When I game, it's usually as a form of escapism and distraction - I don't want to play with my friends all the time. Rather, I'm after fun game with a great story. That's why games like Arkham Asylum, Skrim and Deus Ex are brilliant: become immersed in a world, enjoy a story comparable to a movie, and not deal with people for a little while.
Did we really just link to a climate denialist site? Beyond that, did anyone read their article? They're note disputing the energy payback period - if they can't even find a way of fighting that, you know it's true. What they're doing is using a strawman argument to debate whether renewables can supply all our power needs in the future. That's a completely separate question. Right now - a wind farm produces all its creation energy in 6-12 months. End of story.
C'mon, Slashdot. You need to retract that editorial - and Timothy needs to have a think about his credentials.
Having strong property rights of "things" has always been a huge part of our culture. However, in the same way that piracy is hacking away at traditional entertainment business models, perhaps there needs to be some give & take here. For the prices Steam offers, I'm actually willing to give up my right to resell the games - as long the games were truly free of all other DRM (I hate it that they're not...).
The biggest drawback, as I see it, is longer term not being able to pass the games on to family/friends to play. Perhaps an option is to have a higher tiered pricing which gives you the ability to resell the game later?
Yes, you're right of course; not all scientific advances are useful. And many individuals will not be directly impacted by a cure for cancer, for example. Broadly speaking, though, and what I meant to get at, is that if a scientific advance is beneficial, then it provides that benefit to the broader humanity, even if only statistically speaking and perhaps not immediately.
(Even the nuclear bomb research probably helped spur nuclear power, which in turn staved off climate change. And, of course, views are divided on whether more or less lives were lost due to the bombs. So yes, I definitely meant broad generalisation rather than absolute statement:) )
Others have already pointed out the obvious magnitude-of-funding issues.
Another issue though is that all of humanity benefits from scientific advances. If government funding were to reduce and be replaced by fund raising drives, then (in the simplest case) those who don't contribute would be getting all the benefits (alternatives to fossil fuels, medical advances, etc) but with none of the upfront cost. Of course, we already have some fund raising for breast cancer/prostate cancer/MS/other specific disease but I would imagine this makes up a fairly small portion of their research budgets (and in some cases genuinely represents an investment in their personal future).
The obvious way around this is through a Kickstarter style reward system, where people who contribute get some specific rewards. But what would you offer? You get a share of the profits? (Well, now you're actually a corporation.) You get early access to the treatment? (That's not going to fly politically.) You get your name on the side of the particle accelerator? (That might work.)
Obviously, people are welcome to do whatever they want with their money, but I think government funding of science for the common good is the fairest scenario, and what we should be encouraging.
Actually, that's for the PoGo (smaller 2x3" prints). I've got one, and it's excellent - perfect for travelling to remote areas of the world and leaving families with photos of their kids!
Leaving aside (or not!) the recent neutrino experiment, do you think that humans will ever devise a way to travel (explicitly or implicitly) faster than light? Specifically, do you think it will be possible to travel to (say) Alpha Centauri and back in under 8 years from the reference frame of earth?
If not, what do you think this means for long term space exploration and/or colonisation?
(I say implicitly/explicitly to allow for both actually exceeding the speed of light and for using some sort of clever multi-dimensional/space bending/startrekkian technique:) )
Apologies if I offended; you're right, perhaps that wasn't a fair comparison. I still think there would be a correlation - maybe not as strong, though?
More to the point, in Australia we can rent physical DVDs from $2.95 (new release) overnight. On Tuesdays, all DVDs are $1. If one of the intentions of these sort of stores is to make inroads against piracy, you'd have to be working at beating these price points, even with the convenience of home based downloads.
I would expect that the people who know how to root their phone are also unlikely to pay $3.99 to rent a movie - I can't imagine there's a lot of overlap or heartache here amongst the users.
On the other hand, these are also the most tech savvy users who might actually be swayed by a convenient and cheap (and legal) movie downloading system. Certainly I used to buy music from a certain Russian site because the cost was worth the convenience of high quality music on demand.
Replying to myself, some furthergoogling [PDF] shows a number of studies that suggest a link between learning chess and improved performance. There does seem to be evidence that learning chess improves performance (although there also seems to be some studies that suffer from correlation/causation issues; without reviewing each study individually, I'm also suspicious that some studies might not have controlled for the fact that any intervention produces improvement, not just learning chess. But the devil is in the details, and there's a broad trend towards improvement).
Looks like chess is already being taught in the Phillipines too?
Seriously, though, this is an intriguing way of fostering logical/analytical/creative thinking. I wonder if there is any peer reviewed literature on the impact of chess on children?
On my 2005 Macbook, that runs everything else perfectly, this comment thread is chewing up *80%* of my CPU (one core out of two). Really, Slashdot? This is what the top site for geeks comes up with?
And, like everyone else has said, too much white space. I don't mean this as a direct criticism - but did none of the beta testers make these observations? I'm genuinely curious.
Actually, the ETS (at least) has a reasonably good chance of being passed in some form. Yes, Labor will need the support of the Greens MPtwo independents, but Oakeshott will probably be in favour and Windsor, although opposing the existing scheme, is generally in favour of an emissions trading scheme. The Greens opposed the scheme originally because they knew it couldn't be passed even with their support, and thought they'd gain more political mileage by being the Extreme Left voice.
Now that they're actually in a position of responsibility all of those guys are likely to play ball, with the Greens in particular keen to get something through the Senate (from July next year) while Labor still has government!
I just love the irony that to support them you have the option of loging in via your Facebook details;)
It's a darn tough sell, but I threw them $5 - why not? If it comes together, it would be a fantastic Wikipedia-esque next-step of social networking. On the other hand, if Buzz can't do it...
Agreed - if Google were hacked, well, that's bad. But the same goes for anything I store on my personal computer. And while Google's a much more likely target than my lonely IP address, they're also a hundred times better equipped to come with those attacks than I am, despite my moderate geek status.
The concern is there, but the difference is that I acknowledge and accept it. These guys are calling for the destruction of Google, which, to me, is a disproportionate response.
Believe it or not, Google is a free service (for the most part) supported by advertising. I love the stuff that Google does, the way they handle advertising, and the way that advertising is actually (for the first time ever on the net) actually relevant. They've never done anything to earn my mistrust, far from it. So if by giving them my search histories I can improve both their overall advertising revenue and my own browsing experience, then I am more than willing to do so.
If things ever go wrong, well, then I'll suffer the consequences. But people demanding Google stop collecting this information is just crazy talk. Yes, Google is fast becoming a necessity because of its sheer usefulness, but it's by no means crossed the line and doesn't look like it will. If you're really that worried - just don't use Gmail, Gcalendar or any of those other things. Your Google searches will still be reasonably anonymous!
Honestly, it's rubbish like this that gives privacy advocates a bad name. Fight a battle worth fighting, for cryin' out loud.
That said, in the bigger picture, I think better decisions can usually be made with more information. That might include by terrorists, however, so whether or not those "better" decisions are in your interest is debatable, but the less restrictions on open speech the better, in general. IMHO!
Now if Simon Singh could just win his case, then maybe the world will move one step closer to free and open speech. Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context (*), and the more knowledge one has the better decisions one can make.
I think the point is that there *must* have been some difference, or there'd be no point in reporting the statistic. Water is found in 100% of cancer patient's breath samples, for instance, but that doesn't really help us. My guess is that the original article includes a typo - probably they just copied in the wrong statistic.
Neither of the other articles includes a statistic, so I'd just assume there's a (more-than-just-statistically-)significant difference for now.
Slashdot Mirror
When I game, it's usually as a form of escapism and distraction - I don't want to play with my friends all the time. Rather, I'm after fun game with a great story. That's why games like Arkham Asylum, Skrim and Deus Ex are brilliant: become immersed in a world, enjoy a story comparable to a movie, and not deal with people for a little while.
C'mon, Slashdot. You need to retract that editorial - and Timothy needs to have a think about his credentials.
But it's actually legit - you can follow the link from the OP to get there as well.
Indeed they have!
The biggest drawback, as I see it, is longer term not being able to pass the games on to family/friends to play. Perhaps an option is to have a higher tiered pricing which gives you the ability to resell the game later?
(Even the nuclear bomb research probably helped spur nuclear power, which in turn staved off climate change. And, of course, views are divided on whether more or less lives were lost due to the bombs. So yes, I definitely meant broad generalisation rather than absolute statement :) )
Another issue though is that all of humanity benefits from scientific advances. If government funding were to reduce and be replaced by fund raising drives, then (in the simplest case) those who don't contribute would be getting all the benefits (alternatives to fossil fuels, medical advances, etc) but with none of the upfront cost. Of course, we already have some fund raising for breast cancer/prostate cancer/MS/other specific disease but I would imagine this makes up a fairly small portion of their research budgets (and in some cases genuinely represents an investment in their personal future).
The obvious way around this is through a Kickstarter style reward system, where people who contribute get some specific rewards. But what would you offer? You get a share of the profits? (Well, now you're actually a corporation.) You get early access to the treatment? (That's not going to fly politically.) You get your name on the side of the particle accelerator? (That might work.)
Obviously, people are welcome to do whatever they want with their money, but I think government funding of science for the common good is the fairest scenario, and what we should be encouraging.
Actually, that's for the PoGo (smaller 2x3" prints). I've got one, and it's excellent - perfect for travelling to remote areas of the world and leaving families with photos of their kids!
Just don't ask where the genie came from, okay? :)
E.g., will we have colonies on other planets? Other star systems? Will we have robots/AI/cyborgs? Will we have a high tech world? Low tech? Nox tech?
A genie appears and offers you one true yes/no answer to any question you ask (subject, perhaps, to xkcd rules). What would you ask?
If not, what do you think this means for long term space exploration and/or colonisation?
(I say implicitly/explicitly to allow for both actually exceeding the speed of light and for using some sort of clever multi-dimensional/space bending/startrekkian technique :) )
Apologies if I offended; you're right, perhaps that wasn't a fair comparison. I still think there would be a correlation - maybe not as strong, though?
More to the point, in Australia we can rent physical DVDs from $2.95 (new release) overnight. On Tuesdays, all DVDs are $1. If one of the intentions of these sort of stores is to make inroads against piracy, you'd have to be working at beating these price points, even with the convenience of home based downloads.
On the other hand, these are also the most tech savvy users who might actually be swayed by a convenient and cheap (and legal) movie downloading system. Certainly I used to buy music from a certain Russian site because the cost was worth the convenience of high quality music on demand.
Looks like chess is already being taught in the Phillipines too?
Seriously, though, this is an intriguing way of fostering logical/analytical/creative thinking. I wonder if there is any peer reviewed literature on the impact of chess on children?
And, like everyone else has said, too much white space. I don't mean this as a direct criticism - but did none of the beta testers make these observations? I'm genuinely curious.
Actually, the ETS (at least) has a reasonably good chance of being passed in some form. Yes, Labor will need the support of the Greens MPtwo independents, but Oakeshott will probably be in favour and Windsor, although opposing the existing scheme, is generally in favour of an emissions trading scheme. The Greens opposed the scheme originally because they knew it couldn't be passed even with their support, and thought they'd gain more political mileage by being the Extreme Left voice. Now that they're actually in a position of responsibility all of those guys are likely to play ball, with the Greens in particular keen to get something through the Senate (from July next year) while Labor still has government!
It's a darn tough sell, but I threw them $5 - why not? If it comes together, it would be a fantastic Wikipedia-esque next-step of social networking. On the other hand, if Buzz can't do it...
Fantastic post - absolutely agree!
The concern is there, but the difference is that I acknowledge and accept it. These guys are calling for the destruction of Google, which, to me, is a disproportionate response.
If things ever go wrong, well, then I'll suffer the consequences. But people demanding Google stop collecting this information is just crazy talk. Yes, Google is fast becoming a necessity because of its sheer usefulness, but it's by no means crossed the line and doesn't look like it will. If you're really that worried - just don't use Gmail, Gcalendar or any of those other things. Your Google searches will still be reasonably anonymous!
Honestly, it's rubbish like this that gives privacy advocates a bad name. Fight a battle worth fighting, for cryin' out loud.
That said, in the bigger picture, I think better decisions can usually be made with more information. That might include by terrorists, however, so whether or not those "better" decisions are in your interest is debatable, but the less restrictions on open speech the better, in general. IMHO!
(*) Counterexamples welcome...
Neither of the other articles includes a statistic, so I'd just assume there's a (more-than-just-statistically-)significant difference for now.