just focus on building a car that wont fall apart on the way off the lot.
Y'know, I have a sneaking suspicion they might have already tackled that problem. But they still actually have to sell the things once they've built them.
I think the point is that low prices stop the creation of games that might be good, because only large sales cover costs.
What do you mean by "large sales"? Wouldn't a higher price lead to less sales?
Of course, it doesn't exactly work like that. Games with a high price often enjoy massive sales, but usually only when they are accompanied by a massive marketing campaign, or pre-existing expectations.
"Indie" games are in a different boat altogether. They usually don't enjoy such marketing hype, although some do. Ultimately, linking "good game" with "high price" is an exercise in futility. Sometimes that correlates, sometimes it doesn't. And any given person's definition of "good game" varies from another's.
iTunes doesn't set a maximum price for games, neither does Xbox Live, apparently except for those created with the XNA tools. So, the only one enforcing low prices is Amazon. Thus, calling the credibility of the summary into question, and the article for tenuous exaggeration.
So, you're not actually willing to put forth an argument, but instead lazily link to an ideological website? I'm not quite sure you understand this whole "argument"' thing.
The notion that you can "gift" (or "buy") your way to being rich without doing any hard work, or having a creative idea, is so completely stupid that anyone who believes it, assuming they're in full control of their mental faculties, deserves what they get.
But it does work. Plenty of people get rich from these schemes. Just not most people.
While we are at that why don't we throw out democracy? After all the rule of Kings was much better: genetic intelligence versus mob rule.
Wait, "genetic intelligence" (whatever the fuck that is) is better than mob rule? What the hell are you smoking? The mob is better than a bunch of inbred dumbfucks any day of the week.
Sure it's not a binary state of gay or straight but where you hit on the curve naturally is still a product of genetics.
But I don't see why it has to be genetic. As others have said, it could be hormonal. If it were genetic, how do you explain the extreme changes that many (most?) people experience in their sexuality over their lifetime? Hormones can change dramatically over the course of a human life. Genetics, not so much.
Clearly, he wasn't gay but was bisexual- but it was a lot simpler for him to just be one or the other socially.
In think that's probably the core of it. Humans resemble pack animals in many ways - you need to choose a side, a group to run with. Ambiguity is frowned upon. You can declare yourself as 100% straight or 100% gay, and you will fit into the pack, you will have supporters (and enemies).
However, if you are at all vague about your orientation (and therefore affiliation) then you will be attacked from both sides, because you don't belong to either group's stereotypes and expectations.
Sexuality ranges from 100% opposite sex attraction to 100% same sex attraction to 100% dominant to 100% submissive to 100% yada yada yada (race, boobs, ass, red head, blonde, fat, thin).
Personally, I find the 100% or 0% of anything to be worrisome. It seems very unnatural to be so obsessed or so uninterested in anything.
Homosexuality is and isn't a choice. The behavior is a choice, but the actual attraction is not. If I could choose who I was sexually attracted to then I would make myself asexual because like most Slashdot nerds I ain't gettin' any.
So, what does homosexuality consist of - the attraction, or the actions?
See my post up-thread for some questions of bisexuality and choice. Further to that, I know many lesbians who are physically (biologically, I guess? psychologically maybe?) attracted to men. But they choose to be with women, because they have had bad experiences with men, such as abusive relationships, violence or rape.
These women call themselves lesbian or dyke. But if they are more sexually attracted to men, but choose to be with women, what does that make them?
Similarly, if a guy is attracted to other guys, but only has sex with women, does that make him gay or straight? I think our present terminology is inadequate for the complexity of sexual experience.
Yeah. Thousands of years of romantic poetry is clearly wrong. Nobody is aroused by anything they don't want to be, and every straight guy who's looking at a hot woman must focus and think "getitupgetitupgetitupgetitup oh yeah, she's making me pop a bo... getitupgetitupgetitupgetitup"
So, what about people who are bisexual? I've been attracted to both men and women, and can make a choice at any time to choose either or both. I know plenty of people in a similar position.
I think this debate might be more about sexual repression, and both sides take the argument to extremes. Just as people arguing that it's "just a choice" are likely arguing from a sense of repression and revulsion, those gays who vociferously argue that there's no choice" and it's only genetic are also repressing their lingering doubts about their sexuality. Sexuality is amorphous, it's more of a continuum than a binary decision. There are plenty of "straight" guys who enjoy getting a headjob from another guy, and plenty of "gay" men who fetishize glamourous women.
1. High transfer users are subsidized by low transfer users. This will fail as everyone becomes a high transfer user. My Mom now sends me YouTube videos occasionally.
I know exactly what you mean. Last Thursday, my Mom sent me an internet, and I didn't even receive it until today!
The law gives a $0.50 tax credit for every gallon of diesel mix used but the credit should have been based on some fraction of the price of diesel.
That would have made very little difference. The companies in question are adding very small amounts of diesel to their waste products. Even if diesel were much more expensive, it would still be very profitable for them.
Tying the subsidy to the price of diesel would also undermine the intention of trying to encourage alternate fuels. The idea is that they are rewarding the production of alternative fuels. If you link it to the price of diesel, and diesel gets really cheap, then it might become cheaper to just use straight diesel, rather than putting the effort in to create a fuel that contains less fossil fuel.
I assume this is real, and if so this is just one example of Google rejecting an app for their mobile platform; Apple is notorious for it.
Interesting. So, when Google does it, then they get a free pass. But Apple earned scorn from the very first rejected app. If this is really an issue of freedom and openness, then isn't once too many times? How many times is acceptable? One? Twelve? One hundred?
The non-removable batteries we see in iPhone and the latest laptops mean little more to me than trying to limit 3rd party parts.
Excuse me, but how do these non-removable batteries make it harder for 3rd parties to cater for the product? If the batteries were removable, then they would have to come in custom plastic housings and connectors that match Apple's housings and connectors. That's an added expensive. With the non-removable type, they can simply ship naked cells and a small tool kit (or in-house service). They have to make much less effort compared to making a battery in a custom housing.
There's no shortage of 3rd party replacement batteries for the iPod, and I'm sure they'll start popping up soon for the Macbook Pro.
Once the GIF patents expired, they magically started supporting greater than 256 colors with 8-bit transparency?
So, how often does the need to do that arise? Anything approaching 256 colors is handled more efficiently with JPEG, and very few people feel the need for high-color images with an alpha channel on a website. What's the vital need for that?
Consider PNG. It's a great format, and I prefer it over GIF whenever possible,
It's not really that great. There are some cases where it can slightly outperform JPEG, but those are mostly edge cases that involve purely limited-color line graphics. For most real-world uses it doesn't offer any benefit over JPEG.
Slashdot Mirror
just focus on building a car that wont fall apart on the way off the lot.
Y'know, I have a sneaking suspicion they might have already tackled that problem. But they still actually have to sell the things once they've built them.
I think the point is that low prices stop the creation of games that might be good, because only large sales cover costs.
What do you mean by "large sales"? Wouldn't a higher price lead to less sales?
Of course, it doesn't exactly work like that. Games with a high price often enjoy massive sales, but usually only when they are accompanied by a massive marketing campaign, or pre-existing expectations.
"Indie" games are in a different boat altogether. They usually don't enjoy such marketing hype, although some do. Ultimately, linking "good game" with "high price" is an exercise in futility. Sometimes that correlates, sometimes it doesn't. And any given person's definition of "good game" varies from another's.
iTunes doesn't set a maximum price for games, neither does Xbox Live, apparently except for those created with the XNA tools. So, the only one enforcing low prices is Amazon. Thus, calling the credibility of the summary into question, and the article for tenuous exaggeration.
So, you're not actually willing to put forth an argument, but instead lazily link to an ideological website? I'm not quite sure you understand this whole "argument"' thing.
The notion that you can "gift" (or "buy") your way to being rich without doing any hard work, or having a creative idea, is so completely stupid that anyone who believes it, assuming they're in full control of their mental faculties, deserves what they get.
But it does work. Plenty of people get rich from these schemes. Just not most people.
The current system does produce good things, but one can argue it produces more bad than good.
OK, well let's see that argument, then. It's not much good saying that one "could" argue something, without seeing the specifics.
While we are at that why don't we throw out democracy? After all the rule of Kings was much better: genetic intelligence versus mob rule.
Wait, "genetic intelligence" (whatever the fuck that is) is better than mob rule? What the hell are you smoking? The mob is better than a bunch of inbred dumbfucks any day of the week.
Sure it's not a binary state of gay or straight but where you hit on the curve naturally is still a product of genetics.
But I don't see why it has to be genetic. As others have said, it could be hormonal. If it were genetic, how do you explain the extreme changes that many (most?) people experience in their sexuality over their lifetime? Hormones can change dramatically over the course of a human life. Genetics, not so much.
Clearly, he wasn't gay but was bisexual- but it was a lot simpler for him to just be one or the other socially.
In think that's probably the core of it. Humans resemble pack animals in many ways - you need to choose a side, a group to run with. Ambiguity is frowned upon. You can declare yourself as 100% straight or 100% gay, and you will fit into the pack, you will have supporters (and enemies).
However, if you are at all vague about your orientation (and therefore affiliation) then you will be attacked from both sides, because you don't belong to either group's stereotypes and expectations.
Sexuality ranges from 100% opposite sex attraction to 100% same sex attraction to 100% dominant to 100% submissive to 100% yada yada yada (race, boobs, ass, red head, blonde, fat, thin).
Personally, I find the 100% or 0% of anything to be worrisome. It seems very unnatural to be so obsessed or so uninterested in anything.
Shouldn't it just be "DC" then? It's only two words, not three.
Homosexuality is and isn't a choice. The behavior is a choice, but the actual attraction is not. If I could choose who I was sexually attracted to then I would make myself asexual because like most Slashdot nerds I ain't gettin' any.
So, what does homosexuality consist of - the attraction, or the actions?
See my post up-thread for some questions of bisexuality and choice. Further to that, I know many lesbians who are physically (biologically, I guess? psychologically maybe?) attracted to men. But they choose to be with women, because they have had bad experiences with men, such as abusive relationships, violence or rape.
These women call themselves lesbian or dyke. But if they are more sexually attracted to men, but choose to be with women, what does that make them?
Similarly, if a guy is attracted to other guys, but only has sex with women, does that make him gay or straight? I think our present terminology is inadequate for the complexity of sexual experience.
For some reason, the top search results are predominantly anti-homosexuality. I suspect a hack. I would respect amazon if they'd own up to it.
Why would you expect any different results, when the word "homosexuality" is generally only used by those with an anti-gay agenda?
Yeah. Thousands of years of romantic poetry is clearly wrong. Nobody is aroused by anything they don't want to be, and every straight guy who's looking at a hot woman must focus and think "getitupgetitupgetitupgetitup oh yeah, she's making me pop a bo... getitupgetitupgetitupgetitup"
So, what about people who are bisexual? I've been attracted to both men and women, and can make a choice at any time to choose either or both. I know plenty of people in a similar position.
I think this debate might be more about sexual repression, and both sides take the argument to extremes. Just as people arguing that it's "just a choice" are likely arguing from a sense of repression and revulsion, those gays who vociferously argue that there's no choice" and it's only genetic are also repressing their lingering doubts about their sexuality. Sexuality is amorphous, it's more of a continuum than a binary decision. There are plenty of "straight" guys who enjoy getting a headjob from another guy, and plenty of "gay" men who fetishize glamourous women.
1. High transfer users are subsidized by low transfer users. This will fail as everyone becomes a high transfer user. My Mom now sends me YouTube videos occasionally.
I know exactly what you mean. Last Thursday, my Mom sent me an internet, and I didn't even receive it until today!
Comments encoding these are usually late posts in the discussion threat and frequently replied to by grammar nazi's.
Replied to by the grammar Nazi's what?
Think about the magnets for idiots that exists near your neighborhood.
Does slashdot count?
The law gives a $0.50 tax credit for every gallon of diesel mix used but the credit should have been based on some fraction of the price of diesel.
That would have made very little difference. The companies in question are adding very small amounts of diesel to their waste products. Even if diesel were much more expensive, it would still be very profitable for them.
Tying the subsidy to the price of diesel would also undermine the intention of trying to encourage alternate fuels. The idea is that they are rewarding the production of alternative fuels. If you link it to the price of diesel, and diesel gets really cheap, then it might become cheaper to just use straight diesel, rather than putting the effort in to create a fuel that contains less fossil fuel.
What other terms are sure to follow in the future?"
Spleefcushion.
...sure, we wan't it to be different,
We "waaaa not" it to be different? What the hell does that mean?
I assume this is real, and if so this is just one example of Google rejecting an app for their mobile platform; Apple is notorious for it.
Interesting. So, when Google does it, then they get a free pass. But Apple earned scorn from the very first rejected app. If this is really an issue of freedom and openness, then isn't once too many times? How many times is acceptable? One? Twelve? One hundred?
The non-removable batteries we see in iPhone and the latest laptops mean little more to me than trying to limit 3rd party parts.
Excuse me, but how do these non-removable batteries make it harder for 3rd parties to cater for the product? If the batteries were removable, then they would have to come in custom plastic housings and connectors that match Apple's housings and connectors. That's an added expensive. With the non-removable type, they can simply ship naked cells and a small tool kit (or in-house service). They have to make much less effort compared to making a battery in a custom housing.
There's no shortage of 3rd party replacement batteries for the iPod, and I'm sure they'll start popping up soon for the Macbook Pro.
The SD industry has previously used Microsoft's FAT filesystem due to it's uniquity.
Uniquity: the interbreeding of unicorns with ubiquity.
Once the GIF patents expired, they magically started supporting greater than 256 colors with 8-bit transparency?
So, how often does the need to do that arise? Anything approaching 256 colors is handled more efficiently with JPEG, and very few people feel the need for high-color images with an alpha channel on a website. What's the vital need for that?
Consider PNG. It's a great format, and I prefer it over GIF whenever possible,
It's not really that great. There are some cases where it can slightly outperform JPEG, but those are mostly edge cases that involve purely limited-color line graphics. For most real-world uses it doesn't offer any benefit over JPEG.
What USB drive or SD card comes preformatted with more than one partition?
Ummm, millions of them? Have you never used more than a couple of flash drives in your life? It's a sewer out there.