From my original post:
It's funny - if one person claims to have these problems, no matter how well documented, many don't believe him.
The point I was trying to make was that, despite significant evidence, a few people still don't believe him (note in my original post I said "several," not many or most). By the logic of "I have twenty friends whose consoles have never failed, therefore his could not have, either," I could just as easily say, "I have twenty friends who have never murdered someone, therefore the accused never could have, either." I was commenting more on the notion that some people are relying on mathematical probability derived from insufficient calculable data versus emperical data and verifiable evidence.
To believe a claim, no matter how unlikely, if there is sufficient evidence, is not gullibility, but if I refuse to at least lend it credence based on the proof, replying that it is a statistical nigh-impossibility, then I would just be plain stupid.
If the geography of Warcraft was the same as the geography on Earth, there would be no need to teach most teens geography. Better yet, name the flightpaths after real airports. Then we'd have a generation that never got lost.
I think this is a great idea. I can think of plenty of examples of movies and/or games teaching concepts that were just byproducts of the plot. For example, as an English major, when I took a grammar course, I had difficulty understanding the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs. My prof couldn't provide a clear example, but it all became clear when (and I'm not kiding) I heard George Carlin's routine on the usage of f*ck. For some reason, it just made sense.
What if a game's system of laws involved the actual laws of a country, its constitution, amendments, etc.? What if real economic principles were utilized to simulate in-game economies? WoW and other MMOGs are "missing" (from the point of view of TFA) opportunities to utilize this. Buying gold with real-world money? Prime example of supply and demand.
Several people have calculated astronomical odds against what Justin is claiming (though, anyone who RTFA knows about the tech support call he recorded, verifying his claim). However, even if the odds are seven hundred and twenty one bajiggillyillion to one, there is still that one.
It's funny - if one person claims to have these problems, no matter how well documented, many don't believe him. If twenty people claimed the same problems, the same doubters would be cheering for a class-action lawsuit.
I think early adopters will be disappointed - not that the iPhone won't live up to their expectations, but because of what always happens when Apple releases technology like this: the rest of the industry wakes up, copies, and often improves. Apple seems to have a long history of introducing, but not perfecting, many concepts.
Until Apple began releasing sexy designs for their Macs, every PC was its nickname - a beige box. Following releases like the iMac (however deplorable the hardware configuration), seeing that people snatched them up because they looked cool, other industry players followed suit. Most PCs today look like welcome home appliances rather than mysterious monoliths.
Apple's GUI ideas often also filter through the industry along with their interfaces. Here is a short list of Apple firsts:
I imagine that the iPhone will end up being what many Apple products have been throughout history - the first good execution of a good idea and a prototype for future products. Touch screens of this design are not new ideas, but they have not been successfully implemented to the degree that Apple is using them. I, for one, am quite grateful that companies like Apple exist. Though I am a PC guy at heart, I can't help but appreciate the innovation that Apple, like a belligerent teenager, forces into the market with just the right amount of fanfare and hype to make every gadget nut go gaga with joy.
[sarcasm]France is like a tabloid celebrity. Whenever international attention on them seems to wane, they accuse the paparazzi (read: countries that matter) of doing what they'd like them to be doing.
Because, you know, French national secrets are at the top of the US intelligence hit list...[/sarcasm]
France is like a tabloid celebrity. Whenever international attention on them seems to wane, they accuse the paparazzi (read: countries that matter) of doing what they'd like them to be doing.
Because, you know, French national secrets are at the top of the US intelligence hit list...
The IQ test is not designed to measure intelligence - it is intended to measure potential academic aptitude. Just so, the ASVAB (Armed Forces Vocational Assessment Battery) is not designed to see how "smart" military recruits are; rather, it is designed to test how well a recruit can be trained for a particular job. I took it and did reasonably well on the math and communications portions, but the mechanical parts, such as automotive, were not my best moments.
The IQ test is the same way. Your IQ does not determine how well you will do in life, how smart you are, what job you'll have, or how successful you'll be. It simply measures your aptitude in certain areas of learning and academic knowledge.
Additionally, it would follow that a difference of two or three points can be chalked up to prior knowledge. There is a significant amount of questions on most standard IQ tests that are only hard due to lack of knowledge. For example, a question designed to test for a person's pattern-recognition aptitude might say "Suzy likes 1600 but not 1700, 400 but not 500, and 100 but not 200. Which of the following numbers does Suzy like? A) 49 B) 23 C) 890 D) 274." The answer would be A) because 49 is a perfect square, as are 1600, 400, and 100 (perfect squares of 40, 20, and 10, respectively). This question cannot be answered, however, if you don't have a good working knowledge of multiplication or square roots. Additionally, if two people, one with good pattern-recognition skills and the other with prior knowledge of the type of question both take the test and the one is unable to answer it while the other, being familiar with it, gets it right, the question is invalid. It becomes, then, a test of preparation - not aptitude.
That said, the IQ test is also outdated with our (relatively) recent discovery of the different intelligences. I know some artists who paint, sculpt, or play music beautifully, but they were usually less academically adept. Does this make them less intelligent? No. It simply gives them a different set of skills.
That said, I am a second-born child, and I think my elder brother is extremely intelligent, but he is not terribly academically savvy. He is, however, a very successful martial arts instructor who is very well respected by both his superiors, peers, and students. Would I score higher on an IQ test? Maybe. Did I get better grades in school? Yes. Am I more technologically competent than my brother? Certainly. Am I smarter than him? Doubtful. The IQ test is a poor standard by which to measure someone's so-called "intelligence." It is no better at telling you how smart you are than a book of brain teasers.
Colonization is impossible *now*, given the limits posed in the article. It's not a question of a magic wand, rather, as soon as faster-than-light, extradimensional, or wormhole travel and instant (or near-instant) interstellar communication are developed into viable technologies, colonization will not only be possible, but unavoidable. Just because we don't understand the science and technology necessary to achieve desired results now doesn't mean they won't happen.
For example, there's a pretty big to-do right now about possibly finding the Higgs with the Large Hadron Collider, and a lot of people are saying things like "Well, if we find it as expected, it could be disappointing, because then the Standard Model works, and there's very little left to discover." This is ridiculous! It reminds me of the movement in the late 1800's/early 1900's to shut down the US patent offices because, according to some, nothing new remained to be invented, and look at us now.
The article itself is written with clarity and sound reasoning, but it works within a very restricted frame of reference. I imagine that, if we find the Higgs, fifty years from now will find us going, "Remember when we found the Higgs? Seemed like a big deal back then." Just the same, people perhaps a century or two from now will read about the "historical breakthrough" of breaking the sound barrier and consider it quaint as they board a flight for some distant extrasolar planet or star.
The question: What is Mozilla planning to do about supporting current and future design strategies and technologies such as SVG (I know it partially works/is partially in the pipeline), embedded XML support, proportional table rendering, and though I despise them, ActiveX Controls? In other words, what is Mozilla doing to incorporate more support than its competitors?
The rationale: If FF supported a greater number of standards, technologies, and design paradigms than its competitors, I can only imagine it would meet with a significantly greater market share and interest. The only reason I keep IE on my computer is that some pages are not supported adequately by Firefox. Many layout and design elements seem to render improperly. For example, I have always had trouble viewing friends' MySpace profiles - FF has a tendency to stretch and skew the proportions of table layouts that use proportional sizing. The reason I suggest ActiveX support is only because I have run across numerous webapps (often proprietary ones, such as educational portals like the one my college used) that are not FF friendly. Generally this is only because developers refuse to develop crossbrowser support (not that I blame them). I recently started developing extensively with SVG, and FF's native support is not sufficient for its many capabilities. Though IE does not have native support, the Adobe plugin (unsupported though it may be come 2008) is smoother and faster.
I have invested in an amazing technology that is 100% secure, is accepted at more locations than ANY credit card, can be used even if there is no card reader present, does not bear my name or any identifying characteristics, and best of all, if someone does duplicate it or use it fradulently, I cannot be held liable.
It's called cash.
I have a piece of MIDI authoring software that was released in 1995 (MIDISoft Studio, for anyone who wishes to know). I got it for free with a new PC way back when, and with each new computer since, I have made it work...until now. I got a Dell, and MIDISoft worked fine up until I installed a new Audigy 2 card (ironic, I know), and it stopped working. The software would start up fine, but if I tried to open anything, it gave me an error saying that I was out of memory. I have not seen such an error since the days of Win 3.x, but knowing the software to be an old coot in young territory, I played around with compatibility and memory settings to try and fool it - to no avail. Not that I expected XP's "Run in Windows 9x Mode" to work anyway.
Now, I was slightly terrified because a) I loved my MIDISoft like I loved my then fiance, and b) our wedding recessional was written in that software, stored in their proprietary format, and irretrievable until I fixed it, and the wedding was only two weeks away - not enough time to reconstruct the piece. So I tried every other MIDI software known to man (except for the stuff you have to pay for), but none of it could read the file, nor did I like the interfaces. I'd used one piece of software for ten years - I wasn't planning to change.
Then, one day (I won't go into detail on how I discovered this) I found that if I had Firefox, Windows Media Player and Trillian open at the same time, MIDISoft would work. AIM was insufficient - it had to be Trillian, and IE would not take the place of Firefox. I didn't try WinAmp instead of WinMP. Close any one of those three and *poof* functionality disappeared. As long as they were open, however, MIDISoft was happy.
Epilogue: Shortly after the wedding (which went off without a hitch, BTW), I had to reinstall Windows, and MIDISoft hasn't worked since. Even with those three programs open. *Sniff* But, that's my computer voodoo story!
What's to stop someone from setting recording software source to "internal," recording the song while it plays, and exporting it as an mp3? Sometimes I wonder if the people who make up these rules even know how to turn a computer on...in other ways than talking dirty to it.
It says that the creators of the software can't promote use thereof for illegal purposes. Now, I'm an English major, and the idea occurred to me - the SC could have just royally shot themselves in the foot with that word. A software designer could say, "This program is specifically designed for illegal file downloading - but I don't promote use of it for that purpose." I mean, hey - they're not promoting illegal activites.
But, while they're at it, I thought of a couple more cases that could go before the Supreme Court along the same lines:
1)Maybe car companies should be held responsible for high speed collisions due to "promoting" unsafe travelling velocities via spedometer.
2)Maybe gun companies should be held responsible for people using their weapons to kill others due to their "promotion" of violence through the sale of bullets.
3)Maybe candy companies should be held responsible for consumers of the products who become diabetics - after all, "They're grrrreat!"
Better yet, hold Hollywood and the entertainment industry responsible for copycat crimes! Every time you see a poster for Natural Born Killers, that's a promotion!
*sigh* You know, my grandmother barely knows how to work a computer. The Supreme Court is full of people about the same age as my grandmother, and they're deciding the legality and constitution of technology about which I heavily question their real level of understanding.
Hmm...I don't know. If it were me, and I was the theif, I think a pizza would be easier to steal than a laptop. Especially if I felt hungry. So I'd steal the pizza, open it up and go, "Holy crap! I could buy like, 200 pizzas with what I could get for this thing! Or sell this, then steal another pizza..."
I bought the game at Best Buy.
I went home.
I got a Steam account.
They did not invade my personal privacy and I provided no personal information.
I installed the game.
The files were unlocked.
The game opened.
I played until I could not physically stay awake.
I was happy.
What is wrong with the above picture? Nothing! The install process was absolutely painless (if a bit lengthy - I managed to get through a documentary on The Great Escape while it was working, but that was my only gripe). I sometimes feel like a heretic in the gaming community for such blasphemous statements as "I pay for all my games," or, "I don't mind purchasing a license as long as it doesn't collect any unnecessary information," etc. I'm glad Valve shut down as many accounts as they did. Now, I would hope they checked carefully enough into each one (either via electronic security checks or eyeballing the questionable ones) to make sure that legitimate accounts were not eliminated, but the fact is, they can't afford to take chances.
After all the problems they had with security leaks, who can blame them for their caution and paranoia? It's because of the people who get cracks and complain about registration/license issues like these that the security exists in the first place! Contrary to whishful thinking, we do not live in a society with the free and open exchange of ideas, goods, and services. We have money. And it is used to pay for things.
If you have a problem with that, spend a little less time playing pirated games, get a job, earn money, and play legal games without hassle. I'm sure the quality of your life will improve dramatically.
Slashdot Mirror
...Who is John Galt?
I'm hoping for "Google Mentat."
The point I was trying to make was that, despite significant evidence, a few people still don't believe him (note in my original post I said "several," not many or most). By the logic of "I have twenty friends whose consoles have never failed, therefore his could not have, either," I could just as easily say, "I have twenty friends who have never murdered someone, therefore the accused never could have, either." I was commenting more on the notion that some people are relying on mathematical probability derived from insufficient calculable data versus emperical data and verifiable evidence.
To believe a claim, no matter how unlikely, if there is sufficient evidence, is not gullibility, but if I refuse to at least lend it credence based on the proof, replying that it is a statistical nigh-impossibility, then I would just be plain stupid.
I think this is a great idea. I can think of plenty of examples of movies and/or games teaching concepts that were just byproducts of the plot. For example, as an English major, when I took a grammar course, I had difficulty understanding the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs. My prof couldn't provide a clear example, but it all became clear when (and I'm not kiding) I heard George Carlin's routine on the usage of f*ck. For some reason, it just made sense.
What if a game's system of laws involved the actual laws of a country, its constitution, amendments, etc.? What if real economic principles were utilized to simulate in-game economies? WoW and other MMOGs are "missing" (from the point of view of TFA) opportunities to utilize this. Buying gold with real-world money? Prime example of supply and demand.
Several people have calculated astronomical odds against what Justin is claiming (though, anyone who RTFA knows about the tech support call he recorded, verifying his claim). However, even if the odds are seven hundred and twenty one bajiggillyillion to one, there is still that one.
It's funny - if one person claims to have these problems, no matter how well documented, many don't believe him. If twenty people claimed the same problems, the same doubters would be cheering for a class-action lawsuit.
I think early adopters will be disappointed - not that the iPhone won't live up to their expectations, but because of what always happens when Apple releases technology like this: the rest of the industry wakes up, copies, and often improves. Apple seems to have a long history of introducing, but not perfecting, many concepts.
a nguage)
Until Apple began releasing sexy designs for their Macs, every PC was its nickname - a beige box. Following releases like the iMac (however deplorable the hardware configuration), seeing that people snatched them up because they looked cool, other industry players followed suit. Most PCs today look like welcome home appliances rather than mysterious monoliths.
Apple's GUI ideas often also filter through the industry along with their interfaces. Here is a short list of Apple firsts:
- Color display
- Widespread distribution of 5.25" floppy drive
- First spreadsheet program (VisiCalc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisiCalc
- Popularization of programming in education via Logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_l
- Apple QuickTake digital camera, one of the first to market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake)
- Handheld computing with the Newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton)
I imagine that the iPhone will end up being what many Apple products have been throughout history - the first good execution of a good idea and a prototype for future products. Touch screens of this design are not new ideas, but they have not been successfully implemented to the degree that Apple is using them. I, for one, am quite grateful that companies like Apple exist. Though I am a PC guy at heart, I can't help but appreciate the innovation that Apple, like a belligerent teenager, forces into the market with just the right amount of fanfare and hype to make every gadget nut go gaga with joy.
There, is this better?
/. frowned on French jokes?
[sarcasm]France is like a tabloid celebrity. Whenever international attention on them seems to wane, they accuse the paparazzi (read: countries that matter) of doing what they'd like them to be doing.
Because, you know, French national secrets are at the top of the US intelligence hit list...[/sarcasm]
And since when has
France is like a tabloid celebrity. Whenever international attention on them seems to wane, they accuse the paparazzi (read: countries that matter) of doing what they'd like them to be doing.
Because, you know, French national secrets are at the top of the US intelligence hit list...
The IQ test is not designed to measure intelligence - it is intended to measure potential academic aptitude. Just so, the ASVAB (Armed Forces Vocational Assessment Battery) is not designed to see how "smart" military recruits are; rather, it is designed to test how well a recruit can be trained for a particular job. I took it and did reasonably well on the math and communications portions, but the mechanical parts, such as automotive, were not my best moments.
The IQ test is the same way. Your IQ does not determine how well you will do in life, how smart you are, what job you'll have, or how successful you'll be. It simply measures your aptitude in certain areas of learning and academic knowledge.
Additionally, it would follow that a difference of two or three points can be chalked up to prior knowledge. There is a significant amount of questions on most standard IQ tests that are only hard due to lack of knowledge. For example, a question designed to test for a person's pattern-recognition aptitude might say "Suzy likes 1600 but not 1700, 400 but not 500, and 100 but not 200. Which of the following numbers does Suzy like? A) 49 B) 23 C) 890 D) 274." The answer would be A) because 49 is a perfect square, as are 1600, 400, and 100 (perfect squares of 40, 20, and 10, respectively). This question cannot be answered, however, if you don't have a good working knowledge of multiplication or square roots. Additionally, if two people, one with good pattern-recognition skills and the other with prior knowledge of the type of question both take the test and the one is unable to answer it while the other, being familiar with it, gets it right, the question is invalid. It becomes, then, a test of preparation - not aptitude.
That said, the IQ test is also outdated with our (relatively) recent discovery of the different intelligences. I know some artists who paint, sculpt, or play music beautifully, but they were usually less academically adept. Does this make them less intelligent? No. It simply gives them a different set of skills.
That said, I am a second-born child, and I think my elder brother is extremely intelligent, but he is not terribly academically savvy. He is, however, a very successful martial arts instructor who is very well respected by both his superiors, peers, and students. Would I score higher on an IQ test? Maybe. Did I get better grades in school? Yes. Am I more technologically competent than my brother? Certainly. Am I smarter than him? Doubtful. The IQ test is a poor standard by which to measure someone's so-called "intelligence." It is no better at telling you how smart you are than a book of brain teasers.
Colonization is impossible *now*, given the limits posed in the article. It's not a question of a magic wand, rather, as soon as faster-than-light, extradimensional, or wormhole travel and instant (or near-instant) interstellar communication are developed into viable technologies, colonization will not only be possible, but unavoidable. Just because we don't understand the science and technology necessary to achieve desired results now doesn't mean they won't happen.
For example, there's a pretty big to-do right now about possibly finding the Higgs with the Large Hadron Collider, and a lot of people are saying things like "Well, if we find it as expected, it could be disappointing, because then the Standard Model works, and there's very little left to discover." This is ridiculous! It reminds me of the movement in the late 1800's/early 1900's to shut down the US patent offices because, according to some, nothing new remained to be invented, and look at us now.
The article itself is written with clarity and sound reasoning, but it works within a very restricted frame of reference. I imagine that, if we find the Higgs, fifty years from now will find us going, "Remember when we found the Higgs? Seemed like a big deal back then." Just the same, people perhaps a century or two from now will read about the "historical breakthrough" of breaking the sound barrier and consider it quaint as they board a flight for some distant extrasolar planet or star.
The question: What is Mozilla planning to do about supporting current and future design strategies and technologies such as SVG (I know it partially works/is partially in the pipeline), embedded XML support, proportional table rendering, and though I despise them, ActiveX Controls? In other words, what is Mozilla doing to incorporate more support than its competitors?
The rationale: If FF supported a greater number of standards, technologies, and design paradigms than its competitors, I can only imagine it would meet with a significantly greater market share and interest. The only reason I keep IE on my computer is that some pages are not supported adequately by Firefox. Many layout and design elements seem to render improperly. For example, I have always had trouble viewing friends' MySpace profiles - FF has a tendency to stretch and skew the proportions of table layouts that use proportional sizing. The reason I suggest ActiveX support is only because I have run across numerous webapps (often proprietary ones, such as educational portals like the one my college used) that are not FF friendly. Generally this is only because developers refuse to develop crossbrowser support (not that I blame them). I recently started developing extensively with SVG, and FF's native support is not sufficient for its many capabilities. Though IE does not have native support, the Adobe plugin (unsupported though it may be come 2008) is smoother and faster.
I have invested in an amazing technology that is 100% secure, is accepted at more locations than ANY credit card, can be used even if there is no card reader present, does not bear my name or any identifying characteristics, and best of all, if someone does duplicate it or use it fradulently, I cannot be held liable. It's called cash.
I have a piece of MIDI authoring software that was released in 1995 (MIDISoft Studio, for anyone who wishes to know). I got it for free with a new PC way back when, and with each new computer since, I have made it work...until now. I got a Dell, and MIDISoft worked fine up until I installed a new Audigy 2 card (ironic, I know), and it stopped working. The software would start up fine, but if I tried to open anything, it gave me an error saying that I was out of memory. I have not seen such an error since the days of Win 3.x, but knowing the software to be an old coot in young territory, I played around with compatibility and memory settings to try and fool it - to no avail. Not that I expected XP's "Run in Windows 9x Mode" to work anyway.
Now, I was slightly terrified because a) I loved my MIDISoft like I loved my then fiance, and b) our wedding recessional was written in that software, stored in their proprietary format, and irretrievable until I fixed it, and the wedding was only two weeks away - not enough time to reconstruct the piece. So I tried every other MIDI software known to man (except for the stuff you have to pay for), but none of it could read the file, nor did I like the interfaces. I'd used one piece of software for ten years - I wasn't planning to change.
Then, one day (I won't go into detail on how I discovered this) I found that if I had Firefox, Windows Media Player and Trillian open at the same time, MIDISoft would work. AIM was insufficient - it had to be Trillian, and IE would not take the place of Firefox. I didn't try WinAmp instead of WinMP. Close any one of those three and *poof* functionality disappeared. As long as they were open, however, MIDISoft was happy.
Epilogue: Shortly after the wedding (which went off without a hitch, BTW), I had to reinstall Windows, and MIDISoft hasn't worked since. Even with those three programs open. *Sniff* But, that's my computer voodoo story!
What's to stop someone from setting recording software source to "internal," recording the song while it plays, and exporting it as an mp3? Sometimes I wonder if the people who make up these rules even know how to turn a computer on...in other ways than talking dirty to it.
It says that the creators of the software can't promote use thereof for illegal purposes. Now, I'm an English major, and the idea occurred to me - the SC could have just royally shot themselves in the foot with that word. A software designer could say, "This program is specifically designed for illegal file downloading - but I don't promote use of it for that purpose." I mean, hey - they're not promoting illegal activites. But, while they're at it, I thought of a couple more cases that could go before the Supreme Court along the same lines: 1)Maybe car companies should be held responsible for high speed collisions due to "promoting" unsafe travelling velocities via spedometer. 2)Maybe gun companies should be held responsible for people using their weapons to kill others due to their "promotion" of violence through the sale of bullets. 3)Maybe candy companies should be held responsible for consumers of the products who become diabetics - after all, "They're grrrreat!" Better yet, hold Hollywood and the entertainment industry responsible for copycat crimes! Every time you see a poster for Natural Born Killers, that's a promotion! *sigh* You know, my grandmother barely knows how to work a computer. The Supreme Court is full of people about the same age as my grandmother, and they're deciding the legality and constitution of technology about which I heavily question their real level of understanding.
I don't know...did anyone else see the Stargate episodes with the Replicants? Not cool.
Hmm...I don't know. If it were me, and I was the theif, I think a pizza would be easier to steal than a laptop. Especially if I felt hungry. So I'd steal the pizza, open it up and go, "Holy crap! I could buy like, 200 pizzas with what I could get for this thing! Or sell this, then steal another pizza..."
I bought the game at Best Buy. I went home. I got a Steam account. They did not invade my personal privacy and I provided no personal information. I installed the game. The files were unlocked. The game opened. I played until I could not physically stay awake. I was happy. What is wrong with the above picture? Nothing! The install process was absolutely painless (if a bit lengthy - I managed to get through a documentary on The Great Escape while it was working, but that was my only gripe). I sometimes feel like a heretic in the gaming community for such blasphemous statements as "I pay for all my games," or, "I don't mind purchasing a license as long as it doesn't collect any unnecessary information," etc. I'm glad Valve shut down as many accounts as they did. Now, I would hope they checked carefully enough into each one (either via electronic security checks or eyeballing the questionable ones) to make sure that legitimate accounts were not eliminated, but the fact is, they can't afford to take chances. After all the problems they had with security leaks, who can blame them for their caution and paranoia? It's because of the people who get cracks and complain about registration/license issues like these that the security exists in the first place! Contrary to whishful thinking, we do not live in a society with the free and open exchange of ideas, goods, and services. We have money. And it is used to pay for things. If you have a problem with that, spend a little less time playing pirated games, get a job, earn money, and play legal games without hassle. I'm sure the quality of your life will improve dramatically.