It's my experience that you don't get to talk much while playing a game.
I guess it depends on which game you are playing, but still. Odds are you'll be too busy focusing on the events of the game to be typing in sentence after sentence.
Whenever I decide to play Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory with friends, unless the whole server is full of friends I really don't do much talking to my friend. Once in a while there's the occasional haha killed you again or damn you suck but generally speaking, I'm more concentrated on the game.
Another issue...does she even like games? I mean, making her play a game just to get to talk to you seems a little bit...inconsiderate? If she's a gamer, then there's no problem, but if she isn't, expect her to be less than thrilled at the prospect.
Now, I realize you were asking about headsets, so you wouldn't have so much of a problem with the typing. Still, almost the same rule applies - you will not want to engage in conversations of reasonable complexity because it will impedete your performance in game.
I guess it could work, but I suggest you learn to stay on the phone a little longer, for the sake of your girlfriend.
Even though they were the least respected and sophisticated class, it was the Mobile Infantry that got things done.
Heinlein isn't the only one who stuck with infantry in the future. The truth is that nothing we create can replace a man (or woman) in the field.
And if we do manage to create something that can carry out sophisticated reasoning and creative tactics, it sure as hell won't stick around to work for us.
Good point.
However, keep in mind that as far as those leaders are concerned, small-scale (less than 1,000) loss of human life is only important if it can sway public opinion.
Assuming there is no loss of human life, there are still some other factors involved - i.e. money. Developing robots which can reliably replace human infantry will cost huge amounts of money. Reproducing them would be considerably cheaper...I'd be very interested to see a comparison between human troop training costs and the costs of producing such a robot (of course its imprudent to begin computing things like that at this juncture).
So although I agree that the removal of issue of human lives will make war less burdensome ethically, it still won't be cheap. Hell, depending on the politician it might be more expensive.
In the future, Stryker will learn more tactical behaviors mimicking a human's, like running and hiding in trees or behind hills in the presence of enemies.
I wonder, will they teach it to wet its circuits as well?
Yes, I agree with you for the most part - that was the first thought that came to my mind as well.
However, for the average Kazaa user, it just might work. Most of them seem to think that if you uninstall kazaa your music is gone...or that you can't play the Kazaa music outside of the Kazaa client.
Keeping this in mind, then, we can give a little bit of credit to these guys in that they may succeed in fooling the idiots who use Kazaa.
Of course, people like that usually aren't the ones to come up with "original" content anyway.
Its actually amusing to think of the cat and mouse game this could develop into:)
Do you realize the implications of Darl McBride being the first man on Mars?
NASA would have to buy licenses for looking at pictures of Mars! So much for the $1 billion budget...
Basically NSFC would be anything a fair and balanced Christian wouldn't show to their 10 year old.
Last time I looked America was not listed as a Christian state. Instituting federal policy based upon solely Christian values is impractical in the current atmosphere.
What if I'm not Christian? What if my religion mandates stricter control over the movie scenes? What if my religion is accepting and unshameful of explicit sexual content? What if my philosophy towards life is to show my children an uncensored view of the world? What if I consider the slaughtering of cows more offensive than a pornography video? I think you begin to see the problem.
So, as you can see, establishing a blanket policy on "SFC" and "NSFC" is a very prickly process. Enforcing it as you would suggest is -- if I may say so -- unconstitutional.
I don't mean to be overly critical of you, after all I do agree with you on some points. I am a Muslim so my religious values are probably just as firm or more so than yours, but I am merely stating the facts. Although I would admit that the U.S. is not truly a non-religious country, it still claims to be one in federal and state law. And unless we change our philosophy there we can't really effect anything as strict as what you would suggest.
Besides, have you seen the stuff they show on cable TV? It's not like they'd miss out on anything.
Eh, in my opinion its all a ploy to get people hyped up for the elections. Sure, you may argue its a little early but I will just say "NO."
I'd say its pretty damn obvious he has no interest in the space program itself. Besides, it seems like a really bad time considering the economy + iraq + afghanistan. Then again, since most of the Iraq/Afghanistan money was conveniently left out of the budget, I could see how Bush plans to pay for this.
What saddens me is that, even though the majority of informed individuals can see right through this, there's not a damn thing we can do. There's no powerful candidate to oppose him. Odds are that he will win, and that'll serve as a pat on the back for all the stuff he's done since he entered office (in his mind and that of his administration).
Anyway, I would welcome a space program if it was sincerely intended. But I don't think this particular thing will amount to much - its very easy to plan something that'll cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the future, because you're not the one who's gonna be in office when the time comes to commit resources!
I personally find e-books easier to read than real books, and do so often.
Same here. I have a library on my hard drive, literally.
The only thing you have to watch out for is the eyes. Sometimes I'm forced to get off just because my eyes can't take it anymore.
But yeah, the main reason to get on the internet is information. Even people that start off as pure gamers eventually move on to being newsgroup/forum type people in some respect (i.e. slashdot).
Although I consider my self to be fairly competent when it comes to conducting myself socially IRL, when it comes to meaningful discussions the net is the way to go - even when I am talking to people I know IRL.
From my observation, the biggest reason your confidence gets boosted when on the net is because you don't have to worry about the person's initial reaction - i.e. you don't see facial expressions, hand movements, etc. Thus, you are not continuously evaluating your "speech" to see if they care. That leaves a lot more room for confidence and attention to what you do mean to say.
Ah, you are correct. I mistakenly took the "annotators" for humans (damn personification...)
But, when I think about it in oversimplified terms, it sounds pretty funny:
So they are writing software to categorize software so that it can be recognized by other software?
Are you telling me that there are programmers willing to go through [Insert Ludicrously Large Number Here] files and "annotate" them using XML to fit the new system?
You would need an enormous workforce to do that.
And if they don't plan on doing that, what about all the existing information? Is it going to be excluded from the database? Seems like much of a waste to me!
Damn but I would love to have access to one of these, even if the amount of information available will be miniscule (relatively speaking) for the next few years.
Ok, what do you, a homeowner, do?
Get homeowner's insurance with an earthquake clause and hope to God the people at the insurance company don't watch the news;P
There is no doubt in my mind that this is a breakthrough in earthquake science, and that the researchers who developed this so called "tail wags the dog" method should be congratulated for their achievement.
One thing bothers me, however. Okay, so we know that there's going to be an earthquake somewhere in the world. The question is, what can we do?
In an affluent country/county, with educated individuals and a well organized emergency response force, there are several things to be done. First, evacuation procedures are begun. Secondly, the rescue and medical teams can be put on standby. Many similar actions can be taken.
However, the vast majority of the world that experiences earthquakes with some consistency can't do quite as much with such foreknowledge. First, most of their buildings are not specially enhanced to survive earthquakes (witness Iran, an extreme case of unpreparedness I admit but it serves my pont). Secondly, the population is highly dense and these people don't necessarily comprehend the danger, making evacuation procedures much less effective. Thirdly, the emergency police/medical presence in such areas is pitiful. Finally, the state itself does not have the necessary resources to carry out effective measures - they have to wait until foreign aid pours in. Now, the question is, will the U.S. grant emergency aid to, say, Iraq, because someone predicted that an earthquake would occur? Not likely. And if they don't get the money, these emergency operations don't get underway in any meaningful manner.
It seems to me that the focus has been diverted from building the infrastructure necessary to cope with earthquakes (in terms of buildings as well as emergency care) to instead predicting them in advance. As I said, if predicting them won't do too much good, why are we concentrating more in that area than in the one that actually WILL make a difference.
Hell, its probably the same deal as with research in diseases. The people with the money to conduct research don't have the same priorities/problems as those for whom research could benefit most.
All this is well and good, but it makes me wonder.
"It's an easy chance to monetize some things we wouldn't offer for free," he said.
Conversely, would it not be true that this would allow them to monetize some things that they would offer for free?
I mean, as it is, much of the free little "perks" that companies offer for their products are little things - little conveniences. Now, as it is its not too practical for them to charge, but we all know that if the means are available, they will. Hmm...just think on that I suppose.
Technology such as this has many good uses, but it also has the ability to become a nuisance.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my experience that you don't get to talk much while playing a game.
I guess it depends on which game you are playing, but still. Odds are you'll be too busy focusing on the events of the game to be typing in sentence after sentence.
Whenever I decide to play Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory with friends, unless the whole server is full of friends I really don't do much talking to my friend. Once in a while there's the occasional haha killed you again or damn you suck but generally speaking, I'm more concentrated on the game.
Another issue...does she even like games? I mean, making her play a game just to get to talk to you seems a little bit...inconsiderate? If she's a gamer, then there's no problem, but if she isn't, expect her to be less than thrilled at the prospect.
Now, I realize you were asking about headsets, so you wouldn't have so much of a problem with the typing. Still, almost the same rule applies - you will not want to engage in conversations of reasonable complexity because it will impedete your performance in game.
I guess it could work, but I suggest you learn to stay on the phone a little longer, for the sake of your girlfriend.
Reminds me of Starship troopers.
Even though they were the least respected and sophisticated class, it was the Mobile Infantry that got things done.
Heinlein isn't the only one who stuck with infantry in the future. The truth is that nothing we create can replace a man (or woman) in the field.
And if we do manage to create something that can carry out sophisticated reasoning and creative tactics, it sure as hell won't stick around to work for us.
Good point.
However, keep in mind that as far as those leaders are concerned, small-scale (less than 1,000) loss of human life is only important if it can sway public opinion.
Assuming there is no loss of human life, there are still some other factors involved - i.e. money. Developing robots which can reliably replace human infantry will cost huge amounts of money. Reproducing them would be considerably cheaper...I'd be very interested to see a comparison between human troop training costs and the costs of producing such a robot (of course its imprudent to begin computing things like that at this juncture).
So although I agree that the removal of issue of human lives will make war less burdensome ethically, it still won't be cheap. Hell, depending on the politician it might be more expensive.
I wonder, will they teach it to wet its circuits as well?
Something tells me we'll be getting more "UFO" sightings than usual if this plan gets the green light.
Better make those airships bulletproof.
Yes, I agree with you for the most part - that was the first thought that came to my mind as well.
:)
However, for the average Kazaa user, it just might work. Most of them seem to think that if you uninstall kazaa your music is gone...or that you can't play the Kazaa music outside of the Kazaa client.
Keeping this in mind, then, we can give a little bit of credit to these guys in that they may succeed in fooling the idiots who use Kazaa.
Of course, people like that usually aren't the ones to come up with "original" content anyway.
Its actually amusing to think of the cat and mouse game this could develop into
Or you could take a cue from Robert Williams and bring along a rubber volleyball. You don't have to feed those.
You forgot:
Britney Spears
Exponential growth is always better when it comes to population.
Do you realize the implications of Darl McBride being the first man on Mars? NASA would have to buy licenses for looking at pictures of Mars! So much for the $1 billion budget...
What if I'm not Christian? What if my religion mandates stricter control over the movie scenes? What if my religion is accepting and unshameful of explicit sexual content? What if my philosophy towards life is to show my children an uncensored view of the world? What if I consider the slaughtering of cows more offensive than a pornography video? I think you begin to see the problem.
So, as you can see, establishing a blanket policy on "SFC" and "NSFC" is a very prickly process. Enforcing it as you would suggest is -- if I may say so -- unconstitutional.
I don't mean to be overly critical of you, after all I do agree with you on some points. I am a Muslim so my religious values are probably just as firm or more so than yours, but I am merely stating the facts. Although I would admit that the U.S. is not truly a non-religious country, it still claims to be one in federal and state law. And unless we change our philosophy there we can't really effect anything as strict as what you would suggest.
Besides, have you seen the stuff they show on cable TV? It's not like they'd miss out on anything.
Eh, in my opinion its all a ploy to get people hyped up for the elections. Sure, you may argue its a little early but I will just say "NO."
I'd say its pretty damn obvious he has no interest in the space program itself. Besides, it seems like a really bad time considering the economy + iraq + afghanistan. Then again, since most of the Iraq/Afghanistan money was conveniently left out of the budget, I could see how Bush plans to pay for this.
What saddens me is that, even though the majority of informed individuals can see right through this, there's not a damn thing we can do. There's no powerful candidate to oppose him. Odds are that he will win, and that'll serve as a pat on the back for all the stuff he's done since he entered office (in his mind and that of his administration).
Anyway, I would welcome a space program if it was sincerely intended. But I don't think this particular thing will amount to much - its very easy to plan something that'll cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the future, because you're not the one who's gonna be in office when the time comes to commit resources!
The only thing you have to watch out for is the eyes. Sometimes I'm forced to get off just because my eyes can't take it anymore.
But yeah, the main reason to get on the internet is information. Even people that start off as pure gamers eventually move on to being newsgroup/forum type people in some respect (i.e. slashdot).
I agree.
Although I consider my self to be fairly competent when it comes to conducting myself socially IRL, when it comes to meaningful discussions the net is the way to go - even when I am talking to people I know IRL.
From my observation, the biggest reason your confidence gets boosted when on the net is because you don't have to worry about the person's initial reaction - i.e. you don't see facial expressions, hand movements, etc. Thus, you are not continuously evaluating your "speech" to see if they care. That leaves a lot more room for confidence and attention to what you do mean to say.
Fact: The parent post is flamebait.
Fact: The poster of the parent post is an Anonymous Coward.
Conjecture: SCO kidnapped Elvis.
Ah, you are correct. I mistakenly took the "annotators" for humans (damn personification...) But, when I think about it in oversimplified terms, it sounds pretty funny: So they are writing software to categorize software so that it can be recognized by other software?
Are you telling me that there are programmers willing to go through [Insert Ludicrously Large Number Here] files and "annotate" them using XML to fit the new system?
You would need an enormous workforce to do that.
And if they don't plan on doing that, what about all the existing information? Is it going to be excluded from the database? Seems like much of a waste to me!
Damn but I would love to have access to one of these, even if the amount of information available will be miniscule (relatively speaking) for the next few years.
Ok, what do you, a homeowner, do? Get homeowner's insurance with an earthquake clause and hope to God the people at the insurance company don't watch the news ;P
There is no doubt in my mind that this is a breakthrough in earthquake science, and that the researchers who developed this so called "tail wags the dog" method should be congratulated for their achievement.
One thing bothers me, however. Okay, so we know that there's going to be an earthquake somewhere in the world. The question is, what can we do?
In an affluent country/county, with educated individuals and a well organized emergency response force, there are several things to be done. First, evacuation procedures are begun. Secondly, the rescue and medical teams can be put on standby. Many similar actions can be taken.
However, the vast majority of the world that experiences earthquakes with some consistency can't do quite as much with such foreknowledge. First, most of their buildings are not specially enhanced to survive earthquakes (witness Iran, an extreme case of unpreparedness I admit but it serves my pont). Secondly, the population is highly dense and these people don't necessarily comprehend the danger, making evacuation procedures much less effective. Thirdly, the emergency police/medical presence in such areas is pitiful. Finally, the state itself does not have the necessary resources to carry out effective measures - they have to wait until foreign aid pours in. Now, the question is, will the U.S. grant emergency aid to, say, Iraq, because someone predicted that an earthquake would occur? Not likely. And if they don't get the money, these emergency operations don't get underway in any meaningful manner.
It seems to me that the focus has been diverted from building the infrastructure necessary to cope with earthquakes (in terms of buildings as well as emergency care) to instead predicting them in advance. As I said, if predicting them won't do too much good, why are we concentrating more in that area than in the one that actually WILL make a difference.
Hell, its probably the same deal as with research in diseases. The people with the money to conduct research don't have the same priorities/problems as those for whom research could benefit most.
Maybe I'm just pessimistic.
Good for newbies who are daunted by the task of having to sift through different versions, products, platforms, etc.
Now all we have to do is start up a mailbox-spamming service. Take hints from AOL?
I mean, as it is, much of the free little "perks" that companies offer for their products are little things - little conveniences. Now, as it is its not too practical for them to charge, but we all know that if the means are available, they will. Hmm...just think on that I suppose.
Technology such as this has many good uses, but it also has the ability to become a nuisance.
Imagine playing duckhunt using Pigeon Wireless (TM). No client-side software required! (ignore the fact that ducks != pigeons)