle, people tended to notice, act and do something about it, but when it was something small, like foam, they ignored the issue, even though it was clear that this anomaly warranted investgation, testing, etc.
Interesting presentation that shows not only NASA sometimes ignores the potential for human error, but ignores the actual errors when they happen.
It makes the difference, because, reportedly, Windows Media Player sometimes enabled DRM for your own CD-rips by default. That meant your ripped "MP3s" would not play on your MP3 player or on another computer.
Disclaimer: I don't know what I am talking about, because I stopped using WMP after version 6. You repeating some rumours.
But then if it already existed there would be no reason to propose it. :)
You don't understand what I mean. I am saying (though I am hardly the only one) that there is a basic right to copy data. I don't need a reason to have this right, instead there must be a pretty good and convincing reason why not before I would even listen. :)
You reasoning is faulty. I can also say "You should not say anything about a company unless it is something good, because if you said something bad, that would harm their image". It's the same logic as you use, implying this false dichotomy. It is perfectly right to use the product and still not pay. It doesn't follow that I must pay for it, just as it doesn't follow that everything you say about a corporation must be good.