Actually Nintendo have said they want longer release cycles. The Wii Remote was originally a GameCube add-on to extend that machine's lifespan to ten years or so. So while this rumour makes some sense, I strongly suspect that any new machine would be a "DS Lite" to the Wii's "DS". Adding extra horsepower to play games in HD modes, and perhaps bundling Motionplus and some non-half-assed storage system wouldn't necessarily break compatability with the old Wii.
Just to play devil's advocate here, Apple tend to only release one new version of each of their products a year, and they're usually pretty similar to the previous version and with only a fistful of configuration options. So they probably get an advantage in terms of only having to order 2M of the same Nano or Macbook motherboard and 2M casings, versus Creative or Dell which have a couple of dozen different systems on sale at any given time, and therefore probably have a great deal of difficulty in forecasting demand and ordering appropriately. It's probably the financial argument behind their "4-box" approach.
It actually connects to a USB header on the motherboard, which is good (no breaking it off or unplugging it by accident) and bad (not usable if your USB headers are crowded by other components or the case).
No he won't. Not by those of us who care about the subject, anyway. It should raise the level of debate from the gutter-level sniping between JT and internet users, which has dominated the headlines, to the serious research that is being done into the effects videogames and other media have on the mind.
It doesn't look like there was any great loss, it seems very generic. How on Earth do you take Halo and manage to get "burly bearded man with swords" and "sultry technicolour wizardess" or "leggy spandex laser girl"? The art style has about a 90% debt to WoW and CoH, and about a 10% debt to the franchise from which it was apparently spun.
The only exception to the "show both sides" thing is a story where scientists confirm some long-held bit of common sense, or where it's a fantastic bit of sensationalism. Nobody is brought in to "balance out" findings that confirm a link between caffiene and insomnia, instead the media just spends its time loling about the obviousness of it all. (There's a section entirely about this in Metro, as though taking things for granted was good science.) Nobody is brought in to "balance out" a paper suggesting that [common environmental factor] causes autism, because the sensation is worth millions in advertising fees as it drives up their circulation. (Witness what Goldacre calls "the media's MMR hoax".)
Yes, thank God somebody else could see it. They're not even "teaching MBAs" in any sense of the word. You'd not only have to overlook the actual paper to reach that conclusion, you'd have to skip over reading the press release and stop at its title. I know we're all super-aggregating hypertext meta-summaries via our Facebo super walls with flash these days but for crying out loud, could we spend a little more time on these things before creating Slashdot submissions.
From the press release that this guy links to (the paper is actually here):
A recent paper on this topic by Mendelson, coauthored with Deishin Lee, PhD â(TM)04, now a faculty member at Harvard Business School, is not a how-to manual for hard-pressed executives. Rather the researchers have built a theoretical model explaining the choices open to commercial firms. âoeAlthough open source is the lead example of our work, the principles certainly apply to other businesses, including, for example, the media business,â says Mendelson.
Heaven forbid that somebody actually study how businesses choose between free and proprietary software! That's of no good whatsoever! And of course free-as-in-speech definitely does not extend to a university allowing its academics to publish material which might be bad for open source. Clearly Stanford should've had these two men killed and fed to rabid, pestulent chipmunks, rather than allow this affront to reach the press.
Good pint, and it makes me wonder whether a decision which went the other way (if a student was found to have been well within their rights) would oblige schools to have suspension procedures with better oversight.
IANAL, but my understanding was that with respect to employee conduct, sexual harassment does not make a distinction between harassing coworkers inside the workplace and outside the workplace, so long as they are actually your coworkers. So I could certainly see the rational, if not legal, argument for this ruling.
Speaking of IANAL, since when did Slashdot publish essays on law from someone who explicitly states he's not a lawyer (although he's taken people to court under very different circumstances from the article)? What makes them qualified to get a whole Slashdot article to themselves?
This reminds me of a cynical old analogy about nuclear power, it's clean in the sense that all its harmful wastes are contained. If we could grab all the emissions and bury them underground, then coal would be just as clean as nuclear! Suddenly the analogy doesn't seem as cynical. (Yes, I realise the analogy's not all that sound.)
Trying to make PC a "brand" is entirely counterproductive to the message of ubiquity they're trying to communicate. I can't easily imagine my grandparents, or parents, using a Mac after seeing one of the ads. It's like imagining them using an iPod or wearing Nike gear. However I can't really imagine them standing up and saying "I'm a PC" either, although they all use Wintel boxes.
The point's been made before, but the Mac vs. PC ads, especially the UK ones (Mitchell and Webb was not good casting) make PC look like some lovable nerd who's just trying to get by (Crashy Time Calmomile) in spite of his problems, something mildy-but-not-terminally frustrated PC users can relate to. Mac spends literally all of his ad time either highlighting PC's flaws or saying how great he is. The PC is the everyman, while Mac is this rather aloof thing which sounds great but won't shut up about how great it is. That PC gets to set up all the humour and Mac is the straight man just reinforces it. I'm not sure that MS really want to fight that pair of stereotypes too strongly. If they emphasise that PCs are these boxes used by all these amazingly varied special people, they may wind up telling people that Mac is for the everyman, which is exactly what Apple seems to have failed at on their desktop line.
The Eee, surely the first netbook anyone would look at, ships with an SSD and Windows in what is probably the most popular of the configurations. It's true that the barrel-scraping lowest-end 256MB configurations some manufacturers offer (see the Aspire One or the Mini-Note) are restricted to Linux only, but it's not like you're left wanting for 512MB XP machines. And based on available data, the disk storage options have a negligable effect on battery life anyway. Extra RAM certainly doesn't harm run time.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the articles about lodges that are there list one or two sources, which are invariably websites. For all I know as a reader, the bold history of the Masons in those states has been made the hell up just to provide a reference for an article on Wikipedia. (Not that that's true, of course.) An extensive reference base is a boon for showing that something is notable, for the simple reason that something well-written-about off the Wikipedia is necessarily notable.
"Somoene's going to come in here and say that the problem isn't the topic, it's that the articles are either original research, aren't verifiable, or aren't "notable""
Hello! Yes, actually the first two issues are a big part of the problem. Most of the Wikipedia fancruft I've seen uses only the original fictional source as a reference, meaning that you're ultimately reading through someone's attempt to wrestle a body of fiction into a coherent self-consistent reality, often an impossible task, and certainly not one that should be presented as fact or some sort of fictional canon. (Witness the Alien creature, whose life cycle and appearance vary at a writer or artist's whim, and the contorted attempts by fans to reconcile them all.) Whereas more justifiable articles on fictional works provide extensive outside references to put the work into a proper context and ensure that what's said isn't just some Wikipedia editor's attempt at analysis. It's opinion, but it's presented as such.
As for notability, well the simplest measure is surely whether there is any third-party material to reference. If nobody has written anything meaningful about the Chaos Dreadnought outside of a fictional context, then arguably no force on Earth is going to create a good article about it which isn't just a regurgitation of material from the books, material which once again is inconsistent (how would one resolve the insanity rules from "old 40K" with the streamlined Chaos Dreadnoughts of the new codex?).
"List of..." articles are a thornier issue. Do you list, and provide a short summary of, every Sailor Moon episode, including the ones about which nothing meaningful has been written? It's cold, hard, uninterpreted fact after all. I think that there's a tendency to bias against fiction when it comes to those sorts of lists, on the argument that Wikipedia isn't an episode guide or somesuch. I've used that argument myself, but in retrospect an encyclopedia has an arbitrarily large remit and therefore an episode list is acceptable. Or a list of Space Marine weapons or so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Nintendo have said they want longer release cycles. The Wii Remote was originally a GameCube add-on to extend that machine's lifespan to ten years or so. So while this rumour makes some sense, I strongly suspect that any new machine would be a "DS Lite" to the Wii's "DS". Adding extra horsepower to play games in HD modes, and perhaps bundling Motionplus and some non-half-assed storage system wouldn't necessarily break compatability with the old Wii.
Just to play devil's advocate here, Apple tend to only release one new version of each of their products a year, and they're usually pretty similar to the previous version and with only a fistful of configuration options. So they probably get an advantage in terms of only having to order 2M of the same Nano or Macbook motherboard and 2M casings, versus Creative or Dell which have a couple of dozen different systems on sale at any given time, and therefore probably have a great deal of difficulty in forecasting demand and ordering appropriately. It's probably the financial argument behind their "4-box" approach.
It actually connects to a USB header on the motherboard, which is good (no breaking it off or unplugging it by accident) and bad (not usable if your USB headers are crowded by other components or the case).
No he won't. Not by those of us who care about the subject, anyway. It should raise the level of debate from the gutter-level sniping between JT and internet users, which has dominated the headlines, to the serious research that is being done into the effects videogames and other media have on the mind.
Permanent Disbarment with Extreme Prejudice. It involves some sort of laser cannon.
The Gamepolitics link is to the recommendation, not the approval. My bad. The correct link is this.
I assumed it meant they lost it down the sofa with all their artists' royalty payments. "Whoops!"
It doesn't look like there was any great loss, it seems very generic. How on Earth do you take Halo and manage to get "burly bearded man with swords" and "sultry technicolour wizardess" or "leggy spandex laser girl"? The art style has about a 90% debt to WoW and CoH, and about a 10% debt to the franchise from which it was apparently spun.
The only exception to the "show both sides" thing is a story where scientists confirm some long-held bit of common sense, or where it's a fantastic bit of sensationalism. Nobody is brought in to "balance out" findings that confirm a link between caffiene and insomnia, instead the media just spends its time loling about the obviousness of it all. (There's a section entirely about this in Metro, as though taking things for granted was good science.) Nobody is brought in to "balance out" a paper suggesting that [common environmental factor] causes autism, because the sensation is worth millions in advertising fees as it drives up their circulation. (Witness what Goldacre calls "the media's MMR hoax".)
You're not one of these people who gets upset about the word television, are you?
Yes, thank God somebody else could see it. They're not even "teaching MBAs" in any sense of the word. You'd not only have to overlook the actual paper to reach that conclusion, you'd have to skip over reading the press release and stop at its title. I know we're all super-aggregating hypertext meta-summaries via our Facebo super walls with flash these days but for crying out loud, could we spend a little more time on these things before creating Slashdot submissions.
From the press release that this guy links to (the paper is actually here):
A recent paper on this topic by Mendelson, coauthored with Deishin Lee, PhD â(TM)04, now a faculty member at Harvard Business School, is not a how-to manual for hard-pressed executives. Rather the researchers have built a theoretical model explaining the choices open to commercial firms. âoeAlthough open source is the lead example of our work, the principles certainly apply to other businesses, including, for example, the media business,â says Mendelson.
Heaven forbid that somebody actually study how businesses choose between free and proprietary software! That's of no good whatsoever! And of course free-as-in-speech definitely does not extend to a university allowing its academics to publish material which might be bad for open source. Clearly Stanford should've had these two men killed and fed to rabid, pestulent chipmunks, rather than allow this affront to reach the press.
Good pint, and it makes me wonder whether a decision which went the other way (if a student was found to have been well within their rights) would oblige schools to have suspension procedures with better oversight.
The answer to my second question is "prominent internet free-speech activist", it turns out. I'm unused to whole text submissions as posts.
I should say, why isn't this on somebody's blog, and then linked to, rather than posted as an article on its own?
IANAL, but my understanding was that with respect to employee conduct, sexual harassment does not make a distinction between harassing coworkers inside the workplace and outside the workplace, so long as they are actually your coworkers. So I could certainly see the rational, if not legal, argument for this ruling.
Speaking of IANAL, since when did Slashdot publish essays on law from someone who explicitly states he's not a lawyer (although he's taken people to court under very different circumstances from the article)? What makes them qualified to get a whole Slashdot article to themselves?
I can confirm that Business does not come the DVD CODEC. Fortunately most manufacturers licence WinDVD or something for it anyway.
Nobody is considering the mole people issue, either.
This reminds me of a cynical old analogy about nuclear power, it's clean in the sense that all its harmful wastes are contained. If we could grab all the emissions and bury them underground, then coal would be just as clean as nuclear! Suddenly the analogy doesn't seem as cynical. (Yes, I realise the analogy's not all that sound.)
Trying to make PC a "brand" is entirely counterproductive to the message of ubiquity they're trying to communicate. I can't easily imagine my grandparents, or parents, using a Mac after seeing one of the ads. It's like imagining them using an iPod or wearing Nike gear. However I can't really imagine them standing up and saying "I'm a PC" either, although they all use Wintel boxes.
The point's been made before, but the Mac vs. PC ads, especially the UK ones (Mitchell and Webb was not good casting) make PC look like some lovable nerd who's just trying to get by (Crashy Time Calmomile) in spite of his problems, something mildy-but-not-terminally frustrated PC users can relate to. Mac spends literally all of his ad time either highlighting PC's flaws or saying how great he is. The PC is the everyman, while Mac is this rather aloof thing which sounds great but won't shut up about how great it is. That PC gets to set up all the humour and Mac is the straight man just reinforces it. I'm not sure that MS really want to fight that pair of stereotypes too strongly. If they emphasise that PCs are these boxes used by all these amazingly varied special people, they may wind up telling people that Mac is for the everyman, which is exactly what Apple seems to have failed at on their desktop line.
Everyone who's paying attention, then. :p
The Eee, surely the first netbook anyone would look at, ships with an SSD and Windows in what is probably the most popular of the configurations. It's true that the barrel-scraping lowest-end 256MB configurations some manufacturers offer (see the Aspire One or the Mini-Note) are restricted to Linux only, but it's not like you're left wanting for 512MB XP machines. And based on available data, the disk storage options have a negligable effect on battery life anyway. Extra RAM certainly doesn't harm run time.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the articles about lodges that are there list one or two sources, which are invariably websites. For all I know as a reader, the bold history of the Masons in those states has been made the hell up just to provide a reference for an article on Wikipedia. (Not that that's true, of course.) An extensive reference base is a boon for showing that something is notable, for the simple reason that something well-written-about off the Wikipedia is necessarily notable.
"Somoene's going to come in here and say that the problem isn't the topic, it's that the articles are either original research, aren't verifiable, or aren't "notable""
Hello! Yes, actually the first two issues are a big part of the problem. Most of the Wikipedia fancruft I've seen uses only the original fictional source as a reference, meaning that you're ultimately reading through someone's attempt to wrestle a body of fiction into a coherent self-consistent reality, often an impossible task, and certainly not one that should be presented as fact or some sort of fictional canon. (Witness the Alien creature, whose life cycle and appearance vary at a writer or artist's whim, and the contorted attempts by fans to reconcile them all.) Whereas more justifiable articles on fictional works provide extensive outside references to put the work into a proper context and ensure that what's said isn't just some Wikipedia editor's attempt at analysis. It's opinion, but it's presented as such.
As for notability, well the simplest measure is surely whether there is any third-party material to reference. If nobody has written anything meaningful about the Chaos Dreadnought outside of a fictional context, then arguably no force on Earth is going to create a good article about it which isn't just a regurgitation of material from the books, material which once again is inconsistent (how would one resolve the insanity rules from "old 40K" with the streamlined Chaos Dreadnoughts of the new codex?).
"List of..." articles are a thornier issue. Do you list, and provide a short summary of, every Sailor Moon episode, including the ones about which nothing meaningful has been written? It's cold, hard, uninterpreted fact after all. I think that there's a tendency to bias against fiction when it comes to those sorts of lists, on the argument that Wikipedia isn't an episode guide or somesuch. I've used that argument myself, but in retrospect an encyclopedia has an arbitrarily large remit and therefore an episode list is acceptable. Or a list of Space Marine weapons or so on.