Lets face it, none of the people involved sound all that bright. She was either dumb enough to believe it was legit OR she was dumb enough to post an expensive stolen ring on Facebook.
Or she never matured and grew out of that "attracted to bad boys" stage, so to her it was both proof of his "desirability" AND something to brag about to her friends.
I see what you did there, however your inability to describe an ex post punishment as something other than a prior restraint does not convert the punishment into a legally forbidden prior restraint.
I suppose next you are going to argue that the threat of legal punishment never has any sort of deterrent effect on the action being punished. This is well-known stuff. It has a term. The term is "chilling effect".
Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity. --William Blackstone (4 Bl. Com. 151, 152.)
The framers of the Constitution and the Supreme Court have followed Blackstone. Follow your philosophy at your own peril.
I appreciate your authoritarian stance there. Might makes right, right? The U.S. Government certainly has superior might so what it does must be okay and above questioning.
I reject that view. Therefore, the question is not whether committing an illegal act has consequences. That's a rather... unenlightened, superficial view of things. Of course it does. There is no value in using a quote to eloquently state the obvious. The question, sir, is whether it is reasonable for this particular act to be illegal in the first place. "Reasonable" here means "benefits We the People by working towards a stronger, more prosperous, more free nation" which tends to be the opposite of "helps a few bureaucrats to save face by providing a scapegoat".
That the US cannot keep its own secrets is too bad for them. The reality is, that cat is out of the bag, it isn't going back into the bag, and anyone in the world (literally) who wants this information can readily access it. Prosecuting and persecuting people who are talking about it won't change that (we call that "denial"). This is a witch-hunt, plain and simple. I will not support it for one simple reason: it is not worthy of support. If the law says otherwise then the law is wrong.
Laws are made by men. Men can be wrong. This law is wrong and so are those who wish to enforce it. If the US is so worried about leaks of information, this effort would be better spent securing their own systems and personnel.
Likewise, it's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom (hypothetically) to rob a bank and then face punishment after the fact.
No, actually that is not true. The government is allowed to stop you from robbing a bank. The courts have often ruled that the government cannot stop you from publishing, even when they can punish you after you have done so.
Refusing to deliberately miss my point is quite painful, isn't it?
It's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom to publish anything first and then face punishment after the fact. Did you think this was something new?
Yes, of course. Likewise, it's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom (hypothetically) to rob a bank and then face punishment after the fact. Did you think that was something new?
If "see, we punished these guys for saying that, and we'll do the same to you if you say that" isn't prior restraint then what would be?
HTML 5 is going to help Linux quite a bit in the video department.
I use Linux as my default desktop. I will only use Windows to crank out a resume/CV because the free office suites still don't hold a candle to MS Office. Other than Office, I shun Windows.
MS Office runs well under Wine. In fact, in my experience, it crashes more often in Windows (occasionally) than it does in Wine (almost never).
That's completely counter-intuitive of course. One would reasonably expect a Microsoft program to run better on a Microsoft OS than anywhere else. Yet at least with MS Office that has not been my experience.
Anyway if this is the only reason why you are dual-booting into Windows then you shouldn't really need to keep Windows around at all.
This is a product he paid for being remotely disabled...
The product was not remotely disabled. The summary is misleading on that respect.
The game had not yet been installed. Part of the installation process is a check for an active EA account (to make sure you're authorized to use the installer, and haven't just pirated it). Since his account was banned, he could not use the installer.
And for some reason you think this distinction is important.
Did you know that a BioWare rep confirmed this as intended behavior, that the system is working as designed? That means they know that disabling the account will lock paying customers out of not-yet-installed single-player games. That makes it intentional. That makes it a way to remotely disable those games.
You can quibble about whether this is the most efficient way to remotely disable a game. Hell, a perfect remote-disable switch would work whether or not the game has been installed. So this is not a perfect remote-disable switch. It could be made to be even more effective. Yet in this case it was effective enough, and we know for a fact that it is intentional and working as designed.
Did you know -- you could design a forum that lets you ban users from the forum without disabling any other accounts they possess? Did you know -- that an honest company would refund his money now that he cannot play a game he has bought? Did you know -- the bad publicity and general assholeness EA is displaying here will cost them a lot more than the purchase price of this game, in the form of lost reputation and potential customers who go elsewhere?
Please, make some more excuses. I want to see just how brainwashed someone can be when they see a corporate logo. They're angels who can do no wrong, aren't they? Tell us why you want more companies to be able to rip people off like this. Tell us why that's a good thing. Tell us how this incident is going to discourage a would-be pirate and tell us how that's good for the game industry.
You'd be surprised how many people who work with computers every day don't know how to handle very basic functionality
No... no I really wouldn't.
I simply can't name any tool or machine or piece of equipment I use on a daily basis about which I remain so ignorant. Yet for average PC users this is the norm.
I could understand if you almost never had to use something. Maybe you use it once or twice a year so you're out-of-practice and have understandable difficulty remembering how everything is used. But to use something every day for hours a day and still not understand the most basic easy-to-understand functions that do not remotely require an expert to utilize... without even accidentally picking up on bits of information here and there... that takes work.
Lots of work, a natural curiosity and sense of wonder that was destroyed during childhood by the school system, a refusal to appreciate that literacy is a precious gift, and a resentment towards the notion that a little knowledge makes it much easier to operate a highly complex general-purpose machine. That's what it takes to maintain a status I call "permanent newbie".
If it weeds out all the stupid people so that plastic bags no longer need a "This is not a toy - Choking hazard" disclaimer, I'm all for it.
That disclaimer isn't because of stupid people. It's because of a belief that it is good for society to protect stupid people from their own stupidity. That causes a legal system in which some numbnuts who thinks a plastic bag makes a wonderful face mask, or who thinks that leaving small children unattended around potentially dangerous objects is a great idea, would actually have a case against the bag maker.
Really I'd be fine if all disclaimers were removed. If someone can't understand on their own that, say, a can of insecticide is not something you can safely ingest, at least this would keep them out of the voting booths, off of the public roads, and ineligible for Social Security. It would be a win-win-win.
I've always been of the opinion that it doesn't matter much, PC or Console for FPS type games. If everyone is playing from the same (or similar) input devices, then everyone is on equal footing. There is no "mouse point and click" on the console, so if PC provides more accurate input, so what? That doesn't mean that the console requires more or less skill than the PC version of a game, it just means that the two different versions are slightly different in that regard. The last time I was really into a FPS was when Counter Strike was still fairly new on XBox. I had some friends who were big PC players and they would always tout that if we could play against each other (them on PC, me on XBOX) then they'd roast me. That's probably true, but if we were both on XBOXes I probably would have roasted them. It didn't make much difference to me one way or the other.
The problem then is that if you have a gaming PC you cannot play a game with friends who have an Xbox even when you have the same games. There is no technical reason why a PC running Windows could not use the same network Microsoft provides to its Xbox users. There are game-balance reasons since the PC users are likely to have an advantage when it comes to games like first-person shooters.
It is related only in effect and not in cause, but the situation resembles vendor lock-in. If I have a perfectly good gaming PC and want to play a game against friends who have an Xbox, I can't do that. Instead I'd have to purchase my own Xbox. Then I'd have to purchase a second copy of the game(s) I already have for my PC. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't mind that scenario but for me it would mean buying something I really don't need.
Since the Xbox 360 has USB ports, Microsoft could add the ability to connect a mouse and keyboard. That would be an interesting solution. They could probably accomplish this with a software update.
I used to think that, too. I currently have a Wii and an Xbox and guess what: I find shooters to be more precise with the xbox controller. (the technique, of course, is totally different (less natural) but more precise in the end)
I would have never thought that I would find it to be that way. Its surprising and I still don't know why it is, but its true for me.
It's possible that I have a bias here because most gaming I do is on a PC. I am therefore open to suggestions that I may not perceive it that way if I had equal experience with each kind of input device. Having said that, at least in my personal experience I know no better controller for something like a 1st-person shooter than a keyboard and mouse. It seems like with an Xbox-style controller I can be either fast or precise depending on the sensitivity setting, but it is quite difficult to achieve both. It often ends up being a balance or a trade-off.
With a mouse I can be slow and precise or I can be fast and precise. It is far easier, for me, to suddenly turn around and get a fast yet accurate headshot against an enemy alien (or whatever) with a mouse. With an Xbox-style controller I often barely miss the headshot and end up getting myself killed or having a big struggle that could have been a fast encounter.
I think it's partly because the mouse can cover more ground more swiftly. I can flick it across the mousepad in a fraction of a second. I can also suddenly stop its movement and the cursor instantly stops with it. Also, a mouse cursor usually has an acceleration setting that makes the sensitivity setting less important. With an Xbox-style controller it seems more important during gameplay to maintain a positional advantage, i.e. to get the drop on an enemy. With a mouse and keyboard I feel more like my reflexes and ability to pay attention are the primary limitations.
The comparison you raise is interesting to me. I have hardly ever used a Wii and even then I have never tried playing a 1st-person shooter. I think for a shooter the Wii controller may be hamstrung because the one-handed controller is trying to provide the functionality for which a PC would use two hands, one on a mouse and the other on a keyboard. For that reason I can see why you would say the Xbox controller is better albeit less natural.
I always thought that a similar (and far less verbose) disclaimer was implied by the use of the word 'candidate'.
Apparently sarcasm is more important to you than actually familiarizing yourself with the claims that certain scientists were making about this planet. And no, "candidate" acknowledges we may be wrong about this particular planet, that our data may be faulty. It does not acknowledge that our very understanding could also change, has changed before, referring to the theoretical basis with which we interpret that data.
One thought that never occurs to the average Slashdotter: "hey I think I found a really trivial and obvious objection... maybe that means I misunderstood what the guy was saying, hey I better look into that before I make an ass of myself". If anyone knows a discussion forum where I wouldn't spend at least 1/3 of the time explaining obvious things to literate people, let me know.
There are a few scientists around who occasionally say idiotic things. Unfortunately, sometimes they do it in front of reporters. This would be one of those times.
I sure wish people would Google before asking such easily answered questions...
Welcome to science. I would deem this a big success!
No, science would be "as a preliminary, tentative finding, the data seem to indicate that this is the case, but we need to double-check all sources of error, look for contradictory information, and even after all that, if we still cannot falsify it, we can say only that it is consistent with our current understanding, something that has changed before and will likely change again". Of course, that isn't as exciting in a press release, hence the problem.
Many people want final ultimate answers on certain questions. "Could there be other planets out there that might even be able to support life (as we know it)?" is one of them. It's related to the question of whether we are alone in the Universe. It's harder to appreciate that the search for such answers and the questions they raise is the more worthy point.
This was a big success for yellow journalism. It was a gigantic fail for science. It calls into question how many other jumps to conclusions there are that we don't yet know about because they haven't yet been identified. You can have great science or you can make great press releases and sell newspapers. Wherever those two ends are opposed, we get to find out what our real priorities are, don't we?
I agree it's definitely better than nothing that this one was corrected. That means this failure was recognized and corrected. It does not mean no failure took place.
As intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down. See, I made a graph. I make a lot of graphs...
God damn, as a tendency this one is the straight truth.
Intelligence makes happiness more difficult to achieve. It also makes it more meaningful and more deeply appreciated once attained. It is solid and meaningful then, not fleeting and transient like the happiness (i.e. indulgence) of too many.
If they tick off advertisers, then who are they going to sell your information to?
I imagine advertisers would overlook a ton of BS in order to gain access to (what they'd perceive as) such a treasure trove of personal information. The prize is too tempting to walk away from that easily.
Developers are a different story. If Facebook insists on alienating them, effectively using them as pawns in their pissing contest with Google, they might eventually get tired of that. Most people don't like being jerked around, especially for no good reason. If they finally go elsewhere, Facebook will miss them when they're gone.
I love how Facebook can't do anything right as far as Slashdot is concerned. If they block ad networks, their evil...if they don't their also evil. Come on people!
Yes there is a definite pro-Facebook bias around here. Otherwise there'd never be so many Facebook stories.
Bear in mind that the very worst thing you can do to a company like Facebook is to ignore them.
To see their name in news headlines on so many sites tells them that they are important, that people are waiting with bated breath to see what they will do next, that people think it's worth talking about. It's what helps keep their brand in mind and ultimately helps to drive traffic to their site.
Other devs go on to clarify that the reputations of some of the accepted networks is shady at best, leaving developers with sub-par options to monetize their work on the Facebook platform.
If Google is willing to partner with Facebook for advertising and Facebook thinks having a pissing contest is more important, then to any would-be Facebook developers: doesn't that tell you what their priorities are? Their priorities certainly don't include you. If you have skill and talent and a good work ethic, why not go someplace where your efforts are better appreciated?
This response to another poster also applies to you. I just replied to him instead because he understood what you failed to grasp. Enjoy.
Also, while I generally do drive the speed limit, I don't feel that it's my job to control others by physically blocking their passage. If they wish to speed, on an open highway that's built like a drag strip, that's between them and any cops in the area. By not deliberately blocking them and by moving over when I can clearly see they want to pass me, I remove any possible danger their urge to speed could have posed to me. It's called defensive driving.
If I wanted to enforce the speed limit I would become a police officer.
I think GP was referring to the arsefark doing 20 under in the left lane. YOU know who YOU are.
You're absolutely right. As others have noted, I never mentioned the speed limit at all. Maybe they think that's a coincidence but really that was for a reason.
Some people will invent shit, put words in your mouth, and then look down their nose at you because they don't like the words they just made up and ascribed to you. It's not a surprise to me at all that such a person makes a big deal of always following all rules. People like him love rules, not because they regulate and keep order, but because he can feel superior to those who transgress them.
That should adequately explain why he automatically assumed I meant something I quite clearly did not say. It'd be difficult or impossible to climb up on his high horse and lecture me about speed limits if he just stuck to what I actually said.
there is no way a @#$ robot can judge what to do about oncoming accidents, like a pedestrian, a deer, a squirrel, a semi jackknifing, an ambulance passing, a crash ahead of you, a gigantic pothole, a box full of dishes that fell off a truck, a big tree branch, a patch of black ice, a tire blowing out, a semi weaving in a strong wind, etc etc etc.
Perhaps not, but it's likely to be a hell of a lot better at not doing the idiotic things that cause the overwhelming majority of accidents in the first place.
Almost all accidents other than collisions with animals that run out in front of you are due to human stupidity. Black ice may be an exception, maybe, except that if the conditions allow it to happen a prudent driver accounts for the possibility (note that if you hit a patch of black ice the accident is considered your fault esp. for purposes of determining liability). Everything from:
Tailgating
Running red lights
People who think the purpose of the left lane is to drive the exact same speed as the car to your right so other drivers are tempted to perform dangerous maneuvers just to get around your inconsiderate punk ass, rather than submit to your roadblock
General failure to yield
A belief that your text message is more important than the lives of others
A sudden urge to make a right turn from the left lane because proper planning of your route is too much to ask from a puny intellect and you're far too self-important to go a little up the road and find somewhere to turn around and go back
Drunk driving
You name it. It's plain old human stupidity. It's a particularly egregious kind of imbecility too, the kind that fails to recognize that other people exist and can be harmed by your poor decision-making. If "robots" can be programmed not to do these things I'm all for it. Alternatively, if robots can be programmed to beat the living shit out of people who do these things, I'm all for that too.
to do that, you first have to win over the 'trains = communism' crowd using some kind of distributed jobs program
That's a new one to me. I have heard complaints that many train systems would be uneconomical, in the sense that they'd never survive without some kind of subsidy. I haven't heard anyone actually refer to alternate transportation as a tenet of Communism, however.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! and those of us who are proud of who we are and what we do have absolutely nothing to fear.
Except pride.
That much can be derived from her taste in mates alone.
Generally, water seeks its own level.
Lets face it, none of the people involved sound all that bright. She was either dumb enough to believe it was legit OR she was dumb enough to post an expensive stolen ring on Facebook.
Or she never matured and grew out of that "attracted to bad boys" stage, so to her it was both proof of his "desirability" AND something to brag about to her friends.
isn't she constitutionally protected against incriminating her partner? or am I thinking of a different country?
I'm no lawyer but I think that's only if they are married.
I suppose next you are going to argue that the threat of legal punishment never has any sort of deterrent effect on the action being punished. This is well-known stuff. It has a term. The term is "chilling effect".
I appreciate your authoritarian stance there. Might makes right, right? The U.S. Government certainly has superior might so what it does must be okay and above questioning.
I reject that view. Therefore, the question is not whether committing an illegal act has consequences. That's a rather ... unenlightened, superficial view of things. Of course it does. There is no value in using a quote to eloquently state the obvious. The question, sir, is whether it is reasonable for this particular act to be illegal in the first place. "Reasonable" here means "benefits We the People by working towards a stronger, more prosperous, more free nation" which tends to be the opposite of "helps a few bureaucrats to save face by providing a scapegoat".
That the US cannot keep its own secrets is too bad for them. The reality is, that cat is out of the bag, it isn't going back into the bag, and anyone in the world (literally) who wants this information can readily access it. Prosecuting and persecuting people who are talking about it won't change that (we call that "denial"). This is a witch-hunt, plain and simple. I will not support it for one simple reason: it is not worthy of support. If the law says otherwise then the law is wrong.
Laws are made by men. Men can be wrong. This law is wrong and so are those who wish to enforce it. If the US is so worried about leaks of information, this effort would be better spent securing their own systems and personnel.
Likewise, it's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom (hypothetically) to rob a bank and then face punishment after the fact.
No, actually that is not true. The government is allowed to stop you from robbing a bank. The courts have often ruled that the government cannot stop you from publishing, even when they can punish you after you have done so.
Refusing to deliberately miss my point is quite painful, isn't it?
Yes, of course. Likewise, it's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom (hypothetically) to rob a bank and then face punishment after the fact. Did you think that was something new?
If "see, we punished these guys for saying that, and we'll do the same to you if you say that" isn't prior restraint then what would be?
HTML 5 is going to help Linux quite a bit in the video department.
I use Linux as my default desktop. I will only use Windows to crank out a resume/CV because the free office suites still don't hold a candle to MS Office. Other than Office, I shun Windows.
MS Office runs well under Wine. In fact, in my experience, it crashes more often in Windows (occasionally) than it does in Wine (almost never).
That's completely counter-intuitive of course. One would reasonably expect a Microsoft program to run better on a Microsoft OS than anywhere else. Yet at least with MS Office that has not been my experience.
Anyway if this is the only reason why you are dual-booting into Windows then you shouldn't really need to keep Windows around at all.
Refusing service is fine. Taking my money and then refusing service is not.
And that's really what this is all about.
This is a product he paid for being remotely disabled...
The product was not remotely disabled. The summary is misleading on that respect.
The game had not yet been installed. Part of the installation process is a check for an active EA account (to make sure you're authorized to use the installer, and haven't just pirated it). Since his account was banned, he could not use the installer.
And for some reason you think this distinction is important.
Did you know that a BioWare rep confirmed this as intended behavior, that the system is working as designed? That means they know that disabling the account will lock paying customers out of not-yet-installed single-player games. That makes it intentional. That makes it a way to remotely disable those games.
You can quibble about whether this is the most efficient way to remotely disable a game. Hell, a perfect remote-disable switch would work whether or not the game has been installed. So this is not a perfect remote-disable switch. It could be made to be even more effective. Yet in this case it was effective enough, and we know for a fact that it is intentional and working as designed.
Did you know -- you could design a forum that lets you ban users from the forum without disabling any other accounts they possess? Did you know -- that an honest company would refund his money now that he cannot play a game he has bought? Did you know -- the bad publicity and general assholeness EA is displaying here will cost them a lot more than the purchase price of this game, in the form of lost reputation and potential customers who go elsewhere?
Please, make some more excuses. I want to see just how brainwashed someone can be when they see a corporate logo. They're angels who can do no wrong, aren't they? Tell us why you want more companies to be able to rip people off like this. Tell us why that's a good thing. Tell us how this incident is going to discourage a would-be pirate and tell us how that's good for the game industry.
No ... no I really wouldn't.
I simply can't name any tool or machine or piece of equipment I use on a daily basis about which I remain so ignorant. Yet for average PC users this is the norm.
I could understand if you almost never had to use something. Maybe you use it once or twice a year so you're out-of-practice and have understandable difficulty remembering how everything is used. But to use something every day for hours a day and still not understand the most basic easy-to-understand functions that do not remotely require an expert to utilize ... without even accidentally picking up on bits of information here and there ... that takes work.
Lots of work, a natural curiosity and sense of wonder that was destroyed during childhood by the school system, a refusal to appreciate that literacy is a precious gift, and a resentment towards the notion that a little knowledge makes it much easier to operate a highly complex general-purpose machine. That's what it takes to maintain a status I call "permanent newbie".
Yes, it's awful when my gaming cuts into my Slashdot time.
If it weeds out all the stupid people so that plastic bags no longer need a "This is not a toy - Choking hazard" disclaimer, I'm all for it.
That disclaimer isn't because of stupid people. It's because of a belief that it is good for society to protect stupid people from their own stupidity. That causes a legal system in which some numbnuts who thinks a plastic bag makes a wonderful face mask, or who thinks that leaving small children unattended around potentially dangerous objects is a great idea, would actually have a case against the bag maker.
Really I'd be fine if all disclaimers were removed. If someone can't understand on their own that, say, a can of insecticide is not something you can safely ingest, at least this would keep them out of the voting booths, off of the public roads, and ineligible for Social Security. It would be a win-win-win.
I've always been of the opinion that it doesn't matter much, PC or Console for FPS type games. If everyone is playing from the same (or similar) input devices, then everyone is on equal footing. There is no "mouse point and click" on the console, so if PC provides more accurate input, so what? That doesn't mean that the console requires more or less skill than the PC version of a game, it just means that the two different versions are slightly different in that regard. The last time I was really into a FPS was when Counter Strike was still fairly new on XBox. I had some friends who were big PC players and they would always tout that if we could play against each other (them on PC, me on XBOX) then they'd roast me. That's probably true, but if we were both on XBOXes I probably would have roasted them. It didn't make much difference to me one way or the other.
The problem then is that if you have a gaming PC you cannot play a game with friends who have an Xbox even when you have the same games. There is no technical reason why a PC running Windows could not use the same network Microsoft provides to its Xbox users. There are game-balance reasons since the PC users are likely to have an advantage when it comes to games like first-person shooters.
It is related only in effect and not in cause, but the situation resembles vendor lock-in. If I have a perfectly good gaming PC and want to play a game against friends who have an Xbox, I can't do that. Instead I'd have to purchase my own Xbox. Then I'd have to purchase a second copy of the game(s) I already have for my PC. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't mind that scenario but for me it would mean buying something I really don't need.
Since the Xbox 360 has USB ports, Microsoft could add the ability to connect a mouse and keyboard. That would be an interesting solution. They could probably accomplish this with a software update.
the causality is you're an idiot.
cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
I see you haven't forgotten the time I humiliated you by demonstrating your cowardice and hypocrisy.
Excellent. It is good to know I had such an impact on you. Or your programmer, whichever may be the case.
I used to think that, too. I currently have a Wii and an Xbox and guess what: I find shooters to be more precise with the xbox controller. (the technique, of course, is totally different (less natural) but more precise in the end)
I would have never thought that I would find it to be that way. Its surprising and I still don't know why it is, but its true for me.
It's possible that I have a bias here because most gaming I do is on a PC. I am therefore open to suggestions that I may not perceive it that way if I had equal experience with each kind of input device. Having said that, at least in my personal experience I know no better controller for something like a 1st-person shooter than a keyboard and mouse. It seems like with an Xbox-style controller I can be either fast or precise depending on the sensitivity setting, but it is quite difficult to achieve both. It often ends up being a balance or a trade-off.
With a mouse I can be slow and precise or I can be fast and precise. It is far easier, for me, to suddenly turn around and get a fast yet accurate headshot against an enemy alien (or whatever) with a mouse. With an Xbox-style controller I often barely miss the headshot and end up getting myself killed or having a big struggle that could have been a fast encounter.
I think it's partly because the mouse can cover more ground more swiftly. I can flick it across the mousepad in a fraction of a second. I can also suddenly stop its movement and the cursor instantly stops with it. Also, a mouse cursor usually has an acceleration setting that makes the sensitivity setting less important. With an Xbox-style controller it seems more important during gameplay to maintain a positional advantage, i.e. to get the drop on an enemy. With a mouse and keyboard I feel more like my reflexes and ability to pay attention are the primary limitations.
The comparison you raise is interesting to me. I have hardly ever used a Wii and even then I have never tried playing a 1st-person shooter. I think for a shooter the Wii controller may be hamstrung because the one-handed controller is trying to provide the functionality for which a PC would use two hands, one on a mouse and the other on a keyboard. For that reason I can see why you would say the Xbox controller is better albeit less natural.
I always thought that a similar (and far less verbose) disclaimer was implied by the use of the word 'candidate'.
Apparently sarcasm is more important to you than actually familiarizing yourself with the claims that certain scientists were making about this planet. And no, "candidate" acknowledges we may be wrong about this particular planet, that our data may be faulty. It does not acknowledge that our very understanding could also change, has changed before, referring to the theoretical basis with which we interpret that data.
One thought that never occurs to the average Slashdotter: "hey I think I found a really trivial and obvious objection ... maybe that means I misunderstood what the guy was saying, hey I better look into that before I make an ass of myself". If anyone knows a discussion forum where I wouldn't spend at least 1/3 of the time explaining obvious things to literate people, let me know.
That'd be...
CNN
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/30/100-percent-chance-for-life-on-newly-found-planet/
Space.com
http://www.space.com/9225-odds-life-newfound-earth-size-planet-100-percent-astronomer.html ,and a host of others. This was in mainstream press. Not tabloids.
There are a few scientists around who occasionally say idiotic things. Unfortunately, sometimes they do it in front of reporters. This would be one of those times.
I sure wish people would Google before asking such easily answered questions...
Welcome to science. I would deem this a big success!
No, science would be "as a preliminary, tentative finding, the data seem to indicate that this is the case, but we need to double-check all sources of error, look for contradictory information, and even after all that, if we still cannot falsify it, we can say only that it is consistent with our current understanding, something that has changed before and will likely change again". Of course, that isn't as exciting in a press release, hence the problem.
Many people want final ultimate answers on certain questions. "Could there be other planets out there that might even be able to support life (as we know it)?" is one of them. It's related to the question of whether we are alone in the Universe. It's harder to appreciate that the search for such answers and the questions they raise is the more worthy point.
This was a big success for yellow journalism. It was a gigantic fail for science. It calls into question how many other jumps to conclusions there are that we don't yet know about because they haven't yet been identified. You can have great science or you can make great press releases and sell newspapers. Wherever those two ends are opposed, we get to find out what our real priorities are, don't we?
I agree it's definitely better than nothing that this one was corrected. That means this failure was recognized and corrected. It does not mean no failure took place.
As intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down. See, I made a graph. I make a lot of graphs...
God damn, as a tendency this one is the straight truth.
Intelligence makes happiness more difficult to achieve. It also makes it more meaningful and more deeply appreciated once attained. It is solid and meaningful then, not fleeting and transient like the happiness (i.e. indulgence) of too many.
If they tick off advertisers, then who are they going to sell your information to?
I imagine advertisers would overlook a ton of BS in order to gain access to (what they'd perceive as) such a treasure trove of personal information. The prize is too tempting to walk away from that easily.
Developers are a different story. If Facebook insists on alienating them, effectively using them as pawns in their pissing contest with Google, they might eventually get tired of that. Most people don't like being jerked around, especially for no good reason. If they finally go elsewhere, Facebook will miss them when they're gone.
I love how Facebook can't do anything right as far as Slashdot is concerned. If they block ad networks, their evil...if they don't their also evil. Come on people!
Yes there is a definite pro-Facebook bias around here. Otherwise there'd never be so many Facebook stories.
Bear in mind that the very worst thing you can do to a company like Facebook is to ignore them.
To see their name in news headlines on so many sites tells them that they are important, that people are waiting with bated breath to see what they will do next, that people think it's worth talking about. It's what helps keep their brand in mind and ultimately helps to drive traffic to their site.
If Google is willing to partner with Facebook for advertising and Facebook thinks having a pissing contest is more important, then to any would-be Facebook developers: doesn't that tell you what their priorities are? Their priorities certainly don't include you. If you have skill and talent and a good work ethic, why not go someplace where your efforts are better appreciated?
This response to another poster also applies to you. I just replied to him instead because he understood what you failed to grasp. Enjoy.
Also, while I generally do drive the speed limit, I don't feel that it's my job to control others by physically blocking their passage. If they wish to speed, on an open highway that's built like a drag strip, that's between them and any cops in the area. By not deliberately blocking them and by moving over when I can clearly see they want to pass me, I remove any possible danger their urge to speed could have posed to me. It's called defensive driving.
If I wanted to enforce the speed limit I would become a police officer.
I think GP was referring to the arsefark doing 20 under in the left lane. YOU know who YOU are.
You're absolutely right. As others have noted, I never mentioned the speed limit at all. Maybe they think that's a coincidence but really that was for a reason.
Some people will invent shit, put words in your mouth, and then look down their nose at you because they don't like the words they just made up and ascribed to you. It's not a surprise to me at all that such a person makes a big deal of always following all rules. People like him love rules, not because they regulate and keep order, but because he can feel superior to those who transgress them.
That should adequately explain why he automatically assumed I meant something I quite clearly did not say. It'd be difficult or impossible to climb up on his high horse and lecture me about speed limits if he just stuck to what I actually said.
Perhaps not, but it's likely to be a hell of a lot better at not doing the idiotic things that cause the overwhelming majority of accidents in the first place.
Almost all accidents other than collisions with animals that run out in front of you are due to human stupidity. Black ice may be an exception, maybe, except that if the conditions allow it to happen a prudent driver accounts for the possibility (note that if you hit a patch of black ice the accident is considered your fault esp. for purposes of determining liability). Everything from:
You name it. It's plain old human stupidity. It's a particularly egregious kind of imbecility too, the kind that fails to recognize that other people exist and can be harmed by your poor decision-making. If "robots" can be programmed not to do these things I'm all for it. Alternatively, if robots can be programmed to beat the living shit out of people who do these things, I'm all for that too.
That's a new one to me. I have heard complaints that many train systems would be uneconomical, in the sense that they'd never survive without some kind of subsidy. I haven't heard anyone actually refer to alternate transportation as a tenet of Communism, however.