Dude. First, take a deep breath. Then, go here and hit Refresh over and over until the bad feeling goes away. After that, take a walk in the woods, or go to church, or help out at a day-care or something. Life has meaning if you go look for it.:-)
Excuse me, but since when does challenging the current popular theory become a challenge to Science itself? Science has gone through numerous upheavals over the years, with universally-accepted theories being abolished and replaced with new ones. Galileo and Copernicus had theories that went totally against the science of the times, and upon closer investigation they turned out to be right. The problem was the the existing scientists (and the people they trained) were so emotionally invested in the current theory that they refused to take a close look at a new idea. Eventually people realized the new theory had fewer holes than the old one and the world moved on.
The theory of evolution has gained such wide acceptance that when it is inevitably challenged (as all theories are) its proponents act as if it is the foundation of science itself it is being threatened. Evolution is not the foundation of science--we had science long before Darwin came on the scene.
Evolutionary theory (it's a theory, not a hypothesis, because it has indeed been proven)
Incorrect. Evolution is a theory about the past--a theory about how we came to be here, and as such it cannot be proven, no matter how widely it gains acceptance. To prove something you have to observe it--we can never observe the manner in which humans came to be unless someone comes up with a time machine.
Calling Xanga and MySpace blogs is an insult to the word "blog". "Students Banned From Posting On Their Craptacular Teenage Social-Networking Sites" would be more accurate (though not as catchy).
That's a lot of "let's say"s. I just make sure I have everything I need done in a particular area before I move on--I usually don't have to walk back and forth more than once or twice. And you do have a hearthstone, you know.
For example, if someone attacks your character, the server shouldn't be asking your machine whether it hits - it should be telling you. In an FPS, if you fire at someone, it should be up to the server to decide whether you hit, not the client.
The problem being that the client determines which way your gun is pointed, by its very nature. Thus we get the infamous aimbot.
walking across a zone for the thousanth time to empty your bag is not fun. If it was fun, people wouldn't be writing "hacks" to try to get around it.
That's silly. No matter how well a game is designed, hacking will always give you an edge. Blizz could put banks and vendors every 30 feet in-game and people would still install hacks for the advantage they give in PvP.
Different things are "trivia" to different people. From my perspective, the birthdate and biography of someone who lived hundreds of years ago (except for someone historically significant, e.g. Shakespeare or Caesar) is trivia, while a rundown of the features in the latest World of Warcraft patch is not. I imagine the opposite is true for you. My interests are a closer match to Wikipedia than yours, so I'll use that (bearing in mind that it's constantly in motion and checking the Talk and Article History pages as necessary). You have more historical interest, and so a more conventional encyclopedia is probably a better fit for you. It's no shame to Wikipedia that they lack good information in some areas--simply a matter of specialization.
I suspect that this trend will continue. Wikipedia will continue to expand in geek-friendly and pop-culture areas, while articles one would expect to find in Encyclopedia Britannica will be left mostly empty. If you're looking for the title of a Star Trek episode or a comic book supervillain, check Wikipedia; for articles on Ancient Greece, use Encarta. Most teachers don't accept Wikipedia as a bibliographic source anyway, due to the possibility of students editing a Wikipedia article and then quoting themselves authoritatively. I think that as long as people (including Jimmy Wales, the founder) compare Wikipedia to Britannica and expect it to measure up, they'll continue to be disappointed--they're simply different things with different strengths. That's all there is to it.
Wikipedia works best for geeky subjects. Take a look at the articles (well, more like article hierarchies) for Star Trek and World of Warcraft - you won't find a more thorough or more carefully woven source of information anywhere else.
Wikipedia will never replace Britannica or Encarta. That's not what it's good at. Its strength is in compiling information from hundreds of opinions to present a (mostly) cohesive article. If the type of information it presents is "trivia" to you, then use a different encyclopedia.
Actually, Uru was originally designed to be online-only. Ubisoft convinced them midway throught to add a single-player portion. Whether this was the game's salvation or its doom is a subject for debate.
But to protect that data, are you willing to go through all the security measures listed in the thread above? Opening up the keyboard and computer casing in the hotel room to check for keyloggers? Hypothesizing about virtual machines emulating VMWare? If you're working for the CIA, then yes, you need that kind of security, but just to log in and check your email?
You guys are all assuming that your precious data is worth stealing in the first place. You may not be as interesting to other people as you may think.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude. First, take a deep breath. Then, go here and hit Refresh over and over until the bad feeling goes away. After that, take a walk in the woods, or go to church, or help out at a day-care or something. Life has meaning if you go look for it. :-)
Did they sue Yahoo! and MSN too, or have we all just accepted Google as the reigning King of Web Search?
Read the article--he compared "Google utopianism" to "spiked Kool-Aid". I would think he'd get along just fine here on /.
"...Exciting, huh?"
( Read More... | 11 of 16 comments )
Yeah, I'm impressed!
Overanalyze much?
However, make it so that controlling a starship requires a team of players, each with their own specialisations. [and the following paragraph]
That's exactly what they're doing. Check the Wikipedia article and this FAQ for more details.
Took me a while to realize the article was talking about a different Scott Adams.
Excuse me, but since when does challenging the current popular theory become a challenge to Science itself? Science has gone through numerous upheavals over the years, with universally-accepted theories being abolished and replaced with new ones. Galileo and Copernicus had theories that went totally against the science of the times, and upon closer investigation they turned out to be right. The problem was the the existing scientists (and the people they trained) were so emotionally invested in the current theory that they refused to take a close look at a new idea. Eventually people realized the new theory had fewer holes than the old one and the world moved on.
The theory of evolution has gained such wide acceptance that when it is inevitably challenged (as all theories are) its proponents act as if it is the foundation of science itself it is being threatened. Evolution is not the foundation of science--we had science long before Darwin came on the scene.
Anti-evolution != anti-science.
Evolutionary theory (it's a theory, not a hypothesis, because it has indeed been proven)
Incorrect. Evolution is a theory about the past--a theory about how we came to be here, and as such it cannot be proven, no matter how widely it gains acceptance. To prove something you have to observe it--we can never observe the manner in which humans came to be unless someone comes up with a time machine.
Can you think of any useful applications for any aspect of biology? Um...medicine?
Calling Xanga and MySpace blogs is an insult to the word "blog". "Students Banned From Posting On Their Craptacular Teenage Social-Networking Sites" would be more accurate (though not as catchy).
Seriously. MySpace?
That's a lot of "let's say"s. I just make sure I have everything I need done in a particular area before I move on--I usually don't have to walk back and forth more than once or twice. And you do have a hearthstone, you know.
For example, if someone attacks your character, the server shouldn't be asking your machine whether it hits - it should be telling you. In an FPS, if you fire at someone, it should be up to the server to decide whether you hit, not the client.
The problem being that the client determines which way your gun is pointed, by its very nature. Thus we get the infamous aimbot.
But it seems to have defeated you, so for them it's a "mission accomplished".
For the record, I'm a Mage, so I can just teleport wherever I want. :-)
walking across a zone for the thousanth time to empty your bag is not fun. If it was fun, people wouldn't be writing "hacks" to try to get around it.
That's silly. No matter how well a game is designed, hacking will always give you an edge. Blizz could put banks and vendors every 30 feet in-game and people would still install hacks for the advantage they give in PvP.
...but does it run Linux?
better nanotoxicity than the regular kind.
Different things are "trivia" to different people. From my perspective, the birthdate and biography of someone who lived hundreds of years ago (except for someone historically significant, e.g. Shakespeare or Caesar) is trivia, while a rundown of the features in the latest World of Warcraft patch is not. I imagine the opposite is true for you. My interests are a closer match to Wikipedia than yours, so I'll use that (bearing in mind that it's constantly in motion and checking the Talk and Article History pages as necessary). You have more historical interest, and so a more conventional encyclopedia is probably a better fit for you. It's no shame to Wikipedia that they lack good information in some areas--simply a matter of specialization.
I suspect that this trend will continue. Wikipedia will continue to expand in geek-friendly and pop-culture areas, while articles one would expect to find in Encyclopedia Britannica will be left mostly empty. If you're looking for the title of a Star Trek episode or a comic book supervillain, check Wikipedia; for articles on Ancient Greece, use Encarta. Most teachers don't accept Wikipedia as a bibliographic source anyway, due to the possibility of students editing a Wikipedia article and then quoting themselves authoritatively. I think that as long as people (including Jimmy Wales, the founder) compare Wikipedia to Britannica and expect it to measure up, they'll continue to be disappointed--they're simply different things with different strengths. That's all there is to it.
Wikipedia works best for geeky subjects. Take a look at the articles (well, more like article hierarchies) for Star Trek and World of Warcraft - you won't find a more thorough or more carefully woven source of information anywhere else.
Wikipedia will never replace Britannica or Encarta. That's not what it's good at. Its strength is in compiling information from hundreds of opinions to present a (mostly) cohesive article. If the type of information it presents is "trivia" to you, then use a different encyclopedia.
So how is this in the "Funny" category, but the story on pillows being dangerous is not?
Yes, I can see how Google needs to buy a stake in AOL for that. Sticking CDs into little envelopes and boxes and mailing them is so hard.
Actually, Uru was originally designed to be online-only. Ubisoft convinced them midway throught to add a single-player portion. Whether this was the game's salvation or its doom is a subject for debate.
But to protect that data, are you willing to go through all the security measures listed in the thread above? Opening up the keyboard and computer casing in the hotel room to check for keyloggers? Hypothesizing about virtual machines emulating VMWare? If you're working for the CIA, then yes, you need that kind of security, but just to log in and check your email?
You guys are all assuming that your precious data is worth stealing in the first place. You may not be as interesting to other people as you may think.