Actually, that is the fundimental point of warfare. To limit the casualties on your side while destroying your opponent's ability to make war. You "win" when your force is able to accomplish their goal.
If you take casualties on *your side* your enemy is reducing your ability to make war, thus your enemy is winning. This was actually the whole reason the cold war happened. The USA and USSR both began building up weapons for a potential war between them.
Eventually both sides reached a point where a war would result in so many casualties on both sides, that neither side would win. Instead it would be a war of mutual extermination. So, if the war happened, both sides would lose. But, if either country backed down, the other would gain superiority and win. So, it was a stalemate. Both sides could only continue preparing for a war that neither could win, in order to *not lose*. In the end, economic instabilities as well as a number of political manuevers caused the USSR to falter and fall apart.
Most people call various expensive remote controlled devices "robots". If I make remote controlled spider vehicle is that any more a robot than a remote controlled plane? Does it have to walk on the ground to be a robot?
Or, is a robot defined by it's AI? If so, how much control does the AI need to have to make it a robot? How sophisticated does it need to be? Depending on how loosely you define AI, you could call some modern cars robots.
Then, after you define "robot" the next question is does the article writer using the same definition as you when they say robot?
It's not that I'm arguing with you so much as I'm just saying the term robot is very "fuzzy" these days, especially in the military arena.
Actually, the scary thing is that this scenario is likely to become a reality. At least "nerds" being the future generation of soldiers. Maybe not for another generation or two of course. But, the whole idea in warfare is to limit the human casualties on your side. This makes remote controlled weaponry ideal. And, given the skills and coordination developed from years of gaming, video gamers would make the ideal drone controllers.
The real long term concern is that if warfare ends up becoming a battle between robots and remote drones, will people finally realize that war has no point anymore? Or, instead, as fictional as *that* version is, will you end up with something like that episode of the original star trek where we vaporize our own people when a computer simulation decides a kill has been made?
Yes, the USA, if I recall properly, has variations of their spy drone planes that are equipped with missle launchers. Likewise, there was an article a few months back about the US getting ready to deploy a heavily armed remote control tank-bot for "testing" in Iraq.
But, to date we have not yet equipped, to public knowledge, a robot with weaponry that is not purely remote controlled. Armed AI robots make people nervous, and for a variety of good reasons given our state of "AI".
Of course, we aren't talking a Skynet situation here(although some day that will likely be technically possible). Its more like not wanting a blue screen of death to literally kill you.
With remote control drones becoming increasingly common, such a device will probably be popular with the military as a way to help secure areas from infiltration by enemy spy drones. Sure it wouldn't be an end all measure as many of these devices also use GPS or something similar. But, it would certainly help.
They would release a firmware update that would enable video playback on all current Ipod models. This would boost customer loyalty, satisfaction, and increase sales of Ipods across the board.
Then, Apple could simultaniously release a new "accessory" for the Ipod. It would be a line of larger portable screens. The screens could have some sort of dock(maybe on the side) that the Ipod could snap into and feed video out to the portable screen while letting you use the clickwheel for control.
Doing something like this would give ipod owners a new "item" to purchase if they so chose. And, I imagine it would sell very well because now, in addition to entire music collections, you could have entire movie collections with an optional screen to get good viewing off of.
Of course, later apple could release a "video ipod" model as well with improved video out quality and perhaps a larger built in screen for ipod owners to "upgrade" to when their old ipods finally wear out.
It would be a win win situation for everyone and boost apple's hardware sales across the board.
Statements like these always remind me of the old Tom Hanks movie The Money Pit. "How much longer to finish the house?" "2 more weeks." "You said that 2 weeks ago!"
Say what you will about Gabe and Valve, he is very correct about both systems. In Microsoft's case, they've made things a pain for developers by having two different models with and without a hard drive.
In the case of the PS3 and Cell, it is different enough in design from "traditional" architecture that cross platform development for it is going to be a nightmare.
I've yet to find a single media source that isn't biased. And yes, the BBC is very biased, so is CNN, Fox News, and yup even slashdot.
That's why intelligent viewers look deeper into the stories presented to them, or use multiple sources of information(something they teach you in grade school..or at least did when I was growing up).
http://www.pearljam.com/news.html#082405
Not a perfect deal mind you, but for the price, what you get, and considering no DRM is involved, at least the shows I do get I'll feel like my money was well spent.
Didn't Sony say, back during the PSP launch, that their target market wasn't the same as the DS so they weren't concerned about the DS because it wasn't a "competitor"?
Now, of course, we all knew that was a marketing lie. Sony was just covering their butts for the most likely scenario of the PSP getting some market share but Nintendo still dominating. Which, by the way, is exactly what has happened.
Still, it really is funny to see marketing angles and approaches contradict each other so sharply in the time span of less than a year. It really shows how Sony needs to get their act together as these days they tend to knee jerk react instead of putting together a comprehensive long term plan and stick with it. They hurt themselves more than their competitors ever could alone.
Water implies life *on Earth* but it does not imply life on other planets. To make assumptions based on our knowledge of a single planet is bad science.
Now, based on all we do know, then yes, water being present there makes life, at least as we know it, much more likely to be found. But it is no garantee because we have no factual evidence(alien life). So, it is all speculation.
For all we know, on some planet somewhere, water could be poison to life that developed on it. Until we find alien life, the truth is we just don't know. That's why we look everywhere.
Isn't HD-DVD's one big touted advantage supposed to be, and correct me if I'm recalling wrong here, easy backwards compatability?
It is rather self defeating if its backwards compatable in one way but forces hardware upgrades the other way. This will probably play more against the standard than for it.
That for once these format developers can just agree on a single standard and stick with it. But, I think that will be highly unlikely. They will fight it out at the consumer's expense for a few years then finally settle down on a single format.
By all rights, Blu-ray *should* be the next-gen standard. It is superior in just about every way. Which, studying history, means that HD-DVD will probably win out in the end:P
This was a real classic. I always wondered why they didn't continue the series. Ah well, maybe someday we'll get a more modern update. Regardless, check it out if you have never played.
Really, this issue is getting tiresome. It isn't just parents, it is the ratings system and the developers too.
Yes, absolutely, it is the parents above all else who should be aware of what their children are playing and have them play things they feel are appropriate for their age.
But, the game industry is *not* helping them. And why should they as long as they can get away with it since they make that much more money because of it. The problems are:
- Games are not always properly rated
- Ratings are confusing(why not use the same system as the movie industry?)
- Stores don't enforce ratings, ever.
- Stores don't even advise on ratings hardly ever.
- There are so many games out there all jumbled together, for older parents who are not gamers themselves, its pretty much impossible to tell one thing from another.
Games need to be rated better, the ratings displayed much more prominently, and ratings checked with each sale. This isn't something hard to do and the game industry could do it without a problem, no government intervention needed. The problem is they aren't.
Developers are a problem too. I mean come on, Rockstar was an idiot with this whole sex game thing. They obviously didn't include it in the normal game because they felt it was too much. They should have never left that content in the game. And, if they are bound and determined to make an "adult" game, they need to stop being so half way about it and just make an adult content game.
The government is going to end up getting involved in this unless the industry gets their act together. It is amazing how much of a free pass the game industry has gotten so far actually compared to music and movies. They have been given ample opportunities to just do what they promised: "Self enforce a ratings system". And while I don't want government intervention any more than anyone else, its going to happen and soon if things don't change.
While the whole video sales thing might not end up being successful, at first glance it just seems like a "meh" addition to the Ipod. I don't think any of us would mind having video playback capability, just so long as it is secondary to the main function of the ipod (to play music).
Where this could backfire, however, would be that by allowing videos to be played on the Ipod, Apple would be dramatically increasing the competition they would have to fight against. Up until now the Ipod has done well because it does one thing very well: store and play audio.
By adding video, Apple will need to make sure that their video playback meets the same quality levels as their audio otherwise the consumer perception of the Ipod will begin to faulter. But, Apple has some heavy competition in the portable video playback arena. Sony and their PSP is the first thing that comes to mind. If you begin to lump the Ipod in, device wise, with things like the PSP and portable DVD players, how successful will it continue to be if it isn't "the best".
Keep in mind this is all hypothetical. Video on the Ipod could become a huge success, or just become a feature that is ignored while the Ipod still sells strong as a pure audio device. But, the simple addition of video could come back to haunt Apple too if they are not very careful about how they proceed.
This certainly isn't new, several bands have done this. Actually, the first big name band to ever be involved with any of this was the Smashing Pumpkins. Right before they broke up they put an entire final double album worth of material up on the then "illegal" napster as a "Final f--- you to the record labels."
Other bands have toyed around with online material, sales, and downloads. Pearl Jam has been getting more and more involved with this, especially since their contract ended with Sony. They are pretty much the biggest independant band in the world right now. They have been selling albums, singles, songs, etc online for awhile, always allowed recording in live shows, and have released official boots of every concert since '98.
Still other bands have done things online. I recall NiN did some stuff back around 2000 when they released a bunch of remixes of their songs for free on the internet.
I do agree this is becomming increasingly common though as bands are learning that the internet is a great way to connect with fans and reach out to new listeners while sidestepping the marketing BS of most publishing labels. It's also letting a lot more independant bands get their music out to an audience without having to sell your soul to the RIAA.
Will never take off until ISPs address quality control issues with their services. Up until now, the biggest factor preventing services like this from happening has been prevelance of broadband. Now, with wireless and satelite technologies, combined with the expansion of networks via traditional means, most people have or have access to some form of broadband now. And, most people are switching.
What has not been addressed, however, is how poor many of these ISPs' networks are. For cable TV, if your connection is kind of shoddy, you still *get* tv, the image quality just degrades a tad. But, for broadband services, if you experience loss or latency, you pretty much lose the stream or it degrades so badly that it becomes unviewable.
While there is no denying that services like TV online are going to happen(they are). They will not be successful(or at the very least not be wide spread) until the ISP networks are held to some sort of quality standard.
When DRM requires the purchase of new hardware just for things to work like they used to, then thats when it is going to turn off even the clueless consumer who normally wouldn't care. When it starts biting into people's wallets they always stand up and take notice.
In my case, if my monitor is not "secure" enough, finding a replacement might not be so easy. My monitor is an older CRT that presents a very high quality picture. I use this because I dislike the ghosting and viewing angle issues that, while much improved from how they used to be, are still present in LCD monitors.
The problem is that it is hard to find a decently priced, truly good CRT anymore because most of the industry is switching over to flat panel production. They literally don't make them like they used to anymore.
I'm guessing that this technology is just geared towards people using video outs to TVs and Tivo like devices, but I really don't like the idea of being potentially forced to buy a new monitor just for an operating system. That is pretty rediculous.
Agreed, but I do think the number of legal music downloaders *is* on the rise. It is on the rise from the non-computer savy people who are just now in the process of switching to broadband(yes broadband growth is undergoing the last "big boom" right now). These new average Joe's(my roomate is one of them) pick napster or itunes because:
A) It's convenient.
B) They know its legal so they don't have to worry about it
C) The catalogs and prices are getting friendly enough.
There will *always* be piracy. The idea is to make the legitimate methods more attractive and less hassle and the record companies are slowly succeeding. Now just imagine if they had listened to all of us and done this years ago when they should have instead of suing everyone. They'd probably be in far better shape.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if arrested I can attempt a wild, crazed escape and know that if I am killed in the attempt my clone can stand trial for me instead.
Actually, that is the fundimental point of warfare. To limit the casualties on your side while destroying your opponent's ability to make war. You "win" when your force is able to accomplish their goal.
If you take casualties on *your side* your enemy is reducing your ability to make war, thus your enemy is winning. This was actually the whole reason the cold war happened. The USA and USSR both began building up weapons for a potential war between them.
Eventually both sides reached a point where a war would result in so many casualties on both sides, that neither side would win. Instead it would be a war of mutual extermination. So, if the war happened, both sides would lose. But, if either country backed down, the other would gain superiority and win. So, it was a stalemate. Both sides could only continue preparing for a war that neither could win, in order to *not lose*. In the end, economic instabilities as well as a number of political manuevers caused the USSR to falter and fall apart.
Most people call various expensive remote controlled devices "robots". If I make remote controlled spider vehicle is that any more a robot than a remote controlled plane? Does it have to walk on the ground to be a robot?
Or, is a robot defined by it's AI? If so, how much control does the AI need to have to make it a robot? How sophisticated does it need to be? Depending on how loosely you define AI, you could call some modern cars robots.
Then, after you define "robot" the next question is does the article writer using the same definition as you when they say robot?
It's not that I'm arguing with you so much as I'm just saying the term robot is very "fuzzy" these days, especially in the military arena.
Actually, the scary thing is that this scenario is likely to become a reality. At least "nerds" being the future generation of soldiers. Maybe not for another generation or two of course. But, the whole idea in warfare is to limit the human casualties on your side. This makes remote controlled weaponry ideal. And, given the skills and coordination developed from years of gaming, video gamers would make the ideal drone controllers.
The real long term concern is that if warfare ends up becoming a battle between robots and remote drones, will people finally realize that war has no point anymore? Or, instead, as fictional as *that* version is, will you end up with something like that episode of the original star trek where we vaporize our own people when a computer simulation decides a kill has been made?
Yes, the USA, if I recall properly, has variations of their spy drone planes that are equipped with missle launchers. Likewise, there was an article a few months back about the US getting ready to deploy a heavily armed remote control tank-bot for "testing" in Iraq.
But, to date we have not yet equipped, to public knowledge, a robot with weaponry that is not purely remote controlled. Armed AI robots make people nervous, and for a variety of good reasons given our state of "AI".
Of course, we aren't talking a Skynet situation here(although some day that will likely be technically possible). Its more like not wanting a blue screen of death to literally kill you.
With remote control drones becoming increasingly common, such a device will probably be popular with the military as a way to help secure areas from infiltration by enemy spy drones. Sure it wouldn't be an end all measure as many of these devices also use GPS or something similar. But, it would certainly help.
They would release a firmware update that would enable video playback on all current Ipod models. This would boost customer loyalty, satisfaction, and increase sales of Ipods across the board.
Then, Apple could simultaniously release a new "accessory" for the Ipod. It would be a line of larger portable screens. The screens could have some sort of dock(maybe on the side) that the Ipod could snap into and feed video out to the portable screen while letting you use the clickwheel for control.
Doing something like this would give ipod owners a new "item" to purchase if they so chose. And, I imagine it would sell very well because now, in addition to entire music collections, you could have entire movie collections with an optional screen to get good viewing off of.
Of course, later apple could release a "video ipod" model as well with improved video out quality and perhaps a larger built in screen for ipod owners to "upgrade" to when their old ipods finally wear out.
It would be a win win situation for everyone and boost apple's hardware sales across the board.
Statements like these always remind me of the old Tom Hanks movie The Money Pit. "How much longer to finish the house?" "2 more weeks." "You said that 2 weeks ago!"
Say what you will about Gabe and Valve, he is very correct about both systems. In Microsoft's case, they've made things a pain for developers by having two different models with and without a hard drive.
In the case of the PS3 and Cell, it is different enough in design from "traditional" architecture that cross platform development for it is going to be a nightmare.
I've yet to find a single media source that isn't biased. And yes, the BBC is very biased, so is CNN, Fox News, and yup even slashdot. That's why intelligent viewers look deeper into the stories presented to them, or use multiple sources of information(something they teach you in grade school..or at least did when I was growing up).
http://www.pearljam.com/news.html#082405 Not a perfect deal mind you, but for the price, what you get, and considering no DRM is involved, at least the shows I do get I'll feel like my money was well spent.
Didn't Sony say, back during the PSP launch, that their target market wasn't the same as the DS so they weren't concerned about the DS because it wasn't a "competitor"?
Now, of course, we all knew that was a marketing lie. Sony was just covering their butts for the most likely scenario of the PSP getting some market share but Nintendo still dominating. Which, by the way, is exactly what has happened.
Still, it really is funny to see marketing angles and approaches contradict each other so sharply in the time span of less than a year. It really shows how Sony needs to get their act together as these days they tend to knee jerk react instead of putting together a comprehensive long term plan and stick with it. They hurt themselves more than their competitors ever could alone.
Water implies life *on Earth* but it does not imply life on other planets. To make assumptions based on our knowledge of a single planet is bad science.
Now, based on all we do know, then yes, water being present there makes life, at least as we know it, much more likely to be found. But it is no garantee because we have no factual evidence(alien life). So, it is all speculation.
For all we know, on some planet somewhere, water could be poison to life that developed on it. Until we find alien life, the truth is we just don't know. That's why we look everywhere.
What is really ironic here is....
Isn't HD-DVD's one big touted advantage supposed to be, and correct me if I'm recalling wrong here, easy backwards compatability?
It is rather self defeating if its backwards compatable in one way but forces hardware upgrades the other way. This will probably play more against the standard than for it.
That for once these format developers can just agree on a single standard and stick with it. But, I think that will be highly unlikely. They will fight it out at the consumer's expense for a few years then finally settle down on a single format.
:P
By all rights, Blu-ray *should* be the next-gen standard. It is superior in just about every way. Which, studying history, means that HD-DVD will probably win out in the end
This was a real classic. I always wondered why they didn't continue the series. Ah well, maybe someday we'll get a more modern update. Regardless, check it out if you have never played.
Really, this issue is getting tiresome. It isn't just parents, it is the ratings system and the developers too.
Yes, absolutely, it is the parents above all else who should be aware of what their children are playing and have them play things they feel are appropriate for their age.
But, the game industry is *not* helping them. And why should they as long as they can get away with it since they make that much more money because of it. The problems are:
- Games are not always properly rated
- Ratings are confusing(why not use the same system as the movie industry?)
- Stores don't enforce ratings, ever.
- Stores don't even advise on ratings hardly ever.
- There are so many games out there all jumbled together, for older parents who are not gamers themselves, its pretty much impossible to tell one thing from another.
Games need to be rated better, the ratings displayed much more prominently, and ratings checked with each sale. This isn't something hard to do and the game industry could do it without a problem, no government intervention needed. The problem is they aren't.
Developers are a problem too. I mean come on, Rockstar was an idiot with this whole sex game thing. They obviously didn't include it in the normal game because they felt it was too much. They should have never left that content in the game. And, if they are bound and determined to make an "adult" game, they need to stop being so half way about it and just make an adult content game.
The government is going to end up getting involved in this unless the industry gets their act together. It is amazing how much of a free pass the game industry has gotten so far actually compared to music and movies. They have been given ample opportunities to just do what they promised: "Self enforce a ratings system". And while I don't want government intervention any more than anyone else, its going to happen and soon if things don't change.
That is pretty much exactly how the original dupe bugs worked for Diablo I and II. You'd think after 10+ years they'd learn.
While the whole video sales thing might not end up being successful, at first glance it just seems like a "meh" addition to the Ipod. I don't think any of us would mind having video playback capability, just so long as it is secondary to the main function of the ipod (to play music).
Where this could backfire, however, would be that by allowing videos to be played on the Ipod, Apple would be dramatically increasing the competition they would have to fight against. Up until now the Ipod has done well because it does one thing very well: store and play audio.
By adding video, Apple will need to make sure that their video playback meets the same quality levels as their audio otherwise the consumer perception of the Ipod will begin to faulter. But, Apple has some heavy competition in the portable video playback arena. Sony and their PSP is the first thing that comes to mind. If you begin to lump the Ipod in, device wise, with things like the PSP and portable DVD players, how successful will it continue to be if it isn't "the best".
Keep in mind this is all hypothetical. Video on the Ipod could become a huge success, or just become a feature that is ignored while the Ipod still sells strong as a pure audio device. But, the simple addition of video could come back to haunt Apple too if they are not very careful about how they proceed.
This certainly isn't new, several bands have done this. Actually, the first big name band to ever be involved with any of this was the Smashing Pumpkins. Right before they broke up they put an entire final double album worth of material up on the then "illegal" napster as a "Final f--- you to the record labels."
Other bands have toyed around with online material, sales, and downloads. Pearl Jam has been getting more and more involved with this, especially since their contract ended with Sony. They are pretty much the biggest independant band in the world right now. They have been selling albums, singles, songs, etc online for awhile, always allowed recording in live shows, and have released official boots of every concert since '98.
Still other bands have done things online. I recall NiN did some stuff back around 2000 when they released a bunch of remixes of their songs for free on the internet.
I do agree this is becomming increasingly common though as bands are learning that the internet is a great way to connect with fans and reach out to new listeners while sidestepping the marketing BS of most publishing labels. It's also letting a lot more independant bands get their music out to an audience without having to sell your soul to the RIAA.
No one wanted to keep it. I mean really, this *is* Plan 9 we are talking about here.
Will never take off until ISPs address quality control issues with their services. Up until now, the biggest factor preventing services like this from happening has been prevelance of broadband. Now, with wireless and satelite technologies, combined with the expansion of networks via traditional means, most people have or have access to some form of broadband now. And, most people are switching.
What has not been addressed, however, is how poor many of these ISPs' networks are. For cable TV, if your connection is kind of shoddy, you still *get* tv, the image quality just degrades a tad. But, for broadband services, if you experience loss or latency, you pretty much lose the stream or it degrades so badly that it becomes unviewable.
While there is no denying that services like TV online are going to happen(they are). They will not be successful(or at the very least not be wide spread) until the ISP networks are held to some sort of quality standard.
Sue SCO for emotional distress due to constantly laughing his ass off at them.
He'd have a better chance at winning that too than SCO ever will with their case.
When DRM requires the purchase of new hardware just for things to work like they used to, then thats when it is going to turn off even the clueless consumer who normally wouldn't care. When it starts biting into people's wallets they always stand up and take notice.
In my case, if my monitor is not "secure" enough, finding a replacement might not be so easy. My monitor is an older CRT that presents a very high quality picture. I use this because I dislike the ghosting and viewing angle issues that, while much improved from how they used to be, are still present in LCD monitors.
The problem is that it is hard to find a decently priced, truly good CRT anymore because most of the industry is switching over to flat panel production. They literally don't make them like they used to anymore.
I'm guessing that this technology is just geared towards people using video outs to TVs and Tivo like devices, but I really don't like the idea of being potentially forced to buy a new monitor just for an operating system. That is pretty rediculous.
Agreed, but I do think the number of legal music downloaders *is* on the rise. It is on the rise from the non-computer savy people who are just now in the process of switching to broadband(yes broadband growth is undergoing the last "big boom" right now). These new average Joe's(my roomate is one of them) pick napster or itunes because:
A) It's convenient.
B) They know its legal so they don't have to worry about it
C) The catalogs and prices are getting friendly enough.
There will *always* be piracy. The idea is to make the legitimate methods more attractive and less hassle and the record companies are slowly succeeding. Now just imagine if they had listened to all of us and done this years ago when they should have instead of suing everyone. They'd probably be in far better shape.