effectively using the touchscreen means finding a way to make it uniquely useful without giving the player who possesses it an overwhelming advantage. There are some multiplayer games that will map very effectively to this concept--but most won't.
Isn't this a case where players 2, 3, and 4 can use a DS Lite, DSi, or 3DS with DS Download Play?
There's no way they could make game play identical between a special purpose device and general purpose devices. (unless the special purpose device *is* just a DS in a slightly different case)
If I were to get one of these, I'd leave the touchscreen controller in the box, and get several DS's. Perhaps that's Nintendo's plan. The touchscreen device might just be a "starter", but to get full control, you need a DS.
Will Amazon continue to call for a national Internet sales tax...
If Amazon thinks that any tax, national or state will hurt its competitors and especially new entrants more than it hurts Amazon, they will call for it.
Most everything above is good, but don't overlook the obvious. Spin the drive up in a quiet room and listen to it. If it sounds different from all the other drives like it, there's a good chance something is wrong.
I replaced the drive in my TiVo. The 1st replacement was so much louder, I swapped the original back, then put the new drive in a test rig. It started getting bad sectors in a few days. RMA'd it to Seagate, and the new one was much quieter.
Let's call this the occupy rule, because that's what it is. A way to intimidate people without having the messiness of a trial and stuff. You just have to arrest them, search and hold them for awhile and let them go. Note the language:
'Every detainee... may be required to undergo a close visual inspection
That means the cops don't have any responsibility to find every weapon, but they can search you if they want to. If you get shived in lockup, that's your own bad luck.
The presumption is: you can be smart or talented in an area, but if you don't practice, you don't get to the genius level. The other side of that coin is that if you don't have the smarts or talent, all the practice in the world won't get you there.
The way I heard it, there are no geniuses, just people who have the drive to get to that 10,000 hour level. "Normal" people, just don't have the drive. If your brain is malfunctioning, you can't get there either.
Perhaps super-normal people, like the kids that go to university at age 11, just have enough brain power to get through everything else and have enough left over to practice. (While the rest of us are still trying to tie our shoes)
I even think there must be people who have voices inside their heads telling them to "eat broccoli", "brush your teeth" and "go to bed".
Only people with non-functioning hallucinations bother seeing someone about them. Imagine you are an auto-mechanic, and you can often see a hallucination of the shop manual for the car you are working on. You wouldn't see a shrink to get cured, would you.
There was a study that found that just like there are manic/depressive people, there are also people that are manic/more-manic. These people tend to be CEOs, actors and rock stars.
I think that this can explain why politics gets so weird sometimes. Sometimes, what are apparently sane people, are just plain nuts.
It's not just "occasional social awkwardness". There's much more going on that most people don't see. And it takes a lot of work to make it so that you don't see it.
If you're exceptional, you might, through herculean effort, appear "normal". But, what if that herculean effort could be harnessed to do real work, instead of just allowing you to tread water.
The question that really gets to me is "Could I be even better?"
Yes.
Next question. Do the benefits of any potential therapy outweigh the risks? That's much harder to answer. Some therapies, like talking to a counselor, only risk spending a lot of money for no benefit, but if you get an especially bad therapist, your life could go to hell. A former boss's marriage counselor ran off with his wife (:-(
Drugs can be even worse. Sometimes staying in the cave is the most sane thing to do.
Hardware companies do this calculus all the time, and I'm not sure they're doing the math correctly.
Assuming that nVidia didn't sign some sort of limited time licence for the old set of glasses they should have continued support. Yes, if you can't use your old glasses, you might buy new nVidia glasses. Most likely, you'll be pissed off and buy a competitor's product. If you old glasses work, it keeps money out of the competitor pocket.
When a company supports an old product, yes they might be losing a sale, but they are definately keeping money away from a competitor.
It's always easier to get funding if you know the answers ahead of time. Also, if your study is positive, all the better. i.e. Does L-XYZ-inine reduce tumor formation in mice? A yes result will get you more funding later than a negative result, but science advances on negative results too.
Until we build our robot overlords, we will have to live with the fact that scientists are fallible people too. (and journalists always get it wrong)
Too true. Many people don't know how the electricity works when they turn on a light switch, they don't know what happens in their car when they turn the key, and frankly, they don't *want* to know.
I don't understand people who don't want to know why things work. I suspect conservative politicians *do* understand such people, and know how to get their votes and money.
people still take these Iron Age myths as The Truth.
The odd thing is, theologians, people who actually study the old texts, mostly take them as parable and example, not the literal truth. Even the Catholic church has been redefining miracles as being only invisible stuff. Faith can fix invisible cancer and heart disease, but it can't grow back an amputated hand. Jesus raised the dead, but I had a great uncle that woke up during his own wake.
Does anybody know the last time the church verified a visible miracle?
Now for most people, this would be some pretty compelling evidence. Not so for Dick! Perhaps it wasn't a bad idea, he just didn't apply it with enough vigor. Perhaps there was an external factor that sabotaged what was otherwise a sound idea. Does he reevaluate? Does he reexamine? No, he'll double-down.
There was a recent fMRI study of compulsive gamblers vs. regular people while playing slot machines. In the compulsive gambler an apparent "near miss" lit up the "win" area of the brain. In the normal person, only a real win would light up that same area. (The casinos already knew this from experience and have adjusted their machines to give more "near miss"es.)
The investment advisor can take advantage of this by keeping Dick informed with every bump in the "value" of the investment, and downplaying any losses. When the bottom of the market drops out, the advisor just dumps Dick and gets a new mark.
There *is* trust in science, i.e. that the scientific method is valid. We say that if a experiment is repeatable enough times, that we have a valid test of truth. We assume that nature isn't completely capricious and random. i.e. If Zeus were throwing the lightning bolts around, he might avoid the buildings with lightnings rods just because he wants to, but still occasionally blast one or two just because he was feeling ornery.
We have trust in Occam's razor. "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." Most of the time that works for us, but as H. L. Mencken is quoted: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Recently there was a astrophysist that suggested that billions of years ago some scientific constants like the charge on the electron were subtlely different. If these constants drifted in a consistent fashion, we might be able to develop a theory that properly describes the universe. This is one explaination why there's no detected life far away, it just wasn't possible until now.
If, on the other hand, right after the Big Bang, the various universal constants bounced around, then there's not much hope we could ever properly describe what happened or predict what will happen.
For now, we trust the scientific method because it works better than praying to Zeus. If something comes along that works even better than science, we should switch to it. (But I'm sure some people will stick with science for awhile)
I would say that any usage is a good metric. If you google the name of your project, and another person has made a positive comment somewhere about it, the it's a success, because you've touched someone. You don't have to measure yourself by the standard of Apache or Android or Firefox.
Absolutely. It's a great ego boost to find that someone is using something you wrote, not because they have to, but because they *want* to. Writing commercial applications doesn't have the same feeling. Yes, a paycheck is nice, it's more practical, but for a lot of people the emotional bump from having somone use your OSS stuff is more powerful than a paycheck.
If you want to work at Google, just go work there. They still hire massively worldwide.
I was being facetious, but seriously, this wouldn't be a way for people to find Google to get hired, it's for Google to find people who should be hired.
Yes, Google recruits big time. Yes, even I have been approached. (They had nothing in my geographic area, I have a good job, and I don't want to move)
But, I would not presume that even Google can know every great person that they should hire. Although, perhaps that's Google's grand plan. Not to have all the world's knowedge, but to employee all the world's smart people.
Most large companies I've worked for won't use the *published* best practices of companies like Google or Microsoft, what makes anyone think that a large company can make any use of secret information that can't be verified?
Google should post an open-ended problem. Those with the best solution get in for free, the worse your solution, the higher your cost. If you invent a one-of-a-kind, genius solution, Google hires you.
Excellent idea. Google could put out an open ended problem. Those with the best solution get in for free, the worse your solution, the higher your cost. If you invent a one-of-a-kind, genius solution, Google hires you.
If a developer couldn't go because of illness, Google could offer to buy them or at least broker them at face value to someone who could go. If the tickets were non-transferable except through the brokering service, that would be less evil than letting the scalpers get them.
I understand that some places might have special needs, like anti-corrosion parts nearer the ocean, or huricane resistance where there is actually a chance of a hurricane. But, do we really need completely different building standards that change depending on which side of an artificial border you're on?
Perhaps we need a National Bureau of Standards who keep all the standards, and local governments just pick from the relevant ones? That department would keep a web site, and local goverments could publish links.
That's exactly what royalties are all about. Corporations do their darnedest to be in a position to collect royalties and to avoid paying them.
Your normal wage slave digs a ditch and gets paid once for it. A smart person creates something that can pay them over and over again. If you're not very creative, buy real estate and rent it to other people.
As far as this topic goes, this is just government being lazy. Rather than create their own working standards, or buy the rights to someone else's work, small governments just say "look over there" and hope nobody calls them on it.
Considering that the federal government willingly admits they have secret, non-publicized interpretations for laws, I would say that ignorance of the law (or rather, how it is being enforced) is now the perfect excuse.
But if you run afoul of those "laws", you still don't need to know them because you end up dead.
In that case, are the Olympics obsolete because the world's fastest sprinter can't even beat a moped, much less a Ferrari? Are painters obsolete because of photoshop? When the competition is man vs man, the abilities of machines shouldn't make it obsolete.
When the first Olimpics were held in ancient Greece, the fastest sprinter couldn't beat a cheetah, most can't even beat a horse in the 1/4 mile.
It's the spectators and sponsors that determine if a game can succeed professionally. The players determine if a game can succeed on an amateur level. Once a game has lost all it's spectators and players, then it's obsolete.
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Why doesn't this prevent AT&T from forcing arbitration?
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
effectively using the touchscreen means finding a way to make it uniquely useful without giving the player who possesses it an overwhelming advantage. There are some multiplayer games that will map very effectively to this concept--but most won't.
Isn't this a case where players 2, 3, and 4 can use a DS Lite, DSi, or 3DS with DS Download Play?
There's no way they could make game play identical between a special purpose device and general purpose devices. (unless the special purpose device *is* just a DS in a slightly different case)
If I were to get one of these, I'd leave the touchscreen controller in the box, and get several DS's. Perhaps that's Nintendo's plan. The touchscreen device might just be a "starter", but to get full control, you need a DS.
Will Amazon continue to call for a national Internet sales tax ...
If Amazon thinks that any tax, national or state will hurt its competitors and especially new entrants more than it hurts Amazon, they will call for it.
Most everything above is good, but don't overlook the obvious. Spin the drive up in a quiet room and listen to it. If it sounds different from all the other drives like it, there's a good chance something is wrong.
I replaced the drive in my TiVo. The 1st replacement was so much louder, I swapped the original back, then put the new drive in a test rig. It started getting bad sectors in a few days. RMA'd it to Seagate, and the new one was much quieter.
'Every detainee ... may be required to undergo a close visual inspection
That means the cops don't have any responsibility to find every weapon, but they can search you if they want to. If you get shived in lockup, that's your own bad luck.
The presumption is: you can be smart or talented in an area, but if you don't practice, you don't get to the genius level. The other side of that coin is that if you don't have the smarts or talent, all the practice in the world won't get you there.
The way I heard it, there are no geniuses, just people who have the drive to get to that 10,000 hour level. "Normal" people, just don't have the drive. If your brain is malfunctioning, you can't get there either.
Perhaps super-normal people, like the kids that go to university at age 11, just have enough brain power to get through everything else and have enough left over to practice. (While the rest of us are still trying to tie our shoes)
I think you are absolutely right.
I even think there must be people who have voices inside their heads telling them to "eat broccoli", "brush your teeth" and "go to bed".
Only people with non-functioning hallucinations bother seeing someone about them. Imagine you are an auto-mechanic, and you can often see a hallucination of the shop manual for the car you are working on. You wouldn't see a shrink to get cured, would you.
There was a study that found that just like there are manic/depressive people, there are also people that are manic/more-manic. These people tend to be CEOs, actors and rock stars.
I think that this can explain why politics gets so weird sometimes. Sometimes, what are apparently sane people, are just plain nuts.
It's not just "occasional social awkwardness". There's much more going on that most people don't see. And it takes a lot of work to make it so that you don't see it.
If you're exceptional, you might, through herculean effort, appear "normal". But, what if that herculean effort could be harnessed to do real work, instead of just allowing you to tread water.
The question that really gets to me is "Could I be even better?"
Yes.
Next question. Do the benefits of any potential therapy outweigh the risks? That's much harder to answer. Some therapies, like talking to a counselor, only risk spending a lot of money for no benefit, but if you get an especially bad therapist, your life could go to hell. A former boss's marriage counselor ran off with his wife (:-(
Drugs can be even worse. Sometimes staying in the cave is the most sane thing to do.
Hardware companies do this calculus all the time, and I'm not sure they're doing the math correctly.
Assuming that nVidia didn't sign some sort of limited time licence for the old set of glasses they should have continued support. Yes, if you can't use your old glasses, you might buy new nVidia glasses. Most likely, you'll be pissed off and buy a competitor's product. If you old glasses work, it keeps money out of the competitor pocket.
When a company supports an old product, yes they might be losing a sale, but they are definately keeping money away from a competitor.
It's always easier to get funding if you know the answers ahead of time. Also, if your study is positive, all the better. i.e. Does L-XYZ-inine reduce tumor formation in mice? A yes result will get you more funding later than a negative result, but science advances on negative results too.
Until we build our robot overlords, we will have to live with the fact that scientists are fallible people too. (and journalists always get it wrong)
Too true. Many people don't know how the electricity works when they turn on a light switch, they don't know what happens in their car when they turn the key, and frankly, they don't *want* to know.
I don't understand people who don't want to know why things work. I suspect conservative politicians *do* understand such people, and know how to get their votes and money.
people still take these Iron Age myths as The Truth.
The odd thing is, theologians, people who actually study the old texts, mostly take them as parable and example, not the literal truth. Even the Catholic church has been redefining miracles as being only invisible stuff. Faith can fix invisible cancer and heart disease, but it can't grow back an amputated hand. Jesus raised the dead, but I had a great uncle that woke up during his own wake.
Does anybody know the last time the church verified a visible miracle?
Now for most people, this would be some pretty compelling evidence. Not so for Dick! Perhaps it wasn't a bad idea, he just didn't apply it with enough vigor. Perhaps there was an external factor that sabotaged what was otherwise a sound idea. Does he reevaluate? Does he reexamine? No, he'll double-down.
There was a recent fMRI study of compulsive gamblers vs. regular people while playing slot machines. In the compulsive gambler an apparent "near miss" lit up the "win" area of the brain. In the normal person, only a real win would light up that same area. (The casinos already knew this from experience and have adjusted their machines to give more "near miss"es.)
The investment advisor can take advantage of this by keeping Dick informed with every bump in the "value" of the investment, and downplaying any losses. When the bottom of the market drops out, the advisor just dumps Dick and gets a new mark.
There *is* trust in science, i.e. that the scientific method is valid. We say that if a experiment is repeatable enough times, that we have a valid test of truth. We assume that nature isn't completely capricious and random. i.e. If Zeus were throwing the lightning bolts around, he might avoid the buildings with lightnings rods just because he wants to, but still occasionally blast one or two just because he was feeling ornery.
We have trust in Occam's razor. "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." Most of the time that works for us, but as H. L. Mencken is quoted: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Recently there was a astrophysist that suggested that billions of years ago some scientific constants like the charge on the electron were subtlely different. If these constants drifted in a consistent fashion, we might be able to develop a theory that properly describes the universe. This is one explaination why there's no detected life far away, it just wasn't possible until now.
If, on the other hand, right after the Big Bang, the various universal constants bounced around, then there's not much hope we could ever properly describe what happened or predict what will happen.
For now, we trust the scientific method because it works better than praying to Zeus. If something comes along that works even better than science, we should switch to it. (But I'm sure some people will stick with science for awhile)
I would say that any usage is a good metric. If you google the name of your project, and another person has made a positive comment somewhere about it, the it's a success, because you've touched someone. You don't have to measure yourself by the standard of Apache or Android or Firefox.
Absolutely. It's a great ego boost to find that someone is using something you wrote, not because they have to, but because they *want* to. Writing commercial applications doesn't have the same feeling. Yes, a paycheck is nice, it's more practical, but for a lot of people the emotional bump from having somone use your OSS stuff is more powerful than a paycheck.
Why would you need this to get hired by Google?
If you want to work at Google, just go work there. They still hire massively worldwide.
I was being facetious, but seriously, this wouldn't be a way for people to find Google to get hired, it's for Google to find people who should be hired.
Yes, Google recruits big time. Yes, even I have been approached. (They had nothing in my geographic area, I have a good job, and I don't want to move)
But, I would not presume that even Google can know every great person that they should hire. Although, perhaps that's Google's grand plan. Not to have all the world's knowedge, but to employee all the world's smart people.
Most large companies I've worked for won't use the *published* best practices of companies like Google or Microsoft, what makes anyone think that a large company can make any use of secret information that can't be verified?
Google should post an open-ended problem. Those with the best solution get in for free, the worse your solution, the higher your cost. If you invent a one-of-a-kind, genius solution, Google hires you.
Excellent idea. Google could put out an open ended problem. Those with the best solution get in for free, the worse your solution, the higher your cost. If you invent a one-of-a-kind, genius solution, Google hires you.
If a developer couldn't go because of illness, Google could offer to buy them or at least broker them at face value to someone who could go. If the tickets were non-transferable except through the brokering service, that would be less evil than letting the scalpers get them.
I understand that some places might have special needs, like anti-corrosion parts nearer the ocean, or huricane resistance where there is actually a chance of a hurricane. But, do we really need completely different building standards that change depending on which side of an artificial border you're on?
Perhaps we need a National Bureau of Standards who keep all the standards, and local governments just pick from the relevant ones? That department would keep a web site, and local goverments could publish links.
You can't charge people twice for the same thing
That's exactly what royalties are all about. Corporations do their darnedest to be in a position to collect royalties and to avoid paying them.
Your normal wage slave digs a ditch and gets paid once for it. A smart person creates something that can pay them over and over again. If you're not very creative, buy real estate and rent it to other people.
As far as this topic goes, this is just government being lazy. Rather than create their own working standards, or buy the rights to someone else's work, small governments just say "look over there" and hope nobody calls them on it.
Considering that the federal government willingly admits they have secret, non-publicized interpretations for laws, I would say that ignorance of the law (or rather, how it is being enforced) is now the perfect excuse.
But if you run afoul of those "laws", you still don't need to know them because you end up dead.
In that case, are the Olympics obsolete because the world's fastest sprinter can't even beat a moped, much less a Ferrari? Are painters obsolete because of photoshop? When the competition is man vs man, the abilities of machines shouldn't make it obsolete.
When the first Olimpics were held in ancient Greece, the fastest sprinter couldn't beat a cheetah, most can't even beat a horse in the 1/4 mile.
It's the spectators and sponsors that determine if a game can succeed professionally. The players determine if a game can succeed on an amateur level. Once a game has lost all it's spectators and players, then it's obsolete.
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Why doesn't this prevent AT&T from forcing arbitration?