Actually, by way of example, our youngest son is 3.67 years old and has participated in organized tennis for the past year. Additionally, we've had him in 'family swim' and other similar parent(s)+child activities. Our older two sons have been involved in sports since they were quite young. We have a limit of one-hour of {tv, xbox, PS, peecee, GameBoy, PSP, whatever} per day, per child. It seems to work quite well for us.
I'm not a 'sports nut' kind of guy. I can expound endlessly on the minutiae of systems administration, various languages and even the details of esoteric RFCs. But I couldn't tell you who is playing (or has played if it's over already) in the college basketball championships this year. I did run cross-country and track in junior and senior high school (many moons ago), but sports just don't interest me.
That, however, doesn't mean I don't encourage my kids to at least try them out, or stick with the ones they like. The subtle insinuation of your comment and the reply to it is that my wife and I are somehow lacking in our parenting skills, and more importantly have little concern for the welfare of our children. I forgive you for the implied insult, however, as I can understand why some leap to such conclusions, even lacking any evidence to support them.
My wife pointed out that the 360 was a poor choice for a 'family gaming system' as there were no games geared for kids of about six years old. As surprised as I was that she even knew what a 360 was, let alone what titles were available, she has a point. She actually suggested waiting for the PS3 release.
I don't drink for the taste (as I have no taste at all...heh). I drink to take the edge off. I find that one or two after work take the edge off just fine. But, by the time I finish that second one, the edge that was removed has left two in it's place. So, now I have to drink four more. But, taking off those two edges leaves four more in their wake. Which brings me to eight drinks required. It's like some kind of fractal alcohol nightmare that never ends.
At this point, I've had to quit my job in order to try and keep up with all these edges coming off. I wish there were a way to actually get ahead of the curve.
--
Dineanetics...The Modern Science of Eating Out
The most controversial feature would be...
on
Google's DNA
·
· Score: 1
would like to see Google truly act like stem cells and develop a better car. I am willing to bet that a Googlemobile would be truly innovative. Probably it would come with builtin navigation tools such as Google Maps but beyond that it would be self-parking, highly secure from theft (because it runs Linux), and get terrific gas mileage--or else use some other less carbon-generating source such as alcohol or direct solar power.
But, in some countries it would only run on government approved roads. In other countries it would run on all roads, but report back to the government where you've been.
Hum... never thought of it that way... makes sense... I wonder if this retards or promotes creativity?
I would guess the former, seems like everyone is playing it safe and going for "sure things" right now rather than making an effort to inovate which is how the "sure thing" was thought up in the first place.
The 'homogenizing' of content is exactly what happens. Worse than that, however, television becomes a race to the bottom, as each new season brings shows that are more shocking, more outrageous, more 'over-the-line' than last season. All in an attempt to garner more viewers.
Anyone who believes that, as a television viewer, they are not the product being sold have been deluded.
--
I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book. --Groucho Marx (1890 - 1977)
Does it seem redundant to make both the sender and the recipient pay for the same bandwidth?
If you think about it, you might come to the conclusion that this already happens in other domains.
Compare to cable television, for instance. If you subscribe to CATV, you are paying for the bandwidth (all those channels) to access the content, while at the same time, the CATV company is paying (slightly less) to carry those channels, and the network (CNN, Fox, TLC, SF, etc.) are charging advertisers for sending that content to you.
If you don't have subscription television service, the advertiser alone is bearing the cost of assaulting your eyes with their commercials.
This is analagous, I think, to a Tier {1,2} ISP charging for priority access. If you want the CATV equivalent (millions of channels, digital content, high speed), you're going to pay for it. So is the content provider on the other end of the session (after all, they need a connection to the Internet as well). If you are happy with over-the-air quality (quality, quantity and speed of delivery...not so much), you don't pay.
In any case, how would the nanobots produce the propellant fluid, they'd have to be able to consume something? Perhaps they're counting taking in and storing some available fluid while passing through, like in the human blood stream, or somesuch.
Once they reduce everything to grey goo, they'll have plenty of fuel for their slime jets.
...a dollar tomorrow isn't worth a dollar today. It's inflation that's the problem. Here, let's do a little exercise. We'll assume a 6% rate, and a domain fee of $7.95 four years down the road.
Now, the present value of future money is given as FV=PV((1+i)**n). In our case:
So, you can see that Verisign is going to lose $1.65 ($7.95-6.29) on every domain registration for the next four years. Figure a million registrations per year times four years and all of a sudden you're talking real money. The kind of money losses the shareholders won't stand for! Figure the shareholders want a 10% return and it starts getting real ugly.
--
Sig monde
A note to the sarcasm impaired: I just made all of that up (well, not the TVM or math), and yes, I know it defies logic. That's the problem with precision sarcasm; you're always having to explain yourself.;) Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out some MBA actually believes something similar to to this line of reasoning.
Why buy something to do something that you already have a computer to do it? This is not something that is completely portable either. Honestly I just don't see much use for it - "oh no, I don't want to have to use iTunes or [insert CDripper software] to make mp3s!
Well, what if you're at a friend's house and (s)he, uh, sells you an old CD. Yeah, sells it to you. But, you don't want to take the actual CD with you, because you're afraid your car will get broken in to. So, you, you know, agree to leave the actual, physical CD at your friend's house, for, you know, safe keeping. You'll probably get it later, anyway. But, you'd really like to have those tracks on your iPod, like, now. So, you whip out your iUpload device, plug it into your iPod and blam!, now you have your newly purchased, perfectly legal music in your iPod.
So, there you go, one reason why you would buy something to do something you already have a computer to do. And it's perfectly legal!
The NY Times article I linked said explicitly that "PlayStation 3 will also include... Linux operating software." I didn't know about the 10-point breakdown thing, which apparently contradicts the Times; that was added by Zonk.
Mea Culpa accepted.:) (I keed!)
You would think that, if the editors are going to add to the summary, they'd at least check the content of what they're adding and note any possible contradictions. But, then what would we have to complain about.;)
I sent the article links to a friend, who replied with, '$500 for a PS3? No wahay!!!' He's the same guy who dropped $1k for an XBOX 360, though. Personally, I don't think it's outrageously expensive, if it will play PS[1,2] games and has a decent library of current games. I won't be pre-ordering, though.
...More interestingly, the article claims that PS3 will ship with a 60-gig hard drive, built-in network card, and Linux!" Serious stuff here, with Sony's shares falling on the delay confirmation...
From TFTA (link to Ken Kutaragi's 10 Point Breakdown):
7. Kutaragi said that that the PS3 will require a hard drive, which will have a 60 GB capacity and support Linux OS. No word on if it will be included.
I know, I know. It's very difficult to see the whole picture when you're inside the frame. But, take a step back and think about what the bill's sponsor is saying. This bill will not be used to silence the press. Of course not, the press is already in lock step with the only remaining political party in the United States (that would be the Corporate party, which bankrolls and controls both the Republicrats and Democins).
So, who would be covered by this bill? What was the court's decision regarding whether or not bloggers and other 'independent' online sources (read: individuals posting their opinions on the Internet) are to be consider 'journalists?'
A lot of people I know have woken, or are waking, up to the fact that the (mainstream) media is biased, lying and manipulative. More and more of those people are venturing on to the Internet, seeking out alternative news sources. They may hit some whackjob, tin-foil nutter sites, but they also hit some reasonably informed, well researched sites. They weigh the data and make a decision on their own. They are no longer being force fed what the Corporate party wants them to think, feel, believe.
My bet is that the law will not be applied to 'journalists,' just as the sponsor says. Because the 'journalists' are not the problem. You and I and a hundred thousand other posters, bloggers and opinionators (is that a word?) are the problem. The elite are losing their grip on the facts, and that is something that they can not tolerate. Desperation is setting in, and desperate times call for desperate measures.
YMMV. I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean their not after me.
FFS, this is the article summary. Gross grammatical mistakes are not tolerable here!
Actually, gross grammatical mistakes are de rigueur in/. summaries. As are factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations and outright distortion. I'm also beginning to suspect there are bonus karma points for having your submission posted to the front page when the summary is completely unrelated to TFA.
That being said, it's what makes/., well,/. Enjoy!;)
Which makes absolutely no sense, but did cause me to think, 'Well, the fanbois will be all over that one.'
I'm beginning to suspect that my wife may have secretly replaced my normal coffee beans with decaffinated coffee beans. I keep turning around to see if there's a grey haired old man with a microphone waiting to ask me what I think.
Aruba, Jamaica
Ooh I wanna take ya
To Bermuda, Bahama
Come on pretty mama
Key Largo, Montego
Baby why don't we go
Ooh I wanna take you down to Kokomo
We'll get there fast
And then we'll take it slow
That's where we wanna go
Way down to Kokomo
I think I need more coffee this morning. And maybe a lobotomy so I can forget the late 80s/early 90s once and for all. The booze doesn't seem to be working.
Anyone that excels in sales in that type of environment plays dirty. Period. So the fact that he was a leading salesman tells me enough about his character to know that he is not someone that should be in charge.
You are unfamiliar with American corporate culture, yes? The entire point of business is to play as dirty as you can get away with in order to 'maximize share holder value.'
[1] At least not the first one that I became aware of.
Back when I first got my iPod (September/October 2005), the first pay-for-play podcast I found was for The Phil Hendrie Show. I was hoping to find free (as in beer) versions of his shows just to have something to laugh at while in the car (the local AM stations no longer carry him, but some of his 'episodes' are riotously funny). You have to be one of his 'Back Stage Pass' members (I'm not), but you get access to the podcasts. I first stumbled on that back in October or November and thought, 'Damn, that sucks, but man, I don't blame him.'
And just maybe you should get a clue and understanding about reality.
The problem with reality is that everyone has their own, and it exists primarily between their ears. We may agree on certain details, but that does not negate the fact that, as wrong as Kant was on other issues, perception truly is reality.
I did exactly what you said you wanted, and you don't like it, so you are choosing to disengage it. Not my issue.
You have not provided any proof of your claim that the Congress of the United States issued a Declaration of War stemming from the events on 11 SEP 01, nor a Declaration of War against the nation of Iraq. That you assert you have does not make it true. This is very much your issue.
The Declaration of War was made in front of Congress and on Live National Television on 9/20/2001. You don't like that, so again, you disengage it.
I have stated, as a matter of fact, that there exists no Declaration of War, issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America, stemming from the events of 11 SEP 01, nor a Declaration of War, issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America, against the nation of Iraq.
You have stated that there has been a Declaration of War, issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with the Constitution fo the United State of America either stemming from the events of 11 SEP 01 or relating to the nation of Iraq.
I have simply asked you to provide proof of your claim. You have not, nor are you doing so. In fact, you can not, because, as I have stated several times, there has not been a Declaration of War issued by the Congress of the United States in the last five years. In fact, the Congress of the United States has not issued a Declaration of War since World War II.
You may continue to ignore the facts and argue from emotion. But when you run out of breath, you will still be wrong. If you wish to continue in your (erroneously held) position, please, I beg of you, provide evidence that there has been a Declaration of War issued by the Congress of the United States so that I may believe, too.
Again, my perception is not YOUR perception, but then, you haven't walked 100 miles in my boots, nor will you.
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is a logical fallacy and does not serve you well.
I have a grand understanding of the way things really work, and they don't always go by the damn Constitution and Bill of Rights... gee, something about loose lips, just like Washington, huh? Can't keep their snippy mouths shut about a damn thing. Things need not be so obvious to the stupid people so that they can be seen for the REST of the world as something else. Weakness, Fear, Terror! Ya know, just what they were trying to acheive.
From your post, I'm not sure who the 'they' is that you are referencing. The government? If so, I would agree that the present Administration is trying to manipulate the populace into a position of weakness, fear and terror. Further, they are succeeding if you, as an American citizen, are willing to give up the rights granted to you by your Creator for some nebulous 'security' that really applies to you far less than your 'grand understanding' seems to allow for. It is my opinion that the 'security measures' put into place in the wake of 11 SEP 01 were designed to enhance the security of the Government and not the populace. You may disagree, which is fine with me.
And as for hyperbole - apparently, you didn't lose any loved ones in 9/11/01, nor know anyone that did.
Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal or argument to pity); another logical fallacy.
WE DIDN'T NEED TO DECLARE WAR - as it was declared upon us, and every other nation in the West.
Yes, in fact, the Constitution does require the Congress to issue a Declration
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a 'sports nut' kind of guy. I can expound endlessly on the minutiae of systems administration, various languages and even the details of esoteric RFCs. But I couldn't tell you who is playing (or has played if it's over already) in the college basketball championships this year. I did run cross-country and track in junior and senior high school (many moons ago), but sports just don't interest me.
That, however, doesn't mean I don't encourage my kids to at least try them out, or stick with the ones they like. The subtle insinuation of your comment and the reply to it is that my wife and I are somehow lacking in our parenting skills, and more importantly have little concern for the welfare of our children. I forgive you for the implied insult, however, as I can understand why some leap to such conclusions, even lacking any evidence to support them.
-- .sig left intentionally blank.
This
No, but I believe her brother has an, ummm, open mind.
--
I keed! I keed!
-- .sig in every post!
Now with a full
At this point, I've had to quit my job in order to try and keep up with all these edges coming off. I wish there were a way to actually get ahead of the curve.
--
Dineanetics...The Modern Science of Eating Out
But, in some countries it would only run on government approved roads. In other countries it would run on all roads, but report back to the government where you've been.
--
Someone had to say it.
I surely can, but I don't understand what crazy time has to do with the subject.
(Note for the humor impaired: I know the OP meant temporary insanity)
--
Worst. Sig. Evah.
I would guess the former, seems like everyone is playing it safe and going for "sure things" right now rather than making an effort to inovate which is how the "sure thing" was thought up in the first place.
The 'homogenizing' of content is exactly what happens. Worse than that, however, television becomes a race to the bottom, as each new season brings shows that are more shocking, more outrageous, more 'over-the-line' than last season. All in an attempt to garner more viewers.
Anyone who believes that, as a television viewer, they are not the product being sold have been deluded.
--
I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.
--Groucho Marx (1890 - 1977)
If you think about it, you might come to the conclusion that this already happens in other domains.
Compare to cable television, for instance. If you subscribe to CATV, you are paying for the bandwidth (all those channels) to access the content, while at the same time, the CATV company is paying (slightly less) to carry those channels, and the network (CNN, Fox, TLC, SF, etc.) are charging advertisers for sending that content to you.
If you don't have subscription television service, the advertiser alone is bearing the cost of assaulting your eyes with their commercials.
This is analagous, I think, to a Tier {1,2} ISP charging for priority access. If you want the CATV equivalent (millions of channels, digital content, high speed), you're going to pay for it. So is the content provider on the other end of the session (after all, they need a connection to the Internet as well). If you are happy with over-the-air quality (quality, quantity and speed of delivery...not so much), you don't pay.
Essentially, the chains would look like:
CATV subscriber (-$) -> CATV provider (-$) -> Network ($$$) <- Advertiser (-$)
-or-
Local ISP customer (-$) -> Local ISP (-$) -> Backbone provider ($$$) <- Content provider (-$)
--
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing.
Once they reduce everything to grey goo, they'll have plenty of fuel for their slime jets.
Err, tha'td be goo jets, I guess.
--
This sig intentionally left blank
As the Cult of Einstein is wont to remind us, if you steal from one source, that is plaigiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
--
This sig intentionally left blank
But, you're on the right track. The successor to the 'w00t' will probably be named the 'FP!!!1!one!!eleven!!'
--
rqHóoa8l2Z[goP T{$zd
Now, the present value of future money is given as FV=PV((1+i)**n). In our case:
Now, let's do the math:
$7.95=PV((1+.06)**4)
$7.95=PV(1.26247696)
PV=$7.95/1.26247696
PV=$6.29714462274226
So, you can see that Verisign is going to lose $1.65 ($7.95-6.29) on every domain registration for the next four years. Figure a million registrations per year times four years and all of a sudden you're talking real money. The kind of money losses the shareholders won't stand for! Figure the shareholders want a 10% return and it starts getting real ugly.
--
Sig monde
A note to the sarcasm impaired: I just made all of that up (well, not the TVM or math), and yes, I know it defies logic. That's the problem with precision sarcasm; you're always having to explain yourself. ;) Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out some MBA actually believes something similar to to this line of reasoning.
Well, what if you're at a friend's house and (s)he, uh, sells you an old CD. Yeah, sells it to you. But, you don't want to take the actual CD with you, because you're afraid your car will get broken in to. So, you, you know, agree to leave the actual, physical CD at your friend's house, for, you know, safe keeping. You'll probably get it later, anyway. But, you'd really like to have those tracks on your iPod, like, now. So, you whip out your iUpload device, plug it into your iPod and blam!, now you have your newly purchased, perfectly legal music in your iPod.
So, there you go, one reason why you would buy something to do something you already have a computer to do. And it's perfectly legal!
Maybe.
--
Sig nificant
Mea Culpa accepted. :) (I keed!)
You would think that, if the editors are going to add to the summary, they'd at least check the content of what they're adding and note any possible contradictions. But, then what would we have to complain about. ;)
I sent the article links to a friend, who replied with, '$500 for a PS3? No wahay!!!' He's the same guy who dropped $1k for an XBOX 360, though. Personally, I don't think it's outrageously expensive, if it will play PS[1,2] games and has a decent library of current games. I won't be pre-ordering, though.
--
This sig intentionally left blank
From TFTA (link to Ken Kutaragi's 10 Point Breakdown):
7. Kutaragi said that that the PS3 will require a hard drive, which will have a 60 GB capacity and support Linux OS. No word on if it will be included.
Oops.
--
Sig arrêt
So, who would be covered by this bill? What was the court's decision regarding whether or not bloggers and other 'independent' online sources (read: individuals posting their opinions on the Internet) are to be consider 'journalists?'
A lot of people I know have woken, or are waking, up to the fact that the (mainstream) media is biased, lying and manipulative. More and more of those people are venturing on to the Internet, seeking out alternative news sources. They may hit some whackjob, tin-foil nutter sites, but they also hit some reasonably informed, well researched sites. They weigh the data and make a decision on their own. They are no longer being force fed what the Corporate party wants them to think, feel, believe.
My bet is that the law will not be applied to 'journalists,' just as the sponsor says. Because the 'journalists' are not the problem. You and I and a hundred thousand other posters, bloggers and opinionators (is that a word?) are the problem. The elite are losing their grip on the facts, and that is something that they can not tolerate. Desperation is setting in, and desperate times call for desperate measures.
YMMV. I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean their not after me.
--
Sig monde
Actually, gross grammatical mistakes are de rigueur in /. summaries. As are factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations and outright distortion. I'm also beginning to suspect there are bonus karma points for having your submission posted to the front page when the summary is completely unrelated to TFA.
That being said, it's what makes /., well, /. Enjoy! ;)
--
Sig null
--
This sig left intentionally blank
Slashdot
News for nerds. Summaries that bear no resemblance to the articles they summarize.
YMMV. HTH. HAND.
--
Sig null
Microsoft smoking pie fire.
Which makes absolutely no sense, but did cause me to think, 'Well, the fanbois will be all over that one.'
I'm beginning to suspect that my wife may have secretly replaced my normal coffee beans with decaffinated coffee beans. I keep turning around to see if there's a grey haired old man with a microphone waiting to ask me what I think.
--
Sig arrêt
Aruba, Jamaica
Ooh I wanna take ya
To Bermuda, Bahama
Come on pretty mama
Key Largo, Montego
Baby why don't we go
Ooh I wanna take you down to Kokomo
We'll get there fast
And then we'll take it slow
That's where we wanna go
Way down to Kokomo
I think I need more coffee this morning. And maybe a lobotomy so I can forget the late 80s/early 90s once and for all. The booze doesn't seem to be working.
You are unfamiliar with American corporate culture, yes? The entire point of business is to play as dirty as you can get away with in order to 'maximize share holder value.'
To whit:
--
Sig null
You're right. The reclassifying of previously declassified and publicly available (and even reproduced!) information is Double Plus Good(tm)!
--
Sig nificant
Back when I first got my iPod (September/October 2005), the first pay-for-play podcast I found was for The Phil Hendrie Show. I was hoping to find free (as in beer) versions of his shows just to have something to laugh at while in the car (the local AM stations no longer carry him, but some of his 'episodes' are riotously funny). You have to be one of his 'Back Stage Pass' members (I'm not), but you get access to the podcasts. I first stumbled on that back in October or November and thought, 'Damn, that sucks, but man, I don't blame him.'
--
Sig monde
The problem with reality is that everyone has their own, and it exists primarily between their ears. We may agree on certain details, but that does not negate the fact that, as wrong as Kant was on other issues, perception truly is reality.
I did exactly what you said you wanted, and you don't like it, so you are choosing to disengage it. Not my issue.
You have not provided any proof of your claim that the Congress of the United States issued a Declaration of War stemming from the events on 11 SEP 01, nor a Declaration of War against the nation of Iraq. That you assert you have does not make it true. This is very much your issue.
The Declaration of War was made in front of Congress and on Live National Television on 9/20/2001. You don't like that, so again, you disengage it.
I have stated, as a matter of fact, that there exists no Declaration of War, issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America, stemming from the events of 11 SEP 01, nor a Declaration of War, issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America, against the nation of Iraq.
You have stated that there has been a Declaration of War, issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with the Constitution fo the United State of America either stemming from the events of 11 SEP 01 or relating to the nation of Iraq.
I have simply asked you to provide proof of your claim. You have not, nor are you doing so. In fact, you can not, because, as I have stated several times, there has not been a Declaration of War issued by the Congress of the United States in the last five years. In fact, the Congress of the United States has not issued a Declaration of War since World War II.
You may continue to ignore the facts and argue from emotion. But when you run out of breath, you will still be wrong. If you wish to continue in your (erroneously held) position, please, I beg of you, provide evidence that there has been a Declaration of War issued by the Congress of the United States so that I may believe, too.
Again, my perception is not YOUR perception, but then, you haven't walked 100 miles in my boots, nor will you.
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is a logical fallacy and does not serve you well.
I have a grand understanding of the way things really work, and they don't always go by the damn Constitution and Bill of Rights... gee, something about loose lips, just like Washington, huh? Can't keep their snippy mouths shut about a damn thing. Things need not be so obvious to the stupid people so that they can be seen for the REST of the world as something else. Weakness, Fear, Terror! Ya know, just what they were trying to acheive.
From your post, I'm not sure who the 'they' is that you are referencing. The government? If so, I would agree that the present Administration is trying to manipulate the populace into a position of weakness, fear and terror. Further, they are succeeding if you, as an American citizen, are willing to give up the rights granted to you by your Creator for some nebulous 'security' that really applies to you far less than your 'grand understanding' seems to allow for. It is my opinion that the 'security measures' put into place in the wake of 11 SEP 01 were designed to enhance the security of the Government and not the populace. You may disagree, which is fine with me.
And as for hyperbole - apparently, you didn't lose any loved ones in 9/11/01, nor know anyone that did.
Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal or argument to pity); another logical fallacy.
WE DIDN'T NEED TO DECLARE WAR - as it was declared upon us, and every other nation in the West.
Yes, in fact, the Constitution does require the Congress to issue a Declration