The stamina of false information, and the circulatory of citation, is what's really the issue. There are a lot of falsities that get passed around as assumed truths. Our system of "knowledge" is really fragile - unless we've witnessed ourselves (and this is true for historical information as much as it is for scientific "knowledge") it's just folklore with institutional power.
In other words, data really is the plural of anecdote.
That was why revisionist history came into existence: to put to the test claims that had gone unchecked for decades.
For them to displace Sony, they'd have to go for Sony's niche: highly cinematic games, high-end visuals, strong art-directorial games, content from Japan, etc. Increasingly, Sony is also identifying the PS3 niche as the friendlist to indie and art-games. That niche is the smallest of the three at the moment, but it is still a solid and viable niche.
Apple, based on what we've seen, seems to want to compete more Nintendo: play experiences, gestural and full-body input, casual-friendly, integration with hand-helds, etc. While the Wii is strong, it is also the least bouyed by exclusive content, and the games are generally replaceable by each other: people buy the Wii to play with the Wii, while they buy the Xbox and PS3 to play titles available for the Xbox and PS3.
Assuming that I'm reading these signals correctly, I see the market lining up this way: people will have their choice of two play-centered consoles (Wii or Apple) and of two performance/content-centered consoles (Xbox or PS3.) For me, the choice of platforms was to get "a Wii plus one of the others" (for me, PS3, because I like more Japan-originated content; but it was a close call, could have gone Xbox, too) - I don't think I'm alone in this.
I hear you. But I don't like walking around looking like I'm wearing jodhpurs, either. A little convergence goes a long way: putting an mp3 player into my phone (a G1) - or rather, putting an acceptable interface around my phone's ability to play mp3s, is one less device I have to carry around. Add Bluetooth stereo headphones, that's one less wire.
Well, I'm skeptical too, and I remember the Pippin. But I also remember the Newton, and every time I see an iPhone or iPod Touch, I think of the Newton. Apple seems to be able to go back to the drawing board and turn a failure into a success in the next generation or two.
That said, I think that they would be entering a rather full market. Who would they displace?
The problem also includes the fact that "houses you can't afford" is a pretty vague category. There is the inflationary effect on housing prices which pushed up the costs of homes; one of the ironies is that people who had their homes foreclosed when they took out loans to pay for them at their boom-prices (when they couldn't really afford them, as 20/20 hindsight tells us) might well have been able to afford them at their post-bust prices.
That's exactly the secret of the Daily Mail hit-pieces, too. "Considering" is such a vague word, as is "ministers." What it could mean is that some little old lady from their constituency wrote a letter to their PM, the PM responded, politely, that they were "considering" their suggestion, and *boom*, the Daily Hate makes it sound like the legislation is on the way.
For those who think this keeps the "gummint" in line: what if we did this to corporations. "Oil industry executives are considering using human remains as a fuel source." "Pharmaceutical industry heads are considering a plan to get doctors to prescribe heroin to kindergarteners."
Like I say above, deficit spending is the right thing to do during a recession; it's the unpopular step of raising taxes (pissing off the right) and lower spending (pissing off the left) during a boom that is politically more difficult.
Um, people in the US actually show a higher approval rating for their government than they have in years. You may want to stop drinking the talk-radio Kool-Aid.
The idea is to raise spending and lower taxes during a recession, take a deficit, and the lower spending and raise taxes during a boom. The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms. I have to blame the right for this: they want all the populist cachet of always-lowering-taxes, but they don't have the balls to actually cut any programs.
I'm trying to isolate the principle at play here. It's not "FEMA needs to have every viewpoint expressed." Usually, concerns about freedom of expression revolve around very unpopular viewpoints.
Given that you and I agree that we would want "Noble Jihadis Destroyed Democracy" and "Why God wanted the people in New Orleans to Drown," just what is the basis for our making that demand? The fact that there is considerable discretion involved puts this outside of the realm of censorship - the fact that the discretion is largely based on popular outcry puts in the realm of the defense of important, but not universally popular, ideas.
Instead of quibbling over whether it's censorship or not, perhaps we should focus on the problem of the "shouting down" of discourse by public outcry. Whether you call it censorship or not is really secondary.
(And, one person's "PC hysteria" is someone else's "reasonable reaction to concern." This is also a problem: if the book was called "Why God wanted the people in New Orleans to Drown," I think I would have called for its removal. Would that have been PC hysteria on my part?
The issue is the nature of the "thing." Maintaining concentration on a longer array of like-things (like strings of numbers) is quite different than having various things flitter into and out of consciousness, and indeed these two things are generally inimical to each other.
And I am claiming that (a computational model of) intelligence is keeping more things in working store while preventing them from being *displaced* by other things.
Unless you not only control your own mail server, but also your upstream, all the relays in between, etc, you are "vulnerable to the whims" etc.
What I think is ridiculous is that he's lost sight of just what people who use cloud services want: services. They aren't looking for an "ownership" at all. I agree with him on the absurdity of software licenses that aren't free - but the users of these services haven't been duped into thinking they've "bought" software. Generally, they see this all as a communication medium, not as a collection of things to be owned.
Software-as-service is only free if you own or have consistent access to a given computer. For the millions of people throughout the world who have been given the ability to use online applications for free (at cybercafes, etc) even though they could never afford a computer, RMS' line is almost insulting.
Um, did you actually read the link you just posted?
"We found that alcohol basically didn't influence things as much as you might have thought. We found alcohol consumption did inflate attractiveness ratings but the greater alcohol consumption didn't lead to the overestimation of age."
What was debunked was the claim that alcohol lead people to identify younger people as older. When inebriated, people continued to more or less accurately gauge the age of faces that they are shown.
A reminder: "attractiveness" is a measure of response, it isn't a quality inherent in a person. On other words, it is less that you are attractive than it is that other people are attracted to you; the measure of that is your "attractiveness."
Most people have a "computational" model of intelligence: able to keep more things in working memory, recall them better, and perform more complicated calculations mentally.
None of those things are creative, and, in fact, do often rely on keeping "extraneous" elements out of consciousness. And those extraneous elements are important for creativity.
The word "basically" is horribly abused, and is generally used at the beginning or end of sentences to indicate that 1. the speaker is really super-intelligent and understands things at a far deeper level than the listener ever will, and 2. the speaker is an insufferable dork. Basically.
I don't completely agree with you. The BA or BS is the new high school diploma. To really optimize your earning potential, get an MA or MS. But yes, the PhD is actually good only if you love what you are working on more than you love the money it can earn you.
Many players never hit 80. They log in a couple times a month, do a few quests, get into a couple of fights, maybe meet up with a friend or two, and log out.
And they each bring just as much revenue into Blizzard as the most obsessed raider, probably at a lower cost.
You may have ultimately take up his firm and gentle arguments, but it was also his intellectual authority, the nature of the teacher-student relationship, and the fact that you were transitioning from the smaller world of childhood to the larger world of the University and adulthood that probably had more to do with you changing your mind.
You cannot recreate those things on message boards.
Slashdot Mirror
The stamina of false information, and the circulatory of citation, is what's really the issue. There are a lot of falsities that get passed around as assumed truths. Our system of "knowledge" is really fragile - unless we've witnessed ourselves (and this is true for historical information as much as it is for scientific "knowledge") it's just folklore with institutional power.
In other words, data really is the plural of anecdote.
That was why revisionist history came into existence: to put to the test claims that had gone unchecked for decades.
For them to displace Sony, they'd have to go for Sony's niche: highly cinematic games, high-end visuals, strong art-directorial games, content from Japan, etc. Increasingly, Sony is also identifying the PS3 niche as the friendlist to indie and art-games. That niche is the smallest of the three at the moment, but it is still a solid and viable niche.
Apple, based on what we've seen, seems to want to compete more Nintendo: play experiences, gestural and full-body input, casual-friendly, integration with hand-helds, etc. While the Wii is strong, it is also the least bouyed by exclusive content, and the games are generally replaceable by each other: people buy the Wii to play with the Wii, while they buy the Xbox and PS3 to play titles available for the Xbox and PS3.
Assuming that I'm reading these signals correctly, I see the market lining up this way: people will have their choice of two play-centered consoles (Wii or Apple) and of two performance/content-centered consoles (Xbox or PS3.) For me, the choice of platforms was to get "a Wii plus one of the others" (for me, PS3, because I like more Japan-originated content; but it was a close call, could have gone Xbox, too) - I don't think I'm alone in this.
"meant." We were never "meant" to look, feel, act, etc...
You know, I think we come into this world without design docs.
They could just get a bunch of old N-Gages and paint them white.
I hear you. But I don't like walking around looking like I'm wearing jodhpurs, either. A little convergence goes a long way: putting an mp3 player into my phone (a G1) - or rather, putting an acceptable interface around my phone's ability to play mp3s, is one less device I have to carry around. Add Bluetooth stereo headphones, that's one less wire.
Well, I'm skeptical too, and I remember the Pippin. But I also remember the Newton, and every time I see an iPhone or iPod Touch, I think of the Newton. Apple seems to be able to go back to the drawing board and turn a failure into a success in the next generation or two.
That said, I think that they would be entering a rather full market. Who would they displace?
Which is why housing is so cheap in Massachusetts and California.
It brings to mine Yogi Berra: "no one goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
The problem also includes the fact that "houses you can't afford" is a pretty vague category. There is the inflationary effect on housing prices which pushed up the costs of homes; one of the ironies is that people who had their homes foreclosed when they took out loans to pay for them at their boom-prices (when they couldn't really afford them, as 20/20 hindsight tells us) might well have been able to afford them at their post-bust prices.
That's exactly the secret of the Daily Mail hit-pieces, too. "Considering" is such a vague word, as is "ministers." What it could mean is that some little old lady from their constituency wrote a letter to their PM, the PM responded, politely, that they were "considering" their suggestion, and *boom*, the Daily Hate makes it sound like the legislation is on the way.
For those who think this keeps the "gummint" in line: what if we did this to corporations. "Oil industry executives are considering using human remains as a fuel source." "Pharmaceutical industry heads are considering a plan to get doctors to prescribe heroin to kindergarteners."
Like I say above, deficit spending is the right thing to do during a recession; it's the unpopular step of raising taxes (pissing off the right) and lower spending (pissing off the left) during a boom that is politically more difficult.
Um, people in the US actually show a higher approval rating for their government than they have in years. You may want to stop drinking the talk-radio Kool-Aid.
The idea is to raise spending and lower taxes during a recession, take a deficit, and the lower spending and raise taxes during a boom. The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms. I have to blame the right for this: they want all the populist cachet of always-lowering-taxes, but they don't have the balls to actually cut any programs.
I'm trying to isolate the principle at play here. It's not "FEMA needs to have every viewpoint expressed." Usually, concerns about freedom of expression revolve around very unpopular viewpoints.
Given that you and I agree that we would want "Noble Jihadis Destroyed Democracy" and "Why God wanted the people in New Orleans to Drown," just what is the basis for our making that demand? The fact that there is considerable discretion involved puts this outside of the realm of censorship - the fact that the discretion is largely based on popular outcry puts in the realm of the defense of important, but not universally popular, ideas.
Instead of quibbling over whether it's censorship or not, perhaps we should focus on the problem of the "shouting down" of discourse by public outcry. Whether you call it censorship or not is really secondary.
(And, one person's "PC hysteria" is someone else's "reasonable reaction to concern." This is also a problem: if the book was called "Why God wanted the people in New Orleans to Drown," I think I would have called for its removal. Would that have been PC hysteria on my part?
"Get a life" in Klingon. Brilliant.
Hello, T-shirt!
The issue is the nature of the "thing." Maintaining concentration on a longer array of like-things (like strings of numbers) is quite different than having various things flitter into and out of consciousness, and indeed these two things are generally inimical to each other.
And I am claiming that (a computational model of) intelligence is keeping more things in working store while preventing them from being *displaced* by other things.
Unless you not only control your own mail server, but also your upstream, all the relays in between, etc, you are "vulnerable to the whims" etc.
What I think is ridiculous is that he's lost sight of just what people who use cloud services want: services. They aren't looking for an "ownership" at all. I agree with him on the absurdity of software licenses that aren't free - but the users of these services haven't been duped into thinking they've "bought" software. Generally, they see this all as a communication medium, not as a collection of things to be owned.
Software-as-service is only free if you own or have consistent access to a given computer. For the millions of people throughout the world who have been given the ability to use online applications for free (at cybercafes, etc) even though they could never afford a computer, RMS' line is almost insulting.
And what does this mean for mobile computing?
Um, did you actually read the link you just posted?
"We found that alcohol basically didn't influence things as much as you might have thought. We found alcohol consumption did inflate attractiveness ratings but the greater alcohol consumption didn't lead to the overestimation of age."
What was debunked was the claim that alcohol lead people to identify younger people as older. When inebriated, people continued to more or less accurately gauge the age of faces that they are shown.
A reminder: "attractiveness" is a measure of response, it isn't a quality inherent in a person. On other words, it is less that you are attractive than it is that other people are attracted to you; the measure of that is your "attractiveness."
Most people have a "computational" model of intelligence: able to keep more things in working memory, recall them better, and perform more complicated calculations mentally.
None of those things are creative, and, in fact, do often rely on keeping "extraneous" elements out of consciousness. And those extraneous elements are important for creativity.
The word "basically" is horribly abused, and is generally used at the beginning or end of sentences to indicate that 1. the speaker is really super-intelligent and understands things at a far deeper level than the listener ever will, and 2. the speaker is an insufferable dork. Basically.
I don't completely agree with you. The BA or BS is the new high school diploma. To really optimize your earning potential, get an MA or MS. But yes, the PhD is actually good only if you love what you are working on more than you love the money it can earn you.
Many players never hit 80. They log in a couple times a month, do a few quests, get into a couple of fights, maybe meet up with a friend or two, and log out.
And they each bring just as much revenue into Blizzard as the most obsessed raider, probably at a lower cost.
You may have ultimately take up his firm and gentle arguments, but it was also his intellectual authority, the nature of the teacher-student relationship, and the fact that you were transitioning from the smaller world of childhood to the larger world of the University and adulthood that probably had more to do with you changing your mind.
You cannot recreate those things on message boards.
Yeah, those last 13 minutes were the final straw.