FTA:"Geoengineering is no magic bullet, Dr. Cicerone said. But done correctly, he added, it will act like an insurance policy if the world one day faces a crisis of overheating, with repercussions like melting icecaps, droughts, famines, rising sea levels, coastal and flooding..."...not to mention solar powered sentient robots bent on exterminating the human race.
Horror is not necessary to a video game and more than it's necessary to Chess.
Horror as a genre is not needed unless you like that, but fear is.
I could think of a high emotion chess champion game in which you fear loosing in front of thousands of people for example or perhaps a chess game where you have your house or family lives on the line or if you loose that atomic weapons will be unleashed on your nation. Ok... That is a bit extreme. Lets just say you play a game of virtual chess for 1,000,000 of your gold pieces in World of War craft.
Well... Depending on how much you value your virtual gold, you will be sweating it and seriously thinking about each piece you move. Fear is the main reason behind gambling. It makes the game serious and ups the stakes.
Take if like this... Back in the good old days of Ultima Online, I would be dungeon crawling and then a player killer shows up. Now I could run or fight or I could die and loose my things...
Since I know dying will set me back a bit and make me try a frantic run for my gear and loot after I get rezzed, I have to weigh in my options to whether or not running or fighting will be fun.
And if I do run how much of a chance of actually making it out of the dungeon alive?
Of course throughout the years of playing UO there are plenty of times where I have fought and won, ran away, and sometimes died and had my things taken from me.
But the heat of the battle and the knowledge all my loot was on the line was exciting much more so than say fighting an AI monster who I knew I could simply walk away from if I lost too much health.
Also this applies to FPS games... Everyone was used to the Quake system in which you died and then you instantly respawned without much fear of dying.
However, when Counter-Strike came along you actually got scared of dying because not only did you loose the weapons you saved up money for buying, but you had to sit the rest of the round out until one side one.
That is the best formula for playing any game that is for those who want to fill that "gambler's buzz". The player must have some type of risk in where if they loose they will be punished and loose whatever they had previously worked on.
Personally, as comforting as save games and not loosing your items in MMOGs, a player must face some type of punishment for loosing.
There must be some fear of loosing otherwise we will get bored of a game like it had god mode turned on.
But I would also like to point out if that punishment for loosing is too great, then the game gets pretty tedious pretty fast (otherwise known as loosing over 15 hours worth of leveling when you die at level 59 in EQ arrrrgh!!!!)
Why would I buy ammunition that's designed to fail to shoot sometimes?
Because when this happens (perhaps), those will be the only bullets you're legally allowed to buy?
I mean, if you can't outlaw guns because of the 2nd amendment, perhaps that could simply be bypassed by requiring all guns to have encryption codes that each person has to be approved by the government... And of course it would be against the law to bypass the DRM encryption because of the DMCA.
Don't get me wrong, I like what they've done so far, but is it possible for a company to expand beyond a certain critical mass and still stick to the operating principle "Don't Be Evil"?
Well, depends... Do you believe the average human is good or evil? And does a good person have what it takes to recognize evil when he sees it? And if people at Google are above average and already good, can they continue to hire and be able to only hire "good" people.
I just hope the Geegees aren't going to turn nasty and suddenly warrant a big anti-monopoly order or somesuch. I just couldn't take the smug look on Bill's face...
I doubt it would be smug because if anyone gets taken to court over monopoly issues it means Microsoft is fair game or that Microsoft is no longer a monopoly (aka moot point).
Maybe not. But there is that rare occasion where you suddenly need 100% brain power to make a quick decision.
That isn't determined by what you are doing, but rather your ability of your mind. People like to think we are equal, but a common neuroscientist will point out that this is pre-determined by education, genetics, and diet. Oh and don't forget health and sleep.
A person talking on a cell phone who is well rested and well fed is less dangerous than a guy who has no sleep for over 24 hours and is compensating with caffeine for example and hasn't had a bite to eat all day.
The truth of this matter is that banning cell phones while driving is kind of an unequal kind of issue. Some people are qualified and can multi-task and use them, while others are not so up to the task. However, we don't really have a good test to determine this... (Perhaps a hand eye cordination test) so people complain and have to ban the whole product.
However, the real truth of the matter is that American multi-task way too much than their European counterparts. For example, in Germany they don't have cup holders. It is the common belief that when you drive, you just drive and nothing else.
Of course distances are shorter there as well... Here we have radios, mp3 players, food, other people, cell phones and everything else. Some people need 100% of brain power to focus while some people are still better than that with just a fraction of focus.
Some people are more natural multi-taskers than others and depending on what kind of condition you are in.
So bank robbery is good for their security and should be encouraged? Everyone who moves to a new city should be immediately mugged so they can learn valuable lessons about personal security? Perhaps there should be an official quota of licensed murders so people don't get too lax about their own safety?
Look... I live in a city which has had over 300 murders last year, god knows how many rapes, and roberies are common place.
Not to exscuse the criminal, but these things happen and that is why most banks here have bullet proof glass, houses have bars over them, and you are going to be called a fool for walking around town at 2am with more than $100 of cash on you.
Think of it like this. You can't control the criminals if and when they strike, but you can minimize the damage if they try. Its like installing anti-virus programs before you get the virus or maybe just using OS X.
but there's a cost when you join: you're eaten alive by grammar and spelling nazis if you don't post correctly, you're eaten alive by an "expert" if you say something technically wrong, you receive negative mod points and get ignored, etc.
Really? I was under the impression it was the other way around? Or rather... One of the reasons we have meta-moderation systems because Mods were doing the opposite of what you are saying.
I just look down the road and on the news; the 'everyone elses fault except my own' syndrome.
Because there might be a high chance that we have no free will to begin with... Or rather we must believe in free will because we have no other choice, yet if you look at the big picture of our existence then we were simply destined to do these things such as me writing this for example and anyone who finds the had to reply to this and say "Free will exists!". Well you were just destined to do that but sure luck, fate, chance, or some other awkward destiny in the chaos fabric of time... But I digress.
There are people on the benefit having children, knowing full well they don't have the funds to pay for the associated costs, we have couples having more children than they can afford, then demanding that the tax payer for the bill for their lifestyle choice.
I think having children to begin with should be limited to one child per couple and perhaps the government should pay mean $1,000 if they volunteer to have a vasectomy. However, wanting to have children is another one of those ingrained natural insticts that people refuse to believe in. After all... After several hundred million years of having evolution, we are simply programmed to desire to have as much sex as possible and have as many children as we can. We actually get measurable joy in this and our natural reaction to someone saying "Don't have kids!" is rejection and disgust.
That is because most humans have no understanding of their programming and natural desires.
In truth, the only way to be free of these things is to become an Ascetic or Buddhist.
If everyone on the planet only worked 20 hours a week, and relied on technology and handouts for food and clothing, there would be no technology, no clothes and no food.
Well... Once we have strong AI and general application robotics, no one will have to work ever again and technology will propagate itself.
Of course the technology may see the need to phase out the people who aren't working, but who am I to argue with a sentient robot with the collective thinking power of all humans that ever lived and will live.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree but your post implies that there is an alternative to Capitalism that is hand in hand with positive morality. Please tell us what that is.
I would debate that Capitalism will be replaced by Technocratism in about 100-500 or so years.
Not becaues Capitalism is bad or anything, but because a Technological Singularity will make it a moot point.
When you have the technology to produce or simulate anything that you could buy through virtual reality then what is the point of paying for it.
Of course their might bit a galactic war over DRM and IP property rights but if they go so does capitalism.
And where do you get "fascist" from? Do you even know what that word means?
To be fair, fascist just mean some one who believes in a strong powerful government over everything else. We just made it a dirty word after WWII because Itality referred themselves as such.
Of course National Socialism isn't a bad economic policy for a government to have either, but no one would dare use the phrase when talking about modern day governments.
But still it derides the point that our economy is most likley doing really good right now because of massive military and government spending... Actually kind of like National Socialist Germany in the 1930's. However, such an economy is not sustainable in the long term.
Germany invaded other countries and looted them and used slave labor to make up for this problem, wheras our war economy just throws it into the big pile of national debt and sell it off to China, Japan, and other places.
If tomorrow Japan and China decide to either A.) Stop buying debt or B.) Demand their debts back ASAP we'd be hosed.
Of course they'd be hosed too when the world market economy collapses so for right now they keep buying and profiting on our massive spending.
Yahoo may offer a shortcut to victory (or at least a more even fight).
I dunno... To put an anology on this, it would be like China invading India so they could install a puppet government in India to fight against Russia when India was already at war with Russia.
It really doesn't make much sense other than to make an even bigger over extended Indo-China nation to fight Russia especially when the Indian's aren't going to be loyal to their new Chinese rulers.
And secondly, all the resources and effort spent on invading India hasn't affected Russia in the slightest.
Russia is still there and hasn't been hurt one bit by China's war on India, and sure fighting both.
I remember downloading Quake on my brand new Pentium 133 with 32mb of ram laptop on an ultra fast 56K modem!
I remember getting fragged all the time by ISDN guys though because my crappy connection, but then I went to college and got a T1, but by then Quake 2 came out and the fun happened all over again.
Huh? From the perspective of the publisher, that sounds like an ideal situation. Maybe a starry-eyed idealist programmer would agree with you, but to the bean counters, expensive frequently purchased trinkets is exactly what should be done.
At least until all your customers associates your corporate logo with a warning sign of the plague.
Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes) the only one you have to blame for buying a Britney Spears (or whatever) CD with DRM is yourself.
I suppose the Americans could have just not bought Tea to avoid the tax as well.
No need to declare independence over silly taxes when they could just not buy tea, right?
Seriously, its the principle of the idea that is offensive to our rights as citizens.
Then again... Maybe we should have people go into stores and throw Britney Spears cds into the local harbor. That would kill two birds with one stone.
My suggestion (and I've seen a relative who does DV do this) is to get an SKB rackmount case with wheels ( you know the ones you see the roadees use at concerts) and put your rackmounts in there. That way you can wheel it around if need be and it won't get too banged up when you travel with it.
Laptops won't really do well for ecoding on the fly.
The problem here is the reaction of her superiors on the library board who apparently believed she should have given the police whatever they wanted without question.
I'm sure my employers would love for me to murder a few of our customers and take their money and give it to the company, but you know... Not going to jail trumps my Christmas bonus.
Don't worry about the rising sea levels that happened during these cycles. Just because the sea level during these times hundreds of thousands of years ago was at 50-100 ft above where it is now, doesn't mean the world will end. Heck... You could ignore the problem and pretend global warming won't hurt us since it isn't man made. Besides...
The market will sort it out.
Signed, The Voice of Libertarianism
PS
I have some beach front property in Tenneesse that will open up in 50 years if you are interested.
Now, legislative power is a means to protect life in this case, therefore it is entirely sensible that it be used for such a purpose.
However embryos are not sentient life in a sense. They have as much life as the cells in our bodies are alive, but they obviously they do not have thoughts, language, or much of a conciousness.
They don't have any opinions of life, death, or suffering for that matter and cannot comprehend such concepts as much as my finger could by itself.
They may of course have a soul and that is open to theological debate, but if that were the case aren't these souls more open to going to heaven? Or perhaps reincarnation?
Surely a kind, good, and loving god would not send these souls to hell for something they have no control over?
As the saying goes "God knows what we must do here. Otherwise he is not a god."
Apologies to whoever wrote the Kingdom of Heaven script.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA:"Geoengineering is no magic bullet, Dr. Cicerone said. But done correctly, he added, it will act like an insurance policy if the world one day faces a crisis of overheating, with repercussions like melting icecaps, droughts, famines, rising sea levels, coastal and flooding..." ...not to mention solar powered sentient robots bent on exterminating the human race.
Horror is not necessary to a video game and more than it's necessary to Chess.
Horror as a genre is not needed unless you like that, but fear is.
I could think of a high emotion chess champion game in which you fear loosing in front of thousands of people for example or perhaps a chess game where you have your house or family lives on the line or if you loose that atomic weapons will be unleashed on your nation. Ok... That is a bit extreme. Lets just say you play a game of virtual chess for 1,000,000 of your gold pieces in World of War craft.
Well... Depending on how much you value your virtual gold, you will be sweating it and seriously thinking about each piece you move. Fear is the main reason behind gambling. It makes the game serious and ups the stakes.
Take if like this... Back in the good old days of Ultima Online, I would be dungeon crawling and then a player killer shows up. Now I could run or fight or I could die and loose my things...
Since I know dying will set me back a bit and make me try a frantic run for my gear and loot after I get rezzed, I have to weigh in my options to whether or not running or fighting will be fun.
And if I do run how much of a chance of actually making it out of the dungeon alive?
Of course throughout the years of playing UO there are plenty of times where I have fought and won, ran away, and sometimes died and had my things taken from me.
But the heat of the battle and the knowledge all my loot was on the line was exciting much more so than say fighting an AI monster who I knew I could simply walk away from if I lost too much health.
Also this applies to FPS games... Everyone was used to the Quake system in which you died and then you instantly respawned without much fear of dying.
However, when Counter-Strike came along you actually got scared of dying because not only did you loose the weapons you saved up money for buying, but you had to sit the rest of the round out until one side one.
That is the best formula for playing any game that is for those who want to fill that "gambler's buzz". The player must have some type of risk in where if they loose they will be punished and loose whatever they had previously worked on.
Personally, as comforting as save games and not loosing your items in MMOGs, a player must face some type of punishment for loosing.
There must be some fear of loosing otherwise we will get bored of a game like it had god mode turned on.
But I would also like to point out if that punishment for loosing is too great, then the game gets pretty tedious pretty fast (otherwise known as loosing over 15 hours worth of leveling when you die at level 59 in EQ arrrrgh!!!!)
Why would I buy ammunition that's designed to fail to shoot sometimes?
Because when this happens (perhaps), those will be the only bullets you're legally allowed to buy?
I mean, if you can't outlaw guns because of the 2nd amendment, perhaps that could simply be bypassed by requiring all guns to have encryption codes that each person has to be approved by the government... And of course it would be against the law to bypass the DRM encryption because of the DMCA.
Don't get me wrong, I like what they've done so far, but is it possible for a company to expand beyond a certain critical mass and still stick to the operating principle "Don't Be Evil"?
Well, depends... Do you believe the average human is good or evil? And does a good person have what it takes to recognize evil when he sees it? And if people at Google are above average and already good, can they continue to hire and be able to only hire "good" people.
I just hope the Geegees aren't going to turn nasty and suddenly warrant a big anti-monopoly order or somesuch. I just couldn't take the smug look on Bill's face...
I doubt it would be smug because if anyone gets taken to court over monopoly issues it means Microsoft is fair game or that Microsoft is no longer a monopoly (aka moot point).
Maybe not. But there is that rare occasion where you suddenly need 100% brain power to make a quick decision.
That isn't determined by what you are doing, but rather your ability of your mind. People like to think we are equal, but a common neuroscientist will point out that this is pre-determined by education, genetics, and diet. Oh and don't forget health and sleep.
A person talking on a cell phone who is well rested and well fed is less dangerous than a guy who has no sleep for over 24 hours and is compensating with caffeine for example and hasn't had a bite to eat all day.
The truth of this matter is that banning cell phones while driving is kind of an unequal kind of issue. Some people are qualified and can multi-task and use them, while others are not so up to the task. However, we don't really have a good test to determine this... (Perhaps a hand eye cordination test) so people complain and have to ban the whole product.
However, the real truth of the matter is that American multi-task way too much than their European counterparts. For example, in Germany they don't have cup holders. It is the common belief that when you drive, you just drive and nothing else.
Of course distances are shorter there as well... Here we have radios, mp3 players, food, other people, cell phones and everything else. Some people need 100% of brain power to focus while some people are still better than that with just a fraction of focus.
Some people are more natural multi-taskers than others and depending on what kind of condition you are in.
I for one cannot multi-task on an empty stomach.
So bank robbery is good for their security and should be encouraged? Everyone who moves to a new city should be immediately mugged so they can learn valuable lessons about personal security? Perhaps there should be an official quota of licensed murders so people don't get too lax about their own safety?
Look... I live in a city which has had over 300 murders last year, god knows how many rapes, and roberies are common place.
Not to exscuse the criminal, but these things happen and that is why most banks here have bullet proof glass, houses have bars over them, and you are going to be called a fool for walking around town at 2am with more than $100 of cash on you.
Think of it like this. You can't control the criminals if and when they strike, but you can minimize the damage if they try. Its like installing anti-virus programs before you get the virus or maybe just using OS X.
but there's a cost when you join: you're eaten alive by grammar and spelling nazis if you don't post correctly, you're eaten alive by an "expert" if you say something technically wrong, you receive negative mod points and get ignored, etc.
Really? I was under the impression it was the other way around? Or rather... One of the reasons we have meta-moderation systems because Mods were doing the opposite of what you are saying.
either he is a very stupid hacker or a very good troll who has nothing to do with this inccident
I mean all it would take a phone call to Livejournal to get him banned and have him turn over his IP and be tracked down to his ISP.
I just look down the road and on the news; the 'everyone elses fault except my own' syndrome.
Because there might be a high chance that we have no free will to begin with... Or rather we must believe in free will because we have no other choice, yet if you look at the big picture of our existence then we were simply destined to do these things such as me writing this for example and anyone who finds the had to reply to this and say "Free will exists!". Well you were just destined to do that but sure luck, fate, chance, or some other awkward destiny in the chaos fabric of time... But I digress.
There are people on the benefit having children, knowing full well they don't have the funds to pay for the associated costs, we have couples having more children than they can afford, then demanding that the tax payer for the bill for their lifestyle choice.
I think having children to begin with should be limited to one child per couple and perhaps the government should pay mean $1,000 if they volunteer to have a vasectomy. However, wanting to have children is another one of those ingrained natural insticts that people refuse to believe in. After all... After several hundred million years of having evolution, we are simply programmed to desire to have as much sex as possible and have as many children as we can. We actually get measurable joy in this and our natural reaction to someone saying "Don't have kids!" is rejection and disgust.
That is because most humans have no understanding of their programming and natural desires.
In truth, the only way to be free of these things is to become an Ascetic or Buddhist.
If everyone on the planet only worked 20 hours a week, and relied on technology and handouts for food and clothing, there would be no technology, no clothes and no food.
Well... Once we have strong AI and general application robotics, no one will have to work ever again and technology will propagate itself.
Of course the technology may see the need to phase out the people who aren't working, but who am I to argue with a sentient robot with the collective thinking power of all humans that ever lived and will live.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree but your post implies that there is an alternative to Capitalism that is hand in hand with positive morality. Please tell us what that is.
I would debate that Capitalism will be replaced by Technocratism in about 100-500 or so years.
Not becaues Capitalism is bad or anything, but because a Technological Singularity will make it a moot point.
When you have the technology to produce or simulate anything that you could buy through virtual reality then what is the point of paying for it.
Of course their might bit a galactic war over DRM and IP property rights but if they go so does capitalism.
And where do you get "fascist" from? Do you even know what that word means?
To be fair, fascist just mean some one who believes in a strong powerful government over everything else. We just made it a dirty word after WWII because Itality referred themselves as such.
Of course National Socialism isn't a bad economic policy for a government to have either, but no one would dare use the phrase when talking about modern day governments.
But still it derides the point that our economy is most likley doing really good right now because of massive military and government spending... Actually kind of like National Socialist Germany in the 1930's. However, such an economy is not sustainable in the long term.
Germany invaded other countries and looted them and used slave labor to make up for this problem, wheras our war economy just throws it into the big pile of national debt and sell it off to China, Japan, and other places.
If tomorrow Japan and China decide to either A.) Stop buying debt or B.) Demand their debts back ASAP we'd be hosed.
Of course they'd be hosed too when the world market economy collapses so for right now they keep buying and profiting on our massive spending.
Yahoo may offer a shortcut to victory (or at least a more even fight).
I dunno... To put an anology on this, it would be like China invading India so they could install a puppet government in India to fight against Russia when India was already at war with Russia.
It really doesn't make much sense other than to make an even bigger over extended Indo-China nation to fight Russia especially when the Indian's aren't going to be loyal to their new Chinese rulers.
And secondly, all the resources and effort spent on invading India hasn't affected Russia in the slightest.
Russia is still there and hasn't been hurt one bit by China's war on India, and sure fighting both.
Damn I feel old.
I remember downloading Quake on my brand new Pentium 133 with 32mb of ram laptop on an ultra fast 56K modem!
I remember getting fragged all the time by ISDN guys though because my crappy connection, but then I went to college and got a T1, but by then Quake 2 came out and the fun happened all over again.
That is not much representation for an expert panel. No offense, but I prefer to know what is stirring around in Larry's and Sergey's little noggins.
Well... They invited them, but they were too busy actually working than going to pointless conferences. That and counting money.
Huh? From the perspective of the publisher, that sounds like an ideal situation. Maybe a starry-eyed idealist programmer would agree with you, but to the bean counters, expensive frequently purchased trinkets is exactly what should be done.
At least until all your customers associates your corporate logo with a warning sign of the plague.
What do you do for haricuts?
This is slashdot. You shouldn't be asking such questions...
Unless you are very brave.
These don't look like RIAA executive numbers to me...these look like the numbers of elected officials in washington?
Oh... Our bad. We thought you were looking for RIAA Executive lackies? Not the Exceutives themselves.
Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes) the only one you have to blame for buying a Britney Spears (or whatever) CD with DRM is yourself.
I suppose the Americans could have just not bought Tea to avoid the tax as well.
No need to declare independence over silly taxes when they could just not buy tea, right?
Seriously, its the principle of the idea that is offensive to our rights as citizens.
Then again... Maybe we should have people go into stores and throw Britney Spears cds into the local harbor. That would kill two birds with one stone.
Yeah... What the parent said.
My suggestion (and I've seen a relative who does DV do this) is to get an SKB rackmount case with wheels ( you know the ones you see the roadees use at concerts) and put your rackmounts in there. That way you can wheel it around if need be and it won't get too banged up when you travel with it.
Laptops won't really do well for ecoding on the fly.
The problem here is the reaction of her superiors on the library board who apparently believed she should have given the police whatever they wanted without question.
I'm sure my employers would love for me to murder a few of our customers and take their money and give it to the company, but you know... Not going to jail trumps my Christmas bonus.
The police are out there busting their hump, protecting you and me. 99% of them are good
Apparently you've never been pulled over by a cop in Georgia.
Because about 400 years ago we had people like Gabriel Fehrenheit, Anders Celsius, and Sir Isaac Newton doing a great deal of work on recording temperatures and standardizing it.
Not to mention the Royal Navy has been keeping log books of temperatures, weather, and various other scientific readings world wide during this time.
To: Knee-Jerk Republican
Don't worry about the rising sea levels that happened during these cycles. Just because the sea level during these times hundreds of thousands of years ago was at 50-100 ft above where it is now, doesn't mean the world will end. Heck... You could ignore the problem and pretend global warming won't hurt us since it isn't man made. Besides...
The market will sort it out.
Signed,
The Voice of Libertarianism
PS
I have some beach front property in Tenneesse that will open up in 50 years if you are interested.
Now, legislative power is a means to protect life in this case, therefore it is entirely sensible that it be used for such a purpose.
However embryos are not sentient life in a sense. They have as much life as the cells in our bodies are alive, but they obviously they do not have thoughts, language, or much of a conciousness.
They don't have any opinions of life, death, or suffering for that matter and cannot comprehend such concepts as much as my finger could by itself.
They may of course have a soul and that is open to theological debate, but if that were the case aren't these souls more open to going to heaven? Or perhaps reincarnation?
Surely a kind, good, and loving god would not send these souls to hell for something they have no control over?
As the saying goes "God knows what we must do here. Otherwise he is not a god."
Apologies to whoever wrote the Kingdom of Heaven script.