Then why didn't they just have Hanna Barbara do The Lord of the Rings? Or why not just put Andy Sirkus in a muppet costume? Why did WETA spend millions making every frame look photorealistic? The story's just as good either way, right?
You can throw the cursor into the lower-left corner, click, and... nothing. Windows is nanometers from doing the right thing, but still manages to miss it.
Japanese gamers are less concerned with appearing "masculine," at least in the American sense of reveling in games that flex their graphical muscle. The comments of U. S. gamers, especially those participating in forums, are influenced by the need to protect a certain macho image, one in favor of "grownup" realism instead of "childish" stylization.
This rationalization is just asinine, and is demeaning to both Americans and men. Why is it so hard to accept that the appreciation of different styles (yes, realism is a style!) are simply a matter of cultural preferences? It seems like the submitter was really reaching here to find a way to bash those who prefer realism.
Why keep it at all? We have large rocket technology, we have payload capsules. We're not talking about an extremely large quantity of mass here. Fix it in as irreducible a medium as possible (which I think they already do) and launch your payload capsule into the sun. Problem solved.
Certainly, it would take a while to reduce what we've already stockpiled, but with several launches a year, pushing, say 10 metric tons off the planet per launch, it seems like we ought to be able to at least keep pace. And this isn't considering the possibility of using breeder reactors that drastically reduce the high-level waste mass.
Or am I missing some obvious reason, other than fear, why this wouldn't work?
I don't think most Americans are lazy. The majority want to support themselves and are willing to work hard to get what they want. THe article had some good explanations as to why more time was being "wasted." But there are a couple of things that are happening here that the article didn't mention much. First, individual productivity has gone way, way up in the past couple of decades. Technology has been the big player here. But just as technology has increased work productivity, so too it has increased personal productivity. Now it becomes possible to borrow a few minutes here, a few minutes there, to get personal things done at work. Ultimately, that all adds up. Of course, as long as personal has been increasing even while less time is spent working, many employers have been willing to put up with it.
Another factor is that more and more people are working in jobs where it is difficult if not impossible to quantitatively assess their hourly productivity. For example, if you work on an assembly line screwing parts togethe, it's pretty obvious if you are slacking off during a given hour, and what's worse, you'll slow the whole line down. But if your task is to write a chunk of code, or draft a certain number of letters, it becomes almost impossible to figure out whether you are working fast and loafing, or working slowly but steady. From the employer's standpoint, they don't usually care as long as the total work gets done in about the same amount of time.
It also gets harder to second-guess the employee when certain tasks take longer, because some tasks are more difficult than others and will inevitably take more time. Unless the manager is willing to personally do the task and figure out exactly how hard it was, they can only rely on what the employee tells them.
Bingo. If swapping disks bothers you, you can spend that $99 you saved by not getting a Blu-Ray on a removable hard drive, and still be getting a better value (at least, for gaming.)
It should be played whenever it applies, and not when it does.
You're dodging the real question, which is WHEN does it apply. Since the writers took the time to explicitly list some things and not others, I think that is a powerful argument that it applies in those matters and not others.
Or else perhaps the 2nd ammendment doesn't apply to anything but matchlock muskets, since that's all that existed when it was written.
That's ridiculous. That's not even a textualist interpretation. Look at the WORDS. What do they say? They say nothing about applying to existing technology only. Indeed, your addition of that "intepreted" requirement is the sort of thing textualists hate.
All this religious nuttery and "it must be as it is written" crap is really starting to freak me out.
It's starting to freak me out that there are people who object to ancient concepts of justice like "written law" on anti-religious grounds.
We're talking about the freedom to pop open a cool one, light up a stogie, and let the dog run around in the yard while we cook up some delicious meat products on our barbeque grill, with the ease of mind that nobody is going to try to kill us, rob us, rape us, steal from us, or beat us up in the next 24 hours. That, in a nutshell, is the American dream. Some people will be content with living in a downtown hermetically sealed high-rise condo. Many will not.
So, the abortion thing comes up because there is no law specifically addressing it. Well, no law that wasn't found to conflict with the Constution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? The fact is there were many laws that dealt with it, but the Consitution is the trump card, it wins every hand. The only question is when it can be played. I think it's really quite obvious that the answer - as originally intended - was in limited enumerated circumstances. But you take a case like Roe - I challenge you to tell me, without reading the case, what clause, what sentence - hell, what AMENDMENT prohibits regulations on late term abortions. (Assuming you are able to tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, of course.)
The speech synthesizer chip in the Speak 'N' Spell toy. (The TI-designed TMS5100 chip, I believe.) Every time I hear it, it takes me back to a more innocent time, when talking computers were futuristic, and sounded like talking computers instead of retarded humans.
I rather prefer the linux model, where if I set it up that way, other users can't even find out I am there as another user, much less look through my stuff.
You know, just because you don't know how to do this in Windows doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, it is simple. In fact, XP even has a friggin' WIZARD to secure your personal files using file permissions, and, optionally, strong encryption. Why must we go over this every single time?
That's what I thought at first, but here's what appears to be the actual situation: an existing company (Extent) already provides the play-on-demand service to front-ends like Yahoo!, and has a pretty good-sized catalog. Now, Microsoft, like many other publishers, has also added some of their games to that catalog. Why this deserves a Slashdot story is beyond me.
Re:Yes... Just what the doctor ordered...
on
MS & Game Rentals
·
· Score: 1
Actually, this is the exact catalog they are adding into. So the $15 is for the specific catalog you are talking about, not each individual game.
Re:Is this...could it be...innovative?
on
MS & Game Rentals
·
· Score: 1
Oops, I guess not, I misread TFA on first reading. Extent has already been doing this with other publisers. So, yawn. Microsoft is just Yet Another Game Publisher.
Is this...could it be...innovative?
on
MS & Game Rentals
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Personally, I like "all-you-can-eat" models for entertainment, since I have a large appetite and a short attention span. First music, then video, and now games. Logical, but I have to give MS some credit for being the first to enter this space in a significant way.
Interesting, though...is this a case where security through obscurity would have worked better? The way it is going, even if a patch is ready to be deployed the instant a vulnerability is disclosed, it is still massively exploitable in the window of time between announcement and disclosure. Perhaps if "mystery patches" were deployed and then the vulnerability disclosed later...but the whole public disclosure thing sure doesn't seem to be enhancing security in these cases.
Truly, I think you are overcomplication the problem. Here is how it looks to me:
Requirements:
Communicate with children remotely.
Not require great dexterity or voice control.
Be easy to use.
Be low cost.
I think the device that best meets all those requirements is the telephone. Simple and robust. If cost is an issue due to long distance rates, encourage her to use SkypeOut or some similar VoIP alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why didn't they just have Hanna Barbara do The Lord of the Rings? Or why not just put Andy Sirkus in a muppet costume? Why did WETA spend millions making every frame look photorealistic? The story's just as good either way, right?
Ummmmm...have you actually tried this?
This rationalization is just asinine, and is demeaning to both Americans and men. Why is it so hard to accept that the appreciation of different styles (yes, realism is a style!) are simply a matter of cultural preferences? It seems like the submitter was really reaching here to find a way to bash those who prefer realism.
Certainly, it would take a while to reduce what we've already stockpiled, but with several launches a year, pushing, say 10 metric tons off the planet per launch, it seems like we ought to be able to at least keep pace. And this isn't considering the possibility of using breeder reactors that drastically reduce the high-level waste mass.
Or am I missing some obvious reason, other than fear, why this wouldn't work?
Another factor is that more and more people are working in jobs where it is difficult if not impossible to quantitatively assess their hourly productivity. For example, if you work on an assembly line screwing parts togethe, it's pretty obvious if you are slacking off during a given hour, and what's worse, you'll slow the whole line down. But if your task is to write a chunk of code, or draft a certain number of letters, it becomes almost impossible to figure out whether you are working fast and loafing, or working slowly but steady. From the employer's standpoint, they don't usually care as long as the total work gets done in about the same amount of time.
It also gets harder to second-guess the employee when certain tasks take longer, because some tasks are more difficult than others and will inevitably take more time. Unless the manager is willing to personally do the task and figure out exactly how hard it was, they can only rely on what the employee tells them.
Bingo. If swapping disks bothers you, you can spend that $99 you saved by not getting a Blu-Ray on a removable hard drive, and still be getting a better value (at least, for gaming.)
You're dodging the real question, which is WHEN does it apply. Since the writers took the time to explicitly list some things and not others, I think that is a powerful argument that it applies in those matters and not others.
Or else perhaps the 2nd ammendment doesn't apply to anything but matchlock muskets, since that's all that existed when it was written.
That's ridiculous. That's not even a textualist interpretation. Look at the WORDS. What do they say? They say nothing about applying to existing technology only. Indeed, your addition of that "intepreted" requirement is the sort of thing textualists hate.
All this religious nuttery and "it must be as it is written" crap is really starting to freak me out.
It's starting to freak me out that there are people who object to ancient concepts of justice like "written law" on anti-religious grounds.
We're talking about the freedom to pop open a cool one, light up a stogie, and let the dog run around in the yard while we cook up some delicious meat products on our barbeque grill, with the ease of mind that nobody is going to try to kill us, rob us, rape us, steal from us, or beat us up in the next 24 hours. That, in a nutshell, is the American dream. Some people will be content with living in a downtown hermetically sealed high-rise condo. Many will not.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? The fact is there were many laws that dealt with it, but the Consitution is the trump card, it wins every hand. The only question is when it can be played. I think it's really quite obvious that the answer - as originally intended - was in limited enumerated circumstances. But you take a case like Roe - I challenge you to tell me, without reading the case, what clause, what sentence - hell, what AMENDMENT prohibits regulations on late term abortions. (Assuming you are able to tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, of course.)
You couldn't be more correct. We need a dedicated lawyer - on the moon. I nominate myself.
"An article on 1up.com says: ..."
Come on mods, they're both funny.
The speech synthesizer chip in the Speak 'N' Spell toy. (The TI-designed TMS5100 chip, I believe.) Every time I hear it, it takes me back to a more innocent time, when talking computers were futuristic, and sounded like talking computers instead of retarded humans.
How exactly did the Federalist Society "take down" the judiciary?
Ok, if you say so...
No, which is probably why they only released the Beta 1 to subscribers of the Microsoft Developer Network.
You know, just because you don't know how to do this in Windows doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, it is simple. In fact, XP even has a friggin' WIZARD to secure your personal files using file permissions, and, optionally, strong encryption. Why must we go over this every single time?
That's what I thought at first, but here's what appears to be the actual situation: an existing company (Extent) already provides the play-on-demand service to front-ends like Yahoo!, and has a pretty good-sized catalog. Now, Microsoft, like many other publishers, has also added some of their games to that catalog. Why this deserves a Slashdot story is beyond me.
Actually, this is the exact catalog they are adding into. So the $15 is for the specific catalog you are talking about, not each individual game.
Oops, I guess not, I misread TFA on first reading. Extent has already been doing this with other publisers. So, yawn. Microsoft is just Yet Another Game Publisher.
Personally, I like "all-you-can-eat" models for entertainment, since I have a large appetite and a short attention span. First music, then video, and now games. Logical, but I have to give MS some credit for being the first to enter this space in a significant way.
Interesting, though...is this a case where security through obscurity would have worked better? The way it is going, even if a patch is ready to be deployed the instant a vulnerability is disclosed, it is still massively exploitable in the window of time between announcement and disclosure. Perhaps if "mystery patches" were deployed and then the vulnerability disclosed later...but the whole public disclosure thing sure doesn't seem to be enhancing security in these cases.
No it shouldn't!
Grand Theft Auto: Mathmagic Land
Requirements:
Communicate with children remotely.
Not require great dexterity or voice control.
Be easy to use.
Be low cost.
I think the device that best meets all those requirements is the telephone. Simple and robust. If cost is an issue due to long distance rates, encourage her to use SkypeOut or some similar VoIP alternative.