So I'm not sure what you are saying. The period of stagnation China had for some time relatively recently was an exception in their history. Not without destructive influence of the West, too.
Those school systems which are functioning good throughout the world are very much "government" ones too, so you might let go that socialism phobia. Something went a bit more wrong with your implementation along the way.
One could even argue that what you're describing is, essentially, applying corporate ethics to the way education is performed;p
I don't think you should use that argument much...unless you want to be accused of much more massive selective reading of those texts then it's typical. Nvm that it's sensible to care mostly about current / recent (as in "last thousand years") state of affairs.
And gods aren't about "cause and effect". Or rather, they are a subgroup of that issue; they are about unknown cause and effect; about will of humans to grasp, fear less, and control that unknown (look carefully - all successful religions revolve around controlling reality by humans)
Nintendo DSi changes that; and doesn't Sony have some kind of support for indy devs nowadays in their online service? (so at least potentially available on PSP)
All this is beside the point though, when talking about "gaming market"
half the people on earth will have a connected communication device, with half of that population cycling every two years
What do you mean "will"? 3 billion people had mobile phone...a year ago. Now it's at around 4.6 billion. And you overestimate a bit their willingness to upgrade, I suspect.
You ignore how small portion of PC owners play on them, specifically play DirectX games. On PCs it's usually at most something...Flash-based, etc.
We are not typical PC users (I thought this was clear on/.;p )
Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie
on
Hot Or Not — 3D TV
·
· Score: 1
True, I forgot about "doubling" of objects when there's not only a background, also some near ones. Though it might be not so bad - after all, we are very good at ignoring "doubled" images of objects far from out focus plane (I even forgot about it!). Yes, I'm suggesting using somewhat artificial image without "doubled" objects, everything in focus - it's certainly possible with CGI. Heck, even with photography - I played many years ago with portable stereoscope (the kind with pairs of pictures on a circle), and it seems most problems avoided by careful selection of lenses, "background-only" type of scene and enormously big depth of field.
We are definitely not used to "I'm trying to look at it, and it remains blurry". We even actively combat this with prosthetics for many centuries...
Overall, those complications convince me even more that stereoscopy, moving or not, is just a gimmick. Since middle of XIX century, actually.
DirectX representing 50-90% of gaming market? Hardly. X360 is the only console supporting it; and don't forget Nintendo DS, PSP, iPhoneOS, j2me games, PS2. Or Flash games for PC - you probably don't like to entertain the possibility, but that segment might be rivaling "true" PC gaming already.
Morphine might work, I guess; nothing less. Otherwise I suspect the trauma of fully knowing what is happening, feeling with the part of the body that can feel anything the mere mechanical stresses, movements from opening your ribcage/etc., might be not helpful too.
I do look at it more as "dismissive" (luckily I did find this word in my vocabulary in previous post;p - not a native EN speaker), yes. Yet it still does correlate, IMHO, with wide area of religiosity, especially if looking at it from the aspect of "oversensitive alertness".
Even, I guess, with more religious among people specifically - you have to ask yourself, what kind of mental characteristics allowed non-religious ones to...become non-religious (in the world around us that's still the case from what I see; most of those people were brought up traditionally); seems reasonable to suspect they would use it in daily life more, too.
Citations you provide seem to agree with what I'm saying. It's "Why did you let them die, God", implying harm from the fact, wondering about it...but not "you have brought this to us for nothing, it's all your fault!"/etc.
As for statistics - surely you must realize that being a scientist, even a statistician specifically, doesn't automatically cause one to use those methods in daily life. Or doesn't automatically cause one to dismiss things we were brought into from our earliest days - it's damn hard, much more than pursuing a career path which is a bit disconnected from the social experiences of first dozen years of life.
I still think there's a lot of dismissive (perhaps that's the better word than "not understanding") attitude towards statistics. It's how we evolved, noticing useful and unusual things more...even if they really aren't that unusual. Regrowing a limb, surviving complete decapitation - those would be miracles (yes, and the science might give them to us eventually)
They definitely aren't sentient before the formation of neural system. Which can be approximated to, useful in practice, "only first trimester"
BTW, however I do have my reservations towards abortion on the moral grounds, I do accept it as necessary (only limited to, say, first trimester mentioned above, pharmacological methods, etc.) Limited one is the least of evils. On one hand you have practically unlimited one throughout whole pregnancy, which is inexcusable.
On the other hand...you must know that I live in a place where abortion is not allowed (apart from crime or medical reasons that you mentioned). I can see what harm such state of affairs can do. Not only we force woman to go through pregnancy without being bothered to provide adequate social security (some go into abortion underground or "abortion trips", with high risk for them). We had much worse cases. Even when abortion was theoretically allowed, there were "problems" because of prevailing attitudes towards it. Bringing great harm.
14 year old girl, whose pregnancy was an effect of illegal act (hence abortion in first trimester without any problems, hypothetically) who almost didn't manage to get one; shipped from one hospital to the next. Her parents were, in practice, blocked from seeing her...while priest from her place had almost free access to her hospital bed and hospital administration/doctors to exert illegal influence. Made her into a dehumanized media debate during a very hard time, when she tried to use her legal rights.
A woman with health conditions preventing her from using effective contraception (sterilization for the sake of it is also illegal), with few children already, and with high risk of loosing sight as the result of next pregnancy. She wasn't able to get an abortion, even though she tried. She's now almost blind, unable to work, unable to care for her children. The first question of ophthalmologist when she went to him after giving birth (and loosing much of her sight) was "who allowed you to remain pregnant?!"
The world would be much worse for us without medical research, but it does create what might as well be factories of suffering for lab animals. They even breed lab animals specifically with the worst genetic diseases, which would be the ultimate cruelty if it didn't bring the possibility of future cures. Hard not to be conflicted about it I think.
OTOH the DNA of animals useful for our purposes becomes much more successful than it otherwise would be. With all the "cruelty" that's going on in the wild, one can wonder if such success isn't what ultimately matters?
The latter half of your post brings another interesting issue.
Yes, on one hand farming practices/etc. have great potential to bring what we call suffering. But on the other - domesticated species are, largely thanks to conditions we created for them, one of the most successful representatives of their branch of "Tree of Life". Surely there's some value in the success of their DNA - it seems that, in world of humans, one of the best ways to prosper is to be tasty. Or be very useful as laboratory animal.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting how you portrait it as competition...which kinda implies you're not completely looking at yourself as the position of leadership.
Anyway, look up list of Chinese inventions on Wikipedia. We stole quite a bit from them, too.
...I don't think the number of PhD's alone will decide whether US or China has technology lead...
It will certainly help Chinese if PhD's brought up in place targeting creativity will start to shape their educational system.
Large part of our world is built on Chinese ingenuity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions
So I'm not sure what you are saying. The period of stagnation China had for some time relatively recently was an exception in their history. Not without destructive influence of the West, too.
Those school systems which are functioning good throughout the world are very much "government" ones too, so you might let go that socialism phobia. Something went a bit more wrong with your implementation along the way.
One could even argue that what you're describing is, essentially, applying corporate ethics to the way education is performed ;p
the US exists solely to be the global sugar daddy.
It's kinda implied by the US itself, with the amount of influence it wants to have in the world.
Or you can, you know, make a product that hardly needs customer service...
I don't think you should use that argument much...unless you want to be accused of much more massive selective reading of those texts then it's typical. Nvm that it's sensible to care mostly about current / recent (as in "last thousand years") state of affairs.
And gods aren't about "cause and effect". Or rather, they are a subgroup of that issue; they are about unknown cause and effect; about will of humans to grasp, fear less, and control that unknown (look carefully - all successful religions revolve around controlling reality by humans)
Nintendo DSi changes that; and doesn't Sony have some kind of support for indy devs nowadays in their online service? (so at least potentially available on PSP)
All this is beside the point though, when talking about "gaming market"
half the people on earth will have a connected communication device, with half of that population cycling every two years
What do you mean "will"? 3 billion people had mobile phone...a year ago. Now it's at around 4.6 billion. And you overestimate a bit their willingness to upgrade, I suspect.
PS. "folks who invented this category"?
When looking at it as a "Linux based system", Maemo is much better.
And one has to wonder when and how many publishers will come to conclusion that it's not beneficial to focus on that relatively small group.
You ignore how small portion of PC owners play on them, specifically play DirectX games. On PCs it's usually at most something...Flash-based, etc.
We are not typical PC users (I thought this was clear on /. ;p )
True, I forgot about "doubling" of objects when there's not only a background, also some near ones. Though it might be not so bad - after all, we are very good at ignoring "doubled" images of objects far from out focus plane (I even forgot about it!). Yes, I'm suggesting using somewhat artificial image without "doubled" objects, everything in focus - it's certainly possible with CGI. Heck, even with photography - I played many years ago with portable stereoscope (the kind with pairs of pictures on a circle), and it seems most problems avoided by careful selection of lenses, "background-only" type of scene and enormously big depth of field.
We are definitely not used to "I'm trying to look at it, and it remains blurry". We even actively combat this with prosthetics for many centuries...
Overall, those complications convince me even more that stereoscopy, moving or not, is just a gimmick. Since middle of XIX century, actually.
DirectX representing 50-90% of gaming market? Hardly. X360 is the only console supporting it; and don't forget Nintendo DS, PSP, iPhoneOS, j2me games, PS2. Or Flash games for PC - you probably don't like to entertain the possibility, but that segment might be rivaling "true" PC gaming already.
Majority of PCs sold are laptops though, so it makes smaller difference now.
Inability for viewers to focus their eyes freely also breaks suspension of disbelief.
It seems it breaks it much more than "everything in focus" - 3D games are like that for a long time, without major complaints.
3D photography is almost as old as "normal" one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy
And it's largely irrelevant.
Which doesn't make sense for a movie which is, from what I've heard, mostly CGI. They choose to have this problem of real cameras.
Morphine might work, I guess; nothing less. Otherwise I suspect the trauma of fully knowing what is happening, feeling with the part of the body that can feel anything the mere mechanical stresses, movements from opening your ribcage/etc., might be not helpful too.
I do look at it more as "dismissive" (luckily I did find this word in my vocabulary in previous post ;p - not a native EN speaker), yes. Yet it still does correlate, IMHO, with wide area of religiosity, especially if looking at it from the aspect of "oversensitive alertness".
Even, I guess, with more religious among people specifically - you have to ask yourself, what kind of mental characteristics allowed non-religious ones to...become non-religious (in the world around us that's still the case from what I see; most of those people were brought up traditionally); seems reasonable to suspect they would use it in daily life more, too.
...for the era of Chinese domination.
Citations you provide seem to agree with what I'm saying. It's "Why did you let them die, God", implying harm from the fact, wondering about it...but not "you have brought this to us for nothing, it's all your fault!"/etc.
As for statistics - surely you must realize that being a scientist, even a statistician specifically, doesn't automatically cause one to use those methods in daily life. Or doesn't automatically cause one to dismiss things we were brought into from our earliest days - it's damn hard, much more than pursuing a career path which is a bit disconnected from the social experiences of first dozen years of life.
I still think there's a lot of dismissive (perhaps that's the better word than "not understanding") attitude towards statistics. It's how we evolved, noticing useful and unusual things more...even if they really aren't that unusual. Regrowing a limb, surviving complete decapitation - those would be miracles (yes, and the science might give them to us eventually)
They definitely aren't sentient before the formation of neural system. Which can be approximated to, useful in practice, "only first trimester"
BTW, however I do have my reservations towards abortion on the moral grounds, I do accept it as necessary (only limited to, say, first trimester mentioned above, pharmacological methods, etc.) Limited one is the least of evils. On one hand you have practically unlimited one throughout whole pregnancy, which is inexcusable.
On the other hand...you must know that I live in a place where abortion is not allowed (apart from crime or medical reasons that you mentioned). I can see what harm such state of affairs can do. Not only we force woman to go through pregnancy without being bothered to provide adequate social security (some go into abortion underground or "abortion trips", with high risk for them). We had much worse cases. Even when abortion was theoretically allowed, there were "problems" because of prevailing attitudes towards it. Bringing great harm.
14 year old girl, whose pregnancy was an effect of illegal act (hence abortion in first trimester without any problems, hypothetically) who almost didn't manage to get one; shipped from one hospital to the next. Her parents were, in practice, blocked from seeing her...while priest from her place had almost free access to her hospital bed and hospital administration/doctors to exert illegal influence. Made her into a dehumanized media debate during a very hard time, when she tried to use her legal rights.
A woman with health conditions preventing her from using effective contraception (sterilization for the sake of it is also illegal), with few children already, and with high risk of loosing sight as the result of next pregnancy. She wasn't able to get an abortion, even though she tried. She's now almost blind, unable to work, unable to care for her children. The first question of ophthalmologist when she went to him after giving birth (and loosing much of her sight) was "who allowed you to remain pregnant?!"
The world would be much worse for us without medical research, but it does create what might as well be factories of suffering for lab animals. They even breed lab animals specifically with the worst genetic diseases, which would be the ultimate cruelty if it didn't bring the possibility of future cures.
Hard not to be conflicted about it I think.
OTOH the DNA of animals useful for our purposes becomes much more successful than it otherwise would be. With all the "cruelty" that's going on in the wild, one can wonder if such success isn't what ultimately matters?
The latter half of your post brings another interesting issue.
Yes, on one hand farming practices/etc. have great potential to bring what we call suffering. But on the other - domesticated species are, largely thanks to conditions we created for them, one of the most successful representatives of their branch of "Tree of Life". Surely there's some value in the success of their DNA - it seems that, in world of humans, one of the best ways to prosper is to be tasty. Or be very useful as laboratory animal.