The first thing companies will do is spin off "Offshore Labor, Inc" to a separate corporation headquartered in the Cayman Islands or wherever, then import the products for sale here. No offshored labor here!
If you import products manufactured offshore by another company, then clearly you're using offshore labour, even if indirectly. However, I suspect it would be far easier to simply use tolls.
Dell
Who can tell
Where it's been
What it's seen
And what will you
Do
If a file
On hard drive
Turns out to be
Illegal pornography
And FBI
Comes late at night
Takes you away
For a trip one way
To a place
Where those
Who bought Dell
Brand from Hell
Always go
When life runs low
So sleep tight
At night
And listen close
To every sound
Cause you bought Dell
The brand from Hell Ghostly chorus, fade to silence:
Dell... from Hell...
Dell... from Hell...
Dell... from Hell...
Dell... from Hell...
Dell... from Hell...
Dell... from Hell... ...
I'm not an apple fanboy, but this isn't the same class of issue.
You're not an Apple fanboy, you're simply an Anonymous Coward who just happened to be browsing the board and jump into Apple's defense. I've noticed that such happy coincidences happen a lot for corporations with large, well-funded PR departments. Weird, huh?
So you're saying that something that's already in-game is going to chew more processing power?
No, I'm saying that most of the things that look like they are in the game aren't actually there. For example, if there's a dozen or so books sitting in a bookshelf in a game, the chances are that they do not exist as separate objects, but form a single object with the bookshelf - and that's assuming the bookshelf is an actual object in the gameworld, rather than just scenery. Even if you can knock down the bookshelf - which, as I said, is unlikely - the books are not going to be scattered on the floor, because they are not simulated as separate objects. To do so would require more memory and processing power than simply having a single "bookshelf" object, which is turn requires more processing power than just having an inert part of the scenery that looks a bit like a bookshelf.
Restricting it to certain objects is just artificial obstruction and has nothing to do with processing power. How is it that I can destroy everything in a game like Red Faction 2, but Singularity restricts the use of a device that's essentially the core of gameplay?
Because not restricting it means that you have to write potential interactions between the device and each and every object in the game. Also, as I said, most of the seeming objects actually aren't.
I haven't played Red Faction, so I can't say about how it did this; but I strongly suspect that you're exaggerating when you say that you can destroy everything - if you keep shooting at the floor, how deep a hole can you dig?
You're making excuses for bad game design by saying it's a technological restriction.
Bad game design, in this case, consist of no realizing the technical limitations and keeping them in mind at the concept design stage.
The default font the generated postscript files had was 1) ugly 2) always the same. Of course, the latter is a "good thing", but you can easily tell someone's thesis was done in Tex/LaTeX, while in Word you can choose slightly different fonts from the same family that made it look at least a little different from every other thesis.
It's good to know that people in academics are concentrating on the essential.
To me, a game mechanic is no different to a real life mechanic. If it happens on A, it should happen on B, C, D, through Z.
Unfortunately, a game mechanic is not the same as a real life mechanic. In real life, adding a particle to a system increases the system's information processing ability, allowing it to keep behaving at the same speed and level of detail as before. In virtual worlds, the total processing power is (very) limited, so adding a part to the simulation slows it down, unless it switches to a higher level of abstraction; but that means that all those high-level properties that exist as a result of low-level properties are lost, unless the new level of abstraction is specifically defined to have them.
In other words, computers are nowhere near as fast to run consistent physics for any reasonable-sized world. Scribblenauts gets close, but as a result, the levels are very small.
The messenger/last survivor of the massacre with his last gasp, says a bunch of nonsensical stuff, right before he dies. WTF? There's two fucking clerics in the party that can cast Heal in the middle of a battle. And now that the dude's dead, why can't my guys cast Raise Dead on him? Total crap.
You can't heal or revive him for the same reason you can't simply use Phoenix Down on Aeris, or why using nuke-level summoning magic in the middle of a city doesn't leave it a smoking ruin: you are acting out a pre-scripted story. The more degrees of freedom you have, the harder it becomes to keep the story from breaking; and judging by the "how to make the players do what you want" -sections in some tabletop DM guides I've read, it seems that this phenomenom is not limited to the realm of computer RPGs.
The fact is that a specialized field with a substantial body of knowledge tends to compress complex ideas into convenient aliases, which leads to jargon.
This is the general idea of symbolic language. It underlies all human communication. It also confirms my pet theory, so it must be correct:).
a nonexpert can understand the words, but completely fail to understand the message conveyed by the words
I would argue that one doesn't understand the words, in this case.
Got that out in a single sentence but I lost everyone at carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is like glass in a greenhouse: the thicker panels you have, the warmer it gets. And if it gets too warm, all the ice at Greenland and South Pole is going to melt and flood New York City and Washington, at which point we're looking at trillion dollar damages at the very least, probably much more. Oh, and we also get more hurricanes the warmer it is.
Sure. Human brains also have to have the resources to handle much larger physical bodies, more complex language and behavioral activity, more memory storage (both in quantity and in detail), etc.
Does the size of a body actually matter? One would think it's the number of muscles that decides the complexity of controlling it; and in any case, largerl bodies fall slower relative to their size, so you'd think that they'd be easier to control.
The bit about language is true, however I wonder how much complexity symbolic language truly requires? That's an important question in general, since any being able to handle a fully symbolic language is undeniably sentient in the same sense a human is (since it would be able to take part in this conversation, for example).
HDCP is a copy protection system. I'm all for getting rid of it, but I strongly doubt that doing so would earn any support from content creators.
HDCP, just like all DRM, is a joke. Anything anyone is interested in will end up at Pirate Bay withing a week of release, and often before it; HDCP does absolutely nothing to hinder this in any way.
And that's a good thing, since it ensures that our culture will endure and not be destroyed by bit rot.
I assume you expect to be taken advantage of by your mechanic/doctor/banker because you don't know enough about cars/biology/financial devices?
Why yes, I do. It's not right, but I fully expect each and every one of these persons to ignore that and screw me over. That, arguably, is the biggest problem facing our time: you can't trust people, so the separation of labour breaks down, requiring you to be an expert at everything.
I'm of the opinion that we should be spreading information, instead of being the assholes laughing in the corner and watching Monster get richer.
Just because there's no difference doesn't mean that an audiophile can't hear it. Seriously, expect to be blown away by the very same people who you're trying to help.
Except, that from a societal point of view, homosexuality provides nothing of value outside of that relationship. Heterosexual pairings frequently provide additional taxpayers.
Since 10+% unemployment seems to be a permanent feature of modern capitalism, I'd say that it's not a matter of providing taxpayers, but of not creating social security -getters.
This is so super awesome, I'm going to move to a 3rd word slave state to ensure I get the most oppressive experience possible.
That is quite unnecessary; the officials in all Western states are working hard to bring the 3rd world here. All we have to do is lose a few more jobs and repeal minimum wage laws and I think we're all set.
Seeing as each of us was a baby once, born of a mother, from a father, it is really the very definition of a no-brainer to support this activity going forward.
Actually, not only does that conclusion not follow logically from the premise, but some societies - such as China - are actively trying to limit population growth for perfectly rational reasons.
Ah, now, don't go changing the topic. We were originally discussing encouraging behaviors, not prohibiting them. The phrase 'people should be able' absolutely does not preclude people being incentivized to do the opposite thing. Both parties are able, one encouraged, one not, but still equal in ability.
Except that we're not "incentivizing" heterosexual coupling, we're simply penalizing it less than homosexual one. Also, it's somewhat unclear whether "incentive" and "lack of penalty" can ever really be considered different, any more than "lack of incentive" and "penalty" can.
Also, none of this changes that the society has made living as a heterosexual couple cheaper than a homosexual one. Assuming that being mainly attracted to your own gender or the opposite isn't a matter of choice - that is, that you can't choose your sexual turn-ons - it's rather hard to see this as anything but unfairly discriminating against homosexuals.
So: Linux has provided no value; Linus had no business writing a kernel without having read every paper about kernels; and no new knowledge came from the exercise.
No, Linux has provided plenty of value. However, many of its features - time-sharing, memory protection, virtual memory, memory mapping and shared libraries to name just a few - are based on earlier works on the field. By incorporating these existing breakthroughs Linux has become far more than it had been had Linus been forced to start from the scratch and invent it all himself.
Right then. Leaving the entire field to the first to enter it has worked out so well in the past.
You shouldn't leave the field to the first to enter it; however, you should continue from where those who came before you left off, rather than starting again from the very beginning. That way you'll reach far further, and those who come after you can reach further still.
No matter how tall you are, you'll always reach higher if you stand on the shoulder of a giant. In fact, no matter how tall you are, you still reach higer even if you just stand on the shoulder of a midget, rather than on bare ground. This is the purpose of studying: to allow you to utilize your abilities to reach new highs, rather than repeat work that's already been done.
None of this means that people who haven't studied IT couldn't do very well indeed; it's simply that by studying it they could do even better.
The tax breaks for couples are there to encourage behavior, just as tax breaks for green cars or whatever other arbitrary thing.
The problem with this argument is that it's easy to see how green cars would be good for all of us: after all, who liks to breath toxins? On the other hand, it's very hard indeed for me to see why I should care if any particular couple is composed of a man or woman, two men or two women.
Of course, by the exact same logic, there's no real reason to prefer couples to triples or various larger communes; in fact it can be argued that "the more the merrier", since a threesome can share a single washing machine and other resources, making them more resource effective and thus better from society's viewpoint.
Then again, I'm a firm believer that people should be able to arrange their lives as they best see fit, with the minimum interference from either governmental, religious or corporate interests. It's only the disproportionate power of the last that sadly makes me convinced that the first is needed to protect people from the predations of robber barons.
It really is a neat puzzle, is it not?
"Neat" is not a word I'd use for tax, inheritance or almost any other law. "Puzzle", however, is spot on.
It's pathetic that you think nobody else can think for themselves or come up with their own ideas and breakthroughs.
Of course you can. Spending time coming up with the same ideas and breakthroughs someone else has already done is known as "reinventing the wheel" and is stupid, since it wastes time and energy on dublicating effort rather than inventing something new.
Christianity is a dumb one to mention, seeing as the bible is clearly anti-asspounding.
Yes, I believe the passage forbidding that was somewhere between the ones condemning eating shrimp and wearing clothes made from multiple different fabrics.
You might as well complain about the government not giving special tax breaks for all the other "sins" too.
A government needs to treat its citizens equally. It either gives tax breaks for couples or it doesn't, but only giving them to heterosexual couples is unfair.
The word you are looking for is "systematically", not "logically". And unless you're talking about a whole building's worth of computers, it's simply not worth it to indicate a location in the name, "Huey" is a lot easier to remember than "B2R22S15".
And then we might as well all hide in our houses, because someone might someday get a photograph of us doing something innocuous which some day might be something you would have preferred to keep private.
Welcome to 1984. Remember, someone, somewhere, is logging this conversation into a database and updating a threat index of us based on it.
Or we can simply live our lives, and thus change the standards of behavior.
The problem with this is that there's a legitimate place for "discouraged, but not strictly forbidden" behavior; for example, drunken debauchery is good for the soul if done occasionally, but very bad if done constantly. The surveillance society is slowly but steadily eradicating that grey area, leaving the choices of "forbidden" or "allowed", which is a hopelessly black and white view of human behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
If you import products manufactured offshore by another company, then clearly you're using offshore labour, even if indirectly. However, I suspect it would be far easier to simply use tolls.
Dell
...
Who can tell
Where it's been
What it's seen
And what will you
Do
If a file
On hard drive
Turns out to be
Illegal pornography
And FBI
Comes late at night
Takes you away
For a trip one way
To a place
Where those
Who bought Dell
Brand from Hell
Always go
When life runs low
So sleep tight
At night
And listen close
To every sound
Cause you bought Dell
The brand from Hell
Ghostly chorus, fade to silence:
Dell... from Hell...
Dell... from Hell...
Dell... from Hell...
Dell... from Hell...
Dell... from Hell...
Dell... from Hell...
Anyone care to compose a tune for this ?-)
You're not an Apple fanboy, you're simply an Anonymous Coward who just happened to be browsing the board and jump into Apple's defense. I've noticed that such happy coincidences happen a lot for corporations with large, well-funded PR departments. Weird, huh?
No, I'm saying that most of the things that look like they are in the game aren't actually there. For example, if there's a dozen or so books sitting in a bookshelf in a game, the chances are that they do not exist as separate objects, but form a single object with the bookshelf - and that's assuming the bookshelf is an actual object in the gameworld, rather than just scenery. Even if you can knock down the bookshelf - which, as I said, is unlikely - the books are not going to be scattered on the floor, because they are not simulated as separate objects. To do so would require more memory and processing power than simply having a single "bookshelf" object, which is turn requires more processing power than just having an inert part of the scenery that looks a bit like a bookshelf.
Because not restricting it means that you have to write potential interactions between the device and each and every object in the game. Also, as I said, most of the seeming objects actually aren't.
I haven't played Red Faction, so I can't say about how it did this; but I strongly suspect that you're exaggerating when you say that you can destroy everything - if you keep shooting at the floor, how deep a hole can you dig?
Bad game design, in this case, consist of no realizing the technical limitations and keeping them in mind at the concept design stage.
It's good to know that people in academics are concentrating on the essential.
Unfortunately, a game mechanic is not the same as a real life mechanic. In real life, adding a particle to a system increases the system's information processing ability, allowing it to keep behaving at the same speed and level of detail as before. In virtual worlds, the total processing power is (very) limited, so adding a part to the simulation slows it down, unless it switches to a higher level of abstraction; but that means that all those high-level properties that exist as a result of low-level properties are lost, unless the new level of abstraction is specifically defined to have them.
In other words, computers are nowhere near as fast to run consistent physics for any reasonable-sized world. Scribblenauts gets close, but as a result, the levels are very small.
You can't heal or revive him for the same reason you can't simply use Phoenix Down on Aeris, or why using nuke-level summoning magic in the middle of a city doesn't leave it a smoking ruin: you are acting out a pre-scripted story. The more degrees of freedom you have, the harder it becomes to keep the story from breaking; and judging by the "how to make the players do what you want" -sections in some tabletop DM guides I've read, it seems that this phenomenom is not limited to the realm of computer RPGs.
This is the general idea of symbolic language. It underlies all human communication. It also confirms my pet theory, so it must be correct :).
I would argue that one doesn't understand the words, in this case.
Carbon dioxide is like glass in a greenhouse: the thicker panels you have, the warmer it gets. And if it gets too warm, all the ice at Greenland and South Pole is going to melt and flood New York City and Washington, at which point we're looking at trillion dollar damages at the very least, probably much more. Oh, and we also get more hurricanes the warmer it is.
What's so difficult about this?
Does the size of a body actually matter? One would think it's the number of muscles that decides the complexity of controlling it; and in any case, largerl bodies fall slower relative to their size, so you'd think that they'd be easier to control.
The bit about language is true, however I wonder how much complexity symbolic language truly requires? That's an important question in general, since any being able to handle a fully symbolic language is undeniably sentient in the same sense a human is (since it would be able to take part in this conversation, for example).
HDCP, just like all DRM, is a joke. Anything anyone is interested in will end up at Pirate Bay withing a week of release, and often before it; HDCP does absolutely nothing to hinder this in any way.
And that's a good thing, since it ensures that our culture will endure and not be destroyed by bit rot.
Bullshit. You need vacuum-sealed cables. And preferably you should be outside of Earth's gravity well.
Why yes, I do. It's not right, but I fully expect each and every one of these persons to ignore that and screw me over. That, arguably, is the biggest problem facing our time: you can't trust people, so the separation of labour breaks down, requiring you to be an expert at everything.
Just because there's no difference doesn't mean that an audiophile can't hear it. Seriously, expect to be blown away by the very same people who you're trying to help.
Since 10+% unemployment seems to be a permanent feature of modern capitalism, I'd say that it's not a matter of providing taxpayers, but of not creating social security -getters.
That is quite unnecessary; the officials in all Western states are working hard to bring the 3rd world here. All we have to do is lose a few more jobs and repeal minimum wage laws and I think we're all set.
Actually, not only does that conclusion not follow logically from the premise, but some societies - such as China - are actively trying to limit population growth for perfectly rational reasons.
Except that we're not "incentivizing" heterosexual coupling, we're simply penalizing it less than homosexual one. Also, it's somewhat unclear whether "incentive" and "lack of penalty" can ever really be considered different, any more than "lack of incentive" and "penalty" can.
Also, none of this changes that the society has made living as a heterosexual couple cheaper than a homosexual one. Assuming that being mainly attracted to your own gender or the opposite isn't a matter of choice - that is, that you can't choose your sexual turn-ons - it's rather hard to see this as anything but unfairly discriminating against homosexuals.
No, Linux has provided plenty of value. However, many of its features - time-sharing, memory protection, virtual memory, memory mapping and shared libraries to name just a few - are based on earlier works on the field. By incorporating these existing breakthroughs Linux has become far more than it had been had Linus been forced to start from the scratch and invent it all himself.
You shouldn't leave the field to the first to enter it; however, you should continue from where those who came before you left off, rather than starting again from the very beginning. That way you'll reach far further, and those who come after you can reach further still.
No matter how tall you are, you'll always reach higher if you stand on the shoulder of a giant. In fact, no matter how tall you are, you still reach higer even if you just stand on the shoulder of a midget, rather than on bare ground. This is the purpose of studying: to allow you to utilize your abilities to reach new highs, rather than repeat work that's already been done.
None of this means that people who haven't studied IT couldn't do very well indeed; it's simply that by studying it they could do even better.
The problem with this argument is that it's easy to see how green cars would be good for all of us: after all, who liks to breath toxins? On the other hand, it's very hard indeed for me to see why I should care if any particular couple is composed of a man or woman, two men or two women.
Of course, by the exact same logic, there's no real reason to prefer couples to triples or various larger communes; in fact it can be argued that "the more the merrier", since a threesome can share a single washing machine and other resources, making them more resource effective and thus better from society's viewpoint.
Then again, I'm a firm believer that people should be able to arrange their lives as they best see fit, with the minimum interference from either governmental, religious or corporate interests. It's only the disproportionate power of the last that sadly makes me convinced that the first is needed to protect people from the predations of robber barons.
"Neat" is not a word I'd use for tax, inheritance or almost any other law. "Puzzle", however, is spot on.
Well, of course there's more: you left out ELSE, you silly rabbit!
Of course you can. Spending time coming up with the same ideas and breakthroughs someone else has already done is known as "reinventing the wheel" and is stupid, since it wastes time and energy on dublicating effort rather than inventing something new.
Yes, I believe the passage forbidding that was somewhere between the ones condemning eating shrimp and wearing clothes made from multiple different fabrics.
A government needs to treat its citizens equally. It either gives tax breaks for couples or it doesn't, but only giving them to heterosexual couples is unfair.
Can you elaborate on that?
The word you are looking for is "systematically", not "logically". And unless you're talking about a whole building's worth of computers, it's simply not worth it to indicate a location in the name, "Huey" is a lot easier to remember than "B2R22S15".
Welcome to 1984. Remember, someone, somewhere, is logging this conversation into a database and updating a threat index of us based on it.
The problem with this is that there's a legitimate place for "discouraged, but not strictly forbidden" behavior; for example, drunken debauchery is good for the soul if done occasionally, but very bad if done constantly. The surveillance society is slowly but steadily eradicating that grey area, leaving the choices of "forbidden" or "allowed", which is a hopelessly black and white view of human behavior.