With no basic materials science or semiconductor research, I'm not sure what they're going to be able to develop in the fields of "high-speed electronics" or "nanotechnology". Perhaps they're going to restructure so that the existing basic science researchers are more "product driven", being put into marketable research areas with specific goals, but that strikes me as a sure-fire way of duplicating effort and limiting their scope for innovation.
It'd be nice if there was some sort of bonus for those who commit more money. For example, if you spend the equivalent of the retail price of a game on content for Metal Gear Online, maybe a nice soundtrack album or making of CD or other retail-style added value is in order.
It's been argued in the past (I'm recalling this from Gleick's "What Just Happened") that Microsoft's products are so ubiquitous and essential that they deserve to be regulated, controlled, and distributed like a public service. You could argue that they're already being paid like a public service, as you say via a "Microsoft tax" on all PCs sold.
That's probably the best suggestion so far, capacitor rot and RTC failure notwithstanding (although I assume they'll still be able to make capacitors and low-voltage power in the future). A notebook would probably do the job. Something self-contained.
If it absolutely, positively has to survive 25 years, it might be worth the expense of getting the photos professionally printed on good quality paper and, if you're worried about the box leaking, laminated. Okay, it's a smartass answer, but those are photos you're going to store, and they're known to last more than 25 years easily.
Because it's difficult? The Segway doesn't just balance by code, it's a product of having two big, grippy wheels with heavy-duty motors listening to a whole bunch of clever hardware to track the centre of gravity. All that to balance a vehicle which is basically a really heavy board on wheels with a stick out the top. This exoskeleton is an order of magnitude more complex, and no doubt has nowhere near as much torque or traction available to it.
Here in the UK companies have been shipping games out so that they reach customers on the release date for at least the past eight years, and probably more than a decade. Gameplay always guaranteed it with first-class mail, which usually meant you got a game 2-3 days before release, and almost everyone else does it on their free delivery option (e.g. Play.com). Amazon.co.uk is about the only exception that springs to mind.
Portal exploits portal rendering technology - a technique for graphics optimisation which incidentally allows you to take a given map layout and provide a different subjective layout for the player. It's actually a fairly trivial problem to do the portals themselves, as most graphics engines these days should have portalling built in. All of the interesting physics comes in when they start making it work as gameplay, for example by giving portal entrances "push" or "pull" to steer players into and out of them. The article is a good description of how to make a game that behaves a bit like Portal, but it's got nothing to do with that game's actual physics.
It's probably unfair to characterise it as the whole community having moved on, but yes, this is an established part of the anthropology of the neaderthal, and the article is not about some gee-whiz dogma-shattering discovery, but the continued accumulation of evidence in an exciting new direction. How can you trust anything science says? It revises itself to be accurate, that's why. An unchanging theory constructed in year X is one that is unlikely to become more correct with the collection of new evidence in the years to come, except by some fluke of blind luck.
Many long-held beliefs suggesting why the Neanderthals went extinct have been debunked in recent years. Research has already shown that Neanderthals were as good at hunting as Homo sapiens and had no clear disadvantage in their ability to communicate. Now, these latest findings add to the growing evidence that Neanderthals were no less intelligent than our ancestors.
It's evidence against the old, already-discarded concensus. So we can chalk this up to the lay media's love of turning articles into "scientific renegade tales", and inability to comprehend that science is continuously revising itself.
This isn't even Idle, though, this is just a plain Books post. The author can write a snarky review of some awful book he received if he wants, but who the hell decided that Slashdot's readership was interested?
Your post leaves open the question: which establishment are you expecting to mod you down? The religious, or the scientific? By doing so, you have created a joke for all men. Truly, a cut above the rest.
Sure, but my point is that the DS took touchscreens to people who have absolutely no use for a PDA, a smartphone, a tablet PC, or any of the other gee-whiz Wall Street wannabe uses that touchscreens have had over the years.
If you're failing to get your clever ideas across to the audience in an enjoyable way, then that's a failure on your part. It's possible for games, or any other medium, to be daring and clever without turning audiences off (see House of Leaves for an example of something clever but enjoyable), and it's part of your job to do that if you want to be "smart".
I imagine that the first prolonged, day-to-day experience with a touchscreen for a lot of people would be the Nintendo DS. It's got a user base a lot larger, and demographically wider, than that of the iPhone. This isn't to knock Apple's tech and design achievements with that device and their trackpads, but I think the DS was probably pivotal in getting the general public used to operating devices with purely virtual buttons.
I believe it's called "doing a Blade Runner". Seriously, though, that's something Photosynth can do. You just need someone to have taken a picture behind something.
I do remember Microsoft discussing the possibility of linking Photosynth up to the databases of community photo sites like Flickr. I imagine this would be necessary to really make the most of it. You probably can't take enough pictures of the Eiffel Tower yourself to provide a meaningful Photosynth construct, after all nobody's really taking detail shots of the entire structure. However I dare say there's enough casually- or accidentally-taken images of crossbeams and information signs and panoramas on Flickr to achieve something striking. Now, what happens if you let it grab from YouTube videos too? If each frame is a picture of the whole, albeit low quality...
So what you're saying is, the distribution and duplication part of copyright law no longer makes sense online, but the sections which preserve the author's control over the way his work is used - movie rights, etc. etc. - are still viable.
Your example shows exactly why copyright is necessary. In a copyright-free world, if I make Zottospace 2, and try to distribute it online and make money off the advertising, there's nothing to stop IGN from doing exactly the same thing. Suddenly, I'm competing with one of the internet gaming giants, and I am surely going to lose.
Slashdot Mirror
With no basic materials science or semiconductor research, I'm not sure what they're going to be able to develop in the fields of "high-speed electronics" or "nanotechnology". Perhaps they're going to restructure so that the existing basic science researchers are more "product driven", being put into marketable research areas with specific goals, but that strikes me as a sure-fire way of duplicating effort and limiting their scope for innovation.
It'd be nice if there was some sort of bonus for those who commit more money. For example, if you spend the equivalent of the retail price of a game on content for Metal Gear Online, maybe a nice soundtrack album or making of CD or other retail-style added value is in order.
It's been argued in the past (I'm recalling this from Gleick's "What Just Happened") that Microsoft's products are so ubiquitous and essential that they deserve to be regulated, controlled, and distributed like a public service. You could argue that they're already being paid like a public service, as you say via a "Microsoft tax" on all PCs sold.
English article -> Slashdot coverage -> Ad hits -> Reimbursement for the money they gave the guy for the story. In this instance, I'd call it fair.
Idol? Dont' give them ideas!
This wasn't redundant when I wrote it. :( :(
That's probably the best suggestion so far, capacitor rot and RTC failure notwithstanding (although I assume they'll still be able to make capacitors and low-voltage power in the future). A notebook would probably do the job. Something self-contained.
If it absolutely, positively has to survive 25 years, it might be worth the expense of getting the photos professionally printed on good quality paper and, if you're worried about the box leaking, laminated. Okay, it's a smartass answer, but those are photos you're going to store, and they're known to last more than 25 years easily.
I thought so, it seemed terribly unlikely that mail order places would hold off like that.
Because it's difficult? The Segway doesn't just balance by code, it's a product of having two big, grippy wheels with heavy-duty motors listening to a whole bunch of clever hardware to track the centre of gravity. All that to balance a vehicle which is basically a really heavy board on wheels with a stick out the top. This exoskeleton is an order of magnitude more complex, and no doubt has nowhere near as much torque or traction available to it.
Here in the UK companies have been shipping games out so that they reach customers on the release date for at least the past eight years, and probably more than a decade. Gameplay always guaranteed it with first-class mail, which usually meant you got a game 2-3 days before release, and almost everyone else does it on their free delivery option (e.g. Play.com). Amazon.co.uk is about the only exception that springs to mind.
Portal exploits portal rendering technology - a technique for graphics optimisation which incidentally allows you to take a given map layout and provide a different subjective layout for the player. It's actually a fairly trivial problem to do the portals themselves, as most graphics engines these days should have portalling built in. All of the interesting physics comes in when they start making it work as gameplay, for example by giving portal entrances "push" or "pull" to steer players into and out of them. The article is a good description of how to make a game that behaves a bit like Portal, but it's got nothing to do with that game's actual physics.
It's probably unfair to characterise it as the whole community having moved on, but yes, this is an established part of the anthropology of the neaderthal, and the article is not about some gee-whiz dogma-shattering discovery, but the continued accumulation of evidence in an exciting new direction. How can you trust anything science says? It revises itself to be accurate, that's why. An unchanging theory constructed in year X is one that is unlikely to become more correct with the collection of new evidence in the years to come, except by some fluke of blind luck.
From TFA:
Many long-held beliefs suggesting why the Neanderthals went extinct have been debunked in recent years. Research has already shown that Neanderthals were as good at hunting as Homo sapiens and had no clear disadvantage in their ability to communicate. Now, these latest findings add to the growing evidence that Neanderthals were no less intelligent than our ancestors.
It's evidence against the old, already-discarded concensus. So we can chalk this up to the lay media's love of turning articles into "scientific renegade tales", and inability to comprehend that science is continuously revising itself.
We have three tiers for the three levels of PC gamers out there
From the prices I assume those levels are "lives in own property", "lives with parents", and "purely hypothetical".
I doubt that much profit is going to be made on these machines, though. Certainly little of any work that gets done will use the expensive components.
This isn't even Idle, though, this is just a plain Books post. The author can write a snarky review of some awful book he received if he wants, but who the hell decided that Slashdot's readership was interested?
Your post leaves open the question: which establishment are you expecting to mod you down? The religious, or the scientific? By doing so, you have created a joke for all men. Truly, a cut above the rest.
Sure, but my point is that the DS took touchscreens to people who have absolutely no use for a PDA, a smartphone, a tablet PC, or any of the other gee-whiz Wall Street wannabe uses that touchscreens have had over the years.
If you're failing to get your clever ideas across to the audience in an enjoyable way, then that's a failure on your part. It's possible for games, or any other medium, to be daring and clever without turning audiences off (see House of Leaves for an example of something clever but enjoyable), and it's part of your job to do that if you want to be "smart".
I imagine that the first prolonged, day-to-day experience with a touchscreen for a lot of people would be the Nintendo DS. It's got a user base a lot larger, and demographically wider, than that of the iPhone. This isn't to knock Apple's tech and design achievements with that device and their trackpads, but I think the DS was probably pivotal in getting the general public used to operating devices with purely virtual buttons.
I believe it's called "doing a Blade Runner". Seriously, though, that's something Photosynth can do. You just need someone to have taken a picture behind something.
I do remember Microsoft discussing the possibility of linking Photosynth up to the databases of community photo sites like Flickr. I imagine this would be necessary to really make the most of it. You probably can't take enough pictures of the Eiffel Tower yourself to provide a meaningful Photosynth construct, after all nobody's really taking detail shots of the entire structure. However I dare say there's enough casually- or accidentally-taken images of crossbeams and information signs and panoramas on Flickr to achieve something striking. Now, what happens if you let it grab from YouTube videos too? If each frame is a picture of the whole, albeit low quality...
So what you're saying is, the distribution and duplication part of copyright law no longer makes sense online, but the sections which preserve the author's control over the way his work is used - movie rights, etc. etc. - are still viable.
Your example shows exactly why copyright is necessary. In a copyright-free world, if I make Zottospace 2, and try to distribute it online and make money off the advertising, there's nothing to stop IGN from doing exactly the same thing. Suddenly, I'm competing with one of the internet gaming giants, and I am surely going to lose.