Unfortunately, it seems there are always a sufficient number of suckers out there to keep "services" like this profitable, even if they're getting hosed. Eventually, people will wise up, but I guess the cell phone market hasn't quite reached that point yet. What I find especially amusing/sickening is how you have to pay extra to send text messages, even though they consume a mere fraction of the bandwidth that voice does. If this were about the industry saving money, they'd encourage text messaging by making it more economical for the consumer. Obviously, it's not about that.
Speaking as an owner of a Geo Metro (49 hp new, with 180,000 miles and misfire on one cylinder if can't be anywhere close to that now), I can assure you that you will not be using 6000 RPMs to get around.
Being a former Ford Festiva owner, I can relate to that to some extent.:) I was being slightly facetious, but let's remember something...
Geo Metro: 1700 lbs curb weight / 49 hp
Toyota Prius: 2890 lbs curb weight / 76 hp (gas engine)
When considering power-to-weight ratios, the Prius comes out well behind the Metro when comparing the gas engines only. It's not unrealistic at all to assume that dead-battery Prius owners would have to wind their engines up quite a bit more than Metro owners in order to acheive the same level of acceleration.
>> the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment.
> That is to say, everyone and everything on the planet.
In the end, I think the only real winner will be the auto makers, and only for a short time.
Think about it; in 5-7 years, all of these hybrids are going to need new batteries; VERY VERY expensive batteries. That means the used car market will soon be saturated with hybrids with old batteries that won't take a charge. That means that in a few years, people on low budgets will be driving cheap used hybrids (cheap because they'll depreciate VERY quickly) with dead batteries, winding their 50hp gas engines up to 6000RPM just to get around. That means that in the end, we're using just as much fuel as we did before, only now, we have craploads of old, dead batteries to dispose of. THAT means, the environmental impact is at least as bad, or even WORSE than what we had originally.
A solar eclipse covers only a very small portion of Earth in shadow. Think about it. The Sun is over 100 times the diameter of Earth. To cover the entire earth in a shadow, the disc would have to be at least as large as Earth if it were right next to it. Of course, if this were even possible, it would have to be out some distance, and the further out you go, the larger it would have to be.
Ok, so it wouldn't have to cover the entire earth to be effective, but it would still have to be impractically and preventitively large. Plus, all of these ideas are just an attempt to fix something that no one can conclusively prove as being a problem that will eventually spell mankind's doom, anyway. In fact, most people who are so bent out of shape over this issue think we all evolved from a puddle of goo millions of years ago anyway, through natural selection. If that's the case, and we all end up boiling ourselves to death; hey, natural selection! Who are we to stand in the way of progress! *grin*
"Any real techie knows that the majority of these clients are designed and created for the express purpose of sharing copyrighted material."
Yes, this is true, but the danger in this ruling is in just how it is determined if piracy was the intent of the developer or not. Who decides this, and how do they come to that decision? To say that software was not intended to promote piracy if "reasonable measures" are taken to prevent it is very, very vague at best. Has anyone actually laid down an official definition of what "reasonable measures" are?
Ok, I know everyone is in a huge hurry to submit the latest and greatest breaking news to/. before everyone else, and that/. is evidently in an equally tremendous hurry to post it. But please, not at the sacrifice of spelling and grammar.
I mean, really. No one is going to care (or probably even notice) if you're 30 seconds behind CNN (or whatever) because you took a moment to do some editing.
Allow me to rephrase: Some people think it's worth more than Time Warner.
Exactly. Look at all the money people dumped in to the stock of dotcoms that are now bust. Not that I think that there's any chance of Google going under, but are they really worth that much? What do they sell and what assets do they hold that makes it so valuable? I say look for Google's stock to crash very hard once people start asking themselves just what it is that they're investing in.
You know... we could just, dare I say... NOT USE IT *gasp*
Seriously, though, what do you expect? They're either going to collect information that they can either sell to other companies or use for themselves, or they are going to charge you a service fee for using the software. It's just that simple.
What I don't get is why more ISPs haven't jumped on this type of technology long ago? I can remember wondering why ISPs weren't doing this very thing a good 10 years ago. Now Earthlink, Netzero, and no doubt other dial-up providers are FINALLY beginning to provide this. Hopefully this will expand to broadband providers at some point. And as far as privacy goes; well, every page you visit already passes through your ISP, so no harm done.
I agree. Not that the game industry is about to implode, but man do I feel his pain! I haven't bought a game off the shelf in a long time because they are essentially all the same (to a large degree). There will always be exceptions to that rule, but truly innovative and interesting games are becoming more and more of a minority.
I blame gamers. Yes, gamers still buy DOOM clones by the droves, and as long as that is the case, the industry will continue to thrive. I hate it, but then many aspects of reality tend to piss me off. I think what Dvorak is really doing is not saying that the industry will die, but expressing his frustration and desire for industry to die, perhaps in the hope that it will be replaced with something better.
I guess I can understand this move from a business perspective, but it sure seems awful tacky, doesn't it? I mean, it's not like they started out with Windows XP Starter Edition, then spent a great deal of money adding on to it to create the Home/Professional editions, thus justifying the extra expense. They merely took a perfectly good Home/Professional/Whatever edition and spent a good deal of money crippling it.
This is just another example of the "what the market will bear" principle. If MS was selling this stuff for what it's worth, they wouldn't have the untold hundreds of billions that they do. Oh well, enough ranting.
You might recall how people could turn their NT Workstation in to NT Server with some registry tweaks. I wonder if the same will happen in this case, or if it is even possible?
Except that your "statement" loses a great deal of meaning when it is pointed out that the examples that you offered are of people who weren't around when there was a theory of evolution. Saying that Issac Newton is proof that there are smart people who will choose creationism over evolution isn't making a point of anything except the desperation of your own arguments.
Well then, my supplemental list of more recent scientists should clear that up for you.
I never claimed that you were trying to prove creationism to be right or wrong.
Ok, that would be fine, but then you do a complete 180 and try to drag me in to that very argument:
Now, do you actually have an argument against evolution, or are you going to do nothing more than drudge up old creationist arguments that neither advance a "theory of creation" nor offer any reason to doubt the validity of evolution?
Again I merely drudged up a few guys old and new as proof that not every creationist is an imbicile, as implied by the parent. That's it. You're the one who's trying to make a creationism theory/evolution theory argument out of it, not I.
See, I can argue against speculation of what you will do rather than what you've actually done also. Note how it doesn't add any meaning or credibility to my statement? That tactic doesn't work when you use it either.
Yes, I'm aware that you can do that, as you demonstrated in your response to my first post.
My only point was to demonstrate how there are people out there other than brain-dead backwater hicks; people who command a great deal of intelligence (even on the pitiful worldly scale), who have accepted creationism. That's it. That doesn't prove creationism to be right or wrong, as that wasn't my intention, yet you and others automatically assumed that it was.
You and others also presumed that I was attempting to play some silly numbers game, as if you were under the impression that I thought if I could bring forth enough people who back my belief, it would make a lick of difference. That kind of argument would be just as vain and stupid coming from me it as it is from you with comments such as "They are in an extremely small minority", and the other guy who stated:
One could argue the opposite. If Creationism is a valid scientific theory, why is it that only a minute percentage of scientists believe that it is true?
Whoopdee-frickin-doo. If I had a dollar for every time the scientific community at large reverted on something they once touted as fact..... Suffice to say that majority consensus proves squat.
Dishonest evolutionist tactic #349: put words in to the mouth of the creationist.
I was, of course, responding to the parent's incinuation that creationists are idiots, otherwise, "of course they would see the glorious light of evolution!"
"Of course", as you would propose, "no legitimate biologist who studied after the brilliant discoveries of the all-knowing Darwin would deny what he proclaimed!", following one of the greatest myths of evolutionist propoganda. Perhaps you should write universities from which the following creationist scientists received their degrees and complain:
Dr. Johan Kruger, M.Sc in animal reproductive physiology and a Ph.D. in nematology.
Dr. Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Kenneth B. Cumming - Professor of Biology, B.S. Tufts University, M.A. Harvard University, Ph.D. Harvard University.
Raymond G. Bohlin, B.S. zoology, M.S. population genetics, University of Illinois, North Texas State University, Ph.D. from the University of Texas.
Dr. Gary Parker, B.A. Biology/Chemistry, M.S. Biology/Physiology, Ed.D Biology/Geology from Bell State.
How in the world a man can come out of a biology/related doctorate program of a major secular university and still hold a creationist viewpoint probably seems incredible to you, and I can just imagine the excuses you'll respond with. Of course, your response will contain nothing more than the usual "none of them have provided any evidence supporting creationism, either!", to which I would respond, "of course you would say that, because that's exactly what you want to believe". To which you would reply "I don't believe anything, I just follow the facts of science", ad. infinium. Spare me.
The solution? Likely not to happen while Christian Conservatives still hold popular sway in politics, nor until science figures out how to convey its teachings to the lowest common denominator.
The "lowest common denominator" of course being the likes of Michael Faraday, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, etc. Yeah... what a bunch of dolts! You tell 'em!
Hah, yeah... Well, what I actually meant by "the 80s could come back and haunt us" was the fact that at that time, far too many crappy games were produced, resulting in stagnation. I suppose you could almost say that the same is true today, though.
Before we had the capability to render scenes with millions of polygons with a striking degree of realism, game designers had to rely on a fading concept called.... fun.
I think people are finally beginning to get over the enfatuation surrounding titles that boast of their use of the lastest and greatest FPS engine, slowly turning their attention to game mechanics that are actually enjoyable.
Good graphics on a bad game results only in a bad game with good graphics. I think indie developers are beginning to demonstrate the fact that the opposite is also true to a large extent. I think we're beginning to see somewhat of a revival of 2D games that focus more on originality and fun game mechanics. Along with the rather large influx of these smaller developers, however, comes also many games that just plain suck in both categories. There's always the risk that the 80s could come back to haunt us, but perhaps this is simply a cycle that the industry must go through every couple of decades.
Well, of course you're correct that I'm "pro-ID" in that I believe God created this universe. It was only the second part of your reply that doesn't fit:
Fine, lets follow your premise - the Universe is so complex, ID suggests, that it must have had a designer.
My "reason" for accepting "ID" is simply this:
(Heb 11:3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Have you noticed how every model of "evolution" first begins with in-depth instructions detailing how we must first create the conditions necessary for the model to work?
All they could provide is yet another proprietary platform that is incompatible with all of the others. Two is company, three is a crowd. Four is.... well, insane. They have the resources to pull it off, but the question is whether or not game houses will want to take on yet another port of their titles.
I cannot BELIEVE you guys are comparing free software on someone's PC to the health and livelyhood of a human being. Software never fed anyone. Gee whiz, how in the world did we feed ourselves until Linux came along? Man, listen to yourselves! Please tell me you aren't serious!
Nah, because when it comes right down to it, no one actually knows what to do about it. Not only that, but these people can't even agree on what is causing it, or sometimes even IF it is really happening!
If you don't know what is going on, or what is causing it, or what to do about it, what do you do? Post your junk science it on./ where someone might actually care, I guess.
Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff that matters.... to nerds.
On the one hand, people complain about the FCC slapping fines on large corporations for broadcasting media that they deem "inappropriate". Then in the very same breath, they complain about the FCC supporting large corporations.
If the FCC was truly all about supporting large networks, they would allow them to appeal to the ever-increasing moral decadence of our society completely unharrassed. After all, isn't that how large, successful corporations got to where they are today? They are in the business of selling a product that the public wants. If that happens to be smut, then they will push the envelope as far as they can until the free market or the FCC says enough is enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, it seems there are always a sufficient number of suckers out there to keep "services" like this profitable, even if they're getting hosed. Eventually, people will wise up, but I guess the cell phone market hasn't quite reached that point yet. What I find especially amusing/sickening is how you have to pay extra to send text messages, even though they consume a mere fraction of the bandwidth that voice does. If this were about the industry saving money, they'd encourage text messaging by making it more economical for the consumer. Obviously, it's not about that.
Speaking as an owner of a Geo Metro (49 hp new, with 180,000 miles and misfire on one cylinder if can't be anywhere close to that now), I can assure you that you will not be using 6000 RPMs to get around.
Being a former Ford Festiva owner, I can relate to that to some extent. :) I was being slightly facetious, but let's remember something...
Geo Metro: 1700 lbs curb weight / 49 hp
Toyota Prius: 2890 lbs curb weight / 76 hp (gas engine)
When considering power-to-weight ratios, the Prius comes out well behind the Metro when comparing the gas engines only. It's not unrealistic at all to assume that dead-battery Prius owners would have to wind their engines up quite a bit more than Metro owners in order to acheive the same level of acceleration.
>> the only real winner after a hybrid purchase is the environment.
> That is to say, everyone and everything on the planet.
In the end, I think the only real winner will be the auto makers, and only for a short time.
Think about it; in 5-7 years, all of these hybrids are going to need new batteries; VERY VERY expensive batteries. That means the used car market will soon be saturated with hybrids with old batteries that won't take a charge. That means that in a few years, people on low budgets will be driving cheap used hybrids (cheap because they'll depreciate VERY quickly) with dead batteries, winding their 50hp gas engines up to 6000RPM just to get around. That means that in the end, we're using just as much fuel as we did before, only now, we have craploads of old, dead batteries to dispose of. THAT means, the environmental impact is at least as bad, or even WORSE than what we had originally.
A solar eclipse covers only a very small portion of Earth in shadow. Think about it. The Sun is over 100 times the diameter of Earth. To cover the entire earth in a shadow, the disc would have to be at least as large as Earth if it were right next to it. Of course, if this were even possible, it would have to be out some distance, and the further out you go, the larger it would have to be.
Ok, so it wouldn't have to cover the entire earth to be effective, but it would still have to be impractically and preventitively large. Plus, all of these ideas are just an attempt to fix something that no one can conclusively prove as being a problem that will eventually spell mankind's doom, anyway. In fact, most people who are so bent out of shape over this issue think we all evolved from a puddle of goo millions of years ago anyway, through natural selection. If that's the case, and we all end up boiling ourselves to death; hey, natural selection! Who are we to stand in the way of progress! *grin*
"Any real techie knows that the majority of these clients are designed and created for the express purpose of sharing copyrighted material."
Yes, this is true, but the danger in this ruling is in just how it is determined if piracy was the intent of the developer or not. Who decides this, and how do they come to that decision? To say that software was not intended to promote piracy if "reasonable measures" are taken to prevent it is very, very vague at best. Has anyone actually laid down an official definition of what "reasonable measures" are?
Ok, I know everyone is in a huge hurry to submit the latest and greatest breaking news to /. before everyone else, and that /. is evidently in an equally tremendous hurry to post it. But please, not at the sacrifice of spelling and grammar.
I mean, really. No one is going to care (or probably even notice) if you're 30 seconds behind CNN (or whatever) because you took a moment to do some editing.
Allow me to rephrase: Some people think it's worth more than Time Warner.
Exactly. Look at all the money people dumped in to the stock of dotcoms that are now bust. Not that I think that there's any chance of Google going under, but are they really worth that much? What do they sell and what assets do they hold that makes it so valuable? I say look for Google's stock to crash very hard once people start asking themselves just what it is that they're investing in.
You know... we could just, dare I say ... NOT USE IT *gasp*
Seriously, though, what do you expect? They're either going to collect information that they can either sell to other companies or use for themselves, or they are going to charge you a service fee for using the software. It's just that simple.
What I don't get is why more ISPs haven't jumped on this type of technology long ago? I can remember wondering why ISPs weren't doing this very thing a good 10 years ago. Now Earthlink, Netzero, and no doubt other dial-up providers are FINALLY beginning to provide this. Hopefully this will expand to broadband providers at some point. And as far as privacy goes; well, every page you visit already passes through your ISP, so no harm done.
I agree. Not that the game industry is about to implode, but man do I feel his pain! I haven't bought a game off the shelf in a long time because they are essentially all the same (to a large degree). There will always be exceptions to that rule, but truly innovative and interesting games are becoming more and more of a minority.
I blame gamers. Yes, gamers still buy DOOM clones by the droves, and as long as that is the case, the industry will continue to thrive. I hate it, but then many aspects of reality tend to piss me off. I think what Dvorak is really doing is not saying that the industry will die, but expressing his frustration and desire for industry to die, perhaps in the hope that it will be replaced with something better.
I guess I can understand this move from a business perspective, but it sure seems awful tacky, doesn't it? I mean, it's not like they started out with Windows XP Starter Edition, then spent a great deal of money adding on to it to create the Home/Professional editions, thus justifying the extra expense. They merely took a perfectly good Home/Professional/Whatever edition and spent a good deal of money crippling it.
This is just another example of the "what the market will bear" principle. If MS was selling this stuff for what it's worth, they wouldn't have the untold hundreds of billions that they do. Oh well, enough ranting.
You might recall how people could turn their NT Workstation in to NT Server with some registry tweaks. I wonder if the same will happen in this case, or if it is even possible?
Yes. Rock solid and *very* predictable and stable, indeed.
That article only exposes a mistake that the previous crew had made. It mentions nothing in the way of shortcomings of the station itself.
Except that your "statement" loses a great deal of meaning when it is pointed out that the examples that you offered are of people who weren't around when there was a theory of evolution. Saying that Issac Newton is proof that there are smart people who will choose creationism over evolution isn't making a point of anything except the desperation of your own arguments.
Well then, my supplemental list of more recent scientists should clear that up for you.
I never claimed that you were trying to prove creationism to be right or wrong.
Ok, that would be fine, but then you do a complete 180 and try to drag me in to that very argument:
Now, do you actually have an argument against evolution, or are you going to do nothing more than drudge up old creationist arguments that neither advance a "theory of creation" nor offer any reason to doubt the validity of evolution?
Again I merely drudged up a few guys old and new as proof that not every creationist is an imbicile, as implied by the parent. That's it. You're the one who's trying to make a creationism theory/evolution theory argument out of it, not I.
See, I can argue against speculation of what you will do rather than what you've actually done also. Note how it doesn't add any meaning or credibility to my statement? That tactic doesn't work when you use it either.
Yes, I'm aware that you can do that, as you demonstrated in your response to my first post.
My only point was to demonstrate how there are people out there other than brain-dead backwater hicks; people who command a great deal of intelligence (even on the pitiful worldly scale), who have accepted creationism. That's it. That doesn't prove creationism to be right or wrong, as that wasn't my intention, yet you and others automatically assumed that it was.
You and others also presumed that I was attempting to play some silly numbers game, as if you were under the impression that I thought if I could bring forth enough people who back my belief, it would make a lick of difference. That kind of argument would be just as vain and stupid coming from me it as it is from you with comments such as "They are in an extremely small minority", and the other guy who stated:
One could argue the opposite. If Creationism is a valid scientific theory, why is it that only a minute percentage of scientists believe that it is true?
Whoopdee-frickin-doo. If I had a dollar for every time the scientific community at large reverted on something they once touted as fact..... Suffice to say that majority consensus proves squat.
Dishonest evolutionist tactic #349: put words in to the mouth of the creationist.
I was, of course, responding to the parent's incinuation that creationists are idiots, otherwise, " of course they would see the glorious light of evolution!"
"Of course", as you would propose, "no legitimate biologist who studied after the brilliant discoveries of the all-knowing Darwin would deny what he proclaimed!", following one of the greatest myths of evolutionist propoganda. Perhaps you should write universities from which the following creationist scientists received their degrees and complain:
Dr. Johan Kruger, M.Sc in animal reproductive physiology and a Ph.D. in nematology.
Dr. Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Kenneth B. Cumming - Professor of Biology, B.S. Tufts University, M.A. Harvard University, Ph.D. Harvard University.
Raymond G. Bohlin, B.S. zoology, M.S. population genetics, University of Illinois, North Texas State University, Ph.D. from the University of Texas.
Dr. Gary Parker, B.A. Biology/Chemistry, M.S. Biology/Physiology, Ed.D Biology/Geology from Bell State.
How in the world a man can come out of a biology/related doctorate program of a major secular university and still hold a creationist viewpoint probably seems incredible to you, and I can just imagine the excuses you'll respond with. Of course, your response will contain nothing more than the usual "none of them have provided any evidence supporting creationism, either!", to which I would respond, "of course you would say that, because that's exactly what you want to believe". To which you would reply "I don't believe anything, I just follow the facts of science", ad. infinium. Spare me.
The solution? Likely not to happen while Christian Conservatives still hold popular sway in politics, nor until science figures out how to convey its teachings to the lowest common denominator.
The "lowest common denominator" of course being the likes of Michael Faraday, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, etc. Yeah... what a bunch of dolts! You tell 'em!
Hah, yeah... Well, what I actually meant by "the 80s could come back and haunt us" was the fact that at that time, far too many crappy games were produced, resulting in stagnation. I suppose you could almost say that the same is true today, though.
Before we had the capability to render scenes with millions of polygons with a striking degree of realism, game designers had to rely on a fading concept called.... fun.
I think people are finally beginning to get over the enfatuation surrounding titles that boast of their use of the lastest and greatest FPS engine, slowly turning their attention to game mechanics that are actually enjoyable.
Good graphics on a bad game results only in a bad game with good graphics. I think indie developers are beginning to demonstrate the fact that the opposite is also true to a large extent. I think we're beginning to see somewhat of a revival of 2D games that focus more on originality and fun game mechanics. Along with the rather large influx of these smaller developers, however, comes also many games that just plain suck in both categories. There's always the risk that the 80s could come back to haunt us, but perhaps this is simply a cycle that the industry must go through every couple of decades.
Well, of course you're correct that I'm "pro-ID" in that I believe God created this universe. It was only the second part of your reply that doesn't fit:
Fine, lets follow your premise - the Universe is so complex, ID suggests, that it must have had a designer.
My "reason" for accepting "ID" is simply this:
(Heb 11:3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
That's funny, too. Where did I say that I had such a premise?
Have you noticed how every model of "evolution" first begins with in-depth instructions detailing how we must first create the conditions necessary for the model to work?
All they could provide is yet another proprietary platform that is incompatible with all of the others. Two is company, three is a crowd. Four is.... well, insane. They have the resources to pull it off, but the question is whether or not game houses will want to take on yet another port of their titles.
I cannot BELIEVE you guys are comparing free software on someone's PC to the health and livelyhood of a human being. Software never fed anyone. Gee whiz, how in the world did we feed ourselves until Linux came along? Man, listen to yourselves! Please tell me you aren't serious!
Nah, because when it comes right down to it, no one actually knows what to do about it. Not only that, but these people can't even agree on what is causing it, or sometimes even IF it is really happening!
If you don't know what is going on, or what is causing it, or what to do about it, what do you do? Post your junk science it on ./ where someone might actually care, I guess.
Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff that matters.... to nerds.
In case you're having difficulty making the distinction any more, the Greenpeace website is over here.
On the one hand, people complain about the FCC slapping fines on large corporations for broadcasting media that they deem "inappropriate". Then in the very same breath, they complain about the FCC supporting large corporations.
If the FCC was truly all about supporting large networks, they would allow them to appeal to the ever-increasing moral decadence of our society completely unharrassed. After all, isn't that how large, successful corporations got to where they are today? They are in the business of selling a product that the public wants. If that happens to be smut, then they will push the envelope as far as they can until the free market or the FCC says enough is enough.