My point is by implementing a law like this you are shifting responsibility from the driver back to the pedestrian. If only by implication. By having this law in place we are relieving the responsibility of safe and highly-aware driving. Even if just by a little bit.
Of course I know that most drivers aren't highly-aware. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it's one of the goals of successfully operating a vehicle. Though, hitting things with your car is always fun.
Yes, I will accept a backup beeper. But for a car moving forward? That's dumb. Here's a tip, look in the road before you cross. And if you're blind, you should be waiting at a damn crosswalk. Jaywalking is illegal for us seeing-folk, too. Likewise, you're far more liable to notice something in front of you than in back.
And my BIGGEST complaint: Drivers should be responsible for avoiding pedestrians. Not the other way around.
It's bad form to reply to myself but I recommend the ProAna glasses. After doing research I found that these were on the higher end of the quality list.
Really? Go get yourself a pair of glasses off Amazon (I paid 10 bucks for 4 sets and one of them is sunglasses shaped!) and download IZ3D's software. Anaglyph Drivers
This solution has a bit of ghosting on my TN displays (yeah, 3D+Eyefinity) but would probably work a lot better on a nice IPS or an OLED screen. The more accurate your color reproduction, the closer it ought to be (you can likely manipulate it to better suit your glasses).
On glasses. There are two basic types. You have gel types, which often come with comic books. These things are crap and block out much of the color, but because there's some overlap in blockage you don't see ghosting effects. The other type are acrylic. These tend to have a bit less crossover and that leaves room for ghosting. But likewise, you have good color reproduction. I'm pretty impressed with how easily I can differentiate colors on this.
Go, have fun! And don't forget to lower the settings on Crysis. Yikes, on 3 screens that ate and digested my 5870 right quick. I had a large pile of poop I fondly call my computer sitting by my feet for about 45 seconds before the video settings menu finally loaded.
Haha, sorry, I was REALLY high when I typed that. Anyway, my point is that you reduce it to the point of absurdity. It's easier to say with the Latin phrase. Unfortunately, my spell check lacks Latin and I'm lazy. But that doesn't excuse you from being a dick. 3
While I do hate this strategy, showing the obvious fallacies of a system by pushing it to its limits is one of the more effective ways. Reductum ad absurdum is not simply a logical argument but an overall strategy that can be applied to demonstrate scalable effectiveness of a system. I know we shouldn't expect a system to scale perfect but in this case the system seems to not scale very well at all.
Also, I'd like for it to now be legally disallowed to use the term "buy software" in a commercial context as it no longer applies and would falsely advertise what it is that we "purchase".
Eck, it's a close race, folks. But it looks like Darkness404 is winning by a hair!
But seriously, do you think IT can batch out data on an iPad? Maybe someone will make an "app for that" but I doubt it as that would likely violate a lot of Apple's policies. Apple would have to make special modifications before this would require "less labor".
Oh yes, speaking of, what is this labor you're talking about? The cost of manufacturing books, perhaps? Either way, what matters here is the cost to the school, since that is the budget in focus.
In this respect, the way we're going to see changes is by pulling power away from the publishers. With all the money that schools spend on books, it would be better to group that money on a national level and have it all invested in writing books that are distributed freely (through our tax dollars*) to any and all. This would be particularly effective for subjects that change slowly over time.
Which leads me to my next point. There's this trend that school boards seem to follow in which they believe that newer material is somewhere necessarily written better. While it MAY be written better, this is seldom the case. Why are there so many new textbook revisions for math books? It's all to make money. And that money comes straight from the school's budget.
The point being, there isn't any money to necessarily be saved here. This experiment seems to be one of effectiveness. Though, unfortunately, there don't seem to be any real benefits to giving every kid an iPad outside of Apple's stock going up, every kid knowing how to play games on an iPad, and the weight of the average backpack dropping by an order of magnitude. But outside of that? Nada. This isn't a fiscally intelligent move. This is an experiment.
Also, Kindles would have been cheaper and more useful due to battery life.;)
Honestly, I doubt we'll ever code an entire Human brain. What he says seems to have truth to it except that there's a huge jump between genome coding and the manner in which computer coding works. I feel it's likely that the amount of code written to simulate the brain will be vastly overwhelmed by the amount of information that the code itself must generate to form a fully functional brain. I don't see AI progressing without extensive use of generative scripting. We'd likely have to create a program that simulates the development of the brain first, and then let it run until we have a fully functioning brain. The fully functioning brain should end up being far more complex than the original code.
1 million lines of code? Maybe if it was done VERY elegantly.
Shit, when I pirate I do it en-masse. I don't ever tend to think "Oh, I'm going to pirate this game!" It usually comes down to me taking time out to get all the torrents going. I go through and try various ones. But most of all I end up buying the games I truly appreciated that fit a fair price point. The Steam sale caused me to buy a lot of games I've already beaten.
But yes, I will fess up. A large number of things I've pirated I've never used. Data is data and it's easy to get. And once you know how, what stops you? Harddrive space and bandwidth...
I think the issue is that the demographics aim towards parents with larger quantities of disposable income. I usually pirate games. My game-purchasing-densite-rate (new unit!) skyrocketed during Steam's summer sale. I must have spent about 100 bucks overall. They need to target college kids and young adults that have free time they'd like to spend playing games but don't have the money to purchase.
Another huge issue in the PC world is lack of appropriate co-op. Co-optimus is a good site for finding co-op PC games but there are so few. What I mean by this is multiple controllers plugged into the PC and the PC basically being used as a console. Hook it up to your TV, projectors, multi-screen setup, or whatever. But instead, my friends and I all need copies of the game. That's why I bought 4 copies of Borderlands for 30 bucks during the sale. These games would be more worth buying if more people could play it.
As an Eyefinity (trip-screen) user and PC gamer I'm somewhat appalled by the deterioration in PC quality that has occurred through the shift towards consoles. Where are my split-screen games? It's not like you can't take any console controller and plug it into a PC.
This is mildly offtopic but this is a problem for me as well. After a driver rides their brakes long enough I start ignoring it because it's the change in intensity that cues me to slow down. I will miss it entirely if I'm not paying attention to the actual speed of the car, which I need at least 2 instances to discern. You won't be able to judge a car's speed to any decent degree without about a second of time.
So I ask, why don't we have analog brake lights? There should be a bar or a light of shifting intensity to determine how hard the user is applying the brakes. This would allow drivers behind them to be acutely aware of how hard they have to put on their brakes to maintain a similar distance. It's especially problematic these days as a LOT of people are riding their brakes. I see brakelights on all the time without cars slowing down.
This isn't true at all. Chernobyl happened because they shut off the safeties and ran the reactor at over 100%. Of course the damn thing blew up! We've since gone through TWO full generations of nuclear technology. We will NOT see another Chernobyl happened because no one is going to be dumb enough to try that experiment again. Another point I'd like to make is that (I'm fairly certain) nuclear power stations have greater potential to generate electricity and, in turn, we'll need less nuclear plants as compared to coal plants to output the same amount of power
Unfortunately, those numbers aren't very useful. Due to the wide range of IQ tests and the lack of standards, "140" on their test could be 90th percentile. You simply can't be sure. The test you bring up differs from Stanford Binet. Marginally, but it's still there. Percentile would have been more appropriate (and has always been) to show.
I wish I had as much faith in the power of boycotts as you do. But the market or supply and demand works both ways. And there's a plenty large supply of customers that won't boycott.
I don't think I'm trying to imply a moral high ground. I'm merely alluding to the fact that the video game market could probably find a peak in their price curve somewhere on the lower end. People have limited budgets and by charging more companies are requiring consumers to minimize the number of available choices they can make. It was reported here not long ago that EA spends 60% of their budget on marketing. If new games cost only 30 dollars, which would trim the budget more than reasonable but work with me here, people could buy twice as many games.:o It would also be easier to get the margin in terms of percentage higher. This would allow for more profit. I feel that this is all so because the gaming world has reached market saturation. So, if it's saturated and users suddenly become able to pick more options, with higher margins, that equals more money flying into the companies' wallets. I'm just surprised some publishers don't go trying to undercut their competition by charging a better price and producing a similar product.
I'd also like to point out that many pirates pirate because they feel the price of the game is set too high to purchase and would purchase it at some lower price point that the consumer feels is reasonable. If companies could accurately price things according to how much people would pay, there would be absolutely no problems with piracy as everyone else wouldn't have paid shit for it anyway.
Sorry about the long response. It's a waken'bake kinda morning.;)
Their sale is the reason why I've purchased about 8 games in the last few days whereas I prefer to pirate usually. Christ, I even bought games I already pirated that I felt were worth paying for. I gave developers money based off of my preference to see them create more material. I'd like to point to myself as a good example as to why the price curve is too high for video games. I'm not spending 60 bucks (takes over 6 hours to make on my measly wage) on a video game that I'm unsure of! Am I supposed to be an idiot or something!?
I'm not saying that IE is more secure, but it's old, it's trusted, and it's backed by a major corporation.
IE is TRUSTED!? That can't be true. And something makes me doubt IE6 is "backed by a major corporation" as Microsoft has been dropping legacy support like a hot potato.
Speaking as an Eyefinity user, the two bigger problems with games that can handle the higher resolutions are thus:
1. Having the HUD anywhere that's not the main screen unless it's definitely peripheral and not necessary to be looking at constantly.
2. Games are expecting a flat screen and product an image that reflects this. Games should take into account the angles of the new monitors and adjust the FOV to accurately reflect what the user can see, rather than give high FOVs on smaller monitors. Otherwise this nasty stretching occurs on the very edges of monitors and things like very out of proportion. One hack may be to produce 3 cameras in game and have 3 different viewports. The cameras would be angled in relation to the monitors.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is by implementing a law like this you are shifting responsibility from the driver back to the pedestrian. If only by implication. By having this law in place we are relieving the responsibility of safe and highly-aware driving. Even if just by a little bit.
Of course I know that most drivers aren't highly-aware. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it's one of the goals of successfully operating a vehicle. Though, hitting things with your car is always fun.
Yes, I will accept a backup beeper. But for a car moving forward? That's dumb. Here's a tip, look in the road before you cross. And if you're blind, you should be waiting at a damn crosswalk. Jaywalking is illegal for us seeing-folk, too. Likewise, you're far more liable to notice something in front of you than in back.
And my BIGGEST complaint: Drivers should be responsible for avoiding pedestrians. Not the other way around.
Thanks for this. Just found out I was affected without having to grab the torrent. Exactly what the description on the table says. :P
It's bad form to reply to myself but I recommend the ProAna glasses. After doing research I found that these were on the higher end of the quality list.
First new word I leaned today: Anaglyph
Really? Go get yourself a pair of glasses off Amazon (I paid 10 bucks for 4 sets and one of them is sunglasses shaped!) and download IZ3D's software.
Anaglyph Drivers
This solution has a bit of ghosting on my TN displays (yeah, 3D+Eyefinity) but would probably work a lot better on a nice IPS or an OLED screen. The more accurate your color reproduction, the closer it ought to be (you can likely manipulate it to better suit your glasses).
On glasses. There are two basic types. You have gel types, which often come with comic books. These things are crap and block out much of the color, but because there's some overlap in blockage you don't see ghosting effects. The other type are acrylic. These tend to have a bit less crossover and that leaves room for ghosting. But likewise, you have good color reproduction. I'm pretty impressed with how easily I can differentiate colors on this.
Go, have fun! And don't forget to lower the settings on Crysis. Yikes, on 3 screens that ate and digested my 5870 right quick. I had a large pile of poop I fondly call my computer sitting by my feet for about 45 seconds before the video settings menu finally loaded.
ellowell wut budjet dehfeesit?
Haha, sorry, I was REALLY high when I typed that. Anyway, my point is that you reduce it to the point of absurdity. It's easier to say with the Latin phrase. Unfortunately, my spell check lacks Latin and I'm lazy. But that doesn't excuse you from being a dick. 3
But not many people believe that yet. :(
While I do hate this strategy, showing the obvious fallacies of a system by pushing it to its limits is one of the more effective ways. Reductum ad absurdum is not simply a logical argument but an overall strategy that can be applied to demonstrate scalable effectiveness of a system. I know we shouldn't expect a system to scale perfect but in this case the system seems to not scale very well at all.
Also, I'd like for it to now be legally disallowed to use the term "buy software" in a commercial context as it no longer applies and would falsely advertise what it is that we "purchase".
Darkness404 (1287218)
;)
Old97 (1341297)
Eck, it's a close race, folks. But it looks like Darkness404 is winning by a hair!
But seriously, do you think IT can batch out data on an iPad? Maybe someone will make an "app for that" but I doubt it as that would likely violate a lot of Apple's policies. Apple would have to make special modifications before this would require "less labor".
Oh yes, speaking of, what is this labor you're talking about? The cost of manufacturing books, perhaps? Either way, what matters here is the cost to the school, since that is the budget in focus.
In this respect, the way we're going to see changes is by pulling power away from the publishers. With all the money that schools spend on books, it would be better to group that money on a national level and have it all invested in writing books that are distributed freely (through our tax dollars*) to any and all. This would be particularly effective for subjects that change slowly over time.
Which leads me to my next point. There's this trend that school boards seem to follow in which they believe that newer material is somewhere necessarily written better. While it MAY be written better, this is seldom the case. Why are there so many new textbook revisions for math books? It's all to make money. And that money comes straight from the school's budget.
The point being, there isn't any money to necessarily be saved here. This experiment seems to be one of effectiveness. Though, unfortunately, there don't seem to be any real benefits to giving every kid an iPad outside of Apple's stock going up, every kid knowing how to play games on an iPad, and the weight of the average backpack dropping by an order of magnitude. But outside of that? Nada. This isn't a fiscally intelligent move. This is an experiment.
Also, Kindles would have been cheaper and more useful due to battery life.
Honestly, I doubt we'll ever code an entire Human brain. What he says seems to have truth to it except that there's a huge jump between genome coding and the manner in which computer coding works. I feel it's likely that the amount of code written to simulate the brain will be vastly overwhelmed by the amount of information that the code itself must generate to form a fully functional brain. I don't see AI progressing without extensive use of generative scripting. We'd likely have to create a program that simulates the development of the brain first, and then let it run until we have a fully functioning brain. The fully functioning brain should end up being far more complex than the original code.
1 million lines of code? Maybe if it was done VERY elegantly.
Shit, when I pirate I do it en-masse. I don't ever tend to think "Oh, I'm going to pirate this game!" It usually comes down to me taking time out to get all the torrents going. I go through and try various ones. But most of all I end up buying the games I truly appreciated that fit a fair price point. The Steam sale caused me to buy a lot of games I've already beaten.
But yes, I will fess up. A large number of things I've pirated I've never used. Data is data and it's easy to get. And once you know how, what stops you? Harddrive space and bandwidth...
It's somewhere between 50-60 dollars. I'm sure of it!
Thank you.
I think the issue is that the demographics aim towards parents with larger quantities of disposable income. I usually pirate games. My game-purchasing-densite-rate (new unit!) skyrocketed during Steam's summer sale. I must have spent about 100 bucks overall. They need to target college kids and young adults that have free time they'd like to spend playing games but don't have the money to purchase.
Another huge issue in the PC world is lack of appropriate co-op. Co-optimus is a good site for finding co-op PC games but there are so few. What I mean by this is multiple controllers plugged into the PC and the PC basically being used as a console. Hook it up to your TV, projectors, multi-screen setup, or whatever. But instead, my friends and I all need copies of the game. That's why I bought 4 copies of Borderlands for 30 bucks during the sale. These games would be more worth buying if more people could play it.
As an Eyefinity (trip-screen) user and PC gamer I'm somewhat appalled by the deterioration in PC quality that has occurred through the shift towards consoles. Where are my split-screen games? It's not like you can't take any console controller and plug it into a PC.
My kingdom for a mod point!
This is mildly offtopic but this is a problem for me as well. After a driver rides their brakes long enough I start ignoring it because it's the change in intensity that cues me to slow down. I will miss it entirely if I'm not paying attention to the actual speed of the car, which I need at least 2 instances to discern. You won't be able to judge a car's speed to any decent degree without about a second of time.
So I ask, why don't we have analog brake lights? There should be a bar or a light of shifting intensity to determine how hard the user is applying the brakes. This would allow drivers behind them to be acutely aware of how hard they have to put on their brakes to maintain a similar distance. It's especially problematic these days as a LOT of people are riding their brakes. I see brakelights on all the time without cars slowing down.
This isn't true at all. Chernobyl happened because they shut off the safeties and ran the reactor at over 100%. Of course the damn thing blew up! We've since gone through TWO full generations of nuclear technology. We will NOT see another Chernobyl happened because no one is going to be dumb enough to try that experiment again. Another point I'd like to make is that (I'm fairly certain) nuclear power stations have greater potential to generate electricity and, in turn, we'll need less nuclear plants as compared to coal plants to output the same amount of power
Unfortunately, those numbers aren't very useful. Due to the wide range of IQ tests and the lack of standards, "140" on their test could be 90th percentile. You simply can't be sure. The test you bring up differs from Stanford Binet. Marginally, but it's still there. Percentile would have been more appropriate (and has always been) to show.
Ah, yes. But is it an obligation?
I wish I had as much faith in the power of boycotts as you do. But the market or supply and demand works both ways. And there's a plenty large supply of customers that won't boycott.
I don't think I'm trying to imply a moral high ground. I'm merely alluding to the fact that the video game market could probably find a peak in their price curve somewhere on the lower end. People have limited budgets and by charging more companies are requiring consumers to minimize the number of available choices they can make. It was reported here not long ago that EA spends 60% of their budget on marketing. If new games cost only 30 dollars, which would trim the budget more than reasonable but work with me here, people could buy twice as many games. :o It would also be easier to get the margin in terms of percentage higher. This would allow for more profit. I feel that this is all so because the gaming world has reached market saturation. So, if it's saturated and users suddenly become able to pick more options, with higher margins, that equals more money flying into the companies' wallets. I'm just surprised some publishers don't go trying to undercut their competition by charging a better price and producing a similar product.
;)
I'd also like to point out that many pirates pirate because they feel the price of the game is set too high to purchase and would purchase it at some lower price point that the consumer feels is reasonable. If companies could accurately price things according to how much people would pay, there would be absolutely no problems with piracy as everyone else wouldn't have paid shit for it anyway.
Sorry about the long response. It's a waken'bake kinda morning.
Their sale is the reason why I've purchased about 8 games in the last few days whereas I prefer to pirate usually. Christ, I even bought games I already pirated that I felt were worth paying for. I gave developers money based off of my preference to see them create more material. I'd like to point to myself as a good example as to why the price curve is too high for video games. I'm not spending 60 bucks (takes over 6 hours to make on my measly wage) on a video game that I'm unsure of! Am I supposed to be an idiot or something!?
I'm not saying that IE is more secure, but it's old, it's trusted, and it's backed by a major corporation.
IE is TRUSTED!? That can't be true. And something makes me doubt IE6 is "backed by a major corporation" as Microsoft has been dropping legacy support like a hot potato.
Wait, I'm confused. Is this an iPhone? Wait, is it really 2010? This thing isn't getting copy and paste? Man, what a STUPID decision.
Speaking as an Eyefinity user, the two bigger problems with games that can handle the higher resolutions are thus:
1. Having the HUD anywhere that's not the main screen unless it's definitely peripheral and not necessary to be looking at constantly.
2. Games are expecting a flat screen and product an image that reflects this. Games should take into account the angles of the new monitors and adjust the FOV to accurately reflect what the user can see, rather than give high FOVs on smaller monitors. Otherwise this nasty stretching occurs on the very edges of monitors and things like very out of proportion. One hack may be to produce 3 cameras in game and have 3 different viewports. The cameras would be angled in relation to the monitors.