Obviously this guy is breaking the law. But the point is that this can easily get out of control. Do you want to have to pass a metal detector to watch the movie you paid to see? Because I sure don't.
I really don't think this will pose much of a problem to employers, since they will undoubtedly already have a clause in either their computer/Internet use policy or your contract stating that either all of your work is the property of the Company, or any communication using Company-owned computing resources is the property of the company. And if you don't agree, then you either don't sign or don't use the Internet at work.
Of course, in a smaller company where this is undefined, this kind of monitoring may pose a problem under this law... but otherwise I think that police surveillance is what is primarily going to be affected, not employer policies.
Look, nobody's denying what's happening. And I don't appreciate your smugness. You admit that you have no more an explanation of these phenomena than anyone else, so why these snide comments? Do you think that it is an improper response to at first doubt your senses when you see something that you've never seen before, something that has never before been explained? Does it not make sense to doubt your data before you throw away your lifetime of precedence?
You say that any true scientist should always be watching for observations that don't fit the known theory, and there are many that are. But you can't always be sure of what you see, and there's no harm in working on the simpler problems before moving to the more difficult problems on the fringe of knowledge. No one scientist can work on all of it at once: it's easy to bite off more than you can chew and be overwhelmed. This is why everyone takes their little bit and contributes. This is why science works as it does, as a collective process, with thousands of minds working on individual pieces of the problem at different levels of abstraction. No one person can intimately understand everything, so when some new but undeniable phenomenon like this one occurs, it will upset the balance, and it will take a while for that balance to re-form.
So, while you are "often amused" at people's incredulity when they see something like this, their reactions are characteristic of being human, something that cannot be avoided and something that you can hardly blame someone for. But science, being a collective process, will transcend that obstacle and compensate for that. It will just take a bit of time.
My point is that if a game is designed to be free-form, you can't "abuse" that freedom because it's a part of the game. My idea of 'abuse' is exploiting a bug or hole in the game in order to do something that wasn't originally intended to happen. But if the player is allowed to pump up their character like that, then what's the problem? Perhaps people who want a more "realistic' game should move to another game or stop whining. Perhaps these two styles of play can't co-exist.
But if we step back a bit, this kind of superficial 'code of conduct' that has evolved in these types of games is an example of an interesting social phenomenon akin to what we know as 'morality' and 'chivalry.' Interesting how this pops up everywhere.
"Sadly"? Come on. It's a game; it's supposed to be fun. What's wrong with being able to kill mighty dragons with his or her lefy pinkie finger? Sounds like a great idea to me.
Your way is one way of playing the game. There are others. And I wouldn't call the resulting conflict a 'problem;' it is simply a game design issue that needs to be addressed, in order to provide the environment needed for foster many different playing styles. Remember, every person has a different idea of what's "fun."
Ringworld? Good lord, why? With its cookie-cutter characters and trite plot, the only thing it has going for it is its mildly interesting setting. Yes, the ideas of dyson spheres and artificial worlds are neat, but Niven does a terrible job at using them in a novel.
Instead of devising an interesting and meaningful story to occur within the setting, he instead makes the setting the story and throws in some hackneyed and stereotypical characters with an inane plot to act as placeholders. This doesn't make for very good sci-fi, in my opinion.
I'm sure this series will have plenty of good opportunities for fancy special effects, but that's really the only redeeming feature of Ringworld. It has zero literary value otherwise.
This isn't exactly new in a game... I remember that Bullfrog's Magic Carpet had this feature way back in 1994. It was virtually impossible to actually play while in this mode, of course, but it was kind of neat for a few seconds. But it was nothing more than a gimmick: certainly not a major feature.
While Quake II would be even neater, I don't think anything's changed now... Hell, text-mode Quake II would be more playable.
The real problem with poverty and starvation can't be solved by sending a starving family your leftovers. Sending food their way is just going to alleviate hunger for a few days. This is a band-aid solution that simply isn't sustainable.
The real problem is infrastructure. When a country is constantly in a state of war, when its government is controlled by a dictator who doesn't give a damn about his people, there obviously isn't going to be enough food. People can sustain themselves if they are left alone: people can easily be self-sufficient. But when they are exploited and oppressed in the name of greed and lust for power, when the knowledge of how to be self-sufficient is obliterated, people starve.
We can't feed the world, but we can free the world to feed itself.
Doing a quick test search, I've noticed that it's so much more responsive. They did tweake the interface, but they also optimized download time. Think of how many searches are done every minute. Even a small size reduction can quickly add up!
Re:Apply Shrinkage to the Buckyballs
on
Buckyballs Kill Fish
·
· Score: 3, Funny
And how, pray tell, are you going to shrink an atom?
I would say killing the gorilla was cautious. You seriously call it a tragedy? Sure, it's a symbol of [insert bullshit nature myths here], but it's still just a gorilla.
I'm glad no human was killed: after all, it had already injured three people. Would saving the gorilla be worth the risk of injuring and possibly killing others?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh huh. And everything we 'know' is a lie put there because it's what they want us to think. I guess you can see the Fnords while nobody else can?
Tinfoil hat alert.
I think a better question would be: which way is "up"?
Why couldn't an object have only one side?
hahahaha
Oh man, if I had mod points...
Obviously this guy is breaking the law. But the point is that this can easily get out of control. Do you want to have to pass a metal detector to watch the movie you paid to see? Because I sure don't.
I frequently felt like the author was writing just to "hear himself type."
Actually, Quicksilver was written with a pen and paper.
Maybe it's an ink company conspiracy.
I really don't think this will pose much of a problem to employers, since they will undoubtedly already have a clause in either their computer/Internet use policy or your contract stating that either all of your work is the property of the Company, or any communication using Company-owned computing resources is the property of the company. And if you don't agree, then you either don't sign or don't use the Internet at work.
Of course, in a smaller company where this is undefined, this kind of monitoring may pose a problem under this law... but otherwise I think that police surveillance is what is primarily going to be affected, not employer policies.
Not everyone has that bump, you know.
I can see "Eat my shorts!" getting annoying rather quickly.
...criminals in Japan have a 80-90% chance of being caught, where as in the US, it's more like 20-30%.
Those statistics sound bogus to me. How can you know how many criminals aren't caught?
Look, nobody's denying what's happening. And I don't appreciate your smugness. You admit that you have no more an explanation of these phenomena than anyone else, so why these snide comments? Do you think that it is an improper response to at first doubt your senses when you see something that you've never seen before, something that has never before been explained? Does it not make sense to doubt your data before you throw away your lifetime of precedence?
You say that any true scientist should always be watching for observations that don't fit the known theory, and there are many that are. But you can't always be sure of what you see, and there's no harm in working on the simpler problems before moving to the more difficult problems on the fringe of knowledge. No one scientist can work on all of it at once: it's easy to bite off more than you can chew and be overwhelmed. This is why everyone takes their little bit and contributes. This is why science works as it does, as a collective process, with thousands of minds working on individual pieces of the problem at different levels of abstraction. No one person can intimately understand everything, so when some new but undeniable phenomenon like this one occurs, it will upset the balance, and it will take a while for that balance to re-form.
So, while you are "often amused" at people's incredulity when they see something like this, their reactions are characteristic of being human, something that cannot be avoided and something that you can hardly blame someone for. But science, being a collective process, will transcend that obstacle and compensate for that. It will just take a bit of time.
posted anonymously to avoid Slashdotters you refuse to think about things which don't fit inside their predefined universe
Don't be ridiculous. Do you seriously think there are Slashdotters who don't enjoy a tantalizing problem like this one?
Well it certainly isn't an explanation.
My point is that if a game is designed to be free-form, you can't "abuse" that freedom because it's a part of the game. My idea of 'abuse' is exploiting a bug or hole in the game in order to do something that wasn't originally intended to happen. But if the player is allowed to pump up their character like that, then what's the problem? Perhaps people who want a more "realistic' game should move to another game or stop whining. Perhaps these two styles of play can't co-exist.
But if we step back a bit, this kind of superficial 'code of conduct' that has evolved in these types of games is an example of an interesting social phenomenon akin to what we know as 'morality' and 'chivalry.' Interesting how this pops up everywhere.
"Sadly"? Come on. It's a game; it's supposed to be fun. What's wrong with being able to kill mighty dragons with his or her lefy pinkie finger? Sounds like a great idea to me.
Your way is one way of playing the game. There are others. And I wouldn't call the resulting conflict a 'problem;' it is simply a game design issue that needs to be addressed, in order to provide the environment needed for foster many different playing styles. Remember, every person has a different idea of what's "fun."
Does a replacement being Indian somehow make him (or her) any less competent?
Ringworld? Good lord, why? With its cookie-cutter characters and trite plot, the only thing it has going for it is its mildly interesting setting. Yes, the ideas of dyson spheres and artificial worlds are neat, but Niven does a terrible job at using them in a novel.
Instead of devising an interesting and meaningful story to occur within the setting, he instead makes the setting the story and throws in some hackneyed and stereotypical characters with an inane plot to act as placeholders. This doesn't make for very good sci-fi, in my opinion.
I'm sure this series will have plenty of good opportunities for fancy special effects, but that's really the only redeeming feature of Ringworld. It has zero literary value otherwise.
This article gives a nice overview of how Single Image Random Dot Stereograms (SIRDS) work and their history.
Also, check out this Java applet here which can generate stereograms, with source code.
This isn't exactly new in a game... I remember that Bullfrog's Magic Carpet had this feature way back in 1994. It was virtually impossible to actually play while in this mode, of course, but it was kind of neat for a few seconds. But it was nothing more than a gimmick: certainly not a major feature.
While Quake II would be even neater, I don't think anything's changed now... Hell, text-mode Quake II would be more playable.
Any kind of business partnership is good... for business. This is how monopolies form.
Can't the world feed itself?
The real problem with poverty and starvation can't be solved by sending a starving family your leftovers. Sending food their way is just going to alleviate hunger for a few days. This is a band-aid solution that simply isn't sustainable.
The real problem is infrastructure. When a country is constantly in a state of war, when its government is controlled by a dictator who doesn't give a damn about his people, there obviously isn't going to be enough food. People can sustain themselves if they are left alone: people can easily be self-sufficient. But when they are exploited and oppressed in the name of greed and lust for power, when the knowledge of how to be self-sufficient is obliterated, people starve.
We can't feed the world, but we can free the world to feed itself.
I could just never figure it out... Why on earth would a frog want to cross the road?
But they changed more than the interface.
Doing a quick test search, I've noticed that it's so much more responsive. They did tweake the interface, but they also optimized download time. Think of how many searches are done every minute. Even a small size reduction can quickly add up!
And how, pray tell, are you going to shrink an atom?
I would say killing the gorilla was cautious. You seriously call it a tragedy? Sure, it's a symbol of [insert bullshit nature myths here], but it's still just a gorilla.
I'm glad no human was killed: after all, it had already injured three people. Would saving the gorilla be worth the risk of injuring and possibly killing others?