Unfortunately, Vanguard doesn't meet his first criteria of having the "quality of WoW" at this point. The animations in Vanguard are less than pretty, even if the environmental graphics are nice. You have to have a computer four times as powerful as you need for WoW with a specific type of video card to support those graphics...otherwise you're left with mediocre graphics with mediocre animation.
Also, while it does cater to a smaller audience that would presumedly be more mature and interested in a more involved world, there were a wealth of noobs to be found during open beta.
I will say that I absolutely loved the free-for-all PVP server in open beta while it was open...
Because, while he stated his company grew to 5 employees, he wants to use it "for all employees to use throughout the company" which obviously means they need an enterprise level issue tracking system because that statement sounds like it means more than five, even though it really only means five.
I believe he is using a purposeful grammar mistake to intrinsically connect his comments with a feeling of antiquity. Namely he's trying to cause a subconscious connection to popularized caveman vernacular, such as "Me build big fire!"
As the casual reader will not quite catch the absurdity of the underlying pronoun use, but more likely just catch that the pronoun is improperly positioned (me before group), that incorrect pronoun is then only caught in the subconscious resulting in that caveman association previously described.
Having subliminally caused hundreds of slashdot readers to equate him as such, he is then lent a slightly higher credence as "a good ol' boy" from "way back" who has obviously had a lot of experience.
In that lies their problem with this particular patent. Several companies have had internet-base elearning for a long time. Several were built before Blackboard was created. Innovation has absolutely occurred outside of blackboard's LMS. When we go into a client and part of our solution is to replace their LMS, and it's Blackboard, we typically get bonus points just for being so much better out of the box. They do have their little niche, but it is VERY little and they don't do it all that well.
I guess it would be pretty difficult for them to get over the prior art issue, considering they started in 1997. Maybe they're contending that all that other elearning before they even existed wasn't REAL elearning.
As I work for a company that would have been negatively affected by this patent, I am really glad that this is happening. We've had "prior art" elearning related to basically all of their patents since 1995/96 specifically in a web-based format. Now watch the stock ticker on their site go zooming down once this actually goes through.
I think that, like frivilous lawsuits, frivilous patents should have equally painful repercussions. Blackboard should have to pay anyone showing reasonable claim to prior art a penalty for this;)
Just like they deem something inappropriate now: by people reporting it. They just don't realize that this will utterly overwhelm the FCC complaint center. Political activism + laws giving them a way to try to "get" the other side = mass hysteria.
You obviously have no idea what morally even means. It would be morally wrong to not have gone to war to stop the Nazi destruction of Europe. It was not morally wrong to have gone to war in that case. Morality is not based on only one piece of information. It is based on all known information.
Well, okay, morality ends up actually being completely subjective to whatever person is deciding whether a particular thing is morally right or wrong for themselves. But you stated war was "morally wrong, period" as if it were a fact and not an opinion. It would have only been morally wrong to go to war to save Europe and ourselves if there was a way to stop the Nazis otherwise that would have guaranteed less bloodshed on both sides. There were certainly acts committed by both sides during the war that would be considered morally wrong by anybody, but the overall act of going to war was morally right.
Well, we certainly won't see the video as it does appear that they weren't interested in letting it be seen. However, the Tube workers said there were definitely working cameras in the locations. In any case, the existence of those cameras didn't make crime worse, it provided a good witness against the police force that was not doing it's job correctly. While they blamed a falsified report for leading them to use deadly force, the potential existence of a video ensured that someone would be held accountable.
Such a surveillance system would definitely need safeguards against ANYone being able to manipulate what has been recorded, but saying that you shouldn't have them because someone made a tape disappear isn't a very good case against.
Since when is it part of the guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to know or to just even have a chance of stumbling upon the fact that you are being observed in a public place by official means?
If you're doing something against the law and the cameras catch you and as a result you get convicted where with no camera the police may have not known who you were, why is that bad? What constitutional liberty was infringed? You do NOT have the right to commit crimes and not be caught because of limited people-based surveillance resources. To make that shorter, you do NOT have the right to commit crimes.
Specifically addressing whether they're different, in the UK you know you're probably on camera whatever street you happen to be on. These aren't meant to be secret "OH I GOT YOU ON HIDDEN CAMERA" they do two things: they operate as an excellent deterent to crime, and they help solve/prove a case when a crime does get committed. If they "catch" you doing something that isn't a crime, then what exactly happens? Nothing.
So, I assume you're against red light cameras that catch the law "benders" who think it's okay to run a red light just because they think they know they won't cause an accident?
You tell me what is so bad about having common surveillance cameras on public streets.
Yes, and if we had a dictatorship it wouldn't matter what the f*** we think about cameras because they would have them if they wanted them. They would also use them to further cement their unlawful power over the people.
Being okay with everyone walking around naked so that everyone will know you don't have a weapon would be giving up a liberty. How are cameras any different than police patrolling the streets? The answer is, they are not.
But isn't there a difference between completely objective terminal self-preservation based on a completely overt instruction that says to do so and the self-preservation most people feel that prevents them from jumping off a building? How can a robot have an abstract feeling? Every last thing it experiences is objective. The only way it could become subjective is through malfunction.
You're right...they won't actually have any good case for robot sex slaves...but as soon as someone can make one that doesn't castrate 50% of its users, they will sell them.
I guess it's hard for me to relate a programmed robot and its related ability to accept, interperet and react to stimulus and a sentient being that has an inherent ability to learn how to react to new situations. I suppose if it was easy enough for me to comprehend, then it would already be a reality and we'd all know the question that goes with the 42.
Then they won't be able to. And if we program them "open-ended" to discover how to WANT things, we'll lose the #1 reason we have robots...to send them unquestioningly into any job or situation. Otherwise they become superhumans and why would they want us around? Energy source?
I think There.com was either a sibling or even a predecessor to Second Life. I tried There.com a long while back and I seem to recall it shifting to Second Life somehow...
"At most, 'some...may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'"
Yes, and a similar thing would happen with short term exposure to FIRE...and if you stay in FIRE long enough you get serious burns instead of blistering. I think I'd like to wait on some serious testing (such as, can they cook a 20lb turkey with it) before saying "WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!!!"
In any case, if the options are lead bullets or this, I'm guessing those on the receiving end would probably prefer the latter. Heck, in cold climates they might cause public disturbance just to get them to use it!
You are a complete idiot for disputing global warming or evolution...I think you are not just pointing that you can't come up with the plain-as-day prediction and validation you can in other areas.
BEFORE YOU FLAME ME OR MOD ME DOWN, I'm not trying to dispute global warming or evolution, but rather, just pointing that you can't come up with the plain-as-day prediction and validation you can in other areas.
...oops...sorry, ignore that first part. Very well thought out message!
Slashdot Mirror
A FPS based on Maxim magazine content!
I would suggest the easy way: patent it as a internet delivered cure for cancer!
Unfortunately, Vanguard doesn't meet his first criteria of having the "quality of WoW" at this point. The animations in Vanguard are less than pretty, even if the environmental graphics are nice. You have to have a computer four times as powerful as you need for WoW with a specific type of video card to support those graphics...otherwise you're left with mediocre graphics with mediocre animation. Also, while it does cater to a smaller audience that would presumedly be more mature and interested in a more involved world, there were a wealth of noobs to be found during open beta. I will say that I absolutely loved the free-for-all PVP server in open beta while it was open...
You totally wtfpwned him with facts...
Because, while he stated his company grew to 5 employees, he wants to use it "for all employees to use throughout the company" which obviously means they need an enterprise level issue tracking system because that statement sounds like it means more than five, even though it really only means five.
I believe he is using a purposeful grammar mistake to intrinsically connect his comments with a feeling of antiquity. Namely he's trying to cause a subconscious connection to popularized caveman vernacular, such as "Me build big fire!"
As the casual reader will not quite catch the absurdity of the underlying pronoun use, but more likely just catch that the pronoun is improperly positioned (me before group), that incorrect pronoun is then only caught in the subconscious resulting in that caveman association previously described.
Having subliminally caused hundreds of slashdot readers to equate him as such, he is then lent a slightly higher credence as "a good ol' boy" from "way back" who has obviously had a lot of experience.
Not sure what the ironic part of this is, AJAX has nothing to do with being user friendly...
In that lies their problem with this particular patent. Several companies have had internet-base elearning for a long time. Several were built before Blackboard was created. Innovation has absolutely occurred outside of blackboard's LMS. When we go into a client and part of our solution is to replace their LMS, and it's Blackboard, we typically get bonus points just for being so much better out of the box. They do have their little niche, but it is VERY little and they don't do it all that well.
No, just the internet-based equivalent ;)
I guess it would be pretty difficult for them to get over the prior art issue, considering they started in 1997. Maybe they're contending that all that other elearning before they even existed wasn't REAL elearning.
;)
As I work for a company that would have been negatively affected by this patent, I am really glad that this is happening. We've had "prior art" elearning related to basically all of their patents since 1995/96 specifically in a web-based format. Now watch the stock ticker on their site go zooming down once this actually goes through.
I think that, like frivilous lawsuits, frivilous patents should have equally painful repercussions. Blackboard should have to pay anyone showing reasonable claim to prior art a penalty for this
How do you deem something fair?
Just like they deem something inappropriate now: by people reporting it. They just don't realize that this will utterly overwhelm the FCC complaint center. Political activism + laws giving them a way to try to "get" the other side = mass hysteria.
You obviously have no idea what morally even means. It would be morally wrong to not have gone to war to stop the Nazi destruction of Europe. It was not morally wrong to have gone to war in that case. Morality is not based on only one piece of information. It is based on all known information.
Well, okay, morality ends up actually being completely subjective to whatever person is deciding whether a particular thing is morally right or wrong for themselves. But you stated war was "morally wrong, period" as if it were a fact and not an opinion. It would have only been morally wrong to go to war to save Europe and ourselves if there was a way to stop the Nazis otherwise that would have guaranteed less bloodshed on both sides. There were certainly acts committed by both sides during the war that would be considered morally wrong by anybody, but the overall act of going to war was morally right.
Well, we certainly won't see the video as it does appear that they weren't interested in letting it be seen. However, the Tube workers said there were definitely working cameras in the locations. In any case, the existence of those cameras didn't make crime worse, it provided a good witness against the police force that was not doing it's job correctly. While they blamed a falsified report for leading them to use deadly force, the potential existence of a video ensured that someone would be held accountable. Such a surveillance system would definitely need safeguards against ANYone being able to manipulate what has been recorded, but saying that you shouldn't have them because someone made a tape disappear isn't a very good case against.
No, but they showed what really happened. What would they have had other than the word of those involved if they didn't have the video?
Since when is it part of the guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to know or to just even have a chance of stumbling upon the fact that you are being observed in a public place by official means? If you're doing something against the law and the cameras catch you and as a result you get convicted where with no camera the police may have not known who you were, why is that bad? What constitutional liberty was infringed? You do NOT have the right to commit crimes and not be caught because of limited people-based surveillance resources. To make that shorter, you do NOT have the right to commit crimes. Specifically addressing whether they're different, in the UK you know you're probably on camera whatever street you happen to be on. These aren't meant to be secret "OH I GOT YOU ON HIDDEN CAMERA" they do two things: they operate as an excellent deterent to crime, and they help solve/prove a case when a crime does get committed. If they "catch" you doing something that isn't a crime, then what exactly happens? Nothing. So, I assume you're against red light cameras that catch the law "benders" who think it's okay to run a red light just because they think they know they won't cause an accident? You tell me what is so bad about having common surveillance cameras on public streets.
Yes, and if we had a dictatorship it wouldn't matter what the f*** we think about cameras because they would have them if they wanted them. They would also use them to further cement their unlawful power over the people. Being okay with everyone walking around naked so that everyone will know you don't have a weapon would be giving up a liberty. How are cameras any different than police patrolling the streets? The answer is, they are not.
They got an int overflow as Flash can't handle that high a number...thus they removed the top offenders.
But isn't there a difference between completely objective terminal self-preservation based on a completely overt instruction that says to do so and the self-preservation most people feel that prevents them from jumping off a building? How can a robot have an abstract feeling? Every last thing it experiences is objective. The only way it could become subjective is through malfunction.
..or that all women should remain at home, naked all the time.
You're right...they won't actually have any good case for robot sex slaves...but as soon as someone can make one that doesn't castrate 50% of its users, they will sell them. I guess it's hard for me to relate a programmed robot and its related ability to accept, interperet and react to stimulus and a sentient being that has an inherent ability to learn how to react to new situations. I suppose if it was easy enough for me to comprehend, then it would already be a reality and we'd all know the question that goes with the 42.
Then they won't be able to. And if we program them "open-ended" to discover how to WANT things, we'll lose the #1 reason we have robots...to send them unquestioningly into any job or situation. Otherwise they become superhumans and why would they want us around? Energy source?
I think There.com was either a sibling or even a predecessor to Second Life. I tried There.com a long while back and I seem to recall it shifting to Second Life somehow...
"At most, 'some...may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'"
Yes, and a similar thing would happen with short term exposure to FIRE...and if you stay in FIRE long enough you get serious burns instead of blistering. I think I'd like to wait on some serious testing (such as, can they cook a 20lb turkey with it) before saying "WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!!!"
In any case, if the options are lead bullets or this, I'm guessing those on the receiving end would probably prefer the latter. Heck, in cold climates they might cause public disturbance just to get them to use it!
Yes, they are now known as "Competely different name so you must buy one even though it is still a cellular phone" phone.