About time they abolished those quotas. Given the dominance of imported textiles in the US already, it won't have that big an impact. If the remaining domestic producers want to stay viable, they can always shift to more boutique-style production touting the domestic nature of the product, and they'll still find buyers. Of course, it's easier to just bitch about foreign producers...
You're assuming that all "gamers" are customizers with the highly overclocked water cooled processors, etc. That isn't the case by a long shot. While the gamers who like to tinker and customize are certainly significant, there are probably even more that just want to play and don't want to fuck with their computers along the way. Basically, many gamers are exactly in the 'appliance' segment, though they may not be aware of FIC as you point out.
SF has *science* in it - one definition is that it must obey all known scientific laws, unless breaking one is required for the story, and then even the handwaving explantion must be reasonable.
That's a very restrictive definition of Science-fiction, and one which rules out one hell of a lot of literature and programming otherwise considered science-fiction. I can't think of any Sci-Fi which would qualify based on that definition.
A much better set of definitions includes:
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
and
literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society
Under both of those definitions, which are much more consistent with common parlance than the definition you offer, the X-files fits within the science-fiction genre.
After reading through this, it seems clear that the actual software should receive copyright protection, but not necessarily patent protection. The basic problem is still that the issuance of the patent presumes that integrating all this is non-obvious, which is debatable. While the patent office might have thought it was, this is the type of problem computers were made to solve so by the very nature of computing it seems obvious.
Rather than get defensive, how about dealing with the basic issue which is that granting a patent on an obvious process is rather silly. In the case of this lawsuit, unless DE Tech can show that Dell is actually using their exact process and didn't develop it independently, I'd say they're screwed since that will prove it is obvious. Hell, if Dell has been conducting international transactions online since before the patent was issued in 2002, it seems that DE Tech has a problem as well.
I read it as suggesting that new games can break the spiral, though it's difficult because of the way many players will demand those "bad" features when they start playing.
I'm with you on the PermaDeath issue, though. I think calling that an example of good game design is sadly mistaken. One of the main reasons I kept playing EQ for four years was my attachment to my main character, since I never really enjoyed playing any of the alts I made.
I don't think his point was that online gaming would die, any more than TV will die (as you point out). What he's saying is that the evolutionary path which is dominant in online gaming is one that leads to poor games. By analogy, the evolutionary path which is dominant for TV shows is one which leads to poor programming.
The exact same dynamic applies to both. Mindless formulaic TV drivel (e.g. reality programming) perpetuates because "newbs" like it enough to keep watching it. At some point, someone will break that paradigm with a new one, and the cycle will begin anew. I can easily see that happening to online games, and I've watched that happen to TV long enough to see that the basic logic clearly applies. There's nothing here that says TV will die any more than he says online games will die, but bad game design perpetuates just like bad TV programming.
Actually, you'd get +/- 5% out of much less than 3,000 respondents, under 1000 actually. You might want to study elementary statistics before you try to discuss it, so at least you won't be talking out of your ass like this time. While there are certainly grounds to be suspicious of the poll results, the quantity of people polled isn't one of them. I'll leave it to you to figure out the real issues, after you study some stats...
Actually, if you're referring to what I assume, there's no defiance of history. The president's party usually loses seats in congress during mid-term elections, but not always. Bush didn't in 2002, but neither did Clinton in 1998, for example. It depends on presidential approval ratings, which under normal circumstances (i.e. not right after 9/11) tend to be highly dependent on the economy.
Sounds like someone with mod points didn't like the implication of your post, which is that the electorate will respond to this by electing Kerry, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Either that, or it's the WWF thing...
You may be tired of hearing it, but considering the behavior of this administration with regard to science in general (not just stem cell research) it's clearly true. This administration is probably the worst since WW II in terms of not supporting science and misusing discoveries which happen in spite of government neglect or even opposition.
As for ethics, given how ethically challenged Bush is I hardly think he's making ANY decisions based on ethics. He simply panders to his base and advisors, rather than making any effort to think about what is good for the country.
While the umps named the wrong player, the player on the far right side of the redskins line wasn't set when the ball was hiked, so the call was a good call. They screwed up, and paid the price. Of course, we could say the first part of that about Bush, and I hope the second as well.
The truly sad thing about this is that governments are no more capable of making rational, mature decisions than the general populace is. After all, governments are composed of members of that same populace and in most of the countries we're discussing are forced to be responsive to that general populace in the form of elections.
Read the whole post, they closed 1,600, not 18,000. The 18,000 figure is the ones ordered to "stop operation for rectification," which isn't explained but is clearly differentiated from those which were closed. Probably means they were temporarily closed until they got their act together.
I'm trying to think of a recent get-out-the-vote effort that didn't have a partisan agenda, and I'm stumped. There aren't significant truly non-partisan efforts to do that these days, in large part because groups within the American population tend to vote in predictable ways. The "Vote or Die" campaign is certainly partisan, but since college students tend to vote Democratic it makes sense for those who support the Dems to sponsor that effort and for Republicans to piss and moan about it or even try to actively surpress the vote, as they've been doing with minority areas in close states.
The only way people will rise up and kill it is if (when) some massive fraud or error occurs that totally fucks the outcome of a major race.
You're right on one count, electronic voting is here to stay. However, since we're already seeing signs of the massive error and possible fraud you allude to, this is a very salient issue. The article is a rather silly statistical exercise in one way, since there's no way a single person could skew all the different machines they would need to if they wanted to fix an election in this way. The difficulty of doing so is compounded by the different types of machines in use.
That said, it does point out a real issue with American elections. Very small shifts in the popular vote have such radical effects on the outcome that we can't afford to keep tolerating all the irregularities in the election process. The relatively high number of "spoiled" ballots with the touch screen systems, the partisan involvement in voter registration that's leading to corruption of the voting register in at least Nevada and Ohio, and the systematic efforts of the Republican party to suppress the vote of people likely to support the Democrats has got to stop. This type of crap is bad enough in countries where elections are mere ratifications of the party in power, it shouldn't be allowed when the election really counts.
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. I teach American politics at a campus where P. Diddy and crew just came through, and we talked about it in class after the rally. The point isn't simply to vote, but rather to take responsibility for your life. That entails being an educated voter, not a random one. That message is getting through to the kids, so I'm most definitely NOT appalled by it.
I don't have to forget any of that, because I already know that historical wrongs do not in any way justify current wrongs. The A-bomb reference is particularly silly, considering it was simply the use of a weapon during wartime.
Outside self-defense or defense of others, there are very few legitimate reasons to kill. Last I checked, hatred isn't one of them. Looks like you're still encouraging hatred and violence to me. Nice and responsible attitude, dude.
I know I'll be taunted and modded down by the bible bashing extreme right wingers (and supporters) for saying this, but to quote Michael Moore, spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun rarely works.
I assume you mean bible thumping, not bible bashing? At any rate, I have a hard time imagining this community has enough extreme right wingers to mod you much at all, given how homogenous so much of the political commentary on this site is.
Yaay! Let's glorify all the murderers who stand up to the US, and encourage them to keep killing!
Now, does that sound as silly to you as it does to me? If not, maybe you need to think about what you're saying a bit more, since encouraging mass murder is seriously messed up.
Slashdot Mirror
Ten years, twenty years or more from now, will we notice the dangerious side-affects of materials we push out on the market?
Yes.About time they abolished those quotas. Given the dominance of imported textiles in the US already, it won't have that big an impact. If the remaining domestic producers want to stay viable, they can always shift to more boutique-style production touting the domestic nature of the product, and they'll still find buyers. Of course, it's easier to just bitch about foreign producers...
You're assuming that all "gamers" are customizers with the highly overclocked water cooled processors, etc. That isn't the case by a long shot. While the gamers who like to tinker and customize are certainly significant, there are probably even more that just want to play and don't want to fuck with their computers along the way. Basically, many gamers are exactly in the 'appliance' segment, though they may not be aware of FIC as you point out.
SF has *science* in it - one definition is that it must obey all known scientific laws, unless breaking one is required for the story, and then even the handwaving explantion must be reasonable.
That's a very restrictive definition of Science-fiction, and one which rules out one hell of a lot of literature and programming otherwise considered science-fiction. I can't think of any Sci-Fi which would qualify based on that definition.
A much better set of definitions includes:
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
and
literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society
Under both of those definitions, which are much more consistent with common parlance than the definition you offer, the X-files fits within the science-fiction genre.
I think it's a joke...
After reading through this, it seems clear that the actual software should receive copyright protection, but not necessarily patent protection. The basic problem is still that the issuance of the patent presumes that integrating all this is non-obvious, which is debatable. While the patent office might have thought it was, this is the type of problem computers were made to solve so by the very nature of computing it seems obvious.
They aren't, but it's more acceptable to criticize the US these days...
Rather than get defensive, how about dealing with the basic issue which is that granting a patent on an obvious process is rather silly. In the case of this lawsuit, unless DE Tech can show that Dell is actually using their exact process and didn't develop it independently, I'd say they're screwed since that will prove it is obvious. Hell, if Dell has been conducting international transactions online since before the patent was issued in 2002, it seems that DE Tech has a problem as well.
I read it as suggesting that new games can break the spiral, though it's difficult because of the way many players will demand those "bad" features when they start playing.
I'm with you on the PermaDeath issue, though. I think calling that an example of good game design is sadly mistaken. One of the main reasons I kept playing EQ for four years was my attachment to my main character, since I never really enjoyed playing any of the alts I made.
I don't think his point was that online gaming would die, any more than TV will die (as you point out). What he's saying is that the evolutionary path which is dominant in online gaming is one that leads to poor games. By analogy, the evolutionary path which is dominant for TV shows is one which leads to poor programming.
The exact same dynamic applies to both. Mindless formulaic TV drivel (e.g. reality programming) perpetuates because "newbs" like it enough to keep watching it. At some point, someone will break that paradigm with a new one, and the cycle will begin anew. I can easily see that happening to online games, and I've watched that happen to TV long enough to see that the basic logic clearly applies. There's nothing here that says TV will die any more than he says online games will die, but bad game design perpetuates just like bad TV programming.
Hmm, should just stick to calling them "zebras", I guess...
Actually, you'd get +/- 5% out of much less than 3,000 respondents, under 1000 actually. You might want to study elementary statistics before you try to discuss it, so at least you won't be talking out of your ass like this time. While there are certainly grounds to be suspicious of the poll results, the quantity of people polled isn't one of them. I'll leave it to you to figure out the real issues, after you study some stats...
Actually, if you're referring to what I assume, there's no defiance of history. The president's party usually loses seats in congress during mid-term elections, but not always. Bush didn't in 2002, but neither did Clinton in 1998, for example. It depends on presidential approval ratings, which under normal circumstances (i.e. not right after 9/11) tend to be highly dependent on the economy.
Sounds like someone with mod points didn't like the implication of your post, which is that the electorate will respond to this by electing Kerry, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Either that, or it's the WWF thing...
You may be tired of hearing it, but considering the behavior of this administration with regard to science in general (not just stem cell research) it's clearly true. This administration is probably the worst since WW II in terms of not supporting science and misusing discoveries which happen in spite of government neglect or even opposition.
As for ethics, given how ethically challenged Bush is I hardly think he's making ANY decisions based on ethics. He simply panders to his base and advisors, rather than making any effort to think about what is good for the country.
While the umps named the wrong player, the player on the far right side of the redskins line wasn't set when the ball was hiked, so the call was a good call. They screwed up, and paid the price. Of course, we could say the first part of that about Bush, and I hope the second as well.
Good thing they don't have the economy or technology to arm them all with modern weapons, eh? :)
The truly sad thing about this is that governments are no more capable of making rational, mature decisions than the general populace is. After all, governments are composed of members of that same populace and in most of the countries we're discussing are forced to be responsive to that general populace in the form of elections.
Read the whole post, they closed 1,600, not 18,000. The 18,000 figure is the ones ordered to "stop operation for rectification," which isn't explained but is clearly differentiated from those which were closed. Probably means they were temporarily closed until they got their act together.
I'm trying to think of a recent get-out-the-vote effort that didn't have a partisan agenda, and I'm stumped. There aren't significant truly non-partisan efforts to do that these days, in large part because groups within the American population tend to vote in predictable ways. The "Vote or Die" campaign is certainly partisan, but since college students tend to vote Democratic it makes sense for those who support the Dems to sponsor that effort and for Republicans to piss and moan about it or even try to actively surpress the vote, as they've been doing with minority areas in close states.
The only way people will rise up and kill it is if (when) some massive fraud or error occurs that totally fucks the outcome of a major race.
You're right on one count, electronic voting is here to stay. However, since we're already seeing signs of the massive error and possible fraud you allude to, this is a very salient issue. The article is a rather silly statistical exercise in one way, since there's no way a single person could skew all the different machines they would need to if they wanted to fix an election in this way. The difficulty of doing so is compounded by the different types of machines in use.
That said, it does point out a real issue with American elections. Very small shifts in the popular vote have such radical effects on the outcome that we can't afford to keep tolerating all the irregularities in the election process. The relatively high number of "spoiled" ballots with the touch screen systems, the partisan involvement in voter registration that's leading to corruption of the voting register in at least Nevada and Ohio, and the systematic efforts of the Republican party to suppress the vote of people likely to support the Democrats has got to stop. This type of crap is bad enough in countries where elections are mere ratifications of the party in power, it shouldn't be allowed when the election really counts.
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. I teach American politics at a campus where P. Diddy and crew just came through, and we talked about it in class after the rally. The point isn't simply to vote, but rather to take responsibility for your life. That entails being an educated voter, not a random one. That message is getting through to the kids, so I'm most definitely NOT appalled by it.
I don't have to forget any of that, because I already know that historical wrongs do not in any way justify current wrongs. The A-bomb reference is particularly silly, considering it was simply the use of a weapon during wartime.
Outside self-defense or defense of others, there are very few legitimate reasons to kill. Last I checked, hatred isn't one of them. Looks like you're still encouraging hatred and violence to me. Nice and responsible attitude, dude.
I know I'll be taunted and modded down by the bible bashing extreme right wingers (and supporters) for saying this, but to quote Michael Moore, spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun rarely works.
I assume you mean bible thumping, not bible bashing? At any rate, I have a hard time imagining this community has enough extreme right wingers to mod you much at all, given how homogenous so much of the political commentary on this site is.
He's my hero for standing up the US.
Yaay! Let's glorify all the murderers who stand up to the US, and encourage them to keep killing!
Now, does that sound as silly to you as it does to me? If not, maybe you need to think about what you're saying a bit more, since encouraging mass murder is seriously messed up.